Another waste of tax payer monies

[genocidal]

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.

I agree that the level of borrowing we're currently at is unsustainable. I am most certainly a proponent of balancing the budget. I haven't read that we're going to match our GDP this week but I'll believe you if you say so (last I checked we had a ways to go). Regardless, it's not really an economic indicator. We had low debt percentages in the 70s during the 1973 recession and again in the beginning of Reagan's term before he ran up the debt again - none of that stopped those recessions. In fact, there are arguments to be made that either one of those is worse than the one we're currently in, though it's difficult to say since it's not over yet. I think your doom and gloom is a little premature though. On this and basic economic philosophies it is clear that we will disagree, and while it may be fun I don't feel like having a debate over government intervention into economies and spending as a way to jumpstart an economy.

Tigron: basically the only thing in your post that makes sense is that last sentence. The point of my post was that governments don't engage in the kind of behavior you are talking about. Fiat money has nothing to do with how a government pays its debts. It's not like we take 100,000 briefcases full of American cash every year and hand them over to the Chinese. Even if we did, you do know that the government runs the US Mint, right? Meaning they could make as much money as they felt like at any time for no reason whatsoever. But that would be retarded, which was the point.

[Tigron-X]

Genocidal, I'm not arguing that the goverment pays back its debt with fiat currency. The national debt represents the amount of US Dollars in circulation -- which can be either the actual Federal Reserve Notes or figures on a computer screen.

If the government came and bought something from you, they wouldn't be able to give you anything of *real* value. They would issue you X amount of US Dollars. After that transaction with the government, you can go trade those US Dollars for goods or services.

Thus, paying someone with fiat currency is a way of defering trade of goods and services. The value of the US Dollar is conceptual, not real. Furthermore, its value is imposed by force. You cannot turn down fiat currency for payment of debt(s) and have the debt(s) remain in force. This is the very definition of legal tender. You can go look at a Federal Reserve Note and see for yourself that it is labeled as "legal tender."

If the government collapsed and you were holding onto those Federal Reserve Notes, then you never received anything of real value for your production.

This is the inherent contradiction of a welfare state. If a nation with a fiat currency monetary system does not produce anything, then the government will collapse.

Which leads to the question: Why does the government need to stimulate the economy?

I'm sure it's safe to assume that it's because there is a lack of production.

If there is a lack of production and more-and-more "money" is being printed, then it's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses.

If it's on the verge of collapse, which it is, then that means there already *is* more fiat money in cirruclation than a nation can account for by means of production.

The only way to offset the collapse is to increase production.

Thus, all the government can do is throw money at the problem because it doesn't produce a single thing.

[Pressure Drop]

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.

Thats the thing these things shouldn't be linked to the gulf or financial bailout, however the media likes to whip up a furore as it sells so it will make alot out of it since it seems outrages to sped money on "ancient whales" when from a humanitartian point of veiw people are in need of money. But it's important for USA and world to continue research, and there is always people needing money our decadent lifestyles are still built on the exploitation of humans but this has mostly been shifted to india and china so out of sight out of mind ... I'd like to think that the people in the Gulf will be looked after and i'm sure even with these circumstances most lead a more comfortable life than those in Gaza so you shouldn't begrudge those unfortunate ppl needed aid.


But yeah if you want to boil it down to sterotypes i'm pretty cynical, left wing, pro-environment and anti-corporation. I've not been following the news as much these days so i'm not totally up to scratch the oil spill but from what i've seen BP should have put more resources right from the off in trying to minimise the damage but maybe it wasn't possible i dont know about capping oil spills or measuring them but the estimated leakage seems to double every few days so that is a pretty huge underestimate and surely if you are dealing with an environmental disaster you should over estimate and over react to protect. But of course that could frighten the stock market :/

Also in terms european fishing even with the EU tightening fishing quota's it's still not in line with the scientists recommendations and there is a problem with illegal fishing and fish dumping in international waters before entering e.u. waters etc so even without any ecological disaster the Northern European fishing industry is fragile, but that is a similar pattern all over the world. We are fishing and polluting at an unsustainable level

[Da1andonly]

idiotic money spending?

"Come to Greece! Why not? Your money is here already!"

[Vatican Assassin]

this shit is hilariously truthy

[Tigron-X]

But yeah if you want to boil it down to sterotypes i'm pretty cynical, left wing, pro-environment and anti-corporation.

You know the goverment is a corporation, right?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=454

[Fit of Rage]

No, the Federal Reserve is a corporation. The government and the Federal Reserve are two separate entities. Of course there's the argument that the U.S. Government is one of the largest spenders and employers in terms of dollars, but that's because with a country as large as the U.S. there is literally shit tons of work to do in defense, energy, agriculture, homeland security, etc. These are jobs that are created for the necessity of bettering the state of affairs of our country. Does this mean that there are wasteful jobs and spending in the government? Sure. What it certainly doesn't mean is that the U.S. Government is out-for-profit at least in terms of its own benefit. If it was, you can guarantee that a lot of the fluff jobs and the paperwork would be cut and streamlined.

[Vatican Assassin]

You might want to read the link he provided before you type out all that stuff there fit.

It is in fact the most important thing you haven't read in your life, it could be argued.

You see, USA started out great, then the civil war happened, then, when it ended, a very corrupt and paid off congress changed the very essence of America by making it a corporation. This is, in fact, when the new idea of the corporation was created by the Bankers who began to take control of USA at the time under President Andrew Johnson. One of the most important issues of the day, besides slavery, was the idea of central banking (which would become another corporation, the federal reserve, as you stated fit). Well, Lincoln said the greatest benefit a government can give to its people is to print its own money, as opposed to allowing a private, central bank to print it and loan it to a country at interest (insanity). I bet some idiot here will tell you why its a good reason to have your nation borrow money and pay interest on it instead of just coining money themselves, but seriously, fuck these idiots.

The revised constitutional link provided by Tigron is from 1871, just after the war ended. The country was in total disarray, the entire south was divided into 5 regions (like japan after ww2) and each was controlled by a northern army general. At this time of national chaos the congress decided to make these alterations, they struck while the iron is hot you might say. Of course you will not find this in your school history books. Most people think we are a democracy, well, we are supposed to be a Republic, but we are actually neither, our government, in all legal sense according to the constitution, is a corporation.

For you and me this information means next to nothing at first glance. But for the movers and shakers, the congressmen and the supreme court judges who read these things and who's governmental functions are decreed by them, this is an important ideology change.

[404 Not Found]

Add Grant to the mix when he was President and that is when the origin of the "lobbyist" came into politics at the Willard Hotel. Grant would hang at the Willard Hotel Bar in the lobby while President and have a drink or two or three on a semi daily basis.....this was the time when people would come and try and sway him one way or another on issues, thus the label "lobbyist" came to be.

Saw this on the History channel...was an interesting fact.

[Ilya]

those goddamn Welsh

[Ilya]

You see, USA started out great, then the civil war happened

agreed

bring back our slaves

[Vatican Assassin]

some people still think the civil war only concerned slavery

[Ilya]

tell us all about it, vatican assassin

[Vatican Assassin]

it was actually all about heroin

[Tigron-X]

agreed

bring back our slaves

They're still here. It was only re-labled as Free Labour. It was discovered that production increases when you provide an illusion of freedom.

This guy does a great job of presenting it: