champu

It sounds as though she'd be willing to dismiss just about any engineering endeavor simply because the physics behind it was too simple for her tastes, or if the wrong person ended up with their face on it. The physics behind just about anything that the average person interacts with on a day to day basis are not that complicated. But as you say, that's missing the point completely.

A government spent dollar is not inherently more or less potent than a private dollar, and not all government spent dollars are equally potent in stimulating the economy. (A trivial example would be foreign aid money paid to another government is unlikely to have the same effect on our country's economy as a social security payment to a retired person living in the US.) The reason this "multiplier" idea comes up when it comes to government spending is that if the economy is stimulated in a particular way by government spending and the tax structure is set up to tax that sort of economic activity, then cutting spending or raising spending won't affect the deficit 1:1. That's the big take-away. More private money spent within the country is even better for the deficit because then you get the added revenue without the direct outlay, but the government doesn't have direct control over that. The government can [try to] influence private spending if they so choose, but that generally translates back to the government spending money. I didn't read the full article in the OP because I'm not going to register to do so, but this "multiplier" concept is probably best kept as a qualitative exercise. Anyone who claims, "You can't cut spending now! I've calculated 'the multiplier' and it is currently 3.14159265! That would be foolish!" is full of crap.

If you think Chavez's stance on Labor is questionable, wait 'til you hear the guitars...

So, I read the Politifact page and I think this is a better evaluation of the statements made in the debate. It's worth noting, though, that the politifact pages aren't in response to tonight's debate, they just gathered up pages they had put together previously. And in reading politifact's evaluation of the Navy and Air Force sizes, I guess I just can't agree with their rating system. Romney wasn't lying, he was just pointing out a trend that doesn't really mean anything. The president was right in rebutting with jokes that ship and aircraft counts aren't everything anymore, and he was also right in not saying Romney's statement was incorrect. Also when they do things like this it doesn't help their argument... Why are they clearly stating that Romney said 1917 but then chewing him out for being wrong as though he had said 1916, and then saying they'll let it slide because he pegs out the lie meter anyway on account of it not being a good measure in the first place?

Ah! So when you said, "We have ours, but you have yours." you were referring to "black sheep in ones party" yes? Your other posts in this thread made me misread the tone... my apologies if that's the case.

Sheila Jackson Lee isn't mine, she's Houston's. And they are not tied together... I do not, nor do I feel even slightly compelled to, forgive or defend her ignorance on matters simply because she votes pro-choice. Likewise, it would be really nice if you didn't feel compelled to forgive or defend the side of Todd Akin that thinks women would lie about being raped to get an abortion or that liberals are driven by a hatred for God just because he votes pro-life.

Hopefully they are representing the views of their constituents. Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate that the shit I'm sick of isn't coming from just one group of posters here. None of the issues above have anything whatsoever to do with thinking that medical advances have made concerns of a pregnant woman's health a thing of the past, that pregnancy as a result of rape is prevented naturally, or that women might lie about having been raped if it remains an acceptable reason to have an abortion. Everybody is free to have an opinion with nuances that don't align with any politicians. Everyone should be less dismissive of things politicians say that they disagree with at face value. Sometimes there's a facet of that politician's stance that you may agree with that you should take and use to examine "your guy" a little more critically. Sometimes there's a facet of that politician's stance that is severable from the big polarizing issue, and can be used persuasively with those that are otherwise wrapped up in the big polarizing issue.

And in which wing of which party are the majority of pro-life politicians to be found? Ah, but are most conservative Republicans politicians?

Except their ignorance of female biology impacts others beyond just Pro-Life issues. True that is a central issue, but the notion that some rapes are more legitimate than others is, for instance, beyond Pro-Life. The extent to which Todd Akin's comment was ignorant of female biology was limited to "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," which is the kind of thing that comes out of your face on television when you're trying to marginalize an argument against a position that you hold far too staunchly. And it exposes a great deal of ignorance indeed. The "legitimacy" part of the comment is a whole other direction in which, again I think, his staunch pro-life position has driven him. He is so against abortions that it worries him women will lie about having been raped to get an abortion if that exception is left on the table. Maybe he's aware of how and why rape is under-reported and why that makes the argument ridiculous, or maybe he's not, but either way he's saying he's willing to cast aside women's honesty in his pursuit of banning abortion. That's arguably worse than simply spending more time studying scripture than you spent studying biology.

It would be more accurate, less inflammatory, and more likely to generate an interesting discussion to ask, "why do pro-life politicians spout so much ignorance about female biology?"

What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? What did you infer from my post that made you respond with that? Because given the words that are there and what I meant by them, your response makes absolutely no sense.

here is a good example where everyone should actually look at the evidence presented, not just either accept his premise at face value, or reject it because you don't like him. His statements are factual, but not significantly so. The top 20%, broken into smaller segments, pay between 29 and 30.4%. The next 20% pay 28.6%. For the upper 40%, it actually looks like a flat tax. The top 1% do have the lowest of the top quintile at 29%, but that's due to the lower SS payment as a percentage of income. There's nothing inappropriate about the FICA ceiling - benefits are determined by payments. FICA is a federal TAX, not a premium. It's a regressive tax. If you wish to talk about FICA receipts without regard to their declared purpose, then you probably should stop distinguishing between "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending too. You've stated in the past that Medicare, SS, and defense are the only places where you can make a real dent in the deficit, so you're getting there... but you still say meaningless things like, "The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined." which is excluding SS and Medicare from the picture when it's convenient for you, the exact thing you're scolding kelpdiver for here.

Well... to be fair, we don't "need" to do anything but it all depends on what you want to accomplish. We could knock the floor out from unskilled manufacturing wages and some jobs would come back this way but a lot of those people would be pretty tough off while the cost of living in this country rattled out. We could impose high tariffs on consumer goods and again some jobs would come back, but the goods currently enjoyed by all would be enjoyed by fewer people. We could ignore our manufacturing sector and allow wealth to accumulate around big businesses, the tech/IP industry, and other areas that remain able to compete in a global economy, but then people who can't or don't embrace the idea that a manufacturing job won't earn you into the middle class in the richest nation in a global economy will be left behind. I think the best bet is to take a look where things are headed naturally and do our best to smooth out the transition. Clinging to things is doing the opposite.

I can't speak for RonD, but as a 30 year old who's been paying the SS cap for a while now I have to laugh at your suggestion that Social Security benefits me. I also laugh at your suggestion that anyone "chooses to partake." . You can certainly choose not to accept the money if the system violates your conscience. Rather like a woman can choose not to have an abortion. Tell you what... If, when the time comes, I'm given the choice to accept any money (which is a really big "if") I promise to stop accepting money once they've given me back what I've paid in. They can even keep the interest (pretending for a moment that there ever was interest.) I have a letter/statement from them that tells me not to expect even that.

I can't speak for RonD, but as a 30 year old who's been paying the SS cap for a while now I have to laugh at your suggestion that Social Security benefits me. I also laugh at your suggestion that anyone "chooses to partake." I'm not against social security because it's socialist (ooooh... scary.....) I'm against it because it is an intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally flawed system that is doomed to failure.

Actually, I think laying out what percentage of government receipts you wanted to come from each percentile group is a good thing to decide first in terms of selling your tax plan to people. You can point to the high income section and say, "we're keeping the vast bulk of the burdon up here" and point to the rest of the chart and say, "but we're spreading at least something all the way around." Then you decide how much you want to take in and you set your tax code accordingly to achieve both. If you can't make your budget work (including reasonable deficits and surpluses when appropriate) without busting the burdon distrobution or burying one of the groups then maybe you're trying to do too much. I think this would be a much more realistic promise than the stupid pledge Republican congress people have taken to never "raise" taxes no matter what. The top 10% footing 70% of the bill might be about right, though I would probably specify more groups than just two. What shouldn't happen is the burdon of each group shouldn't be changing drastically everytime someone new steps into office. That's what quickly devolves into partisan bickering.

