SH3RL0CK

It's actually closer to half.

 

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

 

 

 

Your own source (under overview of funding) indicates that $207.3B of the $787B has been paid. By my math, that is 26%.

 

Edit: I also note that 640,329 jobs "saved" divided by the expenditure of $207.3 billion results in a cost of $323,740 per job "saved". I guess it is debatable if the jobs saved is worth this cost, but why not just give the unemployed $100k instead?

So, I'm wondering.. What would have happened if the government took the republican approach?

I thought the government was...G.W. Bush decided the best way to fix the problem was with bailouts. Obama endorsed this and added his own bailouts.

 

What was John McCain's proposal to fix the weak economy? (I could not find this on Google)

I don't recall him addressing the issue...probably because pointing this out would have been worse for his campaign than ignoring the issue.

If there was no government stimulus (spending) ....

 

Would the economy be worse off than it is now?

considering we have only spent about 20% of the stimulus, I honestly don't think it would be much worse. I think the DOW would be similar.

 

How can the growing national debt negatively effect the USA/economy? Will it?

 

 

Thanks.

At some point it will obviously result in either much higher interest rates due to a lack of capital (as it all goes to service this debt), or it will result in inflation due to "printing" of money in an attempt to provide capital. The extent and timing of these events is very uncertain however.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not an economist, so the above is my thoughts only and could well be wrong.

I don't think he's necessarily done that quite yet - are we taking the predicted debt we're accruing over the next couple of years as already counted against him?

 

I'm with Bascule on this one

 

Well, I was never sure where Bascule was going with his statement regarding Reagan and Bush, except maybe to reply to gre that there isn't a substantial difference between Republicans and Democrats. If that was his point, then I also agree; and I think the fact Obama has spent more than previous presidents (as did G.W. Bush) clearly illustrates the similarities on at least the deficit between the two political parties.

 

I'm sure someone here will say, but Clinton balanced the budget so I'd like to pre-emptively point out Clinton did so with a Republican congress. Again, this shows the two parties behave in a very similar manner, at least with regards to the budget deficit.

No. You are correct. They have added a lot of safety systems to the power and communication systems over the years that should greatly reduce the risk of anything catastrophic. The satellite systems are still quite a worry though.

 

Assuming the absolute worst that all satelites fail, would the communications of the globe be critically impaired? There will still be undersea cables, radio transmissions, etc. I don't know what percentage is transfered by satellite. It seems to me, however, that we would get by just fine without live broadcast of the 2016 Olympics until we could replace the satellites as long as even a small percentage of communications can be handled without satelites.

Well, certainly the potential exists for great damage. I was under the impression however that this possibility has been anticipated and the power and communication systems have been constructed with the appropriate safety components. If this is true, the damage would be minimal, which is what I base my guesstimation on. However I could be mistaken on this point.

Certainly a large solar storm could and probably will happen again.

 

Having the knowledge to build, and therefore rebuild our communications and power systems, it seems to me that even in the worst case, society would quickly rebuilt whatever was damaged or destroyed. I wouldn't expect a return to the stone ages, but perhaps a 1-2 or even 5 year recession or mild depression while we rebuilt.

One thing to remember about the atomic bombs is that while the weapons were novel, the strategy was not. Whole cities had been destoyed from the air before, with tens of thousands of civilians killed at a time. So there's really three questions. 1) Are such tactics ever justifiable? 2) Were they justifiable in these two cases? and 3) How do the particular weapons used (lone atomic bombs, instead of thousands of clusterbombs or whatever) affect the justifiability?

 

Good point, what really was the difference for the civilians between the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo?

 

FYI, The incendary bombs dropped onto the very highly flammable city when the wind was blowing at 70 mph (110 kph) resulted in an incredibly intense fire which destroyed the city in a manner not much different than atomic weapons would have.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

 

Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs

Even with all we know today, I think there is a strong case that Truman made the right decision. Its a popular view today for people to sit back today and ask if dropping the A-bomb would be too harsh an action to take against "the enemy", or ask if we could have convinced them to surrender without dropping the bomb. It is quite another viewpoint if you are being shot at or if you are being tortured in a Japanese prison camp or if your children had died or been permanetly crippled at their hands during the war.

