this is why Climate Friendly Agendas Tread Water

Without offering commentary on the rightness or wrongness of climate change, eco-friendly movements, renewables, and whatnot, I proffer this prognostication for your perusal. 

A depressing anecdotal video included in this article not only diminishes my hope for the human race and reinforces the wisdom of my decision to work at home to avoid contact with much of the human race, but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

People can say all day long that they support renewables and abhor fossil fuels. Easy to say, but the majority are unwilling to do.

My stance has always been that people are only interested in adopting renewables if someone else (such as the money fairy, perhaps) is footing the bill. I stand by that. 

People as a whole are not interested in making immediate sacrifices for future gains. 

I am indeed a candy bar kind of girl, but come on, now...

I must go now and weep for the sadness that we have become.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rodent said:

but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

Hi @Rodent

Something about that line doesn't seem right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi @Rodent

Something about that line doesn't seem right??

hmm, it always makes so much sense in my head. 

"but it also reinforces my belief that causes that requires sacrifice, even ones with merritt, face strong headwinds getting off the ground." 

essentially, people want instant gratification.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing especially as Hersheys actually tastes of vomit*

They use Butyric acid* to stablise the milk. Butyric Acid is the what gives sick its characteristic smell🤢

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

hmm, it always makes so much sense in my head. 

"but it also reinforces my belief that causes that requires sacrifice, even ones with merritt, face strong headwinds getting off the ground." 

essentially, people want instant gratification.

Agreed, and I got that gist from your whole OP.

Yes, people are not easily convinced that giving up things right now is warranted, and they are deeply skeptical without hard current evidence that long term projections are accurate either.  Tough combination, that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

Without offering commentary on the rightness or wrongness of climate change, eco-friendly movements, renewables, and whatnot, I proffer this prognostication for your perusal. 

A depressing anecdotal video included in this article not only diminishes my hope for the human race and reinforces the wisdom of my decision to work at home to avoid contact with much of the human race, but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

People can say all day long that they support renewables and abhor fossil fuels. Easy to say, but the majority are unwilling to do.

My stance has always been that people are only interested in adopting renewables if someone else (such as the money fairy, perhaps) is footing the bill. I stand by that. 

People as a whole are not interested in making immediate sacrifices for future gains. 

I am indeed a candy bar kind of girl, but come on, now...

I must go now and weep for the sadness that we have become.

 

 

Maslow's Hierarchy forms in concentric circles around the individual.  Personal needs typically come first, then family and friends, local community, regional, state, country, with the global perspective last.  It is just human nature.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rodent said:

Without offering commentary on the rightness or wrongness of climate change, eco-friendly movements, renewables, and whatnot, I proffer this prognostication for your perusal. 

A depressing anecdotal video included in this article not only diminishes my hope for the human race and reinforces the wisdom of my decision to work at home to avoid contact with much of the human race, but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

People can say all day long that they support renewables and abhor fossil fuels. Easy to say, but the majority are unwilling to do.

My stance has always been that people are only interested in adopting renewables if someone else (such as the money fairy, perhaps) is footing the bill. I stand by that. 

People as a whole are not interested in making immediate sacrifices for future gains. 

I am indeed a candy bar kind of girl, but come on, now...

I must go now and weep for the sadness that we have become.

 

 

Cool video.......

How come no-one ever approaches ME with a choice like that....?

I would have asked him if the silver was REAL silver,  and then i would have CHOSEN THE SILVER,  and then i WOULD HAVE PAID HIM $2 DOLLARS FOR THE CHOCOLATE BAR........   and i would have walked away with both items.........

But then i am weird.........!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Think about this; think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that. " - George Carlin

and stop fretting about imaginary things like climate change. If you want something real to worry about - that's financial situation and rise of populism. Average person have hard time to understand nuances between crony capitalism and free market one so they will vote for hope and change even if it comes in shape of Bernie.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Rodent said:

Without offering commentary on the rightness or wrongness of climate change, eco-friendly movements, renewables, and whatnot, I proffer this prognostication for your perusal. 

