In a message dated 1/26/01 9:42:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bill@wstoddard.com writes:
<< Foxnews reported that Greenspan also cautioned congress to
be careful about approving new spending programs because once new spending
programs are put in place, they are difficult to shutdown. >>
<<The issue of how federal tax dollars are spent is the essence of the
'conservative vs liberal' debate imho. And three of the above 'news sources'
choose to completely ignore Greenspan's comments on spending programs. That's
bias plain and simple. This sort of one sided press coverage has been going on
for years in the gun control debate. How the hell can anyone be expected to
make an 'informed' decisions with shit for sources? I've concluded that most
people are just not -really- interested in the truth; they would rather get
off on emotional masturbation sessions.>>
i know exactly what you mean. the way fox and its viewers equate "spending
programs" to "social programs" it's a wonder they're not all blind by now.
they don't recognize what kind of fiscal shell game is going on: change the
ledger column to "prisons" instead of "intervention programs" (by the way,
did anyone but me hear in w's inaugeration speech the following - "while
prisons necessarily PROLIFERATE, we must use them to punish criminals so that
all "amaircans" can feel safe, no matter where they live . . . "?)(i quote
from memory).
but back to topic - for example, if we cut certain programs those who need
help will be moved from the welfare column over to the fema column. looks
GREAT on the pr side of the equation, but we'll have crisis management
instead of slow (slow = longer than the four years this man will be in
office) but real progress. (if i hear "measurable outcomes" again i'm gonna
join the nra!)
parenthetically geege
ps we in the private non-profit sector see the shift from public to private
aid. whom do you think signs our contracts?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:19:08 PDT