Quoi_Tu

I only recently stopped getting those. By the way - you're a student, aren't you? What college do you go to? Apparently I have to research some. I go to a small liberal arts college in NC (UNCA). Now that I'm in my sophomore year and know my majors (math and economics) I wish I had gone to a research university. I think I'll get a good bit from this school, but a research university would have provided more opportunities like seminars and better undergrad research, not to mention a slightly better reputation for when I apply to grad school. However, I think it'll work out just fine anyways since I'm not going to be some top, nobel prize winning researcher. NC has some great schools though, and they're really cheap! Even for out-of-state folk, it's not too bad (I want to $17k compared to $11k in state). Do you have any ideas for what you want to study?

I like to get my news from The Economist, NYT, and WSJ. All fairly low on bias and usually well written with minimal mistakes. I agree many talking heads don't know much about economics, but that's why they read what economists say in order to talk about it. Rush just blabbers on about how "it's never worked" and, "this is such a waste of money, I hope it fails." This is still a murky and shallow amount of economists on their shows, but it's not hard to find even conservative economists supporting a stimulus: http://mediamatters.org/items/200902110027 Academia in general isn't given a lot of air time (maybe with the exception of political PhDs). I don't why, but I'm sure the media has some reason or maybe it's a academic faux pas to appear on talk shows (I'm just speculating, I don't know).

The flaw of all talking heads/pundits is that they put their agenda/opinion before the facts. I think it's safe to say very few public figures are truly knowledgeable (or show it) of economics. Partly because some key points the majority of economists agree on aren't favorable in the public eye (like raising minimum wage raises unemployment). Of course, it is the dismal science. Irrelevent link on where economics got the name, the dismal science (for any interested folks): The Secret History of the Dismal Science. Part I. Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century

I woke up in a crummy mood today for some reason. Just one of those days I guess.

What was he predicting? We were already facing financial collapse in early October a month (few weeks) before that comment. Any economist would have gladly informed him (not to mention we had been in a recession since December 2007). I'm not blaming him for influence, just for his biasness (I suppose you could count him as entertainment). Congress did a horrible job with this bill, but I didn't expect anything better.

Fascist! The reason I hate Rush Limbaugh is because of the influence he has mixed with his ridiculous (and sometimes wrong, see below) commentary. Of course, I don't like Chris Matthews or Lou Dobbs either; best to avoid the talking heads in general. Taken from this article in November: He thought Obama would raise taxes during the worst recession since the 1980s. How silly of him. Also, an article in the WSJ written by Limbaugh containing wrong information on recession data: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/200 ... rplus.html

The latest on international trade flows: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/interna ... elease.htm The US has been running a trade deficit for a couple of decades now, since the Regan era. Overall, Bush hasn't really done much noteworthy. People make him out to have done worse than he has, but I think in the end he's just mediocre. Wow, this thread's was dragged off-topic fast. [/hide] But it doesn't require a drastic reform, which is the main problem. Hell, for all we know, the treasury is just printing more money comparable to that deficit. It was a major issue when it first became noticeable in the late 80s, but we've had it for so long now, we're not sure if it is really too much of an issue. It would still be nice to sell more and buy less abroad to equal out our trade, but in the mean time no great negative effects that we've observed. raven, who's getting fired up? Especially with you calling me a commie you fascist pig.

Quoi means "what." It has potential ...somewhere!

The latest on international trade flows: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/interna ... elease.htm The US has been running a trade deficit for a couple of decades now, since the Regan era. Overall, Bush hasn't really done much noteworthy. People make him out to have done worse than he has, but I think in the end he's just mediocre. Wow, this thread's was dragged off-topic fast.