A depressing anecdotal video included in this article not only diminishes my hope for the human race and reinforces the wisdom of my decision to work at home to avoid contact with much of the human race, but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

People can say all day long that they support renewables and abhor fossil fuels. Easy to say, but the majority are unwilling to do.

My stance has always been that people are only interested in adopting renewables if someone else (such as the money fairy, perhaps) is footing the bill. I stand by that. 

People as a whole are not interested in making immediate sacrifices for future gains. 

I am indeed a candy bar kind of girl, but come on, now...

I must go now and weep for the sadness that we have become.

 

 

Rodent:

I have my doubts that this was a genuine giveaway; and that no one actually chose the silver bullion bar.  I think most people know that ten ounces of silver is worth a lot more than a Hershey's candy bar.  It looked like this was in California somewhere (they say something about San Diego on the page).  I think he was doing this with friends (who he knew would not take the silver bar) and they were essentially acting.  Don't take it at face value just because you probably agree with his economics / politics viewpoint.

Since this discussion board has a lot of "echo chamber" to it, let me give you another perspective.  From the linked website:

Quote

Are Governments Running Out of Candy?

Quote

are prone to prefer instant gratification over something of substantially greater, but delayed value.

The idea that he seemingly is presenting is that social programs (you know, like Social Security, Medicare, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), WIC (Women, Infants and Children), Unemployment Insurance or any other welfare program (just go down the list) are somehow "bankrupting" the country.

Uh, $140 in something that holds value that he is giving you without any requirement is pretty "instant gratification" to me (not delayed).  It is also very portable.  Like I said, I don't really think these were "strangers."  I think this was staged.  It was a ruse.

Quote

in recent decades, the U.S. government has fuelled American complacency through a consciousness of easy money and entitlement.

What are often called "entitlement" programs (derisively on the political right, i.e. Republicans and Libertarians) are forms of social insurance no different that the insurance you have on your house, or car, or anything else of value.  They were created to prevent abject poverty.  I would argue that is a good thing.

Quote

Trouble is, all that easy money and entitlement exists only as long as a source for the “freebies” exists. Unfortunately, the idea that freebies are free is inaccurate. Freebies of any description must be paid for by someone.

Yes, and that is absolutely the point that there should not be such extremes of wealth and poverty.  One assumption made by the economic Libertarian is that the "true" market properly sets all prices (including labor costs), except an employer is always in a much stronger bargaining position.  Not only that, but the people who most advocate for these positions argue that workers should not be allowed to unionize because they say it amounts to extortion.  Yet, they never consider (or perhaps the argument is a feature, not a bug) that the employer is essentially doing that to his employees by saying he will not employ them unless they agree to his demands for wages below the worker's value.  So, in essence, the employer is effectively stealing the worker's wages by depriving them of an somewhat equal bargaining position.  This is particularly true in small towns all across the United States and probably the world.

Furthermore, the idea that we will run out of money if we provide social welfare fails when you consider how long it would take to run out of money relevant to what it would cost to eliminate (abject) poverty.  To understand this, you have to understand the scale of money and the fractal nature of the money supply and distribution.  And I don't have the time or patience to go that far into it.  But understand that there is a fractal distribution of money and that the curve can be "flattened" without eliminating the motivation to take risks to make more money.  Furthermore, too much money is acquired in the United States via inheritances and other forms of unearned income.  Which is why those of the political left advocate higher taxes on capital gains, interest, rents, inheritances and other forms of unearned wealth.  The idea is that every person should have to contribute something to society and prove their own worth.

Quote

But, when governments hand out freebies, no sales will be generated, so the loss will not be recovered.

Actually, anti-poverty programs are stimulative (meaning that it creates, or generates, more sales, precisely because the people who benefit from these programs more or less have to spend all of the money to survive.  The people who complain about having to pay any tax (which they say is a form of "theft"), are the ones who are not generating sales because they -- almost to a person -- pride themselves in being "savers."  Saved money that sits there inertly has very little "sales generation" value.

Quote

And when taxes have been raised to the point that further increases would be difficult without inciting rebellion, governments generally rely on borrowing.

We are absolutely nowhere near that point in the United States.  Actually, we are one of the lowest (if not the lowest) taxed country among the developed Western world.  The Libertarian right loves to try to talk up the idea of overthrowing the government if we raised (their) taxes.  Sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt is part of their "book of business."

