AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

another thought.. perhaps the fella wouldn't be standing there, all festered up, if reagan hadn't declared war on the mentally ill and cut spending for facilities and treatment.

Or, maybe he wasnt born yet when Reagan was President.
And maybe he simply doesnt want to go to any homes or to a hospital (thats called freedom of choice).

THere are a lot of possibilities, and for you to blame Reagan is silly, because you dont know all the facts ot the guys curcumstances.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The question is what does the donor expect or how does he/she individually benefit from government actions and/or the public treasury in return for his/her donations? In a quick scan of information on Mellon-Scaife, I saw no allegations of such government action or payoffs from the public treasury.

Bradley Foundation, which contributes more than Scaife, was established by Rockwell International, a huge conglomerate deeply involved in weapons and military. They funded the PNAC which, more than any other single entity, drove the mega-billion dollar war in Iraq. Clearly, no gain there for Rockwell Corp and subsidiaries.

Scaife's fortune comes out of oil, banking and aluminum. Destroying unions, eviscerating government regulations on workplace safety, pollution, and on any number of other "free enterprise" initiatives will have no consequence for the profitability of the associated corporations, CEO bonuses and Scaife's own wealth. None at all.

Grow some integrity.

1 Reply

@blatham,

OMG, you spoke to me.

But okay now. I know it is difficult, but try to focus okay?

The question is not whether we approve of the organizations or groups being funded. I don't know, but I can imagine Scaife's business ethics could be questioned somewhere along the way depending on one's ideology or point of view. I can imagine that Soros' business ethics could be questioned somewhere along the way depending on one's ideology or point of view.

The issue, however, IS NOT the person's business ethics or ideology or what they have or have not funded.

The question is whether the donor is 'paid off' from the public treasury or through government initiatives in a way that directly benefits him.

Soros will obviously personally benefit by hundreds of millions from the Brazilian deal. Where is your evidence that Mellon-Scaife personally benefitted from his political activities?

And, is the fact that the Brazilian deal might be a good deal a sufficient justification for focusing limited--nay scarce--public funds there rather than focusing such funds on ways that help American businesses save and create jobs? Especially in a time of deep recession when hundreds of thousands more Americans are out of work with each passing week?

3 Replies

And on another matter:

To set the record straight re Reagan and the mentally ill:

President Kennedy signed legislation that was targeted at closing mental hospitals (that were pretty bad. (My uncle by marriage was administrator of one of these at Big Spring TX during this era and it was one of the better ones, but was still horrible).

The goal was for patients to be moved to ‘half way houses’ or other localized community facilities or to general hospitals with psychiatric wards. I probably don’t need to point out that Kennedy was a Democrat and enjoyed a Democratically controlled Congress.

A few years later as part of Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives, Congress voted funds for community-based not for profit organizations and facilities to provide services to the mentally ill. Again Johnson was a Democrat with a Democratically controlled Congress. Reagan may have been governor of California at that time, but would have been fairly new in that office.

The criteria up to this point had been fairly straight forward. If a mentally ill person was unable to support himself and had nobody to take care of him/her, s/he would be institutionalized with or without his/her consent.

But in the mid 1970’s and continuing into the 80’s, there was a strong advocacy movement, legally represented by the ACLU, to rethink standards for government mandated institutionalization. Eventually they succeeded in achieving new standards. If a patient could dress himself and perform the necessary mechanical function of feeding himself, and was not perceived at being a direct threat to himself or others, he would not be involuntarily incarcerated.

Hospitals, most especially the VA hospitals, discharged such patients; however their ‘advocacy group’ did not seem to care what then happened to the patients. Their job was done I guess. (Refer back to McG's post.) Most of the mental hospitals closed down or were reorganized into general hospitals.

Meanwhile, Reagan, who was now President, did favor closing many federal programs and moving them to the state level. Among many pieces of legislation toward that end, he signed legislation providing block grants for the states to provide for the mentally ill. The states had pretty wide license as to how they spent the money or what rules would apply and unfortunately many dropped the ball. I suppose I don’t need to point out that the legislation was written and voted by a Democratically controlled Congress at the time.

While it is true that Reagan opposed handling programs for the mentally ill at the federal level, it is not true that he opposed programs for the mentally ill or it was his desire or intention for the mentally ill to be turned out without resources on the street. And he has long been unfairly blamed for that happening.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
another thought.. perhaps the fella wouldn't be standing there, all festered up, if reagan hadn't declared war on the mentally ill and cut spending for facilities and treatment.

