Another waste of tax payer monies

[Pressure Drop]

i totally disagree 404 RAWR

i'm not going to pretend that if i was in charge of research grants i'd approve all of the grants dished out and i do think there are alot of flimsy ones with little merit but i wouldn't take a random couple titles and complain as the research doesn't interest you and you can see no benefit when way more money is squandered alot worse elsewhere.

personaly i think the whales one is valid as it's important to try understand where we came from and how life evolved, who wasn't interested in dinosaur fossils and enjoyed learning about them as a kid ? i find it kinda fascinating that life evolved from the sea went onto land then some animals went back from land to the sea for a totally marine life cycle and the evolutionary process that involves and i've said to ppl one of my favourite things is the convergent evolution of the streamlined shape and look off fast predatory fish like tuna, mammals like dolphins and reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaurus)

i'd much rather waste money on people seeking answers to questions than give a huge bonus to a guy for short selling... The economic bail out of a scandalous financial system is in stark contrast to the amount spent on PROPER research and development that would help the whole human race.

as for GAZA aid, well those people are treated horrendously and will benefit greatly from the aid but i'm sure there is political motivation rather than any truly altruistic action by obama. Turkey is hugely sympathetic with Gaza and USA probably wants to keep good relations with it as it's used air bases there vs Iraq and of course placed missiles their in the 60's kinda sparking the cuban missile crisis >< So after with USA's close relationship with Isreal and then them doing yet another fuck up and shooting up the aid ships :/ USA probably doing that to ease tensions in the middle east, appease it's allies there and also as i said those ppl could do with the aid.

[Bioture]

Nah, that kind of research keeps professors and their aides in business. So I guess you can call it a direct "bailout package" if you want.

In contrast, my government spent 14 billion on a Kestrel helicopter program that was later cancelled.

[Vatican Assassin]

You would have private roads where you would have to pay someone else every 20 miles just to be allowed to drive on his road.

Or everyone would just really be going wherever they wanted.

Also, that precious military, the cops, the fire department, all useless really. I don't get why your government spends tax money on that shit. It's not like you need to fight useless wars half way across the world to protect your country.

blah blah your arguments are so terrible and boring and used and having nothing to do with original post on this thread just more blah blah gov't need it or all fialsd they so great HEY GALLELEO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAN ROADS BUIT THANKS FOR ALWAYS VALUABLE INPUT I GUESS WE NEED TO GIVE SCIENTISTS HUGE GRANTS TO DO NOTHING CUZ OF ROADS

[Vatican Assassin]

btw galleleo faggot every thread you come say something sarcastic and elementary and then when someone tries to test your stupid assumptions you just say "learn English" or "you're retarded" just so you know

[404 Not Found]

i totally disagree 404 RAWR

i'm not going to pretend that if i was in charge of research grants i'd approve all of the grants dished out and i do think there are alot of flimsy ones with little merit but i wouldn't take a random couple titles and complain as the research doesn't interest you and you can see no benefit when way more money is squandered alot worse elsewhere.

personaly i think the whales one is valid as it's important to try understand where we came from and how life evolved, who wasn't interested in dinosaur fossils and enjoyed learning about them as a kid ? i find it kinda fascinating that life evolved from the sea went onto land then some animals went back from land to the sea for a totally marine life cycle and the evolutionary process that involves and i've said to ppl one of my favourite things is the convergent evolution of the streamlined shape and look off fast predatory fish like tuna, mammals like dolphins and reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaurus)

i'd much rather waste money on people seeking answers to questions than give a huge bonus to a guy for short selling... The economic bail out of a scandalous financial system is in stark contrast to the amount spent on PROPER research and development that would help the whole human race.

as for GAZA aid, well those people are treated horrendously and will benefit greatly from the aid but i'm sure there is political motivation rather than any truly altruistic action by obama. Turkey is hugely sympathetic with Gaza and USA probably wants to keep good relations with it as it's used air bases there vs Iraq and of course placed missiles their in the 60's kinda sparking the cuban missile crisis >< So after with USA's close relationship with Isreal and then them doing yet another fuck up and shooting up the aid ships :/ USA probably doing that to ease tensions in the middle east, appease it's allies there and also as i said those ppl could do with the aid.