Quote

But, of course, borrowing, too, eventually reaches the point that it has become so great that it cannot be repaid. What then?

Invariably, economic collapse is the outcome.

OK, Rodent, I am pulling rank on this stupid <bleep> right here.  I am a former bankruptcy attorney.  We are nowhere near that point.  However, I agree the debt is too high, but that is because we keep cutting government revenues (taxes) that are necessary for things we must have.  The economic Libertarians, such as Grover Norquist, advocate cutting taxes with the intent of abolishing social programs by claiming we have a "crisis" when revenues fall short (he says he wants to "drown government in a bathtub" -- but of course he means only social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., which he claims create a "dependency").  The lie is in the bankruptcy schedules.  Economic Libertarians are only showing one side of the bankruptcy ledger, the debt side.  But this is bankruptcy fraud in an economic and political sense.  Under bankruptcy law, you have to disclose not only all of your debts, but also all of your assets, income and expenses.  It is like they are saying: we have $22 trillion in debt (which is what they are saying) without disclosing the assets the U.S. government holds, and failing to disclose the income of the United States (which could be higher with higher effective tax rates).  Furthermore, they consistently fail to disclose the timeline for certain debts they say are "unsustainable."  Most of the $22 trillion debt is held in 10-year bonds, which yield (cost the government) about 3% interest (actually, right now it is even less at 2.613%).  The cost of money can be calculated by dividing the interest rate into 72 (this is called the "rule of 72").  At that rate, money doubles once every 24 years (72 divided by 3).  This is also roughly the rate of inflation.  This is very stable.  However, U.S. government has the power to sell 30-year, 50-year or even 100-year bonds if we had to (although the interest rate would be slightly higher, because of slightly greater risk). 

You also see this with their argument that "the Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion" -- a number they pulled out of their <bleep>.  https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/republican-green-new-deal-attack-1250859

Furthermore, yet another lie is that we have these "unfunded mandates of <pick a number -- I have seen them all over the map>.  This is also supposed the bankrupt the country.  What they never say is over how many years.  This is important.  For instance, let say you own a house.  That house costs the average home cost in America: $250,000.  Assuming you have a 30-year mortgage when you buy it, you have an "unfunded" liability for $250,000 (further assume for the sake of argument that you finance the entire house with no money down and don't have to worry about private mortgage insurance (PMI) on your loan).  It is not unfunded, it is not yet funded.  This is only a problem if you default on your loan payment, when the bank will "call the note" and demand full payment all at once.  Now you really do have an unfunded liability.  But the U.S. Government, an entity that will not die, unlike individuals, has a carrying capacity for debt that we as individuals do not have.

I am a Keynesian.  And under the Keynesian theory (which is counter-cyclical) times of plenty should result in higher taxes to raise revenue to pay off the debt.  You would be wise to become at least marginally acquainted with all the main economic schools: Chicago, Austrian, Keynesian and Modern Monetary Theory (also known as "MMT").  The first two are Libertarian (the Austrian school currently seems to be in vogue among those on the right), while the latter two are normally associated with the political left and their economists (although, Dick Cheney, when he said "deficits don't matter" was quoting a MMT thought; and, Milton Friedman, the father of the Chicago school, endorsed a kind of universal basic income (UBI) through negative taxation, which is also associated with the political left, although arrived at via a different method than advocated by traditional leftists).

In sum, don't let these people scare you.  The U.S., government can only lose its economic power if we force it to.  We are certainly not going bankrupt as a country.  It is like what Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others."  This is kind of why the dollar is not going to be replaced anytime soon as the base trade currency.  There is simply nothing more stable to replace it.  It would probably take an act of war (which we would have to lose -- fat chance) in order for that to happen.

Edited by Okie
Correcting capitalization and changing misspelled word.
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Okie said:

Rodent:

I have my doubts that this was a genuine giveaway; and that no one actually chose the silver bullion bar.  I think most people know that ten ounces of silver is worth a lot more than a Hershey's candy bar.  It looked like this was in California somewhere (they say something about San Diego on the page).  I think he was doing this with friends (who he knew would not take the silver bar) and they were essentially acting.  Don't take it at face value just because you probably agree with his economics / politics viewpoint.

