Storm I wasn't commenting about economics or the study, I was talking about the media. I don't know if you didn't read it or just didn't understand what I was saying.

Anyways, since we're talking about energy now I'm gonna add my two cents and say nuclear is the only viable alternative at this point. 30% of Europe is already powered by nuclear energy, and not all European countries even have nuclear reactors.

I wasn't going to post something like this, but I changed my mind. Storm, you're quoting that same, year old article as your only source, claiming that it is fact. You're basically going 'what you said isn't in this article, therefore it is wrong,' and then you don't bother to add anything to it (except for one quote). I'm not saying the article is wrong or that the source is unreliable, I'm saying that you're annoying.

WAIT, they both can do it, nothing like bi-partisan package stimulating

I might have seen someone mention this already, but owell.

StormLord: 'If that opinion is true it is a fact'....
Sorry man, this is a false statement. True or false, opinion will never be fact. It is an opinion.

fc i wasnt bashing renewables. i was merely stating that with current technology they do not compare to nuclear as a total package. hydroelectric is basically out of the picture since pretty much any place we can stick a dam we already have. that and hydro isnt exactly eco friendly. even with all this money going into better fish ladders, dams still cause a lot of damage. wind power only works while it is windy obviously. and the cost per megawatt of electricity produced is about 7 times that of nuclear and coal, but im sure in 15 or 20 years they will have the kinks worked out so that it is at least comparable.

Adonia i wasnt attacking your statement in any way or a least didnt mean to. was just stating that now is a bad time to buy gold. and i agree guns at least for the foreseeable future will be a highly marketable commodity.

Storm, you seem to be ignoring the spin that your report puts on perceived income. it is literally impossible to make more then a dollar per dollar in food stamps. What your figures are saying is that for every dollar in food stamps 1.84$ worth in goods/services will circulate. however this is not to say that more goods/services will be produced. Money does not multiply by itself it increases as the net amount of products and services grow compared to their respective demands. this is why putting the money in a high demand industry such as banking, manufacturing, construction, or informatics would do more, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy then food stamps.
to try to put it more simply i will use this analogy. i have a baker and a blacksmith. i give them both 1000$. the baker goes and buys flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and other baking supplies and bakes me 150 cakes of which he sell 120 for 12$ a piece. the blacksmith buy steel and welding equipment and makes some steel frames for small sheds
he makes say 8 of them and sell them for 250$ each. so with the baker your 1000$ ended up bringing 1440$ into circulation second generation while with the black smith you brought 2000$ into circulation.
these figures are pretty much made up, but they arent really important. the important part comes in this next little bit. The blacksmith who has a family now has 2000$ to provide food water shelter, clothes and other essentials to his family. the baker has 1440. the important part though is that by giving the blacksmith money you have now stimulated two different markets (fabrication and essentials) with the baker you have only stimulated one market (essentials). Since this recession is a problem with multiple sectors of the market we need to be stimulating growth in multiple sectors of the market. However the food market is not a sector that needs money fed into it directly since it will receive money from the employees of all the other markets.

"More from this war dog kid plz, he's hysterical."

Oh, so you want hysterical? Enjoy:
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff

also storm you need to take into consideration where that extra money will really go. Ideologically it would go to paying other bills such as heating or phone or electric. But believe me i know this from experience because i have done a lot of work with low income people who are on food stamps. the extra money usually goes to alcohol or tobacco. Im not trying to bash on blue collar America or anything, but from what i have seen they spend way too much money on stuff they dont need. Its one thing to spent 50$ on booze a week if your an accountant or engineer or somebody who makes the money to do it. but if your making 10$/hour and spending 50/week on booze and another 20 on cigerettes. thats nearly 20% of your weekly paycheck (before taxes) that you are spending on vices.

Lol some of those are pretty funny. Thanks for the site.

still nobody awnsers my questions? WHAT BAOUT TALK SHOWS

"More from this war dog kid plz, he's hysterical."

Oh, so you want hysterical? Enjoy:
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff



and this is supposed to mean?!!?