• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:33
CEST 04:33
KST 11:33
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202547RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [Update] ShieldBattery: 1v1 Fastest Support! Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 615 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 211

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 209 210 211 212 213 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2013 06:20 GMT
#4201
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.

No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
April 29 2013 06:23 GMT
#4202
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.

And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?

Just sayin.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2013 07:36 GMT
#4203
On April 29 2013 15:23 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.

And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?

Just sayin.

Oh, didn't you know?
No one benefits or profits when people default on their student loans... Federal bankruptcy laws are there to protect you.
Link

Move along concerned citizen. There is no train wreck incoming. Move along...

(I hope you get the sarcasm!)
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-29 17:43:38
April 29 2013 07:59 GMT
#4204
On April 29 2013 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 15:23 farvacola wrote:
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.

And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?

Just sayin.

Oh, didn't you know?
Show nested quote +
No one benefits or profits when people default on their student loans... Federal bankruptcy laws are there to protect you.
Link

Move along concerned citizen. There is no train wreck incoming. Move along...

(I hope you get the sarcasm!)

lol, not sure how a government website that directly says that, unless extreme extenuation is shown, student loan discharge under bankruptcy is impossible says anything to your point, but ok. I'm sure the millions of jobless college grads will rest easy knowing that Sallie Mae is here for them with a website! Oh, and lets ignore the fact that state budget cuts are nudging state school tuition costs higher and higher, forcing more and more students to take out private loans to make up the difference that pops up once your school tells you, "You are now a sophomore! Here is your reduced funding package. Enjoy!"

Edit: lol Jonny, took me a night of sleep to realize what your were saying lol.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-29 12:54:03
April 29 2013 12:51 GMT
#4205
On April 29 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.

No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.

ordinary savers and other collateral damage are not responsible for the system getting fucked over. that much should be clear.

you are equating 'gains' from banking etc by people for whom banking is useful with profit extracted by abusive methods that caused the system to go down as well as increased risk for innocents.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2013 16:52 GMT
#4206
On April 29 2013 21:51 oneofthem wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.

No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.

ordinary savers and other collateral damage are not responsible for the system getting fucked over. that much should be clear.

you are equating 'gains' from banking etc by people for whom banking is useful with profit extracted by abusive methods that caused the system to go down as well as increased risk for innocents.

The way I see it is that special protections have the impact of making the system (particularly the banks) more fragile. Malfeasance certainly played a role, but issues with the system did too.

But we may just have to agree to disagree here.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2013 17:39 GMT
#4207
Sorry, just had to post

Hank Johnson: 'Imagine a World Without Balloons'
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-04-29 18:50:40
April 29 2013 18:49 GMT
#4208
The first political-science survey of Tea Party activists

The survey asked FreedomWorks activists if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “When we feel strongly about political issues, we should not be willing to compromise with our political opponents.” Altogether, more than 80 percent agreed to some extent. Thirty-two percent of respondents “agree strongly” with the statement. Meanwhile, less than 10 percent disagreed even “slightly.” In another series of questions sent out to FreedomWorks activists, the survey asked whether they would prefer a candidate with whom they agree on most important issues but who polls far behind the probable Democratic nominee or a candidate with whom they agree “on some of the most important issues” but who’s likely to win. More than three-fourths of respondents preferred the candidate who was more likely to lose but shared their positions.

In other words, the Tea Party cares more about what nominees believe than whether they can win—and compromising on politics means compromising on principle.

The findings help explain what’s happened in so many GOP primary races. Both nationally and at the state level, moderate GOP officeholders found themselves with primary challengers. The Tea Party has helped propel several upstart candidacies, like Christine O’Donnell’s infamous effort to win Delaware’s Senate seat or more recently, Richard Mourdock’s successful challenge to sitting Senator Dick Lugar. In both of those cases, and several others, the Tea Party candidate has proved too extreme for the general election and lost. But despite the losses, the push toward conservative purity continues. A recent New York Times story showed that even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, seen as the leader with the most clout in the Tea Party movement, has been unable to move the faction's members in his party into more moderate terrain. In light of these survey results, that makes sense—Tea Party elected officials are simply reflecting their supporters. Meanwhile, those left in the establishment fear the party’s new direction.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
April 29 2013 19:31 GMT
#4209
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.


Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2013 20:31 GMT
#4210
On April 30 2013 04:31 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.


Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.

Well a few hundred banks have been allowed to fail and go through the FDIC resolution process.

I can't find a nice graph of what that means in dollar terms to depositors. The best I could find was this:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund guaranteeing customer deposits in U.S. banks is rebuilding at a faster pace as bank failures slow from their 2010 peak, the agency said in a report today.

The federal backstop, funded by assessments on banks, was at $11.8 billion at the end of 2011, up from a deficit of $20.9 billion at the end of 2009 as the credit crisis caused banks to fail. The FDIC predicted it will spend $12 billion to cover bank shutdowns through 2016, according to a report updating the fund’s health. That five-year cost is $7 billion less than the FDIC’s last five-year projection in October.

Link
And to be clear I'm not disagreeing with you that some people got hosed and some got golden gifts. I'm just trying pointing out that society's protections and punishments are complex and they've hit and helped people and banks in a variety of ways.
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
April 29 2013 22:23 GMT
#4211
On April 30 2013 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2013 04:31 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
On April 29 2013 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote:
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed
In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.

Nothing has changed.
The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed.
Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession.
The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011.
Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump.
The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out.
Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000.
In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period.
The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else.
The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market.
America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country.
The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs.
The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks
Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich?
The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy).
So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)



Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.

Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).


Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.

Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.


Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.

Well a few hundred banks have been allowed to fail and go through the FDIC resolution process.

I can't find a nice graph of what that means in dollar terms to depositors. The best I could find was this:
Show nested quote +
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund guaranteeing customer deposits in U.S. banks is rebuilding at a faster pace as bank failures slow from their 2010 peak, the agency said in a report today.

The federal backstop, funded by assessments on banks, was at $11.8 billion at the end of 2011, up from a deficit of $20.9 billion at the end of 2009 as the credit crisis caused banks to fail. The FDIC predicted it will spend $12 billion to cover bank shutdowns through 2016, according to a report updating the fund’s health. That five-year cost is $7 billion less than the FDIC’s last five-year projection in October.

Link
And to be clear I'm not disagreeing with you that some people got hosed and some got golden gifts. I'm just trying pointing out that society's protections and punishments are complex and they've hit and helped people and banks in a variety of ways.


Oh wow, I stand corrected.

Still, my issue is that the complexity in the past of say, deliberating over whether or not to save S&L, has been eliminated completely with a kneejerk response that some entities are Too Big To Fail and therefore cannot be allowed to face either market consequences or criminal penalties lest their failure have negative effects. Which isn't necessarily insane, but it only makes sense if coupled with a policy of pre-emptively breaking up TBTF entities regardless of any wrongdoing, which is not happening and may well never happen.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
April 29 2013 23:18 GMT
#4212
ze tides of change.

NBA veteran centre Jason Collins has become the first active player in any US major professional sports leagues to reveal that he is gay, doing so to Sports Illustrated in a major cover story released on Monday.

Collins, who is now a free agent, has played in the NBA for 12 seasons with six teams, spending this past campaign with the Boston Celtics and Washington Wizards. He helped the New Jersey Nets reach the 2002 and 2003 NBA Finals.

"I'm a 34-year-old NBA centre. I'm black and I'm gay," began the story that Collins penned for the magazine with writer Franz Lidz.

"I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation.

"I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, 'I'm different.' If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand."

http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/americansport/2013/04/2013429164021104445.html
Writer
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
April 29 2013 23:51 GMT
#4213
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.

Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.

According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."

The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.

The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress

Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.

In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."

Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.

"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."

The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.

For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".


Surprise! Republican bill adds politics to science funding
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13924 Posts
April 29 2013 23:58 GMT
#4214
I doubt hes that serious about it. Rabble rousing about wasteful research dollars to create an issue he can win with in the election. Cherry picking "regulation and accounting transparency in china dairy industry" and "comparative network analysis: mapping global social interactions" as symbols of "government waste".

I'm sure worse things have been brought up in congress. An exemption to congress having to follow obamacare being one of them.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 30 2013 00:49 GMT
#4215
On April 30 2013 08:51 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.

Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.

According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."

The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.

The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress

Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.

In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."

Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.

"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."

The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.

For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".


Surprise! Republican bill adds politics to science funding

Doesn't sound like something I'd support. Hopefully it doesn't pass like that helium shit did.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
April 30 2013 00:55 GMT
#4216
On April 30 2013 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2013 08:51 farvacola wrote:
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.

Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.

According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."

The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.

The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress

Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.

In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."

Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.

"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."

The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.

For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".


Surprise! Republican bill adds politics to science funding

Doesn't sound like something I'd support. Hopefully it doesn't pass like that helium shit did.

Haha, the helium debacle was precisely what I had in mind as I read that article.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 30 2013 00:55 GMT
#4217
How many politicians believe in Creationism while also sitting on the Science committee again?
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 30 2013 00:59 GMT
#4218
On April 30 2013 08:51 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.

Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.

According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."

The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.

The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress

Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.

In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."

Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.

"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."

The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.

For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".


Surprise! Republican bill adds politics to science funding

Fuck this guy. This affects me directly, as I have a project that is currently receiving NSF funding. Seriously, this guy is a goddamn moron and I hope anybody that votes for him has a shitty life filled with disease and a lack of technology.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
April 30 2013 01:04 GMT
#4219
On April 30 2013 09:59 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2013 08:51 farvacola wrote:
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.

Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.

According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."

The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.

The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress

Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.

In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."

Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.

"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."

The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.

For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".


Surprise! Republican bill adds politics to science funding

Fuck this guy. This affects me directly, as I have a project that is currently receiving NSF funding. Seriously, this guy is a goddamn moron and I hope anybody that votes for him has a shitty life filled with disease and a lack of technology.

First they came for the political scientists...
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
acker
Profile Joined September 2010
United States2958 Posts
April 30 2013 01:15 GMT
#4220
I don't think Lamar quite understands how research in real life differs from research in the movies.
Prev 1 209 210 211 212 213 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 27m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 252
RuFF_SC2 142
WinterStarcraft119
Livibee 111
Ketroc 32
StarCraft: Brood War
Light 1894
HiyA 98
NaDa 68
Noble 37
Sharp 26
Icarus 4
Stormgate
Vindicta19
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1213
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 605
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K627
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox548
Other Games
summit1g15169
tarik_tv9758
Day[9].tv1073
C9.Mang0189
ViBE188
Maynarde152
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1943
BasetradeTV43
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 57
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4057
• Scarra1411
Other Games
• Day9tv1073
• Shiphtur300
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
7h 27m
Reynor vs Zoun
Solar vs SHIN
Classic vs ShoWTimE
Cure vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 8h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.