Since this discussion board has a lot of "echo chamber" to it, let me give you another perspective.  From the linked website:

The idea that he seemingly is presenting is that social programs (you know, like Social Security, Medicare, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), WIC (Women, Infants and Children), Unemployment Insurance or any other welfare program (just go down the list) are somehow "bankrupting" the country.

Uh, $140 in something that holds value that he is giving you without any requirement is pretty "instant gratification" to me (not delayed).  It is also very portable.  Like I said, I don't really think these were "strangers."  I think this was staged.  It was a ruse.

What are often called "entitlement" programs (derisively on the political right, i.e. Republicans and Libertarians) are forms of social insurance no different that the insurance you have on your house, or car, or anything else of value.  They were created to prevent abject poverty.  I would argue that is a good thing.

Yes, and that is absolutely the point that there should not be such extremes of wealth and poverty.  One assumption made by the economic Libertarian is that the "true" market properly sets all prices (including labor costs), except an employer is always in a much stronger bargaining position.  Not only that, but the people who most advocate for these positions argue that workers should not be allowed to unionize because they say it amounts to extortion.  Yet, they never consider (or perhaps the argument is a feature, not a bug) that the employer is essentially doing that to his employees by saying he will not employ them unless they agree to his demands for wages below the worker's value.  So, in essence, the employer is effectively stealing the worker's wages by depriving them of an somewhat equal bargaining position.  This is particularly true in small towns all across the United States and probably the world.

Furthermore, the idea that we will run out of money if we provide social welfare fails when you consider how long it would take to run out of money relevant to what it would cost to eliminate (abject) poverty.  To understand this, you have to understand the scale of money and the fractal nature of the money supply and distribution.  And I don't have the time or patience to go that far into it.  But understand that there is a fractal distribution of money and that the curve can be "flattened" without eliminating the motivation to take risks to make more money.  Furthermore, too much money is acquired in the United States via inheritances and other forms of unearned income.  Which is why those of the political left advocate higher taxes on capital gains, interest, rents, inheritances and other forms of unearned wealth.  The idea is that every person should have to contribute something to society and prove their own worth.

Actually, anti-poverty programs are stimulative (meaning that it creates, or generates, more sales, precisely because the people who benefit from these programs more or less have to spend all of the money to survive.  The people who complain about having to pay any tax (which they say is a form of "theft"), are the ones who are not generating sales because they -- almost to a person -- pride themselves in being "savers."  Saved money that sits there inertly has very little "sales generation" value.

We are absolutely nowhere near that point in the United States.  Actually, we are one of the lowest (if not the lowest) taxed country among the developed Western world.  The Libertarian right loves to try to talk up the idea of overthrowing the government if we raised (their) taxes.  Sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt is part of their "book of business."

OK, Rodent, I am pulling rank on this stupid <bleep> right here.  I am a former bankruptcy attorney.  We are nowhere near that point.  However, I agree the debt is too high, but that is because we keep cutting government revenues (taxes) that are necessary for things we must have.  The economic Libertarians, such as Grover Norquist, advocate cutting taxes with the intent of abolishing social programs by claiming we have a "crisis" when revenues fall short (he says he wants to "drown government in a bathtub" -- but of course he means only social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., which he claims create a "dependency").  The lie is in the bankruptcy schedules.  economic Libertarians are only showing one side of the bankruptcy ledger, the debt side.  But this is bankruptcy fraud in an economic and political sense.  Under bankruptcy law, you have to disclose not only all of your debts, but also all of your assets, income and expenses.  It is like they are saying: we have $22 trillion in debt (which is what they are saying) with disclosing the assets the U.S. government holds, and failing to disclose the income of the United States (which could be higher with higher effective tax rates).  Furthermore, they consistently fail to disclose the timeline for certain debts they say are "unsustainable."  Most of the $22 trillion debt is held in 10-year bonds, which yield (cost the government) about 3% interest (actually, right now it is even less at 2.613%).  The cost of money can be calculated by dividing the interest rate into 72 (this is called the "rule of 72").  At that rate, money doubles once every 24 years (72 divided by 3).  This is also roughly the rate of inflation.  This is very stable.  However, U.S. government has the power to sell 30-year, 50-year or even 100-year bonds if we had to (although the interest rate would be slightly higher, because of slightly greater risk). 

