Seems you have poor understanding of the value of a dollar in lean times, let alone hundreds of thousands. If a privet company or research institute wants to put a lobster trough yoga training that is one thing, but the government spending OUR money on things like that in these times is just silly, and its not even the worst example of the waste that government 'pet projects" cause.

Seems you also seem to have a poor understanding of the value of a dollar in lean times. Public investment in lean times is extra important, since infrastructure projects as well as research help revitalize the economy. The worst thing a government can do in times of crisis is to CUT SPENDING.
Austerity has never worked, it only exacerbates the lack of cash mobility, and it leads to DEEPENING of the depressions. That's what has happened in Mexico since the 70's following the advice of Austrian/Chicago school economists that advocated for Austerity.
Personal austerity is one thing, public, state-level austerity is another. Hell, it is in lean times where PUBLIC SPENDING should be the highest to restart the economic engines.

How has that been working for the U.S so far? Exactly how deep are the Americans in dept, how much "public" spending has been used to try and "stimulate" their economy only for it to continue to underperform and what exactly do they have to show for it?

.........l at least we know shrimp like to work out ,and who the world super power ISN'T going to be in a matter of a decade if even that.

Hell if that happens, anti-intellectualism is going to be a very, very important factor on that.

Sir, as a resident of the great state of Florida, where we have imported 85% of our residents from northern states, do find that statement most despicable!

Yeah, right,and it will have nothing to do with that country bleeding itself dry on war and welfare, I'm sure.

Which is fine, if one chooses to believe that someone who votes for a GOP candidate actually swallows the entire platform. The party does not equal the voters, and that goes for any party. When a party platform gets applied blanket-style to the 40% of the voting population that generally votes that way, then it becomes a stereotype and generalization.

I don't disagree, but I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with doing these things to make profit (in case anyone was reading "profit" as a four-letter word). If you have a 'dirty' product and can make inroads in the market against your competition by cleaning up your product in comparison to the the rest of the market, then more power to ya. It becomes a win-win-win: the marketplace gets what it wants (greener products), the business gets what it wants (more market share), and the industry sees that business's success from the strategic move and thus follows suit.

Of course, as you state, much of that comes from legislation and regulation. On the other hand, a lot comes from within industry, being proactive. Chasing the dollar? Definitely. But the result is a better, safer, greener, product. One example: that perennial whipping boy, Big Oil, and the improvements in their products over the years. "Top Tier" fuels is an industry creation that uses efficiency and green matters to help market this alternative product as something better than the standard product.

In that regard, I will disagree with the idea that industry most often will do nothing unless forced to do so by regulation. There's a big picture, and regulation, marketplace, profit, technology, overhead, and competition all play a role.



I argued in another thread maybe a year back that it doesn't matter if the conservative side of things buys into man-made climate change: if the fixes are marketed properly, you can sell them the ideas and changes necessary to put a halt to man's effects. The problem is, nobody is marketing it to them so it ends up as an us-versus-them. Given that us and them provide a healthy chunk of the funding necessary to implement those changes, it'll be an uphill battle until they can be brought on board.

Here's what I mean: regardless of the 'why' behind switching to energy-conserving products, sell them on the advantages it provides to them in terms other than climate change. Are you a backer of solar (I am, and have some plans for the future)? Then market it to say that it pays for itself after a while, adds equity to the property, can be manufactured domestically (this is difficult when competing against the Far East - just ask Solyndra - but can be done), and helps provide energy independence. Those are all things that should appeal to a conservative or GOP-voter and help them get over the significant hurdle of the upfront investment cost. Hardly anyone markets it this way, and the opportunity goes unrealized. Much of the climate change fight goes like this.

War, yes. Welfare, no. Welfare has a positive effect, last time I read the information about that. Every dollar used in welfare nets a return of 1.7 dollars to the economy, or somesuch.

So yeah.

Or do you think that a dollar spent on welfare or public spending just vanishes into the either? Things get spent, reinvested, used, and recycled through the economy.

I'm right there with you buddy!




I'm going to just dip my toe into this thread rather than get into who is right/wrong/inteligent/hypocritical and just state what I believe is at the root of the figures in the title. Most scientific spending in the US is by the government, so naturally a scientist should support those who keep promising to increase scientific spending over those promising to cut it. Asking about political leanings in this context is like asking a PepsiCo employee if they drink Coke products, or if a General Motors employee drive a Ford. Wether you are voting in a booth or with your wallet, it is always beneficial to favor whoever it is that signs your paycheck. As Dr. Ray Stanz once said "Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results!"

To be fair, in Ghostbusters, they also expected, if not results, at LEAST honest research.
Peter Venkman was an incredibly sleazy and unethical researcher, and he was the face of the paranormal investigation lab, while Egon and Ray were earnest and actually did work (with actual practical results!), Peter scammed, sleazed, and used his position to take advantage of students.
so yeah I'd blame Bill Murray. His antagonism ALSO is what caused the EPA dude to overreact, since he was REALLY REALLY dickish about every single thing.

Hell, the entire thing with Ghostbusters 2 is that Peter Venkman is a horrible, horrible dick, and things get better in the end when he stops being such a douche. He ruined his relationship with Sigoruney Weaver's character by being a douche

Both war and welfare are going to be reigned back, either when the U.S comes to its senses, or it has no more blood left to bleed, or other peoples money to spend.

I read it months ago, so i do not have either the graphs or the sources handy, I could go ask for them where I read it from though. Also: "The truth is welfare when not limited and put on a timer, causes people to be comfortable in poverty and that is NEVER a good thing, it robs people of their drive and in the long run their dignity."
a)In the USA, welfare IS limited. Five years. Cumulative. For life. It is by NO MEANS a "forever" deal. Hell, even for disability it is HIGHLY limited and with strict guidelines, from what I've read.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/welfarereform.htm
b)No one is comfortable in poverty. That is the most retarded talking point out there. I have never once understood that talking point myself.
c)The drive is lost more due to lack of opportunity, inertia, not because of complacency. Hell IIRC one of the things that is important to keep getting unemployment benefits is to ACTUALLY actively look for a job.
d)Dignity? Pride I'd say, then again, I do not share the "protestant work ethic" that sees labor as the source of dignity, but a lot of people do. Hell with that, just being on welfare itself is a loss of dignity, no "on the long run" there.

EDIT: Found a secondary source
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=938
Food stamp, 1.73 return per dollar used, unemployment benefit, 1.63 dollar return per dollar, etc, with tax cuts being really, really bad at returns.

Edit2: So welfare is a net positive. So yeah.

I've seen only a few documentaries or political debates on TV but it's way too often they connect the word dignity with work. It's ridiculous. It's not the work people want secured, it's the financial situation. The only reason we have that protestant work ethic is the horrible combination of former aristocratic powers and the Church so they could easier undermine the people. The idea that you want to contribute to your local community is another different matter but I can see why people would confuse them.

As for welfare, it's a political double-edged blade. We need to take care of those that can't take care of themselves. At the same time we can't promote the idea that it's good to be on any disability if there's any means you can become more independant. I also think that it's blown out of proportion how much welfare actually cost versus the cost of not paying at all. I would like to see a capitalistic country with zero or almost-zero welfare.

First of all, I'm not not protestant nor have I ever heard that term in English or my native language, how religion is relevant to having a pride in honest work? And in my view half a decade is FAR to long to be on any sort of temporary assistance, as for disability you can not tell me there is not a huge amount of fraud there?
Bear in mind English is not my mother tongue, perhaps pride/ self respect, would have been a more fitting.

I would say pride with a leaning towards negative connotation, but that's my opinion.