These random federal grants just came out after the problems we face in the Gulf. Perhaps these federal grants derived from our tax dollars could be used to help others that less fortunate, but why would we want to do that....so why help Gaza then...we can't help our own people, so Fuck Gaza. Let Saudi Arabia or the UAE help them, or better yet let the EU take over 100%, after all, the Euro is worth more than the lowly Dollar that seems to be the joke in this world as well as our debt...how about the EU takes over for the next 20+ years in aid to the Middle East.
Personally, I would rather the money go to those 1000's of families that no longer will have a job to pay the bills and put food on the table. The peoples in the Gulf States area specifically. When it boils down to someone having fun researching a whale that has been dead for millions of years vs. displaced peoples/families living today with no means of income due to the oil and BP...well you get my idea. Perhaps the monies can go to the border problems we have in the States today...but perhaps ignoring it and allowing the mass amounts of drugs and illegals to cross, along with the latest in the border problems here, they kidnap your family member and take them back to Mexico and hold them ransom...you pay the ransom and you get your family member sent back...sometimes dead.
But in noting the oil problems we have and the bitching going on, if this crap gets through the gulf to the Atlantic and catches the Gulf Stream, then most of the Northern European fishing industry will be dead as well.
Just a follow up PD...have not posted a political position in a while.

[Vatican Assassin]

Perhaps these federal grants derived from our tax dollars

Here's the big problem that no one is talking about, what tax dollars? We are 13 Trillion in the hole, and this "economic stimulus" in whatever form is not coming from earned taxes, it is being printed by the federal reserve and lent to the US Gov't with interest. When your country is 13 Trillion in the hole, 10% unemployment, and the entire gulf is going to be caked in oil for decades, yes, it is time to stop fucking spending hundreds of millions on whales who have been extinct for thousands of years. Fucking stupid stupid people in the country and on this forum, we all deserve our fate.

[404 Not Found]

Vatican, I agree with you. Not like Obama will be a help in the matter with the him being a puppet of the Clintons. In fact wtf is with this Kagan nomination...is this guy for real nominating this asswipe reject from the Clinton Whitewater era? What a waste of time and monies once again. How about a new face without the Clinton push and without the years of being a political hack.

[Bioture]

Fucking stupid stupid people in the country.

I regret to inform you that at work today I spent $70,000 of taxpayer money on a federal register publication. We could have just published it online and saved ourselves that money, but when I checked the amount was deemed "inexpensive."

[Epinephrine]

Picking out ridiculously insignificant expenditures ($250,000 works out to less than 0.1 CENTS per person in the USA) and then comparing it to 'helping the poor' is generally a bad argument.

The reason is because, you could ALWAYS give more money to 'the poor'. Does this mean that basically every other expenditure is pointless, especially things you personally don't agree with?

The argument can easily be shifted to:
Why are we funding X (project), when we don't even have money to do Y (social goal), because Y is more important.

That can easily be reversed to, why are we funding Y when we could be funding X?

If you look at it differently I'm sure some of these 'poor' people did it to themselves by living irresponsibly by taking on loans that they could not cover, living beyond their means, or maybe they'll just spend any 'aid' money given to them on alcohol and cigarettes.

Focusing on small little insignificant things is pointless, makes you sound like John McCain and his disdain for earmarks which overall are insignificant to the overall budget compared to supporting things like tax cuts for the rich or wars in Iraq. We should always take a look at the bigger picture.

[Vatican Assassin]

I think the very fact that we are using money we don't have (that's what stimulus is, as opposed to tax dollars which have been collected) is the big picture in this case.

[D1st0rt]

You would have private roads where you would have to pay someone else every 20 miles just to be allowed to drive on his road.

Or everyone would just really be going wherever they wanted.

Also, that precious military, the cops, the fire department, all useless really. I don't get why your government spends tax money on that shit. It's not like you need to fight useless wars half way across the world to protect your country.

because it has to be all or nothing? stop being a moron

[genocidal]

Picking out ridiculously insignificant expenditures ($250,000 works out to less than 0.1 CENTS per person in the USA) and then comparing it to 'helping the poor' is generally a bad argument.

The reason is because, you could ALWAYS give more money to 'the poor'. Does this mean that basically every other expenditure is pointless, especially things you personally don't agree with?

The argument can easily be shifted to:
Why are we funding X (project), when we don't even have money to do Y (social goal), because Y is more important.