You also see this with their argument that "the Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion" -- a number they pulled out of their <bleep>.  https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/republican-green-new-deal-attack-1250859

Furthermore, yet another lie is that we have these "unfunded mandates of <pick a number -- I have seen them all over the map>.  This is also supposed the bankrupt the country.  What they never say is over how many years.  This is important.  For instance, let say you own a house.  That house costs the average home cost in America: $250,000.  Assuming you have a 30-year mortgage when you buy it, you have an "unfunded" liability for $250,000 (further assume for the sake of argument that you finance the entire house with no money down and don't have to worry about private mortgage insurance (PMI) on your loan).  It is not unfunded, it is not yet funded.  This is only a problem if you default on your loan payment, when the bank will "call the note" and demand full payment all at once.  Now you really do have an unfunded liability.  But the U.S. Government, an entity that will not die, unlike individuals, has a carrying capacity for debt that we as individuals do not have.

I am a Keynesian.  And under the Keynesian theory (which is counter-cyclical) times of plenty should result in higher taxes to raise revenue to pay off the debt.  You would be wise to become at least marginally acquainted with all the main economic schools: Chicago, Austrian, Keynesian and Modern Monetary Theory (also known as "MMT").  The first two are Libertarian (the Austrian school currently seems to be in vogue among those on the right), while the latter two are normally associated with the political left and their economists (although, Dick Cheney, when he said "deficits don't matter" was quoting a MMT thought; and, Milton Friedman, the father of the Chicago school, endorsed a kind of universal basic income (UBI) through negative taxation, which is also associated with the political left, although arrived at via a different method than advocated by traditional leftists).

In sum, don't let these people scare you.  The U.S., government can only lose its economic power if we force it to.  We are certainly not going bankrupt as a country.  It is like what Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others."  This is kind of why the dollar is not going to be replaced anytime soon as the base trade currency.  There is simply nothing more stable to replace it.  It would probably take an act of war (which we would have to lose -- fat chance) in order for that to happen.

wowsers.  getting all windy on me.  I didn't read the article (just watched the video), and am uninterested in the author's political agenda, and didn't even realize he had one. I stumbled across it while googling "government candy bars" as I was trying to figure out what the flip the government would do with all the candy bars it looks like they bought with all their use it or lose it money. 

Horrified, I abandon my candy bar search and had to vent my fears to y'all. 

as for the merits of the video, who knows. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about with "use it or lose it" buying candy bars?  That's a new one to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Rodent said:

wowsers.  getting all windy on me.  I didn't read the article (just watched the video), and am uninterested in the author's political agenda, and didn't even realize he had one. I stumbled across it while googling "government candy bars" as I was trying to figure out what the flip the government would do with all the candy bars it looks like they bought with all their use it or lose it money. 

Horrified, I abandon my candy bar search and had to vent my fears to y'all. 

as for the merits of the video, who knows. 

 

and before anyone judges me for spending a portion of my morning trying to figure out why my tax dollars bought oodles of candy I can't eat, remember I can moderate you. :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rodent said:

 I stumbled across it while googling "government candy bars" as I was trying to figure out what the flip the government would do with all the candy bars it looks like they bought with all their use it or lose it money. 

 

ok your Majesty.

How do i get my share of those government candy bars..............9_9

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

and before anyone judges me for spending a portion of my morning trying to figure out why my tax dollars bought oodles of candy I can't eat, remember I can moderate you. :)

MEAN WOMAN............

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rodent said:

Without offering commentary on the rightness or wrongness of climate change, eco-friendly movements, renewables, and whatnot, I proffer this prognostication for your perusal. 

A depressing anecdotal video included in this article not only diminishes my hope for the human race and reinforces the wisdom of my decision to work at home to avoid contact with much of the human race, but it also reinforces my belief that no movement, even ones with merritt, have trouble getting off the ground if that movement requires sacrifices.

