Barack Obama on Science

[Skiwan]

The tax breaks are there to encourage spending, and is probably one of the things the Japanese prime minister talked with Obama about, since the Japanese economy is based mostly on exports. America is the biggest consumer of their exports, but in recent months America's consumption of Japanese product has dropped by a massive 50%, which is hurting the Japanese economy extremely badly. Not only that but tax breaks give a bigger stimulation to businesses, and at the moment that is what is important, business's are having a hard time breaking even, this is mostly due to the drop in consumption from people being to scared/desperate not to spend. The idea is you drop tax of the public, and they'll find they will be able to afford those things that they didnt think they could, and help stimulate the market to get it earning more, so employment doesn't drop.

I could go on and on, but tax breaks are a good idea imo.

 

[Killface]

The tax breaks are there to encourage spending, and is probably one of the things the Japanese prime minister talked with Obama about, since the Japanese economy is based mostly on exports. America is the biggest consumer of their exports, but in recent months America's consumption of Japanese product has dropped by a massive 50%, which is hurting the Japanese economy extremely badly. Not only that but tax breaks give a bigger stimulation to businesses, and at the moment that is what is important, business's are having a hard time breaking even, this is mostly due to the drop in consumption from people being to scared/desperate not to spend. The idea is you drop tax of the public, and they'll find they will be able to afford those things that they didnt think they could, and help stimulate the market to get it earning more, so employment doesn't drop.

I could go on and on, but tax breaks are a good idea imo.

I agree with tax cuts too.. but spending all this money that we DONT have is the major problem i have with obama.

 

[Zeonix]

It sounds like you're parroting someone. What money (that we don't have) is being spent on what, and can't be accounted for by cutting back on programs that would increase revenue over x period of time (take this for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/will-the-taxman-cometh_n_170082.html)?

 

[Killface]

Zeo, last time i checked we're in debt by 14 Trillion dollars, and President Obama wants to spend another 787 billion.

We're using money that technically doesn't exist. Sure... we're in the hole by 14 trillion.. whats it gonna hurt if we increase that by another 787 billion. The stimulus package seems like a high stakes gamble that isn't very favored to work.

 

[Zeonix]

Zeo, last time i checked we're in debt by 14 Trillion dollars, and President Obama wants to spend another 787 billion.

We're using money that technically doesn't exist. Sure... we're in the hole by 14 trillion.. whats it gonna hurt if we increase that by another 787 billion. The stimulus package seems like a high stakes gamble that isn't very favored to work.

You didn't answer my question, nor did you provide any theories or suggestions on how we could dig ourselves out of this debt hole. That said, I didn't expect you to.

Unless you're proposing a complete and total spending freeze, money is going to be spent. If we're going to spend money, what's the smartest way to spend it? Well, for one, you get rid of **** you don't need or **** that doesn't serve the interest of Americans. How do you do that? Tax breaks for the rich, and businesses that go overseas and the like go bye bye. Hell, let's try to kill tax breaks on hedge funds, too. This frees up funds to spend on little things like, oh I don't know, healthcare reform. Silly things like that. So you're not spending money in addition to what we're already spending money on. We're siphoning it away from one program and sending it to another, or taxing people who most definitely should be paying higher taxes.

As for our tax break, our being the middle class, you don't seem to understand what is projected to happen. This can pretty much be explained with L4D. When it first came out, a ****load of people bought it, but even more people didn't. So they lowered the price. They sold what? A gazillion percent more, raking in more profits after lowering their prices than they did with the original retail price? Well, since we can't lower the price of everything, we need to do something similar. How about we put more money in the consumer's pocket. Yeah. They'll consume quite a bit more, be it on food or entertainment or clothing, if they have some extra scratch. That is where we're supposed to get an influx of cash from. Unless everyone does a 180 and decides to save their money. I don't forsee that happening since people are stupid.

Now, tax breaks for the rich didn't make sense. They don't need them, and they aren't going to go out and spend more. They didn't get rich by spending all of their money. They got rich by spending as little as possible to maximize profits, further lining their pockets.

Anyway, we're spending money we already have on something else. That's pretty much what it boils down to. In order to fund certain projects, our deficit will probably go up, but at this point, there isn't much you can do about it unless you want to stop spending altogether, and let civilians fend for themselves. Not something I'd advise.

 

[Killface]

You didn't answer my question, nor did you provide any theories or suggestions on how we could dig ourselves out of this debt hole. That said, I didn't expect you to.

Unless you're proposing a complete and total spending freeze, money is going to be spent. If we're going to spend money, what's the smartest way to spend it? Well, for one, you get rid of **** you don't need or **** that doesn't serve the interest of Americans. How do you do that? Tax breaks for the rich, and businesses that go overseas and the like go bye bye. Hell, let's try to kill tax breaks on hedge funds, too. This frees up funds to spend on little things like, oh I don't know, healthcare reform. Silly things like that. So you're not spending money in addition to what we're already spending money on. We're siphoning it away from one program and sending it to another, or taxing people who most definitely should be paying higher taxes.

As for our tax break, our being the middle class, you don't seem to understand what is projected to happen. This can pretty much be explained with L4D. When it first came out, a ****load of people bought it, but even more people didn't. So they lowered the price. They sold what? A gazillion percent more, raking in more profits after lowering their prices than they did with the original retail price? Well, since we can't lower the price of everything, we need to do something similar. How about we put more money in the consumer's pocket. Yeah. They'll consume quite a bit more, be it on food or entertainment or clothing, if they have some extra scratch. That is where we're supposed to get an influx of cash from. Unless everyone does a 180 and decides to save their money. I don't forsee that happening since people are stupid.

Now, tax breaks for the rich didn't make sense. They don't need them, and they aren't going to go out and spend more. They didn't get rich by spending all of their money. They got rich by spending as little as possible to maximize profits, further lining their pockets.

Anyway, we're spending money we already have on something else. That's pretty much what it boils down to. In order to fund certain projects, our deficit will probably go up, but at this point, there isn't much you can do about it unless you want to stop spending altogether, and let civilians fend for themselves. Not something I'd advise.

Your thought process makes perfect sense... as it usually does. I agree with what your saying.

Here's the thing i don't understand. How are we able to spend more money if we're already in the hole by 14 trillion? That number is almost too big for me to comprehend. Thats roughly 1400 Donald Trumps or 1200 Vince McMahons. It's insane....

Does the US government think "hey.. were already in the hole 14 trillion... would it really make much of a difference if we add another 800 Billion to that?" Is this a gamble?

 

[sub]

The government can spend as much money as they want. They can print more money or borrow, issue bonds, etc.. None of these things are desirable, but they allow us to spend money we don't have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

With that being said, ever since the countries inception we've been in debt and I don't think that's going to change any time soon. Clinton managed to balance the budget and Obama is promising to do the same (I believe he said he'll reveal a plan by monday?). As is the nature of these things, though, I'm sure if we do manage to balance the budget the next president will just **** it up again. We're going to have to undergo a massive rethinking of government in order for that to change.

 

[guest]

The government can spend as much money as they want. They can print more money or borrow, issue bonds, etc.. None of these things are desirable, but they allow us to spend money we don't have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

With that being said, ever since the countries inception we've been in debt and I don't think that's going to change any time soon. Clinton managed to balance the budget and Obama is promising to do the same (I believe he said he'll reveal a plan by monday?). As is the nature of these things, though, I'm sure if we do manage to balance the budget the next president will just **** it up again. We're going to have to undergo a massive rethinking of government in order for that to change.

But now you're over 10 trillion dollars in debt and that's the most it's been since the 50s, perhaps ever. That's the kind of debt you could buy entire countries for.
The real fix for the economy is to stop the business cycle all together. Remove the central "federal" bank, stop issuing bonds and begin printing your own money. Bring Lincoln's Colonial Script back, and in a decade or three you'll pay off your insane debt and the whole world will have a lot more "real" money in it.

 

[sub]

Printing money = inflation

 

[guest]

bonds= inflation.

Borrowing money on interest from a bank to pay back the interest from your last loan from said bank.. Not gonna fix inflation. Printing money worked under Lincoln because they only ever printed as much as was necessary, they understood it was more risky to have too much than it was to have too little.

 

[Devion]

I just have to reply to the people are saying that evolution is "just a theory". This theory(Now 200 years old) has never been disproved by science and if it would, it would been thrown out of the window.(As it is based on the falsification principle)

Now the theory of evolution you can basicly divide in several parts. The main part, natural selection, of the theory of evolution is already PROVEN. It happens and besides that it's common SENSE. Now what isn't exactly proven is HOW we evolved. Did we evolve from a ape like creature? Now all the fossils points out to this direction but we haven't answered everything and much more research is needed.

Suggesting that the earth/universe is 6000 years old is just dead WRONG.(Being part of the creationist "theory") All the dating methodes(All based on different principles) show a magnitude of atleast 3,5-4 billions years old.(Scientists think it's about 4,5 billion) Also you can logically estimate how old the universe is by calculating how long it took some star's light to reach us.

Now switching back to evolution, we haven't found any MODERN human(Aka homo sapiens) like fossil that is like 200 millions years old. The first human fossil(Not homo sapiens, but an ancestor) we found in Africa and they are estimated to be 65,000 years old. Now we can draw two conclusions, or we evolved from these ancestors or they mysteriously all died out and god decided to make the homo sapien. Which one is more likely?

I'm not saying god doesnt exist for two reasons. The statement is scientifcally unsound and I simply don't know/care. But denying evolution as a whole or suggesting to teach ID as an equal theory to evolution is just plain stupid. ID isn't science, they don't research anything besides pointing out things evolution hasn't explained yet. And worst of all they already have an answer before they even started.(There has to be a creator of some kind)

And lets be honest, we all know what the ID "scientists" real intention is and that is to put god(Preferably the Christian god) back in the classroom. If you just want to discuss Christian values in the classroom, that's fine by me, but it is NOT science. It's philosophy at best.

OT: I'm glad Obama is going to promote science. Science has alot to offer us and already brought us alot of things(Computer, TV, cars etc.) and in the long run really help the American economy. Too bad for his 800 billions dollar plan which is just a VERY bad idea. America needs to learn that it can't spend what it doesn't have. This stimulus will only work for the short term. Tax cuts are a good idea(Which will in long terms hopefully result in a smaller government), but you will also cut the spending. Didn't B. Clinton introduce the balance budget and some common financial sense?