Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.

You completely, utterly lack any historical perspective. No civilization on the planet prospered as well as the US did in the last century. I'm not crediting Congress for it all, but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role. Just because debts were run doesn't mean they made poor decisions.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.

I'm sorry, but no. I'd take even the foolish budgetary decisions of the last 10 years than allow the general public to allocate the federal budget. They're clueless.

Hah, John Wayne was a member; why does that not surprise me? Sorry, but ye'ol Ron that is the last straw. I should have just looked up his background in the first place. Belonging to the John Birch Society is tantamount to pure paranoia to the tenth degree, with a ultra-right-wing-christian flavor.

I can't see it anywhere, but it seems like John Edgar Hoover would be a de facto member for sure yet it's not listed. The John Birch Society comes off more as a cult much like Scientology to some degree (both equally horrendous in their own way). One member that didn't surprise me too much was Mr. Koch himself (Daddy Koch). That one makes perfect sense...

Atleast a few people know just how ridiculous the John Birch Society is here on the sift. I'll have to look around and see if I can find a good program about them, as they most deservedly need their own defined space here on the sift for us to pummel into submission. Problem is most of the documentaries I've ever seen on them were done in the 1980's--so I'll have to look hard, there may be some connected to PBS.

/Goes to read all the backgrounds on all the candidates from thorough sources...
//Really surprised the John Birch thing hasn't come up far more often and much more earlier...

Oh yeah and the UN IS F@$KING SATAN!!1!1 Just so you know.

the robot part of this project to me seems to be prity much a waist of time.

I guess to the layperson putting really basic software into a robot shaped object and having voice synth with pre recorded stuff looks impressive and so that's why people do these projects.

we are still at a point where the software is miles behind and that is where the work needs to be done for "intelligent" robots , granted the underlying software that maps out the image for the program to learn what is what might good in this project but its hard to tell from this video.

I guess my point is that until the software has got past a certain threshold there is no benefit putting it on a plastic case with wheels. To me the pre recorded voice and fake communication is as believable and beneficial to robotics as sticking eyes on a hoover.

Saying that I love physical robots that are actually progressing things like BIG DOG , or the Medical robots that can lift people , or the Exoskeletons that help old and disabled people walk , we are probably another 10-30 years before we will be able to marry convincing and practical AI with a robot in a way that's of real use.

+1 for my old high-school friend Mikaela Hoover. She's awesome.

>> ^deathcow:

Mikaela Hoover at 1:49.. smokin


She was that hot chick in Super...wow what a great last name.

Mikaela Hoover at 1:49.. smokin

>> ^marinara:

Jobs created are less than we need for natural growth of population (but we're in a recovery)

I think people get pretty hung up on the technical terms. "Recession" means all the growth indicators are trending downward. "Recovery" means all or most growth indicators are trending upward.

Most people think "recession" means "the economy is bad" (aka below peak), and "recovery" means "the economy is good again" (aka in record territory). That's not what economists mean when they use those words.
>> ^marinara:
bank bailouts cause the 'lost decade' period. Contrast to iceland, which is in recovery, and they bailed out no banks.


Bailing out the banks doesn't cause the lost decade, it's the fuckup that made the banks need bailing out that causes it. Letting them collapse catastrophically doesn't make the economy better, it just makes the recession deeper and longer; just ask Herbert Hoover!

What Iceland did differently wasn't that they didn't bail out the banks, it's that they didn't ask their taxpayers to pay for it. They let the banks default on their international debts (which was most of it), had their central bank print up the money to cover their domestic debts (and then some), and instituted capital controls (taxes on international investment) to prevent people from pulling their money out of the country.

In other words, they did the polar opposite of what people like Peter Schiff or Ron Paul want anyone to do, and it's working out pretty well.

I hear people sometimes say things like "J. Edgar Hoover ran America for a long time"

I've never believed it because there's simply no way the owners of the society would've allowed one man to hold the keys. However he's no doubt interesting and Clint and Leo should do a great job as usual.

For the disk going around the ring they should add a small orifice or pipette as a nozzle for the evaporating nitrogen to propel the disk around the ring to make a rocket hoover UFO. Otherwise, it all boils out of the top.

Interesting, I wasn't even aware of this movie's existence up to now. Possibly another gold statue nod for DiCaprio & Eastwood.

On a sidenote:- I've seen many internet polls & "top tens" where J. Edgar Hoover has been voted America's no.1 "Asshole Boss Of All Time", looks like we're finally gonna get to see why

^Upvoted^

That's no Hoover.

Your video, Hoovering my cat!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 44 Badge!

Warning! More rude trollish massively copy and pasting stuff from websites below:

9/11 Truth vs Denial vs Pseudo-truths and Other Lies

David Watts on the Backfire Effect:

“The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.”

9/11 is a perfect example. Despite the mountain of contradictory evidence of the official story, most people’s belief that what they are being told by the authorities and media becomes even stronger. If people were able to assimilate the contradictory evidence, they would understand that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

“The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director

“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” — Marshall McLuhan, Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar–a professor of English literature, a literary critic, a rhetorician, and a communication theorist.

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.