People can say all day long that they support renewables and abhor fossil fuels. Easy to say, but the majority are unwilling to do.

My stance has always been that people are only interested in adopting renewables if someone else (such as the money fairy, perhaps) is footing the bill. I stand by that. 

People as a whole are not interested in making immediate sacrifices for future gains. 

I am indeed a candy bar kind of girl, but come on, now...

I must go now and weep for the sadness that we have become.

 

 

Happy to see you reading International Man, as an alternative to MSM.

I remember reading this article a year or 2 ago (it's not new).

Good points made.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Rodent, speaking of buying candy bars with money you have to spend in a crisis, it reminds me of something I recently saw in a Ted Talk regarding the Universal Basic Income:

 
A couple of things he said were very profound.  IQ tests performed on those in poverty vs. when they have plenty of money (such as on farmers after they get paid for their harvest) corresponded to a drop of 14 points on an IQ test.  Also: "Scarcity mentality."  Behavioral studies show that people behave differently when they perceive things to be scarce. such as time, money or food.  He said that it was more like a fast computer that was running too many large programs at once.  No matter how fast the computer was, it could not handle the load of too many programs all at once.
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Okie said:

What on earth are you talking about with "use it or lose it" buying candy bars?  That's a new one to me.

at the end of each fiscal year,  each government agency must complete their budget,  and return to the treasury all moneys that were allocated to them,  but they did not spend...

as a result,   those agencies end each fiscal year by going on spending sprees to spend the money rather than return it to the treasury......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illurion said:

at the end of each fiscal year,  each government agency must complete their budget,  and return to the treasury all moneys that were allocated to them,  but they did not spend...

as a result,   those agencies end each fiscal year by going on spending sprees to spend the money rather than return it to the treasury......

Thanks, Illurion, I kind of figured that.  I just could not figure out why they would pick candy bars, of all things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, $25,000 out of either $700,000,000,000 or $563,000,000,000 is chump change.  It is large on our individual level, but nothing considering how big the entire military is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Okie said:

A couple of things he said were very profound.  IQ tests performed on those in poverty vs. when they have plenty of money (such as on farmers after they get paid for their harvest) corresponded to a drop of 14 points on an IQ test.

wrong example...

you should have used the example of Congress in the last 24 hour before they pass their yearly budget full of "earmarks"........

you know......   to pull a "pelosi".......... "WE HAVE TO PASS IT SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT IS IN IT."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 minutes ago, Okie said:

Thanks, Illurion, I kind of figured that.  I just could not figure out why they would pick candy bars, of all things.

they probably didn't........

they embezzled the money,  and wrote in their log that they bought candy bars............

you don't actually think that NASA actually paid $700 for each hammer do you..?

Edited by Illurion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Illurion said:

they probably didn't........

they embezzled the money,  and wrote in their log that they bought candy bars............

you don't actually think that NASA actually paid $700 for each hammer do you..?

20 years ago,  my Wife discovered the company she worked for was embezzling money from the local school board by stating that an extravagantly large amount of food was being sent to a small neighborhood elementary school.

She told her boss what she found,  and she was transferred to another office the next day,  and fired 3 weeks later.....

Two years later,  her old boss,  the one she told about the embezzlement scheme,  was arrested for being the "creator" behind the scheme......

Nothing surprises me anymore............

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Illurion said:

wrong example...

you should have used the example of Congress in the last 24 hour before they pass their yearly budget full of "earmarks"........

you know......   to pull a "pelosi".......... "WE HAVE TO PASS IT SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT IS IN IT."

It could apply to any decision made under stress or duress.  But I think they actually knew what was in that bill you are referring to.  At least the gist of it.  And I wasn't trying to use it to make a political statement, at least not directly.  I was trying to make a point about how people make bad decisions when stressed.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Okie said:

It could apply to any decision made under stress or duress.  But I think they actually knew what was in that bill you are referring to.  At least the gist of it.  And I wasn't trying to use it to make a political statement, at least not directly.  I was trying to make a point about how people make bad decisions when stressed.

ok... cool...  i was just kidding you anyway...  my apologies.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites