>> ^RedSky:
While expansionary fiscal policy is necessary during a crisis such as this one, it is equally important to signal to the market that you're not going to either create inflation through over stimulating the economy and you're not going to be forced into a position of printing money to honor your deficit. By promising to reduce expansionary spending in the future, you're getting the best of both worlds.


This is spot on in terms of economic analysis, except for one bit -- there's no indication we're anywhere near the crises you mention, and market indicators actually show that the markets are wanting us to borrow more (interest rates are actually going down).

Based on the actual language Obama used, he basically said the spending freeze would take place after the crisis had ended and when recovery is well on its way. I think that's perfectly reasonable. However, he did put a timeframe on it, but it was just "in 2011," which could easily mean the freeze "starts" on Dec 31st, 2011. Also, as much as I hate to say it, one thing the last year has shown is that Obama sure as hell doesn't have a problem letting a deadline slip if it's necessary (like with health care), or even merely expedient (like with repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell). If unemployment is still not coming down by the end of 2011, he'll need to go into full FDR mode unless he wants to be succeeded by a Republican in 2012, and watch the Democratic party die off completely.

Long story short, I'm not worried. It's a stupid gimmicky way to try and put out an olive branch to conservatives, and while I'd like to think that people are too smart to fall for it, I suspect it will actually resonate with some conservative-leaning independents as a gesture showing that he knows the debt and deficit is a concern, and that cutting spending most certainly is on the table.

I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but it's a good move which should be moderated by the situation in a year's time.

Maddow is correct about economics 101, but she gives no indication she understands anything beyond that here.

You have to remember that the US is in a huge deficit. Perhaps not as large as Japan's relative to GNP, but the largest in absolute terms. The point here is that the size of the US economy is so large world credit supply will at some start to become less and less tolerable of more borrowing.

Higher public or for that matter private debts inevitably raise the risk of borrowing in a country. Higher rates of borrowing encourage investors who are looking for high interest rates on their returns. That appreciates the currency. What an appreciation of the currency would do is make US exports uncompetitive, which essentially destroys the competitive edge of the economy. Together with higher borrowing costs, that would be particularly crippling. Yes as a counter-argument it does make necessary imports such as energy supplies cheaper, but on the whole it's indisputably damaging.

While expansionary fiscal policy is necessary during a crisis such as this one, it is equally important to signal to the market that you're not going to either create inflation through over stimulating the economy and you're not going to be forced into a position of printing money to honor your deficit. By promising to reduce expansionary spending in the future, you're getting the best of both worlds.

The amount of free light and solar heating that you get through windows is massively outweighed by the energy you lose through the windows, unless the outside is only slightly below room temperature, or their insulation is way above the standard of double-pane windows found in ordinary houses. When it's warmer that "free solar heating" is working against your AC.

Clear plastic doesn't interfere with your ability to look out a window. Neither does having a smaller window. You're probably looking at a computer or TV so much of the time that it doesn't matter. You could actually *go* outside instead of just looking. I don't know about you, but I don't get claustrophobic just because I can't see the sky or some trees for a few hours. If this stuff were actually done it could reduce residential electricity consumption by three fourths. That's well worth the sacrifice of not being able to see trees 24/7 except when you actually go outside.

LEDs are adequate unless you have cataracts or a strange aesthetic desire for extreme brightness at nighttime. I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Bright-XtraFlex2-Kindle-Version/dp/B000TXZIDM
If you set it on "Low" and shine it at a wall, the reflection of it is still plenty for reading a book. If you're concerned about lighting, put up some mirrors so you get more free light through your small windows.

Imstellar -- Just raise the price of fossil fuels / pollution / environmental destruction through taxing those things, and then the market will figure out how to get the best of both worlds.

Also, you're still using a computer aren't you? Pot kettle black?

I'm a fan of some of the neurological elements of religion.

The neuroscience of religion basically shows mystical feelings are just turning off some neural circuits and over-activating others. For example, 'oneness with the universe' is just turning off the neural circuits we develop in infancy that allow us to distinguish between self and world, between where my hand stops and the table starts (one is "me" .. the other is not).

I think one of the bottom lines of human behavior is that the more energy, speed, and perseverance the individual has, the better. However much you have, more is better. IMHO, managing your neural circuits creatively, but without actually believing made-up stuff, is the best of both worlds.

No mention of the thousands upon thousands (millions?) of americans who go without health care because they can't afford a private plan, or those people who do have a insurance but aren't covered for their treatment for whatever reason the insurance companies decide. Look far enough and y ou'll find lots of problems on both sides of the border. I for one and thankful that I don't have to deal with the american system. The bill for my wife's delivery at the hospital came to 350$ for three nights in a private room (see you get to pay extra for some services). Best of both worlds.

He was ok, he's got some great slight of hand skills, but it still seems a bit rough. The best ones with slight of hand are the ones who direct you were to look, and not hide what the other hand is doing. I still think Teller is one of the best in the world for slight of hand.

Never look at what the main hand is doing, look at what the other one is doing, the great ones will make it seem like they did nothing at all. He's good, just a little campy.

The WHO rankings heavily weight towards systems that have 'universal coverage'. For example, Cuba's health care system is routinely ranked among the best in the world, when the bulk of Cuban health care is quite primitive by modern standards.

In the end, WHO rankings are not so much a measurement of the quality of HEALTH CARE as much as they are a measurement of economic distribution. This screws up the debate by creating a dynamic where people can be talking about the same subject (health care) but be talking about completely different concepts (economics vs. medical quality).

Neolibs prefer to discuss topics within a framework of 'fairness'. As such, to a neolib it is irrelevant that the US has excellent health care. The most important thing to a neolib is whether or not everyone can access that health care equally. "What good is great health care if you can't afford it?" Therefore it is quite natural for neolibs to accept the WHO position that downranks top-notch health care for no reason except it is not a government supplied entitlement.

From a conservative point of view is very different. Conservatives look at one thing and one thing only...ACTUAL quality of health care. Conservatives find it irksome when neolibs slam the health care (which is good) when in reality the neolibs are not talking about QUALITY as much as they are whining about economic distribution.

This is why I require a Republic Democracy, even though the words are different and the action of both are unique. We get the best of both worlds, a majority rule with out a majority rabble.

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

I do, so much prefer Jefferson's Politics.

We had a Republic, and we lost it. Do not kid yourselves, we lost it along time ago. I would say right after the establishment of the United States.

Now we have a Democracy which is all good and grand, however we have a whole host of problems now.

Military Industrial Complex, Issues with "Bombing Brown People", Rampant Majorities yelling about vengeance for 9/11. Of which, sadly, I was probably a part of. Of which I no longer consider myself.

I would appreciate more Critical Thought devoid of Religion, Bias, and Emotion throughout Politics and Life in general.

I do not know enough about Health Care Systems, to say whether I like any of them. I am, rather, more concerned with the FED and Lobbyists. However I would think that digging deep enough we would find the silver lining of Free health care to be marred with something. As with all ideas there are always an up and downside.

Education is always the answer, real education. Unbiased, unadulterated truth even if it hurts.

>> ^paul4dirt:
....MOVE IT!
i'm no expert but it sounds like great beatboxing to me


indeed it is! roxorloops is one of the best in the world.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
wow..your pque had some great music.
i think your tastes are even more eclectic than mine..
and im insane!
good stuff ya got there bud.

Thanks, glad you liked it! Given that we all think our own music taste is the best in the world, it's nice when someone suddenly agrees.

And thanks for that trip through my pqueue as well!

I liked it until the end. I don't see too much hyperbole in a university like JHU saying they are "passionate". I mean, I think education is important so any educator could call themselves "passionate" in a way that a sofa salesman could not. But JHU is one of the top research institutes in the world. The Applied Physics Lab at JHU builds some of the most cutting edge spacecraft out there. The JHU school of medicine is one of the best in the world. I mean, are you really going to sneer at someone for saying "I'm passionate about curing cancer" or "I'm passionate about being the first explorer of an alien world"?

Maybe David Mitchell doesn't realize JHU is a prestigious research institute. The advertisement does make them look more like a community college.

Nice to see an oyster post. We love them up here in Maine and have some of the best in the world. Champagne vinaigrette is also a great option to eat oysters with. A note on Oysters Rockefeller pernod wasn't invented yet, use Absinthe and watercress instead of spinach.

A post is not a post. The whole process of sifting is that we siphon out the bad videos, we do this by voting on them. We submit a video post for evaluation in the community, when it reaches 10 positive votes it is considered a quality post (and gives a star point). Until that time it is still being evaluated. Note that the whole package is being evaluated, not just the video. Making a good is part of being a good sifter, the same as finding a great video is.

My example was simply an extreme of the case, my point was that one could just make posts that were completely unoriginal, uninspired and boring, and then gain the payoff of another users good efforts. That is detrimental and demoralizing to sifters. It certainly is to me.

I rather like what jonny is proposing here http://www.videosift.com/talk/Radical-Proposal-for-the-Queue-PQueues-and-Beggar-s-Canyon which seems to be the best of both worlds.

NetRunner,

I think unemployment increases when demand decreases, and unemployment decreases when demand increases. Demand increases when wages are increased and wages increase when production is increased.

I think it is a mistake to think you can simply cure a depression. You can do things that put you in the right direction, and try to prevent it from happening in the future, but there is nothing that is going to instantly fix this economy. If it was possibly to simply correct a global recession with a magic wand, why wouldn't we just use that same wand on developing countries with terrible economies and bring everyone out of poverty?

Long term, to increase employment you have to increase production, and you aren't going to want to hear it, but I think resources in the hands of private owners is the best way to do that. You have to let prices drop, companies fail, and people lose their jobs. In 18 months it will be mostly over, which if you think about it, is only maybe 9 more months if the government hadn't intervened in the first place.

Short term, no matter what you do this recession is going to be hard. People are going to lose jobs, end up homeless, and worse. I honestly don't understand why recessions are viewed so negatively; the only distinctly negative symptom is increased unemployment, don't you agree? Yes, prices drop and people lose money, but the biggest problem is people losing their jobs. Look at this graph:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SZiQ1JIJUqI/AAAAAAAACag/qP1TeKCqlIQ/s1600-h/research.stlouisfed.org.png

Right now the rate of unemployment is 8% and we are pumping trillions into our economy to fix this, yet in 1990s (a time of relative prosperity) the rate of unemployment was also 8%. In the last 50 years, there are at least 7 instances of it being this high, yet do you remember anyone freaking out to the extent we are today?

I am realistic in that I don't expect to go from complete dependence on the government to zero dependence overnight. Private severance packages, unemployment benefits, and personal savings are all essential in easing the transition between jobs. If we are going to spend several trillion, why don't we just put it all in unemployment insurance? If the market can correct itself in 18 months if left alone, why don't we just combine the two ideologies: let the market correct itself, however brutal it may be, but directly combat the suffering caused by unemployment by increasing benefits to those affected? Keeping our hands off the market, and returning to reasonable spending will help establish a strong foundation for the economy; it will bounce back stronger than ever if we would only let it. In the meantime, we can also help out those in need. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

I mean honestly, we are talking about an increase in unemployment from 6% to 8%, do you really want to risk throwing the world into a 20 year depression, debasing our entire money supply, bankrupting the US, or having the dollar lose its status as the worldwide currency over a 2% increase in unemployment?

>> ^chtierna:
The thing that moved me the most about this video was that he escaped for food.
He didnt have anything else to escape for, no big ideas about freedom or dreams on what to do with his life.


What kills me the most about the North is how almost nobody in it knows enough to even question that what they are told is true and that their horrific conditions there are still the best in the world. Just mind numbing.