Or, maybe he wasnt born yet when Reagan was President.
And maybe he simply doesnt want to go to any homes or to a hospital (thats called freedom of choice).

THere are a lot of possibilities, and for you to blame Reagan is silly, because you dont know all the facts ot the guys curcumstances.

I'm going to let my young dumb mind make a totally irrational guess that the man does not actually want to lose his leg and given the option to get care, he would make choices to keep his leg.

His leg was twice the size of his other one and gray like the color of dust. I'm going to take another wild youngster guess that he was aware that something was wrong.

To my young an untrained eyes, the man looked to be older than me, so definitely alive during Reagan years. I don't in my inexperience understand why he would needed to have been alive during the Reagan years for Reagans choices to have affected him. My juvenile mind still makes the mistake of thinking that one only needed to be alive at any point during or after to experience the effect, which would include the present.

MM - I'm just giving you a hard time. I appreciate you not doing the whole whippersnapper BS. :-)

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

While it is true that Reagan opposed handling programs for the mentally ill at the federal level, it is not true that he opposed programs for the mentally ill or it was his desire or intention for the mentally ill to be turned out without resources on the street. And he has long been unfairly blamed for that happening.

Ah yes, that RW mentality....

If we cut off funds for them, it doesn't mean we want them to be in the street. It's their fault.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And before the numbnuts start demanding 'proof', I will provide a disclaimer that the forgoing is my opinion and is written from memory of the circumstances. Disprove it if you can.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And, is the fact that the Brazilian deal might be a good deal a sufficient justification for focusing limited--nay scarce--public funds there rather than focusing such funds on ways that help American businesses save and create jobs? Especially in a time of deep recession when hundreds of thousands more Americans are out of work with each passing week?

Why would you want businesses to receive subsidies to earn profits? You're some kind of hypocrite, Foxy.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And before the numbnuts start demanding 'proof',

A most unreasonable request. Noted: numbnuts have a senseless desire for worthless things such as proof.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will provide a disclaimer that the forgoing is my opinion and is written from memory of the circumstances.

That's fair, but wait...

Foxfyre wrote:

Disprove it if you can.

Basically, you discredit yourself. YOU prove it. It's not someone else's job to do your work for you in determining the legitimacy of your claims.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I will provide a disclaimer that the forgoing is my opinion and is written from memory of the circumstances. Disprove it if you can.

To begin with, I don't think it is YOUR opinion Fox. I think you plagiarized it unless your real name is Jennifer Nelson

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/06/08/jnelson.DTL

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

To set the record straight re Reagan and the mentally ill:
A few years later as part of Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives, Congress voted funds for community-based not for profit organizations and facilities to provide services to the mentally ill. Again Johnson was a Democrat with a Democratically controlled Congress. Reagan may have been governor of California at that time, but would have been fairly new in that office.

So you think that the Californian Joint Committee on Mental Health Reform was wrong when they underscored the need to rebuild a system, which was significantly scaled down when then-Governor Reagan ordered the closure the state's mental health hospitals?

(Source: Rand California Bulletin, Volume 3, Issue 5)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

To set the record straight re Reagan and the mentally ill:
A few years later as part of Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives, Congress voted funds for community-based not for profit organizations and facilities to provide services to the mentally ill. Again Johnson was a Democrat with a Democratically controlled Congress. Reagan may have been governor of California at that time, but would have been fairly new in that office.

So you think that the Californian Joint Committee on Mental Health Reform was wrong when they underscored the need to rebuild a system, which was significantly scaled down when then-Governor Reagan ordered the closure the state's mental health hospitals?

She's going to have to consult M(r)s. Nelson and then get back to you on that.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

To set the record straight re Reagan and the mentally ill:
A few years later as part of Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives, Congress voted funds for community-based not for profit organizations and facilities to provide services to the mentally ill. Again Johnson was a Democrat with a Democratically controlled Congress. Reagan may have been governor of California at that time, but would have been fairly new in that office.

So you think that the Californian Joint Committee on Mental Health Reform was wrong when they underscored the need to rebuild a system, which was significantly scaled down when then-Governor Reagan ordered the closure the state's mental health hospitals?

