Then they were truly idiots. They certainly trusted Nixon more than they trusted McGovern and the Democrats, and getting rid of Nixon would have opened the door for the Democrats and defense cuts. Military spending was bound to go down after Vietnam, but nobody seriously thought that Nixon would slash new weapons budgets or gut the military industrial complex. While détente was going on the Soviets were flexing their muscles and there was still a need for weaponry to counteract that.
Ships, Submarines and aircraft are built where? Where do they build Tanks?
Tanks are made in Lima Ohio. Jets are made in Texas and Oklahoma, also maybe in California and Washington State. The manufacturers are headquartered in Maryland (Moved in recent decades from California), Virginia (moved in recent decades from Missouri), Missouri and Washington State. Ships and subs are made in Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and California.
Wealthy New York money men spread their money around and are unlikely to have all their eggs in one basket. With many investment opportunities available, it's unlikely that the defense contractors are going to be able to determine what some power elite pushes for.
And you dismiss it just as easily and without any more facts than you accuse me of having.
If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it. If you want to prove that George Bush killed Kennedy or that Michelle Obama is a man or that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau's father or that New Yorkers run the country or that the CIA and the defense industry took down Nixon, you have to provide the evidence. You are just attaching your pet idea to everything that comes along without evidence and without any serious investigation.
Why does all the money keep ending up in Washington DC and all the industries connected to Washington DC?
Before 1933 New York had a lot of power. A lot of money ended up in New York and the private sector concentrated in New York did make a lot of decisions. It's only since then (or since 1913 if you like) that Washington DC has been getting substantially more power.
The really big money only started to flow into DC in the 1960s and 1970s. Those defense contractors only moved to Maryland and Virginia in the 1990s. In other words, for most of our history people didn't go to Washington to make really big money. The gains of the DC area and other parts of the country, particularly California and Texas were very much at the expense of the New York area. People who do business with the government move to where the government is. There's no conspiracy involved. It's business.
What you're missing here is that during the long years from the Thirties to the Nineties the Democrats controlled Congress. They weren't a party dominated by the Northeast in those years. Much of their strength came from the South. It was in their interest to move bases and defense plants away from the Northeast. Land and labor were also cheaper in the South and West. With more factories being built, the South and West began to have more power economically than they had before, as well as more political influence. So rather than simply doing the bidding of some Northeastern elite, the federal government did much to weaken that region.
You saw how the Vietnam war was handled?
They certainly trusted Nixon more than they trusted McGovern and the Democrats, and getting rid of Nixon would have opened the door for the Democrats and defense cuts.
They wouldn't have gotten McGovern. Who they got was Gerald Ford. But again, people make decisions based on what they think will happen, and this crowd probably manages their skullduggery about as well as they managed Vietnam.
Military spending was bound to go down after Vietnam, but nobody seriously thought that Nixon would slash new weapons budgets or gut the military industrial complex.
I'm sure there was more than one factor here. I used to read in "American Spectator" how much the liberals detested Nixon because of his prosecution of Alger Hiss, who was one of their darlings back in the 1950s.
The bureaucratic structure of Washington DC has long been in the leftist camp, and it does not seem unreasonable to me that they hated Nixon just as much as they hate Trump right now.
If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Well, see there? I believe I have proven it to the degree necessary for a reasonable man to give it credibility.
I've already shown you that the Southern states accounted for 72% of the total US export value for the nation in 1860, and then i've also shown you that all the money came back into the country through New York, Boston, and Washington DC. I have also learned that Southern products sent to the Northern states were valued at about 500 million dollars, and so we looking at the greater part of a billion dollars production from the Southern states in a total 4 billion economy of a nation.
But with this massive amount of money at stake (and not even counting the financial losses which would occur from European products flooding the domestic market) we are expected to believe the primary driving force for war was concern about slaves?
Pardon me if I don't believe the "milk of human kindness" explanation for war when there is a great big pile of money reason for doing it.
Before 1933 New York had a lot of power. A lot of money ended up in New York and the private sector concentrated in New York did make a lot of decisions. It's only since then (or since 1913 if you like) that Washington DC has been getting substantially more power.
The collusion creature created in the past simply grew and evolved. It's still the same corrupt crony capitalist collusion creature. It's just metastasized.
The really big money only started to flow into DC in the 1960s and 1970s.
"Big" is relative. 750 million was a lot in 1860, but not so much in 1960. And yes, the 24th amendment unlocked a lot of government taxing and spending in it's aftermath. There were a lot of areas of exploitation in the government's "war on poverty" scheme.
In other words, for most of our history people didn't go to Washington to make really big money.
When you own the congressmen and the bureaucrats, you don't have to live next to them. You can live in your fine Mansion in Boston or New York and still control your servants in DC.
Thirties to the Nineties the Democrats controlled Congress.
But back then they were less insane, more honest, and emerging from states all over the nation instead of just the concentrations of liberal power. Of course there were exceptions like Huey Long.
With more factories being built, the South and West began to have more power economically than they had before, as well as more political influence. So rather than simply doing the bidding of some Northeastern elite, the federal government did much to weaken that region.
By this era, the "elite" didn't particularly care about the peasants in their region. What they care about is *THEIR* power and wealth. While the relative overall economic activity in New York and the Northeast declined, it was still the same powerful families making money and controlling Washington DC.
And where is all the "vaccine" money going?