Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Sheldon Cooper, Nov 7, 2020.
I keep seeing references about porkulus to funds earmarked for Burma. Did the Bill REALLY mention Burma? And if so, will the current government of Myanmar accept them, since after all, they get really pissy about the country being referred to AS Burma.
$10M earmarked for ’Gender Programs’ In Pakistan
Here is part of Rand Paul's big list
Yahoo News calls this "heartless gripes"
Good question, I ask people this about min wage all the time but they always avoid answering
If the President had the line item veto, Trump would draw through all of this nonsense
But would Biden?
I say not
For What ? To buy stones?
On Monahans vs Deez. The crux of the discussion rests on whether or not the people are ultimate deciders of what the government is (or how it acts) and if so, are elections the mechanism to achieve what they want?
I would argue that elected officials have yielded their authority to unelected bureaucracies and special interest groups. And it matters little who is voted into office. Deez arguments are based on a model which assumes by voting someone into office with a stated platform, the public will hold them responsible and then replace the official in the next election cycle when they fail. Big money, a controlled media, and institutional structures in place guarantee this model can’t perform. The system is corrupted. And the debt structure based on globalism and financialization of the economy means reform is impossible without collapse.
How much of that aligned to Trump's budget proposal?
Any bill that long is going to have a lot of crap in it. It's long for a reason.
I read an interesting perspective today that the removal of Earmarks has actually had a corrupting influence on our politics. Before, each earmark was an addendum to the bill, tied to a specific congressperson. It was their way to show they were bringing the pork back to their district. Now, that pork is simply buried in a bill without attribution to any particular congressperson. The point is that earmarks are going to be in the bill whether specifically called out or not. We've simply made them less transparent. The author went on to claim that the lack of ability to claim ownership of the earmark forced congresspeople to be more partisan in their local races...to "show" they care about the base. Not sure I agree with the latter point.
I've heard the same thing. One thing that's becoming clear is that when politicians claim to be getting rid of something that's sleazy, rarely does the sleazy thing actually go away. It usually just gets easier to conceal or harder to pin a name on it.
I GET that element...I am just curious whether it actually referenced the earmark as for BURMA (as opposed to the current title of Myanmar).
But only if you voted harder Deez.
You have boiled our two positions down to the essence.
I agree with Deez in that he states how the system is supposed to work. I would even take a step further and say he is explaining how those in charge say it works.
My position is that the system doesn't work as advertised. Maybe it could work that way. Maybe it did 100 years ago. But it doesn't work that way today. The confluence of Wilson's bureaucratic state and central banking, Roosevelt's introduction of fascism, Johnson's shifting of those things to make them look like compassion specifically to minorities, and then Obama's using the bureaucratic state as a political weapon means we don't really have a Constitutional government or rule of law anymore.
COVID for anyone who is paying attention has wiped away the mirage. Trump is still stuck in 1990s Democratic Party politics. But governors and mayors are making up rules as they go with no law making at all. They use the science bureaucracy to bludgeon us on the head and justify them making king-like edicts. Legislatures are dead right now. They don't do anything. Biden will surely ignore them and command us to do whatever he wants us to do.
Even the WHO and CDC are writing reports now questioning the previous policies. But too late. The iron scepter is too exciting to wield.
I see. They probably titled it correctly, but without looking it's hard to say for sure. Legislative writers are remarkably bad at their jobs at times. I saw that first hand working at the Texas Capitol.
No, I don't assume that they will hold anyone responsible. I assume that they can hold people responsible, because they absolutely can. The people have to choose to actually exercise that power. They just don't.
Why not? The reason varies according to the issue. Sometimes they actually like the bad policy. Sometimes they are ignorant (meaning they don't know about or understand the issue). Sometimes they just aren't motivated to vote on the issue. Sometimes it's a combination of these.
In the case of the administrative state, it's a combination of all three. Some think it's good to have agency rule. Some don't understand it or don't see how it impacts them. Some do see all that but aren't motivated to let it drive their votes.
I'm saying it doesn't matter if the people hold politicians accountable.
Even if there was an educated populace, and even if they could find a worthy person as a candidate, overcome all the obstacles (financial support of establishment candidates and massive media promotion and distortions), and manage to get said candidate(s) elected, once in office they would have virtually no power to implement policy. Why? Because the real power structures aren't the elected officials, but the unelected networks behind the scenes - the Intel Agencies, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, big Tech, big Pharma, etc. Our elected officials are merely a façade that provide a false portrait for the public. In reality, they function as conduits for the real power structure behind the scenes.
Putin oversimplifies it, but he's pretty much on the mark. (You must view on full screen to read the translation).
Bottom line, we are rapidly devolving into a society without law. Justice for some and not for others. We saw the Obama Justice Department shrug off the massive criminality in the banking sector largely responsible for the 2008 great financial crises. We saw Snowden hunted across the globe for exposing massive criminality by the NSA and FBI. The FBI sold weapons to Mexico cartels resulting in the death of an American. Who was in charge of all that? Who was held to account? We saw Hilary Clinton knowingly violate law. It may have cost her the election, but nothing more. We saw the Intel Agencies construct a witch hunt on a President. Again, no jail time. No change. No justice.
The worst thing Obama did domestically was use the IRS as attack dogs on political action orgs that he felt threatened his re-election chances. His foreign policy was largely kill brown people with drones, including an American citizen.
Probably the wrong guy to use as a front man for your argument.
The point Putin essentially makes is that the US is basically a fake democracy; Unlike in Russia, the President must have approval from the non elected overlords in order to make decisions. And of course this extends to Congress. That’s how 5000 + page bills get passed when nobody has a clue who put it together and what’s in it.
Well, I guess I can agree that Putin is an expert on fake democracies.
Perhaps, but he’s definitely an expert analyst on who holds power and how it works; and with respect to power in the US, it ain’t necessarily held by who we think.
And no Democrat in America seems to care
The care as much as the Trump family's business dealings around the world, which isn't a whole lot.
The difference is that Putin controls Russian oligarchs. The US President is controlled by US oligarchs, or that is the claim. I believe it to some degree. But I would never use Putin as my source of info. He is one of the most corrupt politicians in the world.
Other than big tech and big pharma, all of these can be eliminated by a simple act of Congress - if we want them to be. The CIA, State Department, Justice Department, and DoD are powerful, but their power comes from the fact that no one wants to get rid of them. They have their opponents, but their opponents are few and are poor advocates.
All of these bureaucratic systems (CIA, State Department, Justice Department, SEC) are interconnected with multinational corporations (big oil, big Ag, Lockheed, Wall Street, etc.). The leadership within these groups form a revolving door, symbiotic relationship, to benefit each other. The agencies don’t so much protect the public as they protect the major players. Since the politicians are financed by these corporations (which have “captured” the bureaucracies), the politicians would never do away with these bureaucracies.
You might argue that if the citizens put enough pressure on politicians, they would reform the system and eliminate some of these behemoth bureaucracies. But that’s where propaganda comes in. Despite the efforts of whistleblowers and endless scandals, the media has convinced people these agencies are watchdogs protecting citizens from terrorists, monopolies, polluters, and the like. What they really do is enrich the establishment, squash dissent, and extract resources around the globe for private interests.
Good assessment there Mus. My feeling is that no matter the scruples of a Freshman they are dragged into the mire, early, quietly, and completely. Otherwise they die a quick political death