6 ms·

Ah yes, Republican congressmen trying to harm a private company because it's doing better than a government funded program. Pot, kettle, yada yada.

rrmm 12y ago
They are the big government they claim to want to eliminate.
- XorNot 12y ago
  They always have been. It's only "big government" when it benefits their mates and future board positions.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    There's a missing negation unless I'm misreading your comment: it's only big government when it doesn't benefit their mates.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      or "their" can refer to democrats.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      They only complain about regulations when someone they know, or want to be on the board with, wants that regulation to go away. It's exactly the right size government when it happens to be a massive handout to those same people, or buys off a social group who literally do want to control what you do in the bedroom, for example. The point is, its all misdirection anyway - the correct question about governments is always to focus on issues and results. When someone has to declare ideology as a motivator, and can't imagine step-wise plans or trials, then they should be ignored.
terrence_giggy 12y ago
Ah yes, an obviously left leaning author accuses several of is local representatives of wrong-doing. Lets take it as cannon and use the opportunity to pile on an bash them Republicans. After all, it is the severity of the accusation that matters, right?
- kjs3 12y ago
  Can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
  - MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
    Didn't get the memo? Both sides are exactly the same.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Oddly enough I didn't get that memo. Could you explain it for me?
  - terrence_giggy 12y ago
    Context matters. I see a lot of talk on this thread about the motives of Congressmen who are going to attack a company so they can make their big donors happy. How about we flip the script and put the same argument to the author: What gets funding for scientists in need of public grants? Maybe attacking opponents in an election year will get you good favor of those who control said public funds? I doubt either is true (the author having funding motivations behind the article, or the representatives out to kill a business for their lobbying group).
- kordless 12y ago
  From direct observation, that appears to be a playbook straight out of the Republican camp.
- craigching 12y ago
  Doesn't matter to me if they have an R or D after their name, if they're doing this, it's wrong.
saucetenuto 12y ago
Well, ultimately they're trying to help out Boeing and other major contractors, right? It's not about big government versus private industry, it's about private industry defended by lobbying and pork-barrel concessions versus private industry that doesn't have those things. Not that that's better.
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  It's worse, actually.
- mncolinlee 12y ago
  I'd argue SpaceX is very likely getting into the lobbyist game, too. The major difference is that the United Launch Alliance consists of big defense players whose collective clout and spending on political donations and lobbying makes SpaceX look like a joke. Also, the top military contractors have been convicted on numerous occasions of deliberately defrauding taxpayers without losing contracts over this behavior. This can only continue to happen if they're being protected by powerful people. The military procurement industry is a notoriously corrupt circle which rewards the largest and most inept, as the Joint Strike Fighter proves. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fraudulent-defense-contractors-paid-1-trillion http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fraudu...
  - saucetenuto 12y ago
    You're right, of course. This is the sort of thing that Eisenhower foresaw when he warned against the military-industrial complex, but even with the benefit of hindsight I don't know what we could have done about it. Everyone's incentives are aligned, and in the wrong direction.
MadManE 12y ago
I think that focusing on the illusory party division is exactly the wrong approach to this. Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem, and both parties have essentially the same agenda. What needs to happen is the elimination of government interference, not calling out some perceived hypocrisy.
- tormeh 12y ago
  That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other time is solely with respect to the voting booth. And in the voting booth you can only choose between two parties. You either make the best out of it or you don't.
  - MadManE 12y ago
    How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    @MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...

rrmm 12y ago

They are the big government they claim to want to eliminate.

XorNot 12y ago
They always have been. It's only "big government" when it benefits their mates and future board positions.
- masklinn 12y ago
  There's a missing negation unless I'm misreading your comment: it's only big government when it doesn't benefit their mates.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    or "their" can refer to democrats.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    They only complain about regulations when someone they know, or want to be on the board with, wants that regulation to go away. It's exactly the right size government when it happens to be a massive handout to those same people, or buys off a social group who literally do want to control what you do in the bedroom, for example. The point is, its all misdirection anyway - the correct question about governments is always to focus on issues and results. When someone has to declare ideology as a motivator, and can't imagine step-wise plans or trials, then they should be ignored.

terrence_giggy 12y ago

Ah yes, an obviously left leaning author accuses several of is local representatives of wrong-doing. Lets take it as cannon and use the opportunity to pile on an bash them Republicans. After all, it is the severity of the accusation that matters, right?

kjs3 12y ago
Can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
- MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
  Didn't get the memo? Both sides are exactly the same.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Oddly enough I didn't get that memo. Could you explain it for me?
- terrence_giggy 12y ago
  Context matters. I see a lot of talk on this thread about the motives of Congressmen who are going to attack a company so they can make their big donors happy. How about we flip the script and put the same argument to the author: What gets funding for scientists in need of public grants? Maybe attacking opponents in an election year will get you good favor of those who control said public funds? I doubt either is true (the author having funding motivations behind the article, or the representatives out to kill a business for their lobbying group).
kordless 12y ago
From direct observation, that appears to be a playbook straight out of the Republican camp.
craigching 12y ago
Doesn't matter to me if they have an R or D after their name, if they're doing this, it's wrong.

saucetenuto 12y ago

Well, ultimately they're trying to help out Boeing and other major contractors, right? It's not about big government versus private industry, it's about private industry defended by lobbying and pork-barrel concessions versus private industry that doesn't have those things. Not that that's better.

TheHypnotist 12y ago
It's worse, actually.
mncolinlee 12y ago
I'd argue SpaceX is very likely getting into the lobbyist game, too. The major difference is that the United Launch Alliance consists of big defense players whose collective clout and spending on political donations and lobbying makes SpaceX look like a joke. Also, the top military contractors have been convicted on numerous occasions of deliberately defrauding taxpayers without losing contracts over this behavior. This can only continue to happen if they're being protected by powerful people. The military procurement industry is a notoriously corrupt circle which rewards the largest and most inept, as the Joint Strike Fighter proves. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fraudulent-defense-contractors-paid-1-trillion http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fraudu...
- saucetenuto 12y ago
  You're right, of course. This is the sort of thing that Eisenhower foresaw when he warned against the military-industrial complex, but even with the benefit of hindsight I don't know what we could have done about it. Everyone's incentives are aligned, and in the wrong direction.

MadManE 12y ago

I think that focusing on the illusory party division is exactly the wrong approach to this. Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem, and both parties have essentially the same agenda. What needs to happen is the elimination of government interference, not calling out some perceived hypocrisy.

tormeh 12y ago
That doesn't work, though. The only time anyone really cares about your opinion is when you're in the voting booth and any concern directed at you at any other time is solely with respect to the voting booth. And in the voting booth you can only choose between two parties. You either make the best out of it or you don't.
- MadManE 12y ago
  How doesn't it work? As far as I know, it's never been tried.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    It has been tried, by everyone who votes for a third party.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  @MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...