Surely, you aren't suggesting our imports and exports are equal? What has Bush done? From a literal standpoint, it's impossible. But they aren't drastically in need for change. No Child Left Behind Prevented another terrorist strike, however relative the term "prevent" is. Income tax reforms Increased defensive research Health, or medicare reforms I can go on, if needed. Sorry, should have worded better. I was more curious to what you thought were his highpoints. No Child Left Behind didn't really work (it had good intentions, but played out badly) and "preventing" a terrorist strike is questionable. The one thing I didn't immediately recognize though were the income tax reforms. What were the specifics on that? Wait, is the bolded statement refering to imports and exports?

Surely, you aren't suggesting our imports and exports are equal? What has Bush done? I don't think it will turn out badly, just not good enough. Right now projections still put unemployment rising to 7.9% (by optimistic estimates) with the current stimulus; close to 10% without it.

That's what he tried to do by making the bill with republican pleasing tax cuts, but the republicans didn't like it and wanted more. Sadly, he should have just opted for a trillion dollar "liberal" stimulus and then let the republicans do their thing. Oh well, live and learn.

Carousels - mewithoutyou Excellent band, for anyone interested the album Catch For Us the Foxes is a good place to start.

That's the vehicles part. As for the rest, I don't really want to post it all...but I did find some nice Congressional Pie charts posted by CNN that details the percentiles of the spending. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1 And I wish I wasn't American. I wish I was back in dear ol' Dublin... Cool pie chart! It's hard to tell who's added what, but I'm quite upset over the 40bil taken from the state fiscal stabilization (that was the centrists) when states really need the support. States always have to have a balanced budget, so they can't go into debt when tax revenues go down like the federal government can, which means they have to cut spending. Cutting spending in a reccession is exactly what you don't do.

That's why the government's not doing that... And we only smack you because you're wrong. Yes, me too. Here is an argument about where Keynes went wrong, and why it's been since corrected: http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... acuum.html Good article and I'm pretty sure Milton Friedman was considered a god back in the 60s and 70s. In fact, people thought he had created a way to stabilize the economy until about 1979 when Carter brought in Volcker to bring down inflation and unfortunately drive us into a recession. I'm economically conservative, socially liberal and besides that I avoid classification.

To add to magekillr, here is Greg Mankiw's idea for a stimulus plan: [hide=] [/hide] Note that Mankiw is a conservative economist who was chief economic advisor under President Bush. I would give the states more support through federal aid and not make payroll tax cuts permanent, but I agree with a lot of his ideas.

And here I thought I might read something interesting, instead I get Rush Limbaugh! Seriously, at least start with facts or links or something to back up your claims. Personally, I don't think he's spending enough and it should be noted that the $812bil (I'm sure that number has changed) stimulus plan will be spent over two years not yesterday as you make it sound.

You should shave it down to stubble, I think it would look better than the current lazy gamer beard. Stubble is sexy these days, anyways. Maybe, maybe not. I'll probably trim it somewhat more than anything. Goatee and mutton chops then? :P

You should shave it down to stubble, I think it would look better than the current lazy gamer beard. Stubble is sexy these days, anyways.

First 2 minutes= creepy mind[bleep]. I didn't understand anything. :| It's part of David Lynch's Rabbits series, which are all quite bizarre. I think there's one episode where everything turns a shade of red and a demonic voice is talking. Wonderful stuff.

Yankee's Revenge Medley - David Bromberg

The consumer in me urges to buy th physical copy of the CD, but I never do. I either download or copy from a friend. In the end, I just don't feel a need to own the CDs. As for playing, usually I play a whole album, but sometimes I'll just set it to shuffle.

Some people have late growth spurts (some people grow in college or after) and are just short to begin with. Combined you get a 4' 13 year old. And how many actually intelligent 13 year olds can there be? :P

From MayoClinic: Basically, some birth control pills can suppress menstrual bleeding, so I suppose that would be one reason to take them besides preventing pregnancy.

Which countries? Are we really using 14th century economic policy? The bold is wrong. Just look at many countries in Africa or even regions of Brazil. Voluntary trade benefits both parties, so trade isn't a leech that only benefits one side. Again, who's hording? Or the majority to live in comfort.