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.

>> ^spoco2:
Wow, seriously, you don't get the issue here? You really are going to suck if you never see the larger picture.
"Garry, we've done it! This pill makes people be able to speak for a couple of hours at a time!"
"Awesome, what are the side effects?"
"Pffft, like I give a shit, it works man."
"Um, you aren't concerned at all about long term effects?"
"Nope, I made someone talk... I'm a fucking GOD man"
"Ok, good luck with that."


No, I don't think you get the issue. The guy is downright lucky an existing drug "solves" his problem. It isn't as though he's part of a large group of post tooth pull TMD sufferers. This isn't the sort of thing you can convince anyone to spend any money to research. Simply saying something like "look ambien works" doesn't really mean somebody can just run to their garage and whip up a new drug that only targets the specific parts he wanted it to target, or some stem cell therapy that could repair damage.

Part of my snarky undercurrent, and I hesitate to say this, is that I think this might be fake. If it is fake, it isn't funny because people do suffer from these sorts of disorders. If it isn't fake, the diagnosis is probably wrong because it is likely a central not peripheral nervous issue. I was just watching the video with a professional speech therapist. She pointed out that not only does he have the temporomandibular joint issue, but he also seems to be having tongue and mouth shape ataxia. His facial symmetry is good, which suggests it isn't lateralized nerve damage (like you might expect from a tooth pull). Further, it is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which pharmacology could have that sort of effect on "damaged wires" so to speak. It's possible he's simply the victim of a misdiagnosis, in which case I feel bad him. However, given that he is a voice actor, I fear this might be a publicity stunt in horribly poor taste. That's not even mentioning the fact that he looks remarkably cogent for a guy on ambien (you know, all those side effects you were talking about).

The USA is nowhere NEAR being a secular country. When it is, things will star getting better. When we have representatives in high office brave enough to denounce the crap that is creationism, when we have children who are not brainwashed by faith based zealots, when we approve of stem cell research, equal rights for all etc, THEN, and only then, will we be able to lead our lives as the free individuals we are meant to be.

@GenjiKilpatrick

Science is not a means of organizing people, motivating them, getting them to work towards a common goal, helping them think about how they want to live, supporting them in times of tragedy, inspiring them, or countless other features of religion that your definition failed to mention, so it doesn't really seem like it could be considered an upgrade. Science is science. Religion is religion. They can co-exist just fine, if people would only let them (unfortunately people on both sides of the debate don't).

Also, those things you mentioned (being against stem cell research, contraceptives, etc.)... aren't those features of right-wing fundamentalist Protestant Christianity? I would hardly consider those people to be representative of religion as a whole. What about the Amish, who just want to live in peace? Or the Jains? Or Tibetian Buddhists? There are quite literally millions of people out there who do not fit your definition of religion in any way, shape, or form. How do you account for that?

@SDGundamX

Like I already said. Science is the upgrade to Religion.

Any benefits - including societal, psychological, economical or political - have been superseded by the explanations uncovered by Science.

Religion is obsolete and does nothing but divide larger groups and keep them ignorant as fuck about things that could help them. i.e. stem cell research, contraceptives, understanding of sexuality

Sanity at last? Not likely. The really absurd thing here is that the Stem Cells in question are either researched on, or THROWN AWAY. Thats right, this is basically a ban on research on organic waste. We are talking about feritlized eggs, blastocyst in the size of about 150 cells. for reference, the brain of a fruitfly has 100000 cells.

Awesome.

I argue with conservatives a lot about a great many things. Most of my family labels themselves conservative for example. But on this issue, they always claimed they were not opposed to stem cell research, just opposed to federal funding for such research.

My response, and my thoughts on such matters, is that private companies have no profitable reason to engage in pure theoretical research, and that all modern, great technological leaps have been the result of government funding. Computers, the internet, rockets, you name it, it wasn't private industry who lead the way, it was government programs that facilitated the break through.

Private industry has no profit driven motivation to push the boundaries of theoretical research. It takes a non-profit organization to bridge the gap and attempt to produce what common wisdom would tell you is impossible.

... to continue my previous rant, ... these bio-ethicists like to paint the pictures like we understand waaay more than we actually do about genetics and epigenetics.

Many medical researchers are still afraid (appropriately, in my mind) that the various stem cell treatment and gene therapies will actually give people cancers in the long term.

TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Upvote, but this redditor said it best:
>> ^Redditor:
If this works as they claim it does it is simply amazing...
However, as a scientist (genomics/developmental biology) I am skeptical of the lack of evidence provided. They showed an image of "what his burn might have looked like" wasnt even him... and then showed the fully healed results (saying it was like that after 4 days)
I'm assuming this was filmed well after the 4 days unless his hair grew back in 4 days as well.
I'm not sure why they wouldnt show the progress over the 4 day period, or at the very least a before/after shot of his hand, arm, shoulder, face, whatever. It can't be b/c it was too graphic, they showed other scars... and it can't be b/c there weren't photos taken of his progress. If this is a new technique which is in testing phases, or trying to get it to market there must be tons of documentation and with that pics/video of the progress.
The idea is sound, and do not doubt it works as good if not better than current grafting techniques, but I do doubt that he was fully healed in 4 days and looking like he did on the video



There's another post on there about how hair can't grow back because the follicles are gone forever and no amount of magic stem cells will fix that.
Also, no surprise here, burns don't do their dirty work to a uniform depth. So you've got a burn area which is uneven which is why the end result is likely to look bumpy.

Also another link on that reddit post links to a BBC article which was banging on about this gun 6 years ago. I suspect the inventor is still hawking it around and tv companies are more than happy to hype it ridiculously.

>> ^TheGenk:

We all know that that didn't cure him. What cured him was accepting jesus christ as his savior.
</sarcasm>
But what this shows is that one day we will be able to take the genes for HIV-resistance and insert them into your stemcells or stemcells being transplanted to you(or any resistances we find or would be nice to have).


You also wiped out the existing white blood cells with chemo, which makes this a special case of was it the stem cells alone, or was the chemo needed as well. Chemo therapy has high risks as well, you can die from a simple infection in this depressed imuno-state. Like the lady said, it was more a proof of concept than a solution in itself.

Liberal media control... both sides have their propaganda, just watch Fox News.

Banning what you eat? I've never seen this as a talking point for liberals

How about banning important research for curing diseases because it uses stem cells?
How does that preserve our freedom. Yet it's a common conservative talking point.
Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?

I'm still in college right now so I'm not paying taxes. I however will have no problem paying taxes, even high taxes if I feel it is helping support government programs that help our country. The idea that the upper class having lower taxes will help our economy is flawed in my opinion. By lowering taxes for the upper class you are throwing away the largest potential tax income for the country.

I understand the trickle down effect, and it is a highly debated economic theory. I however think that when you have people with hundreds of millions of dollars getting huge tax breaks it hurts the country as a whole. I just think that their taxed income would help our society more in government programs, than in a bank.

My tax code is probably not as crazy as you think if you care to look it up, income tax on money earned over 400,000 used to be over 90% In the 1960's, I also venture that our country was a lot better off back then, when the super-rich had a sense American Pride, and were not just trying to get people elected so they can pile their money up higher, while creating an illusion of everyone being better off from lower taxes. Americans should be ashamed to amass $90 billion for their families (Waltons). Greed is not good.

>> ^Mashiki:

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.
You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

In this woman's case, she can probably look forward to better stem-cell based skin regeneration within the next couple of decades. Scientific progress... it works.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner: "to try to make sure all men are still being created equally."
"Still?" Don't you mean 'for the first time since the start of civilization?'
"All men are created equal" means equality under the law, not that humans are even remotely equal in abilities and cognitive complexity.

Good points, but I was more making an allusion to the Declaration than actually meaning to invoke the original. All I meant was that our position will likely be one of trying to keep the income disparity between the different classes from turning the rich and poor into effectively different species.

Right now, genetics makes a difference, but the range of human ability is pretty narrow compared to what will be possible with genetic engineering.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re: reprogenetics:
It's essentially the same as the term 'genetic engineering,' which liberal circles talk about frequently, generally being highly opposed to human genetic engineering and anything else "unnatural."
I'm more than a little plugged into what liberal circles talk about, and fears of human genetic engineering really never comes up. If it does, it's usually in the context of bashing right-wing fundamentalists who want to ban stem cell research.

Genemod food comes up a lot, but most of that is driven by deep mistrust of corporations doing things to boost profit without concern for long term public health risks, coupled with the whole natural/organic/pure/clean food thing so many liberals are in to.

I suppose the other big topic is the idea of companies being able to patent genetic codes. Liberals don't like that, but it's usually focused on corporations overstepping their bounds (e.g. patenting the DNA of people without their consent) than some general desire to prevent corporations from being able to patent genetic intellectual property they legitimately develop.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re: "You may need to elaborate on the "liberals oppose genetics" comment -- we like research into genetics"
Liberalism in the 1970s-1990s used to argue IQ etc. had "no genetic basis --not that IQ means anything."

[snip]

However, it's still very common to see liberals claiming human behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, or human intelligence research are meaningless or simply have too high a "yuck factor" to allow for open discussion. That's particularly true if you're dealing with the more interesting areas, which are taboo for liberals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html


I can't speak for all liberals on this one, but I don't see those kinds of subjects as being taboo. I guess what I do think is taboo is for someone to use studies like that to turn around and make the case that society should become less egalitarian because of it.

Maybe effective treatments using regenerative medicine (stem cells) will be available starting around the years 2030-2050.