The decision was entirely political and not based on the advice of the panel.

 

 

Strange that politicians would make decisions based solely upon political realities...

That's hard to say. In the US, Republicans pay lipservice to conservative economics, but Reagan and Dubya have together run up the national debt more than all other presidents combined.

 

Not quite true. Obama has run it up more than all previous presidents combined.

why don't you read up on dry cells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cell

 

Took me about two minutes to find the answer.

I heard that one problem is that our kneecaps would be much better if it were designed like our elbows. There would be less risk of injury to the supporting structures. I don't have a reference and I don't really know enough about anatomy to verify this however.

It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?

 

Three reasons that I see:

 

1) It is the only right-wing biased news organization. There are many left-wing organizations (I would say nearly all the others). As such, FOX stands out while the other organizations can say "we don't have a bias, see everyone else but FOX is saying the same thing" In other words, the large number of left-leaning organizations makes Fox appear more extreme than they are and makes themselves appear less extreme than what is actually the view of the public by sheer numbers.

 

2) As they ideologically stand apart from the others, and because they have high ratings in comparison, they naturally are a target of the other news organizations. It is in the interests of the other news organizations (as well as liberal politicians and pundits) to attack FOX.

 

3) I do think FOX takes what I will call "irresponsible" journalism a step further than the others and therefore gets more criticism. But it is a small step in my opinion, as I think all American (and most world) "news" organizations have abandoned ethics and impartiality.

It's my opinion, but I would not call Fox a news agency. They only report news at all as a means to an ends that has nothing to do with reporting news.

To me, that warrants a different classification.

 

I understand your viewpoint here, however as I stated earlier, unless the worst of the claims against them can be proven, I have to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and call them a news agency. Do you have sufficient proof to back up the worst of your statements? While I would like to see these claims proven, proof doesn't seem to exist. Nor is it likely proof would matter in the realm of public opinion.

 

Fox is an example of extremely poor journalism certainly. Perhaps Fox is an example of systematic unethical journalism, but I can't prove it. And sadly, the competition is indistinguishable to me with regards to the quality and apparent ethics of the reporting; the difference apparently is only political ideology. But that's just my opinion.

Could it be a translation error? Probably they meant a blackbody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody

black body is an idealized object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls on it. No electromagnetic radiation passes through it and none is reflected.

 

Though even this isn't a true blackbody as it only works in a very narrow range of frequencies.

If someone in this thread had the good sense to simply define the term "NEWS" in how they are using it, I'm sure much of this silliness would end pretty quickly.

 

This is no longer a thread about FOX and its flaws. It's a thread about each of our own individual and unique definitions of "what is news." There is no disagreement about what Fox is doing, only in how a term is applied.

 

In short, iron out the semantics and we might actually accomplish something or reach an understanding here.

 

An excellent suggestion. I'll start, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/news

 

noun (usually used with a singular verb) 1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.

2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.

3. such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.

4. a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. Compare copy (def. 5).

5. newspaper.

6. newscast.

 

Fox does provide reports of recent events (1), present it (2 and 3), and is a newscast (6). Therefore I submit that they must be considered a news organization despite the fact the reports may be biased, incorrect, or incomplete.

[this] is wrong on so many levels.

 

I agree, and frankly I don't understand why Obama is not taking more heat for this. Its not about Fox, but about the principle of what is, and isn't proper behavior for a sitting President. But Obama's actions are not the point of this thread, so I'll stop digressing.

And why the White house, is getting all fussy over this I haven't the faintest idea.

 

I think this is VERY obvious, the white house does not like how Fox "reports" the news (though I am sure they are fine when the news bias is in their favor). My belief is the White House should tolerate Fox rather than try to cut them out.

...Fox News mimics certain traits of a News agency, but it is no more a news agency than a decoy is a duck - it only resembles a News organization within the scope of it's primary purpose, which is not to report the news.

 

Well, here we have a difference of opinion (not necessarily mine ). Don't we (and the President B.T.W.) have to give FOX the benefit of the doubt since we cannot prove their primary purpose is not to report the news? Or can you prove this claim? And I haven't seen anything on this thread or otherwise I would consider sufficient proof that they do not intend to report the news.

