Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

The argument is exactly that. Rich folk tend to invest. You put money in their pocket, and they'll typically invest it in equity or bonds. Both of these things bring down the cost of corporate borrowing either directly (through bond buying) or indirectly (through supporting the share price, and thus the equity available to borrow against). The hypothesis is that this will lead to more hiring, job retention, or capital investment.

My main issue with it is that in a global economy it doesn't provide any guarantees those jobs happen here. Further, if you don't support demand, there is no real incentive to grow the firm. That's why I think considering the supply side is backwards.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?

Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

As Richard Dawkins once put it:
“Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite ... If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there - the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field - is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sum right.”

As prof. Cox touched on, we don't just need people at college/university, but we need a public that understands the scientific method and thinking. I mean forget higher education for a bit, what we need, is middle school and hell, kindergardens, that teach kids HOW to think, not what to think. You dont need everyone to know the mass of the Higgs or what the Golgi apparatus does, what you need is for everyone to understand what kind of thinking that led to discover such facts, we need humans trained in the art of critical thinking, people with stimulates the brain. If kids have learned nothing else in school by the age of 15, at least they should have learned critical thinking.

>> ^doogle:

BORING


I disagree. I find it so sexually stimulating that I'd like to stick my penis into that bed of pebbles.

I just watched 2 hours of Stephen Hawking to stimulate my brain and after only 1 1/2 minutes of this I feel like it was all for nothing.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

OK, i get it. Not everyone likes to watch videos of kittehs barking and puppies meowing. Then again, not everyone wants to watch "intellectually stimulating" videos and discuss it's merits.

As irritating as lolcats can be....the condescending tone of this post makes me .

Goose bumps are created when tiny muscles at the base of each hair, known as arrectores pilorum, contract and pull the hair erect. The reflex is started by the sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for many fight-or-flight responses.

During the formation of goose bumps, the body is warmed from the muscle tension in piloerection.

As a response to cold: in animals covered with fur or hair, the erect hairs trap air to create a layer of insulation. Goose bumps can also be a response to anger or fear: the erect hairs make the animal appear larger, in order to intimidate enemies.

ulcer pain sounds like an intensely stimulating trigger of sharp pain... i seem to remember goosebumps while getting a tattoo

"Imagine having to make a decision to put down your 19 year old son or daughter. That's probably pretty close to how the guy feels about his dog"

No. It. Is. Not.

As for the other responses, the "will to live/eat" argument, I call bullshit. Every living thing has survival instincts, thats why they exist in the first place. But dogs do not on a human level understand the connection between eating and surviving, they do not stop eating because they've "lost the will to live". That is us, humans, antropomorphising the dogs brain. They dont have that same cognitive future-predicting brain we do. They dont make that kind of connection. Whatever triggers the "i'm gonna stop eating and go die" behaviour is probably connected with dogs and wolves pack behaviour, which would be triggered because the dog "knows" that its would slow down the pack, and thus decides to leave. This would however not be knowledge, but evolved pack behaviour, and is unreliable to determine whether the dog has a worthy life. This behaviour could also be triggered in false alarm cases, such as hormones during or after mating seasons and so forth, one week later and the dog is happy as ever.

What is clear, is that this dog, in the video, cannot run anymore, it cannot fetch, search or do anything that stimulates its brain anymore. A dog thats being fed by an owner every day do not have the evolutionary history, nor the brains, to decide that this isnt a life worth living. Which is excactly were the dogs owners brain is supposed to come in: The dog eats because its hungry, it drinks because its thirsty. In more aspects than ever, its being artificially kept alive , as most dogs are most of their life, because they are domesticated and are thus useless hunters/scavengers, but they can still be happy and pain free, but in cases like this, it is literally being kept alive in pain, which is due to the owners emotional commitment.

And thats really all there is to it, if the living creature in front of you is in constant pain, constant agonizing pain, and you are keeping it alive on the basis of your personal feelings, you are hurting that animal. Every day. And those are sad, painful days for that animal. We do the same thing to some humans, even when they express their desire to die, which is a separate issue, but also sad, but atleast most humans can express such desires, and understand what it means to die and escape the pain, but dogs cant. Which is why we should make the hard decision and let them go, even if that hurts so, so much (again, yes I DO know, and yes I have had enough dogs in my life to know).

>> ^ant:

Why did they laugh?
Wow for the white car that made it alive.


it all makes sense when you imagine you were on some drug, even stoned... I believe that is why they laugh, not because they think spontaneous violence is funny, but because it is very stimulating for the senses and imagination... maybe?

This was pretty much my experience playing the game. Throughout the game you'll be observing incremental changes of data, make small adjustments, and continue the simulation. This would have been great for a real life computer programmer who can sit long hours in front of the computer without much visual stimulation and be able to observe text based data for hours on end. For others, it is a complete nightmare.

I've tried to love paradox, I really did. I played all three Europa Universalis series, Victoria and the Crusader Kings. They're all equally repetitive and data focused. I thought I was stupid for not being able to enjoy the game. But I later found out that it's not about me being stupid. It was just a matter of preference.

Paradox fans argue that Hearts of Iron is suppose to be an 'action-based' series and that people who want more action should play that instead. LOL That's a load of bollocks lol lol lol Calling Hearts of Iron an 'action-based' game is like an African villager calling Cheetah the fastest thing in the world, not having seen airplanes or trains or cars in his or her life. The game is equally slow, except instead of 'build textile' buttons, you get 'build tanks' buttons.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/03/1334230/how-chemistry-stymies-attempts-to-regulate-synthetic-drugs

There is an ever increasing crackdown on vendors of these stimulants, and an ever increasing response from the chemists by synthesizing more. One of the people who ran a website just for vendors got caught up in a sting operation, and he is one of many similar stories taking place.

http://internetchem.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-crackdown-on-research-chemical.html

The legislation in response to this has been to basically ban "chemicals" ... and i wish i were kidding about the specificity in some of the laws... although in all cases, banning a specific one does nothing.

It's almost like you can't win a war on drugs... only a war on the people who use them... that's a fact sure to help cure the paranoia, but just in case, lets make sure people who are angry and under-medicated can get guns.


if we're the majority who is deciding our lives for us...the plot thickens*!







*just kidding its old white men and their nagging wives.

>> ^bobknight33:

How about Jobs, Jobs jobs Jobs and less debt


In a recession, the two are mutually exclusive. Go read up on your Keynes.

Congress refuses to enact a real stimulus package because of the huge deficit--one that they created--and offers no suggestions other than tax cuts, which do little to stimulate demand and increase the deficit. Back in 2000, we should've been increasing marginal rates rather than cutting them. If that'd been done, we'd have lots of breathing room for real stimulus. Know-nothing simplistic people like you are the problem, and have nothing to do with the solution.