(Source: Rand California Bulletin, Volume 3, Issue 5)

I don't know whether they were wrong to do that. I do know that mental hospitals were being closed all over the country due to pressure from the afore mentioned advocacy groups. I think the intention was to defend civil rights of even the mentally ill rather than eliminate treatment for them. But as many of these things go when government is involved, good intentions produced some very bad consequences.

As poignantly expressed in this person's testimony:

Quote:

For almost 20 years now, people calling themselves "homeless advocates" -- meaning that they call themselves advocates for the homeless, not they themselves are homeless -- have tried to use this tragedy as variously, an indictment of capitalism, Ronald Reagan, or the heartlessness of various city governments. It is clear, from surveys of the homeless, and from my own experience with my brother, as well as talking to and helping homeless people for more than 20 years, that this tragedy is mostly the result of a well-intentioned effort that started in the 1970s, to make it difficult to lock up mentally ill people against their will.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/speeches/mental.htm

I have very limited experience with mental hospitals in Kansas when I used to work with prison ministries, but I visited two in the 1970's (as well as my Uncle's facility in Texas.) They were all ghastly places. Kansas didn't close its facilities though it did follow the national trend of not 'incarcerating' people just because they were mentally ill. I understand that one of the largest at Larned KS recently lost its accreditation because it was so bad. I wouldn't have accredited it back in the 70's.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

good intentions produced some very bad consequences.

Who could have possibly predicted that cutting funding for the mentally ill would result in their living in the streets?
If only we cut funding everything will turn out all right. That seems to be the RW way and then they wonder why it turned out badly.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The question is whether the donor is 'paid off' from the public treasury or through government initiatives in a way that directly benefits him.

But this kind of **** happens all the time and was rampant in the last administration, and in much more direct and easier to connect ways like no-bid contracts and industry friendly legislation. And TARP funds. I find it hard to believe that you condemn this very weak connection but have nothing to say about big banks, big agriculture, big insurance, and big oil essentially purchasing our government over the last several decades.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

We could discuss the pros and cons of any specific action or issue you wish, but blanket indictment of big banks, big agriculture, big insurance, big oil etc. is not useful or intellectually honest and can only be seen as a diversion from a particular issue that might be uncomfortable for some.

The specific issue I am discussing is whether scarce government resources were directed toward a project that does not directly benefit the USA but does directly benefit a generous donor to the party in power and a generous donor to causes promoted by or that benefits the party in power.

I am opposed to that no matter who is the beneficiary. I think you should be opposed to that too.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I am opposed to it when it happens. I just don't think this is a case of that happening. I looked up the top US shareholders of Petrobras and Soros doesn't make the top ten of any list.

PBR institutional shareholders

PBR.A institutional shareholders

So I see a lot of people (myself included, apparently, through my 401k) who stand to gain from any increase in the share price. But again, the loans are being made for the purchase of US exports. That does benefit US businesses whether you want to admit it or not.

You didn't do the research that brought out the Soros connection so I don't expect you to do any research to see who benefited from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program, the Iraq War, the Farm Bill, TARP, and Bankruptcy Reform. But you should wonder who is trying to make this all about Soros when his fund's 6 million shares don't approach those of other funds and institutions.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

We could discuss the pros and cons of any specific action or issue you wish, but blanket indictment of

Not that you'd ever think of doing that, Foxy.

Quote:

The specific issue I am discussing is whether scarce government resources were directed toward a project that does not directly benefit the USA but does directly benefit a generous donor to the party in power and a generous donor to causes promoted by or that benefits the party in power.

Then you ought to get the facts surrounding the issue before you shoot your mouth off especially when it's pointed directly at your foot.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

You must have overlooked the piece I previously posted about that.

But here's another source. I don't know what name he might be invested under but he owns a lot of PBR:
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=53880

Again as previously stated, I don't KNOW that Soros received special treatment via the Obama administration or any power elites in Congress. But this one doesn't pass the smell test.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

.....you dont know all the facts ot the guys circumstances.....

which is why i brought it up. we both know that a lot, if not most of the time the homeless get swept into the "too lazy to work" or the "drugs/drunk" catagory when most, as i believe, are simply unable to function in the real world due to either mental illness or an injury. that's not to say that none of the homeless are there because of some form of general b.s.

your point on reagan vs. this fella's deal is valid, but Reagan's actions on mental health undoubtedly did make a negative impact on the number of homeless wandering around.

since i voted for him i have to take my beating for his actions as well. sorry folks.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know