Does that mean the only standard for a News organization is they have the word "News" in their name, and some people call them that?

 

In that case, what does it take for a hunting decoy to actually be a duck?

 

That is a really good question and I suppose everyone will have a different opinion. However, in case of FOX, where they claim to be a news organization, have paid investigative reporters and analysts on staff, do provide information (albeit not always complete or correct) to millions of people on a regular basis, and have been doing so for years. I think Fox does a terrible job (and intentionally so) but how can they NOT be called a news organization?

 

That would be like saying a mallard is not a duck...

I think you're missing the point here. Do you know about the 9.12 Project?

 

http://www.the912project.com/

 

Fox News isn't just covering the protests. They aren't just saying good things about them. They're saying "we're organizing a protest. Show up to Washington on 9/12 and protest the government"

 

Did CNN ever orchestrate an "Impeach Bush" rally and tell the protesters when and where to show up?

 

I'm not here to defend Fox news. I agree with everyone here that their behavior is inexcusable. They have "pushed the envelope" so to speak regarding the fine line that used to exist between reporting the news and making the news. That said, other organizations have been "making" the news for decades. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC#Controversies . Really the difference is that Fox has perhaps gone a bit further along in unethical behavior. But it is a difference without a distinction, the real reason for the additional criticism of FOX is, IMO, that they run counter in their political bias to all other organizations.

 

Clearly (from the poll results) I am in the minority viewpoint. But the way I see it, Fox is clearly a news organization in that they disseminate the news to their viewers. They certainly have a bias, provide only half the story, and are otherwise ...irresponsible at best. But they do provide news to their viewers and as such, they are a news organization.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Wouldn't that also make Twitter a news organization?

 

No, because Twitter has no reporters who investigate the facts and interview people. Not that the Fox reporters, or any American news reporters, do their jobs all that well...but at least they have reporters and analysts.

You can find many examples of CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, etc organizing and promoting anti-government protests in Washington?

 

No, because CNN, ABC, etc. are Pro-government. However, there are many examples of them doing similar things for anti-war protestors and "impeach Bush" rallies for example.

 

I'll look up some examples when I get more time than I have at the moment.

I think this is really central to the debate surrounding Fox News. Several people are suggesting that there is no need to distinguish Fox News from other TV news organizations like ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

 

Members of ABC News, for example, have argued that Fox News should be considered a news organization and given the same access to the White House as any other news organization. Others think Fox News cannot be considered a news organization.

 

What do you think?

 

FOX itself claims to be a news organization and they at least go through the motions that would be expected from a typical News organization. They also have a rather large audience opf viewers most of whom I am sure would say FOX is a news organization. Therefore they have to be called a news organization (and why I voted yes).

 

The fact that they often get the news wrong (whether by mistake or intentionally), provide opinion instead of actual news, and have a clear bias pushing their agenda is besides the point because this is the case for all American (and almost all worldwide) news organizations today. I can find many examples of any American news organization doing exactly the same thing FOX is accused of doing. Frankly, they are all terrible and I really think I could train monkeys to do a better job.

 

This appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt by the whitehouse to control the media (by excluding any opposing views) and Obama is (or should be) better than this. If he can't take criticism (even libel and slander) from a news organization, he should not have run for President. Obama's best move would have been to let FOX slander him, but clearly point out their bias and how they are wrong, and simply carry on with his plans. Instead, Obama 1) gives credence to FOX's biased claims, 2) has to spend time on this issue rather than the important work of governing the country, and 3) makes a bad impression of himself which isn't going to help him or his agenda down the road.

Calling out Fox wastes time and energy that Obama could better use on more productive things. As the leader of the country, we are paying him to work to fix the things that are wrong (high unemployment, bad economy, etc.); not to get into a pissing match with news organizations. As President, Obama should be taking the high road as most (if not all) Presidents before him.

 

As a side note, it should be realized that all Presidents have been unfairly criticized by the Press, and many in much worse ways than Obama (read up on how some in the Press treated Pres. Lincoln for example) - so I'm not really sure he has anything to complian about anyway. Its a price paid for a free Press.

but is this dangerous because it produces chlorine gas

 

It is dangerous for other reasons as Horza pointed out. Please do not attmept this.