champu

I should have said "unemployment comp" in my previous post to avoid confusion. And, further, by "comprehensive expansion" I meant things like guaranteed coverage of housing, food, etc. The questions I asked were intended to lead the conversation away from giving people money and towards things like expanded access to education (particularly things like trade schools) as I believe these types of programs are the ones that have the greatest potential to actually help poor people. If only the ones who appreciate the help. On a side note... Take a compliment from me for what it's worth, but your salesmanship in this last post is much improved over what I've gotten used to reading from you.

First off, thanks for replying to my questions. I think we can see eye to eye on unemployment and its intent, particularly its benefit to society as a whole in keeping unemployment from blowing up, but I still doubt that it helps individuals very much. It may be that it's just part of a solution that needs to involve other things. I can't imagine even the most comprehensively expanded unemployment programs preventing people from bouncing back and forth between dead end minimum wage jobs and the unemployment office. I think that's what people are talking about when they say "throwing money at poverty doesn't work." There are a lot of programs in place that cover a lot of bases. There are still poor people. Before we expand or add to these programs we have to be clear about what we want to do for society and what we want to do for poor individuals. I don't think simply spending more in the same ways we have been will help either very much. That's all I'm trying to get across. I didn't mean to suggest we let people die because they get fired. /edited to correct two improper uses of the contraction of "it is" where I should have written the possessive "its."

I've answered them previously, but … >If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? It helps them specifically by allowing them such things as food and shelter. It also keeps money moving in the economy, which benefits everyone. Okay, but assuming the poor people seek food and shelter by shopping at Walmart and renting a place, that money quickly ends up back in the hands of rich people. You said yourself money flows from poor to rich. A month later we're right where we started. This may be okay if continued forever, but there may be sustainability issues, and I also may be losing sight of the goal. Does simply keeping people alive actually empower them in any way? I don't think "horrible economic times" stem from a simple uneven distribution of wealth. I think horrible economic times come from bubbles bursting. Situations where a relatively small group reel the masses into an unsustainable economic construct. This can take on any number of forms, and it's not always as obvious as the lead up to the dot-com bust or the housing market collapse. What does this have to do with social programs? Quite simply, I don't accept solutions (public or private) where everyone wins and the possibility that such a system may suffer a collapse in the future isn't addressed.

Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole? When money is saved, it is subject to reserve requirements. That means that part of it is removed from the economy. When money is spent, it is all returned to the economy. It's why trickle down economics doesn't work. I don't think rich people sink substantial amounts of money into savings accounts. Sensible investment vehicles don't have reserve requirements. I suppose you could get some affect from this, but I don't know how significant it would be. Any thoughts on the other questions? They are actually the more interesting ones im-ever-ho. (to borrow a phrase from Marg)

Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole?

So you are drawing a false connect between taxation and spending. Show me a recent president that spent more and taxed more too. Oh yea, you can't, so quit your false premise. You use the budget deficit/surplus as a measure of economic health in one breath and jump down someone's throat when they suggest deficit spending is irresponsible in the next. Your stance on this is rather enigmatic. Do you care if a president runs a deficit? Is it only okay as long as the rich are being taxed "enough" and the budget is primarily social programs? (i.e. a deficit you approve of?) My goal would be to have a responsibly sized budget and a tax code that generates sufficient revenue to support it. Achieving this would probably involve a smaller military than we currently have, not having every social program you desire, and working to simplify the tax code (focus on closing loopholes) to help it generate the revenue it should be generating rather than simply turning the "progressiveness" knob up to 11 because it's "one more social, in'nt it?"

No, that's not where it originated. Someone said that republicans and democrats alike have failed us. You claimed that no, no, no, democrats haven't failed us. I told you that politicians are politicians and you should put the pom-poms down. I'm not defending republicans, and I'm not slamming democrats, I'm saying that the job they all do has become one that usually isn't worth defending, let alone with the fervor that you display in doing so. It depends upon who voted for it. For example NAFTA was initiated by GHWB, then the Dem controlled congress passed it with overwhelming Repub support, even tho they were a minority. That was more Repub than Dem. Then Clinton signed it. That was an issue that was more systemeic, but it had more Repub support. That's all well and good, but if congress passes a shitty bill, I hold at least the majority party and in all likelihood both parties at fault. I would rather look at the budget, the issues, the intent and the result as a whole rather than a microcosm. I can take any fragment and make a point that might not be representative of the truth. On that I think we can toast. To sensible decisions!

Absolutely correct it is bipartisan... I said it once and I'll say it again, politicians are politicians, I'd put down the pom-poms if I were you. If the pentagon drafts a budget of $640B, and the house and senate pass a $600B defense bill that mandates $40B must be spent on sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their heads because lobbyists told them to then both the republicans and democrats have failed us. Can we agree here? Or would you read such a headline and paraphrase it as "democratic-lead house and senate succeed in cutting defense spending by 6.25%."

Could you be a little more broad? How have teh Dems failed the country? How about this? Last week a democratic-majority senate voted to fund a miltary program that the white house and pentagon tried to cancel to save tax dollars and don't even want. Politicians are politicians, I'd put down the pom-poms if I were you.

Oh yeah? Well who died and put them in charge? huh? Why, it was Alfred Nobel himself. His last will and testament left the bulk of his estate to set up the Nobel prizes. Alas, poor humor! I knew him.

Oh yeah? Well who died and put them in charge? huh?

Anyone other than a family or cabinet member that puts a bumper sticker for a political candidate on their car (don't even get me started on people leaving it there after a victory or defeat) will solicit a slow disappointed head shake from me. Party lines get redrawn more often than European boarders last century and with a lot less sensibility. You'd have to be schizophrenic to stand behind a candidate like that.

huh?

Just as there aren't canopies that are "exactly the same except for the number of cells" you can't really specify that two different canopies be "flown in exactly the same way." either. I know you meant to say, "flown in their respective best way possible considering the spot," in which case, yes, higher-aspect ratio canopies and those with less drag will generally "win." What Kallend is trying to say is that if you (taking your example) fly both a sabre2 and a spectre back from a bad spot "in their respective best way possible considering the spot," and the sabre2 makes it back but the spectre doesn't, then you should sort out your spotting rather than (or at least in addition to) buying a new canopy. Barely making it back from spots all the time is a good way to have yourself an accident. Even if you choose to go with a 9-cell, which one do you pick? A pulse or a stiletto are going to make it much easier (their full flight mode is trimmed flatter) to get back than a sabre2 or a silhouette, but each come with more characteristics than just full flight glide. You're right back where you started in that it's in your best interest to try a wide variety of canopies, and once you're doing that it doesn't make sense to exclude 7-cell canopies.

...and here's what happens when you put a hand down for "balance"

It's funny as I look through my photos I realize a) how infrequently I shoot student landings and b) how infrequently I shoot all the way to until finish / feet on the ground Here's a sequence that's not quite perfect, but is not bad...

Agree completely. The truth is that these days there's a canopy design out there for everyone, and 7-cell and 9-cell canopies are going to have overlapping flight characteristics. You can demo any of them* from the manufacturer for a couple weeks or you could find a used one in decent shape for 700 bucks, put a few hundred jumps on it and sell it for 500 bucks. * note to the OP that if you're just off student status you shouldn't demo either of the canopies in my previous post

I have an easier time making it back from long/short spots with my 7-cell velocity than I did with my 9-cell katana.

You can't be Sirius? Ugh... What? Are you homophoneaphobic? paronomasiphobic.

I have a white conductive filament smock that resembles a lab coat, does that count?

You can't be Sirius? Ugh... Encyclopedic knowledge by public decree or devine knowledge by prophetic decree... both have their pitfalls.

no no no... "Recessive-American"

I think it can be non-trivial. Especially on a day with very light winds aloft and you get the 3-way "belly" group that funnels into a ball immediately followed by a 2-way "freefly" group that launches a train (which usually results in backflying out the door at only slightly over belly speeds.) I'm not suggesting that freefliers get out before belly fliers if everyone on the load meets some pre-selected level of "suck", I'm just suggesting that if you see a belly group right before you funnel horribly or if you don't nail your freefly exits then you should wait an extra couple seconds between groups.

So I have a few questions... First, supposing a military reduction is achieved via a staged approach as talked about in another recent thread, the healthcare reform bill goes through to provide subsidies to the needy, and perhaps a few other changes are made such that the budget comes under balance with the current (still progressive) tax structure. What if that doesn't work? By "work" I mean close the class gap you're worried about. Raise taxes again? Spent it on what? My second question is, do you believe that more shelters are needed for the homeless? And do you ever feel that homeless shelters, once built, will close their doors for lack of need? How might your answer change as more shelters are built? Finally, you mentioned a number of different reasons that a person could come on hard times... layoffs, disability, etc... towards which compassion seems reasonable. Do you feel that the burden of supporting a family with a low paying job is such a situation?

I'm not suggesting that your arguments are any less sound as a result of typos. I'm suggesting your arguments are less sound because you're not even paying attention to what you're arguing. He repeated back your statement in the form of a question the very next sentence using the word "spending." That's all I was going on, you might still be right.