Excellent commentary, I would like to say that changing demographics may indicate an attitude which is obligatory of modern concensus regarding old guard political opinion. Rembering laws which have been based upon foundations of 300/400 years ago, with changing boundaries these newer administration techniques will just be getting the gist of a changing situation regarding our advancement towards space, science and larger communities.

President Lyndon Johnson was embarked on building the Great Society, assisted by policy-makers who, wrote Time, “have used Keynesian principles” to smooth the moderate business cycles and achieve price stability: “Washington's economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes' central theme” that a modern economy can operate at “top efficiency” only with government “intervention and influence.” So, “economists have descended in force from their ivory towers and now sit confidently at the elbow of almost every important leader in government and business, where they are increasingly called upon to forecast, plan and decide.” Ten years later, the “misery index” – the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate – was 19.9, heading for 22 percent in 1980.


Remember the efficiency of computers.

See, the whole theory behind this salary cap is if you're not performing well, and you're taking taxpayer money, then that should be reflected in lower wages. Of course, under that criteria, everybody in Congress should get like, what, two bucks an hour?

The highest political office in the U.S. is the Office of the President, who's wages were recently increased by George W. Bush from $200,000/yr to $450,000/yr, which is still under $500,000/yr as specified by the cutoff.

I honestly don't know other's wages, but are you saying that every person in Washington makes more than the President of the U.S.?

I can't speak for Jay leno, but I think he was saying that politicians should get paid what they are worth, which is around "$2 an hour". He is not saying they are making more than $500,000 which they are definitly not.

ROFL

I need to clear out the cobwebs and get more sleep!

---

See, the whole theory behind this salary cap is if you're not performing well, and you're taking taxpayer money, then that should be reflected in lower wages. Of course, under that criteria, everybody in Congress should get like, what, two bucks an hour?

The highest political office in the U.S. is the Office of the President, who's wages were recently increased by George W. Bush from $200,000/yr to $450,000/yr, which is still under $500,000/yr as specified by the cutoff.

I honestly don't know other's wages, but are you saying that every person in Washington makes more than the President of the U.S.?

I can't speak for Jay Leno, but I think he was saying that politicians should get paid what they are worth, which is around "$2 an hour". He is not saying they are making more than $500,000 which they are definitely not.

ROFL

I need to clear out the cobwebs and get more sleep!

And all the time I thought It was clean out the sleep and get more cob webs. ;) No matter what, any of the people already mentioned get more than I ever have, But that's their problem. But of course Government doesn't normally pay as well as the private sector as I've heard said in the past.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Looks like the usual politics and science still gets hit:

Now you see it… now you don’t

... a US senate committee has suggested significant cuts to Barack Obama’s $825bn economic stimulus package.

And it doesn’t look good for science — with all the extra money for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy Office of Science included in the cuts.

Continued Bush legacy or more of the Luddite Bush cronies? Or just a hark back to the religious days of old whereby the populace were to be kept "dumbed down" to keep them 'more religious'...

All good fun,

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Looks like the usual politics and science still gets hit:

Now you see it… now you don’t

... a US senate committee has suggested significant cuts to Barack Obama’s $825bn economic stimulus package.

And it doesn’t look good for science — with all the extra money for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy Office of Science included in the cuts.

Continued Bush legacy or more of the Luddite Bush cronies? Or just a hark back to the religious days of old whereby the populace were to be kept "dumbed down" to keep them 'more religious'...

Perhaps we simply do not have the money? In tough times, government should trim it's budget like everyone else. Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Continued Bush legacy or more of the Luddite Bush cronies? Or just a hark back to the religious days of old whereby the populace were to be kept "dumbed down" to keep them 'more religious'...

Perhaps we simply do not have the money? In tough times, government should trim it's budget like everyone else. Besides, democrats control the Senate.

All the billions into the 'stimulus' package why worry about the 'budget'?

