Economics is "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses."

Every dollar urinated away on fanciful bull$h1t (per the info in marinara's post, the Golfer Administration ramrodded this through with zero oversight) like this is a dollar that could've landed in someone's paycheck (where it would be taxed) and circulated to buy goods people actually want and use (and taxed again).

That's also another dollar that will never be invested freely by peeps who are a lot more cautious with their dollars than thugverment. And these 'lone' dollars we're discussing are far from alone. Each one also costs many more dollars because government bureaucracies filled with government workers have to move them around.

No one is 'against' solar. they want "viable" (meaning cost-effective) solar systems. And people wanted to fly before the Wright Brothers built a plane in their garage using zero tax dollars.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

It seems like such an easy solution, doesn't it? Just pay people a living wage! Except living wages don't come from government, they come from businesses who have to deal with market demand. The American workforce is roughly 100 million. So with your 10 billion in what is essentially workfare (favoring one burger flipper over another) you've given a whopping 1 percent of low-wage earners a larger paycheck...for doing nothing!

Not only will this money be taxed at a higher rate, prices will rise, just like they do every time some vote-buying slug in office suggests raising the minimum wage. And employers will hire less people at $10 than $5. Supply and demand. Only in liberaland does a forklift driver earn the same as a neurosurgeon, because anything less wouldn't be "fair". It's also why double digit inflation is the norm across Europe.

I think your post and your sentiment is very shortsighted. The US government has a long history of subsidizing high tech. It's why we lead the world in this area. Countries like China are following the US example and gaining fast, since the US seems to be regressing. China's government's investment in private solar companies dwarfs America's, and is one factor in Solyndra's failure; Solyndra found it hard to compete against chinese products.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

What does this have to do with the video? If anything, Solyndra is a counterexample: an american company building a factory and research facilities in the states, opting to compete on innovation rather than cheap overseas labor. Despite its failure, we should invest in 10 more Solyndras. We need a high skill base in this country; not a population of burger flippers and day laborers.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

This is a very bad comparison, and a flawed summary of what the recovery act does. For example, the 80 billion in education helped to keep teachers employed. Is that a waste?





From the recovery website:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:

•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans
•Requiring recipients of Recovery funds to report quarterly on how they are using the money. All the data is posted on Recovery.gov so the public can track the Recovery funds.
In addition to offering financial aid directly to local school districts, expanding the Child Tax Credit, and underwriting a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health care costs, the Recovery Act is targeted at infrastructure development and enhancement. For instance, the Act plans investment in the domestic renewable energy industry and the weatherizing of 75 percent of federal buildings as well as more than one million private homes around the country.

Construction and repair of roads and bridges as well as scientific research and the expansion of broadband and wireless service are also included among the many projects that the Recovery Act will fund.

While many of Recovery Act projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years.

That was amazing.

Although not totally accurate -- did it without flippers? Good lord, look at the size of his feet!!!!!

That little flipper is cute.

Well, yeah. I just figured the wings channel was more about flight than actually possessing wings.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^Morganth:
And can this still go in wings if they're just for looks?

They use them very effectively under water, but penguins are classed as birds, so they have wings, not flippers or fins.

>> ^Morganth:

And can this still go in wings if they're just for looks?


They use them very effectively under water, but penguins are classed as birds, so they have wings, not flippers or fins.

These borrowers knowingly made bad loans to people who didn't understand the contract

In the early 90s the banks were arguing AGAINST repealing Glass-Stegall. Politicians partnered with some big finaincal houses like AIG and started accusing mid-size & small banks of racism ala "red-lining" to grease the political skids for a repeal. In most instances there was no racism of any kind. Banks simply did not give loans to people that couldn't afford them. But poor, urban areas had higher percentages of minority populations - and so out whips the race card...

I lived in the 70s and 80s. I know how hard it was to get even a 30-year loan in those days. But literally overnight banks had to start giving out loans to people who traditionally would not qualify. Instead of making money on the interest of the LOAN, banks were expected to make profit by bundling & selling the mortgage. The government promise was that if things went sour on the borrower end, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would paper it over. It worked fine for about a decade. But you can't sustain a market when your only customers are poor people in homes they can't afford and property flippers taking out 2+ extra mortgages more than they can realistically pay for.

The bank's job isn't to be your daddy, or to lecture you about whether you should or shouldn't get a loan. If a person walks into a bank, then as long as they qualify under the rules which are established by government then the bank doesn't have much choice. When people qualify, the bank issues the loan or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. It's a Catch-22.

Your outrage should more properly be targeted at the government. Have them re-institute Glass-Stegall. Force them to tighten up the requirements on who can/can't get a loan. Make it so people who shouldn't get loans CAN'T get them and that banks aren't allowed to do it. Join the rest of us racist, evil, red-lining conservatives who think loans should only be given to those who can actually afford to pay them off. But prepare yourself for a tongue-lashing from every neo-liberal leftist group under the sun, because clearly your bean-counting logic is pure neo-con white hatred, right? Oh - and especially prepare yourself to get excoriated by guys like Barney Frank who was one of the principle engineers of this whole "UFFOWDABLE HOWSEING!" mess.

world's most talented man, sleeping on the floor by the kitchen...

rough economic times for juggling, giant yo-yo'ing back flippers.

That's true of any voting group.

Quite so. This is why federal governments should be extremely limited in its powers, with most functional legislation at the state or local level where there is more accountability, higher churn, and restricted capacity to impact unrelated citizens.

Why would you imply such behavior is inappropriate if "the left" is criticizing public figures you agree with?

I didn’t. I was refuting Net’s position that when the left loses the intellectual and popular debate that they behave like some sort of gentleman’s club. Bull feathers.

You have also argued that Social Security should be repealed even while admitting that doing so would be extremely unpopular. Why would your same "dictate by fiat" criticism not apply to conservatives when they violate "the will of the people"?

It does apply. Who said it didn’t? I’m fully aware that my personal position of eliminating Social Security would be against the will of the people as far as they are currently aware of the issue. But that can change with information. Reagan rolled that way.

I'll be the first to point out that what is "best" is rarely what is "popular", but in my opinion the solution is education, not exclusion.

Experience is the best educator. Let’s take an example of a typical market boom property flipper. Uh oh! It’s September, 2008 and the market collapses. Guy has three properties, he can’t afford to pay the mortgages on any one of them with his base salary, and he can’t sell them for squat.
A lot of parties are involved here, but this GUY bears the ultimate responsibility for his predicament. He was a moron who put himself in a bad position with reckless borrowing. No one held a gun to him and forced him to take out three mortgages when he only had the earning power for one. People who behave in ways that are this foolish deserve probationary, limited voting rights for a time. If he claws his way out of debt, wiser for the experience, and demonstrates he deserves a shot then more voting rights can be restored. Same logic applies for a lot of screw-ups.

basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".

That’s your opinion, and I disagree with it. Valid counters you do not like are not “rubber/glue” just because you don't like them. For example, you made a clear, statement that “the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.” I said that is not true, but that they resort to insults, slander, and attacks. I think MSNBC, Kos, HuffPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, NPR, Pelosi, Obama, Ried, Greyson, Frank, Olbermann, Maddow, and a billion other leftist persons, outlets, and organizations prove me right on a daily basis.

Rather than address the meat of my argument, Geesuss ran off crying and Pennypecker has resorted to insults.

Oh? Where? I try to never make things personal. Rather, I respond accurately. Some people may find that insulting, but accuracy is not insult. Describing your hyperbole as hyperbole is not an insult. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not right. It must be said that you are the one dealing in personal insults. I’m intellectually addressing a valid question about appropriate voting, and you started putting words in my mouth and flinging maledictions. Quite frankly, you need to learn how to argue an ISSUE instead of just attacking the messenger. I thought I was quite polite, really, all things considered.

I'd love to hear either of you explain to me why denying civil rights to poor people is not fascist

Well in the first place you are framing your posit very badly. I never said poor people shouldn’t vote. That kind of poor argumentation is why I suggested to you (very artfully) that you should reinstitute your policy of self-recusal. You appear to argue from pure emotion. Believe me that I'm not being 'insulting' when I say that it makes you really bad at intellectual discussion.

I say something like "bad management of property ownership should result in voting restrictions"... Your interpretation is, "He's a fascist who hates poor people!" If you can't see the difference then it must be said that our perspectives are too far seperated to bridge and you really shouldn't even try. I can understand and intellectually address a liberal argument. You seem unable to do the same when faced with a conservative one. So your position of self recusal was wise. Your decision to abandon it was not.

