Think of it as trickle up economics. Through taxes, you take stagnant funds from the super rich and use them for infrastructure projects (taking up the slack for the lack of decent paying private sector jobs) and in the process creating jobs and wealth for the working class. Then these newly employed people put all that earned cash back into the economy, creating profit for business and tax revenue for the government. It's redistribution of wealth, but done in such a way that the money trickles back to where it started, helping everyone else along the way as that money finds its way once again into corporate coffers. In order to make a big enough dent in unemployment, the stimulus package needs to be massive. This plan worked well for FDR, effectively ending the great depression, which is no small feat. Obama's much less ambitious stimulus plan was not enough to get the job done.



>> ^blankfist:

^Haha. Obama's stimulus was too small, he says. Fuck me sideways, I'll never understand you statists. Maybe we should print another couple trillion or so, keep feeding it to the top percent in the corporatist and banking machine see if that helps the poor out this time? Maybe the banks will lend this time? Or maybe the corporatist giants won't take the golden parachute this time and instead will reinvest in American jobs?
If it doesn't work, we can always say the amount wasn't enough and start all over again.

^Haha. Obama's stimulus was too small, he says. Fuck me sideways, I'll never understand you statists. Maybe we should print another couple trillion or so, keep feeding it to the top percent in the corporatist and banking machine see if that helps the poor out this time? Maybe the banks will lend this time? Or maybe the corporatist giants won't take the golden parachute this time and instead will reinvest in American jobs?

If it doesn't work, we can always say the amount wasn't enough and start all over again.

Obama's stimulus was too small and didn't put enough people to work, unlike FDR, who got us out of the great depression with his stimulus plan. Economist Paul Krugman correctly predicted that Obama's plan was big not enough to make dent: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/ >> ^quantumushroom:

So the "Stimulus" was an abject failure? Statist idiots.

It'a fake. Not only is the guy's scale too small in comparison with the truck, you can also see some weird movement when he's on the rooftop, where his movement and the truck's don't match.

Hah, I saw this on the UK BFBC2 forum a few hours ago. Internet is too small, needs an expansion.

As for the video itself: "Mein Leben!"

I am not really sure, I think he is talking about the fallacy of explanation. This is an informal fallacy were the scope of the question is too small both in explanation of the scope and depth of the phenomena. The jist of the conversation was I suggested that voting might be a bad thing to include as a birth right, that some right of passage might make for a better system for all. You would value you vote more, and it would make sure that the most vested in doing the leg work on being a good citizen would have a say in how things went on. There are pit falls, as in all systems, to avoid. And I wasn't even proposing it as an end all solution, but he labeled me a fascist and so I ended the conversation and any desire to participate with conversations with him anymore.

I can handle ideas outside my way of thinking, I rather enjoy it...iron sharpens iron and all. But I don't like dogmatic attacks against any idea that isn't considered normal. DYS has the same unreasonable "faith" in pure democracy as he criticizes in people with the same faith in market economics; both misplaced imo. I find a systemic problem with democracy, and I strive to find a solution for its inherit flaws. I might come back and conclude that it is the best solution given that weaknesses of man, but I won't give up thinking outside the box because of dogma.


In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
@GeeSuss what's the blue sky defence?

@DFT why are you fucking chickens? That's not cool man, you can seriously harm them psychologically.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.

A bunch of them were overdubbed, but some of them seemed not to be... and what the hell was up with Kelly McGillis? Her head looks way too small for her body!

But that would seem to be a VAST array of pretty much entirely has beens.

Very odd video

that dana chick has no idea what she is talking about.
trickle down economics=proven failure.
the top 2% have NOT created new jobs and when given tax breaks they:
1.do not spend that extra cash but rather invest..in OTHER countries AND focus their immense wealth to further lobby legislation to promote their own self-interest (be they a corporation or private person).
2.the stimulus was not meant to create jobs but rather stabilize our consumer based economy in the form of credit lines remaining open and while the debate may be if it was too small or too big there is no debate if it worked..it did.

i really have a problem with shows like this and we are inundated with them.on the surface it appears to be attempting to understand complex topics and discuss possible reasons and solutions but all the public gets are people regurgitating talking points and rhetoric and nothing gets accomplished.
entertaining?
maybe... for some i guess, but at the end of the show viewers are still ignorant to the reality of the situation.
this woman dana even tried to promote a false narrative using historical context and even the context she tried to use was propaganda!
but if you didnt KNOW the history she may have sounded reasonable and authoritive and you may have been swayed to accept her premise.
this is the place most americans find themselves.giving authority to a person just because they may be on TV and speak in a confident manner,even though the information they are using is patently false.


ignorance is curable but not with shows such as this.
shows like this only serve to keep people ignorant and they seem to only be getting more popular.

Yeah, the heads are way too small at the moment, but considering the scope of the system it might not be the easiest thing to fix. Here's hoping they do it because otherwise it's looking really slick.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Liquid would never have fit in that box.
Well, as you can see at 1:40, Maru doesn't either.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Maru, boxes, too small' to 'Maru, boxes, too small, scottish fold, cute, adorable, box, kitty, cat, japan, experiment' - edited by lucky760

2,5 months at the time. too small

>> ^Fjnbk:
Keynesian economics works. The stimulus helped save jobs, but it was too small, not too big. Stifling regulation didn't cause this crisis. Deregulating the financial sector was the real cause.


Oh boy. Ridiculous. "Too big to fail" should've truly been "too big to succeed." But that doesn't drum up fear does it?

Ugh. The YouTube description is just full of crap. Sometimes, regulations can be counterproductive, but the idea that the best way out of the recession is to cut regulation is just silly. Keynesian economics works. The stimulus helped save jobs, but it was too small, not too big. Stifling regulation didn't cause this crisis. Deregulating the financial sector was the real cause.

>> ^Gallowflak:

I like him. But I think it's dense to imagine religion as being the root of all evil. Religion is a fabrication of man, and has to be a consequence of something else. It's the inadequacy of the human creature which is the root of all evil, filtering into the world through various delightful minty flavours.

Agreed. Christopher Hitchens put it with characteristic bluntness when he spoke of the inherent shortcomings of human beings.

"This kind of theocratic fascism will never die because we belong to a very poorly-evolved mammarian species. I'm a complete materialist in that sense. We're stuck with being the product of a very sluggish evolution. Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big. Our fear of the dark and of death is very intense, and people will always be able to profit from that."

-Interview with Johann Hari, 2004