That can easily be reversed to, why are we funding Y when we could be funding X?

If you look at it differently I'm sure some of these 'poor' people did it to themselves by living irresponsibly by taking on loans that they could not cover, living beyond their means, or maybe they'll just spend any 'aid' money given to them on alcohol and cigarettes.

Focusing on small little insignificant things is pointless, makes you sound like John McCain and his disdain for earmarks which overall are insignificant to the overall budget compared to supporting things like tax cuts for the rich or wars in Iraq. We should always take a look at the bigger picture.

This.

Vatican: since our debt is less than our GDP it's misleading to say we're spending money that we don't have. Even if we were spending more than we make (which has happened before), you're thinking about it in the wrong terms. A government, especially a large and powerful one that is deeply connected to the biggest economy in the world, is not the same as an individual owing another individual money. The reason that there is a debt is because it's not economically beneficial to pay it 100% off. This would be loosely comparable in kind (though certainly not in scale which is what I think you're trying to do) as a person taking all their money out of the markets and banks and keeping it in their mattress. At some point, it's just paper. Rapidly devaluing paper.

[Vatican Assassin]

The reason that there is a debt is because it's not economically beneficial to pay it 100% off.

I agree with this statement, but not with the conclusions you draw from it. Yes, if we spent less money than we collected from taxes that would not make economic sense, and I bet the population would wonder why they are giving more money than the country needs. And who knows, maybe the country really does need these and other research grants. I do not really take issue with this, but as Epi said, let's look at the big picture. These are not like normal government sponsored grants in the past. These particular grants are part of the "economic stimulus" which is all money borrowed on top of the money which we collected from taxes, which already does not cover the budget we currently have (13 trillion over the past 30 years).

What you are talking about Genocidal is what we have been doing, and we can argue as to how far beyond a perfectly balanced budget a country should go. There is a point where you borrow too much money, even nations can reach this point. Our deficit is poised to match the GDP this week (funny you bring that up) and although they do not have a direct correlation, it is a clear sign that a nation is in bad shape, and you should not value its currency, economic influence, or treasury bonds as much as you once did. These have large consequences as I'm sure you know. I just happen to think that, with the current projections I heard recently of our budget going to 19 tril by 2015, that a point of critical mass will be reached where banks get scared, interest rates rise, people get laid off, dominoes etc.

[Tigron-X]

Goddamn, you're retarded.

Those questions I posed are pretty simple to answer. Someone as smart as you should be able to answer them very easily.

If you look at it differently I'm sure some of these 'poor' people did it to themselves by living irresponsibly by taking on loans that they could not cover, living beyond their means, or maybe they'll just spend any 'aid' money given to them on alcohol and cigarettes.

We should always take a look at the bigger picture.

You can't ignore the gun in the room -- which is government.

Furthermore, blaming the victims of fraudulant banking practices is like blaming a rape victim for wearing revealing clothing. Sure, the girl could have been proactive and taken self-defense classes, but that still doesn't justify the actions of the criminals.

In other words, blaming the weak for being pillaged by the strong by means of economical conquest is rather immoral.

This.

Vatican: since our debt is less than our GDP it's misleading to say we're spending money that we don't have. Even if we were spending more than we make (which has happened before), you're thinking about it in the wrong terms. A government, especially a large and powerful one that is deeply connected to the biggest economy in the world, is not the same as an individual owing another individual money. The reason that there is a debt is because it's not economically beneficial to pay it 100% off. This would be loosely comparable in kind (though certainly not in scale which is what I think you're trying to do) as a person taking all their money out of the markets and banks and keeping it in their mattress. At some point, it's just paper. Rapidly devaluing paper.

Well, first off, it's impossible to pay off the debt 100% because there isn't enough fiat currency cycling through the system to cover the interest.

Secondly, losses are constantly defered to the next fisical year.

Furthermore, fiat currency is nothing more than an IOU. It's the biggest game of hot potatoe ever imagined.

More so, these IOU's are handed out based on future production.

So, Vatican's assessment is correct. The stimilus plan acts like a defibrillator that's trying to resuscitate production.

[Burnt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/bu.../09estate.html

Billionaire dies and pays no estate tax

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

Sure sending money to poor people around the world is a waste but letting this guy's heirs keep 9 Billion is a great investment.