Given the recent issues in the housing market I'm not so sure that owning property is a clear sign of intelligence.

True enough. But keep in mind that the entire housing bubble fiasco was not traditional home ownership. It was more like government subsidized leasing. There was very little 'traditional ownership' going on in the housing bubble unless you were smart.

That said, responsible home ownership tells a lot about a person. I bought one affordable property at a good rate and stuck with it from 1997 to present so I own a two-story single-family unit that costs me less than renting a dumpy apartment (and I'll pay off in half the term). Compare that to the typical housing boom property flipper, banker, or the government. Out of all the above parties - which one proved they have a decent head on their shoulders?

There's no trick, gimmick, secret, or political free-lunch that makes a person have 12+ years of reliability and trustworthiness. It isn't difficult but it does require personal morality, common sense, work, and discipline. It isn't a flashy life, but it is worthwhile. The reward? Personal security, total independance, and being the kind of guy you would trust with the key to your house, to drive your car, to sleep in the same room as your wife - and to render a good VOTE. There are a lot of people that shouldn't be voting because they have proven track records of abuse, failure, short-sightedness, and incompetence - and this includes people across a lot of spectra.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dolphins are overrated assholes. They've failed to live up to the hype about being exceptionally smart. They thrust their angry penises at human females attempting to swim with them. Get lost, dolphins, that's MY job.


Does that include SeaQuest's Darwin, Flipper, and other tunas? I even made a poll about them: http://aqfl.net/?q=node/3873 ...

Right, that is what I was trying to point out which you made much more clear

Watching the video, I don't understand how BP "owned" the oil. As far as I understand the government owns all coastal waters and BP just leases it. I think the way property and mineral rights work in the US need some slight refinement. I think it is dumb that a person can own something they do not yet have control over. Just because of the fact that you own some land, I don't think that should give you claim over things that you haven't yet cultivated from it. If we adjusted ownership claims sightly, it could give more powers to the people whom actually do the mining/making. It would place more power back into the hands of the people that do things instead of the people who buy things. I have the same kind of thoughts on intellectual property. You can't own ideas, you can only own what you do with them. In the same fashion, you can't just own the ground, you own what you do (on/in/with/from/more verbs) it. I think this slight adjustment could do great things, though I still need to work through all the logical implications (one day).

For me, that is one of the largest roles of government, defining private property. It isn't something that is an objective truth. The way that mineral rights, and intellectual rights are configured right now are horrible. They encourage large concentration of power for people who no longer produce goods, just buy ideas/property.

Though, I don't find fault with people get lots of money for something they do well, I love newegg and amazon, and have no problem with the people living the good life. I think we all find a problem with people that don't really do anything but game the system and somehow squeeze money from it without providing any real benefit, hell, even BP makes something we all need desperately. Day traders, property flippers, and the like I see as people who are found glitches in the system they are exploiting, and while there will always be such things I still think they could be mended with more clearly defining some of the base elements. The fact that BP owns the oil just due to the fact they have enough money to lease land and make more money seems off. It is like renting someone to make the money for you that you already bought.

What part about it isn't real? The footage is real, as far as him doing all that stuff underwater goes. As was said, he didn't actually reach the bottom without flippers and a rope, but there wasn't any trick photography or anything.

What happens to the human body while quickly rising and lowering in deep water? Nothing if you are free diving. You get "the bends" if you are using compressed oxygen but if you are holding your breath you can rise to the surface as fast as you want.

As far as human body density goes, yes, in general, it is very close to that of water. More fat makes you less dense, more muscle makes you more dense. Going deeper will make you less buoyant. Wearing a weight belt (as the guy in the video is) will make you sink even further/faster.

And some people can't swim so are afraid of deep water, give them a break - not everyone can be full of hot air.

>> ^Chinspinigcra:

Anybody else annoyed at the fact that some people think this is real? Learn about what happens to the human body while quickly rising and lowering in deep water. Look up human body density and how close it is to water. Then you simply must say eureka as you uncover the workings of flotation. Honest to god, just being afraid of swimming in water, at all, is complete nonsense. That is like a bird being afraid to hop around on the ground.

I'm sure it's a nifty piece of equipment, but the demonstration in the video is awful. Every time the flipper hand touches something, the music immediately becomes worse.

Wow, totally replayed a BUNCH of these! Baby-flipper! Woo!