Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"economists"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 498386" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Jones,</p><p></p><p>Very good points above and it was ironic that yesterday after reading your comments I read <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110728080312/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">this</span></a> along the same subject lines. Thought I'd pass along your way in case you also found it of interest.</p><p></p><p>Special public welfare interests can come into gov't and on the least pretext and justification announce intervention in the public space and for the most part, a certain chorus will erupt in opposition most often under the correct reasons of wasting the taxpayer dollar. The real reason only known to opposition party leaders is the fear those tax dollars in the form or income transfer consitute a vote payoff that will harm in the next election cycle but we dare not expose that MO of both political parties. Best to just keep up another fascade in case the leemings figure out there really is a cliff just ahead.</p><p></p><p>However, if that special interest happens to be in the world of so-called defense and the public has been conditioned (leemings again) to a boogeyman, then the same rationale of considering the request to the true need as it relates to taxpayer dollars gets thrown out the window.</p><p></p><p>I live in the district where the friend-22 is assembled and you can bet that baby holds "pet-project" status here but what amazed me was to learn that the friend-22 has economic connections to 43 of our 50 states. Strategic thinkers in some measure have made the case that more friend-22's are not needed but with this aircraft being so spread across the economy, what are the odds that we'll shed this equally gov't welfare at this bad economic time even if all things say we should? There's those 2 famous cowpokes again, Slim & None!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>This is another reason I say both political parties are the same , it's just the focus of their own version of welfare may at times go to different places. Then you have something like George Bush who gave democrats more welfare in order to get their votes to build the war machine and they went right along with it. Just look at the votes from the otherside to increase gov't in those directions when it came time to vote. Bush and his cohorts lied to the American voter about fiscal principles as he sold those down the river for the ends of certain interests but democrats equally sold themselves out on their principle of opposing the war. That's why you get candidates who have to declare, "I was for it but then I was against it" or with the new guy it is, "I was against it but now that I'm running things, I'm for it!"</p><p></p><p>Seems now President Obama is even <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090313180535/http://washingtonindependent.com/33130/why-is-the-obama-administration-defending-john-yoo" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">protecting torture positions</span> </a>of the former Bush adminstration but why when you consider it's campaign rhetoric on the US war position? I'm still waiting for democrats who now overwhelmingly control Congress to repeal the "evil" Patriot Act they so vocally called as wrong back in the day. Oh but wait, that was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#First_bills_introduced" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">myth</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#Anti-Terrorism_Act_of_2001_and_Financial_Anti-Terrorism_Act" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">myth</span></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#Birth_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta">myth</span></a> if you just look at all the democrat names listed. The opposition in truth were few in numbers and based on the panic and hysteria frothed up by a willing cabal, never really had any chance of bringing a balance and rationale to the discussion on how to proceed going forward. Now it seems to me that the new administration is just another repeat of the famous chorus, " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"</p><p></p><p>Funny how perfectly the shoe fits when it's slipped onto the other foot!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 498386, member: 2189"] Jones, Very good points above and it was ironic that yesterday after reading your comments I read [URL='http://web.archive.org/web/20110728080312/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases'][COLOR=red]this[/COLOR][/URL] along the same subject lines. Thought I'd pass along your way in case you also found it of interest. Special public welfare interests can come into gov't and on the least pretext and justification announce intervention in the public space and for the most part, a certain chorus will erupt in opposition most often under the correct reasons of wasting the taxpayer dollar. The real reason only known to opposition party leaders is the fear those tax dollars in the form or income transfer consitute a vote payoff that will harm in the next election cycle but we dare not expose that MO of both political parties. Best to just keep up another fascade in case the leemings figure out there really is a cliff just ahead. However, if that special interest happens to be in the world of so-called defense and the public has been conditioned (leemings again) to a boogeyman, then the same rationale of considering the request to the true need as it relates to taxpayer dollars gets thrown out the window. I live in the district where the friend-22 is assembled and you can bet that baby holds "pet-project" status here but what amazed me was to learn that the friend-22 has economic connections to 43 of our 50 states. Strategic thinkers in some measure have made the case that more friend-22's are not needed but with this aircraft being so spread across the economy, what are the odds that we'll shed this equally gov't welfare at this bad economic time even if all things say we should? There's those 2 famous cowpokes again, Slim & None! :wink2: This is another reason I say both political parties are the same , it's just the focus of their own version of welfare may at times go to different places. Then you have something like George Bush who gave democrats more welfare in order to get their votes to build the war machine and they went right along with it. Just look at the votes from the otherside to increase gov't in those directions when it came time to vote. Bush and his cohorts lied to the American voter about fiscal principles as he sold those down the river for the ends of certain interests but democrats equally sold themselves out on their principle of opposing the war. That's why you get candidates who have to declare, "I was for it but then I was against it" or with the new guy it is, "I was against it but now that I'm running things, I'm for it!" Seems now President Obama is even [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090313180535/http://washingtonindependent.com/33130/why-is-the-obama-administration-defending-john-yoo'][COLOR=red]protecting torture positions[/COLOR] [/URL]of the former Bush adminstration but why when you consider it's campaign rhetoric on the US war position? I'm still waiting for democrats who now overwhelmingly control Congress to repeal the "evil" Patriot Act they so vocally called as wrong back in the day. Oh but wait, that was [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#First_bills_introduced'][COLOR=red]myth[/COLOR][/URL], [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#Anti-Terrorism_Act_of_2001_and_Financial_Anti-Terrorism_Act'][COLOR=blue]myth[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#Birth_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act'][COLOR=magenta]myth[/COLOR][/URL] if you just look at all the democrat names listed. The opposition in truth were few in numbers and based on the panic and hysteria frothed up by a willing cabal, never really had any chance of bringing a balance and rationale to the discussion on how to proceed going forward. Now it seems to me that the new administration is just another repeat of the famous chorus, " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!" Funny how perfectly the shoe fits when it's slipped onto the other foot! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"economists"
Top