As Kallend mentioned, the CPI isn't exactly skyrocketing so anyone expecting big guaranteed raises / increases right now is not being realistic. That said, any adjustments made in Washington to "fix SS so that it stays around in the long run" are really resignations that the whole system is fundamentally flawed. When a program consists entirely of sending people money the only thing you can do if you don't have enough money is send less money and to fewer people. This means picking some people and telling them to fuck off to varying degrees until eventually you have to tell that to just about everyone. The only reason it hasn't fallen apart yet is because it takes a long time for a super-tanker to run aground.

I've only ever had a couple brake fires and both were quite a while ago, but from your description it definitely sounds like it was either a brake fire or a brake that was unstowed to begin with. A released brake won't always be obvious and depending on the canopy and how quickly you react, rear-riser input may not settle things out. If your canopy is turning after deployment but appears to be fully open (and you've got the altitude) try popping the brakes. You might be surprised to find only one of them actually "pops." Another important note is that risers don't last forever. People pay a lot of attention to how many jumps are on a canopy or a canopy's lines when buying and selling gear but main risers are frequently overlooked. As far as the Vigil issues... well... I'm not a fan of Vigils based on the types of problems they've had and the company's responses to them, but I've already written my piece on that on this site.

You're watching an event sponsored by an energy drink company...

There's a certain irony in your attempt to use "premeditated" with a negative connotation here. ... Step away from the angry/bitter sauce and read my post again.

Wow, that website appears to be an internet retardation wormhole or something... Even by responding to your thread here I'm drawn closer to the event horizon where people comment in threads about comments on pages on a website of aggregated tweets in response to news sto--- AAAHHHHHHH HEEEEEEELP!!!!!111111111 $%^$%& [NO CARRIER]

There's a certain irony in your attempt to use "premeditated" with a negative connotation here.

Moral issues aside (which is an even bigger problem with direct democracy, unless you require 2/3 or more to change things) the ballot is really not a good place to set fiscal policy. Every election in California we have a myriad of "add tax A to pay for B", "raise tax C to pay for D, E, and possibly other things we're not clear on", "Borrow F to pay for G" and many times they are overlapping and conflicting. Expecting the average voter to educate themselves enough to actually understand what they're voting on is, unfortunately, asking a lot. This is not to suggest that federal reps and senators have been doing a stellar job at passing budgets in the last several years, but I think piece-meal national voting would actually make it worse.

Again, I think the instruction being proposed is largely good stuff, but this keeps coming back to the "tail strikes have got to stop" argument, and if that's what supporters want to do, then focus your solution a little better. The detail and the logistics of the standardization goes way beyond the scope of the presented problem, and that is always going to raise eyebrows. Full disclosure btw: I only have around 50 wingsuit jumps, and all are back around '05 / '06 (at Elsinore.) Douglas has done a lot to promote wingsuiting at my home dropzone in recent years, and overall that's a good thing. Between he and Hammo, however, they've done things like outright ban XRW and ban the use of PC pouches on wingsuits (that people would use to gain familiarity if they wanted to use it for wingsuit BASE) which are decisions that I disagree with. So I recognize him as someone who does truly cares about wingsuiting, but maybe not with the same motivations I share.

Douglas, I think your document is very heavy on tail strike material, and has a very unfortunate political feel to it like you're trying to appeal to "single-issue voters." I say unfortunate because preventing wingsuit tail strikes is a noble cause. If the extent of standardization you wished to have enforced was limited to how to exit an aircraft and, perhaps, flight plans/airspace usage, then I doubt many people would take issue with the concept. I also think that those are the extent to which wingsuiting is "special" (i.e. potentially warranting additional ratings) from other advanced deciplines and to which the FAA and insurance companies take special interest in winguiting. So, if your suggested standardization is limited in scope I would recommend drawing more attention to that in your campaign. If you have other things you'd like to include, I would recommend being more clear about that as well. The document, as it stands, does not adequately inform anyone's decision.