Well, they're all part of an economy but I'd say the more building and manufacturing the better. But in the US we've been outsourcing large parts of our manufacturing base ever since we started making free trade agreements. I guess we need to reduce wages so we can compete with foreign manufacturing, but then how much are those workers going to be able to spend in the economy?
If you look into it you'd find that ACORN often turned in their employees who committed voter registration fraud and actively helped prosecutors gather the necessary evidence.
In an economy that is 70% driven by consumer spending, you know, buying hamburgers and big screen TVs, who is going to invest unless the consumers have money to spend? When the poor get money they end up spending nearly all of it immediately whereas I, being pretty comfortable only spend half the money I make most years. Guess I need to go buy some more big screen TVs.
One measure of the health of an economy is cash flow, how fast the money is moving through the system. It's pretty slow right now.
You must be talking about the national deficit, how much we spend vs. how much we take in.
The national debt in January 2001 when Bush II took over was $5.6 trillion. In December of 2008 the national debt was $10.7 trillion, close to doubled. The estimate for the end of 2010 is $14.4 trillion.
Not impossible. The Democratic coalition in the Senate includes two Independents and several pretty conservative Democrats. As a whole they are less likely to vote in lockstep than the Republicans.
Agreed. If they were really liberal they would be pointing out things like the fact most of the countries in the world with single payer health care pay about half as much per person as we do in the US for essentially the same level of health care.
I have also heard (but not personally verified) that the prince has also sent some funds to the organization trying to build the "ground zero mosque". (Yes I know it's more like a YMCA than a mosque but by using that appellation everyone knows what I'm talking about.)
If newspapers are spending money on political campaigns rather than just reporting the news then yes, I don't believe they have the right to free speech. They can put their political opinions on the editorial page all they want but a corporation putting out political opinions without identifying the source of funding is wrong.
One of the really sad things about the Citizens United case is that the SCOTUS after hearing the initial arguments in the case asked the litigants to expand their arguments to include areas of law that were not part of the original suit just so they could rule on that. Talk about judicial activism!
Just as there are many different processes that add CO2 to the atmosphere there are many different processes that remove it from the atmosphere. It's just that the processes that store the carbon in the form of coal, petroleum and natural gas work on extremely long time scales compared to human time scales. The fact is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by nearly 40% in the past 150 years and that's almost completely due to human burning of fossil fuels.
Human emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with plant life. There was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere to support plant life before humans started burning fossil fuels and no prospect that stopping emissions would change that.
Would have replied sooner but I've been whitewater rafting the past 6 days.
Of course they use mathematics in the calculations. But as much as possible they try to incorporate the underlying physics in climate models rather than just simply mathematically fitting a curve to the data they have collected.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they're all part of an economy but I'd say the more building and manufacturing the better. But in the US we've been outsourcing large parts of our manufacturing base ever since we started making free trade agreements. I guess we need to reduce wages so we can compete with foreign manufacturing, but then how much are those workers going to be able to spend in the economy?
:)
If you look into it you'd find that ACORN often turned in their employees who committed voter registration fraud and actively helped prosecutors gather the necessary evidence.
The only "crime" ACORN committed was empowering people who those on the right didn't want empowered.
In an economy that is 70% driven by consumer spending, you know, buying hamburgers and big screen TVs, who is going to invest unless the consumers have money to spend? When the poor get money they end up spending nearly all of it immediately whereas I, being pretty comfortable only spend half the money I make most years. Guess I need to go buy some more big screen TVs.
One measure of the health of an economy is cash flow, how fast the money is moving through the system. It's pretty slow right now.
The only thing "trickle down economics" gets us in the long run is a nation of pee-ons.
As GP mentioned, it only works as long as people at the lower end of the economic spectrum have money to spend.
You must be talking about the national deficit, how much we spend vs. how much we take in.
The national debt in January 2001 when Bush II took over was $5.6 trillion. In December of 2008 the national debt was $10.7 trillion, close to doubled. The estimate for the end of 2010 is $14.4 trillion.
That 92% rate was the top marginal rate. It only applied to your income over several million dollars in today's dollars.
People making less than $20K/year make 3.1% of the income in the US. It would only be a symbolic gesture to raise their taxes.
Not impossible. The Democratic coalition in the Senate includes two Independents and several pretty conservative Democrats. As a whole they are less likely to vote in lockstep than the Republicans.
How much of that market share is due to exclusive deals with hotel chains and other outlets?
Agreed. If they were really liberal they would be pointing out things like the fact most of the countries in the world with single payer health care pay about half as much per person as we do in the US for essentially the same level of health care.
I have also heard (but not personally verified) that the prince has also sent some funds to the organization trying to build the "ground zero mosque". (Yes I know it's more like a YMCA than a mosque but by using that appellation everyone knows what I'm talking about.)
If newspapers are spending money on political campaigns rather than just reporting the news then yes, I don't believe they have the right to free speech. They can put their political opinions on the editorial page all they want but a corporation putting out political opinions without identifying the source of funding is wrong.
One of the really sad things about the Citizens United case is that the SCOTUS after hearing the initial arguments in the case asked the litigants to expand their arguments to include areas of law that were not part of the original suit just so they could rule on that. Talk about judicial activism!
Um... socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. That's true of capitalism as well.
If you really want to see the stars get yourself to some place over 5,000 ft in elevation away from light pollution. It can be breathtaking!
Yes, I re-read his post and you're right, it is over the top. :)
The air has been pretty hazy here in Western Oregon lately and apparently that's at least partially because of all of the fires in Russia.
Just as there are many different processes that add CO2 to the atmosphere there are many different processes that remove it from the atmosphere. It's just that the processes that store the carbon in the form of coal, petroleum and natural gas work on extremely long time scales compared to human time scales. The fact is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by nearly 40% in the past 150 years and that's almost completely due to human burning of fossil fuels.
The SCOTUS in Massachusettes v EPA disagrees with you.
Human emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with plant life. There was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere to support plant life before humans started burning fossil fuels and no prospect that stopping emissions would change that.
Would have replied sooner but I've been whitewater rafting the past 6 days.
Of course they use mathematics in the calculations. But as much as possible they try to incorporate the underlying physics in climate models rather than just simply mathematically fitting a curve to the data they have collected.
So they're planning to go out of business before 2020? That's the only way I can think of to guarantee that statement.
The hell with BASIC. You don't really understand computer programming until you can do it in some assembler language.