---

me@rescam.org

Looks like the usual politics and science still gets hit:

Now you see it… now you don’t

... a US senate committee has suggested significant cuts to Barack Obama’s $825bn economic stimulus package.

And it doesn’t look good for science — with all the extra money for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy Office of Science included in the cuts.

Continued Bush legacy or more of the Luddite Bush cronies? Or just a hark back to the religious days of old whereby the populace were to be kept "dumbed down" to keep them 'more religious'...

No, this would likely be continued Obie status quo.

The story doesn't mention which committee, but since the Senate is controlled by Democrats now, the majority of the members on the committee are likely Democrats, as is the committee chairman. The only way it would get out of committee is if the Democrats wanted it to.

So no, it has nothing to do with Dubya. It would be Democrats and that pesky status quo all the way.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

---

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

That is still a majority. While it might not be complete control, they still have control over when passes through the Senate. Plus there are 56 democrats, 2 independants and 41 republicans in the Senate. But the independants might as well be democrats based on how they vote.

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Right. They have the majority. 8 more than half. They do not have the 60 votes to stop a filibuster, but they do control the Senate.

Unless I'm missing something.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

$825 billion dollars is a lot of money for any Earth political commitee to consider, it is though, the realm of the democratic merchant to bolster its hush, hush opinion.

Yes, it is a lot of money.

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

Even if you cannot stop a filibuster, I would still call that a majority control, which I would also call a controlling interest.

---

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

Even if you cannot stop a filibuster, I would still call that a majority control, which I would also call a controlling interest.

It's been said the Senate vote needs at least 3 Republican votes for passage, Which would make It 61 votes.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

Even if you cannot stop a filibuster, I would still call that a majority control, which I would also call a controlling interest.

But if 41 Senators decide to fillibuster, then whatever legislation the 59 Senators want to pass will not make progress. It really takes a super majority to pass anything in the Senate. In a few cases you will have people vote to cut off debate (break off the fillibuster) and then vote against the bill, but that is happening less and less frequently.

---

BOINC WIKI

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

Even if you cannot stop a filibuster, I would still call that a majority control, which I would also call a controlling interest.

But if 41 Senators decide to filibuster, then whatever legislation the 59 Senators want to pass will not make progress. It really takes a super majority to pass anything in the Senate. In a few cases you will have people vote to cut off debate (break off the filibuster) and then vote against the bill, but that is happening less and less frequently.

You need to have at least 60 votes to be filibuster proof and they did have 60, the other side only had 38.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Doesn't that give it the majority, thus some would say a controlling interest?

No, As You need 60 votes to keep a filibuster from happening(non stop talking). :D

Even if you cannot stop a filibuster, I would still call that a majority control, which I would also call a controlling interest.

But if 41 Senators decide to filibuster, then whatever legislation the 59 Senators want to pass will not make progress. It really takes a super majority to pass anything in the Senate. In a few cases you will have people vote to cut off debate (break off the filibuster) and then vote against the bill, but that is happening less and less frequently.

You need to have at least 60 votes to be filibuster proof and they did have 60, the other side only had 38.

The Democrats only have 59 votes from their party. One short of a fillibuster proof majority. So they need at least one Republican on every vote.

---

BOINC WIKI

Obie rewards political doners with fat contracts in stimulus bill, go figure...

FEBRUARY 12, 2009, 3:22 P.M.ET
GE, Tech Win Big in Stimulus Bill

WASHINGTON -- High technology and diversified conglomerates that helped shape the contours of the stimulus plan emerged as big winners in the draft bill scheduled for a vote Friday.

General Electric Co., whose CEO Jeff Immelt serves as a White House adviser, will likely benefit from a dozen different provisions in the bill, from appliance rebates to water treatment spending and wind energy tax breaks. Big donors to President Barack Obama's campaign, such as Google Corp. and Microsoft Corp., stand to benefit from billions of dollars slated for technology infrastructure, environmental and educational projects aimed at improving U.S. competitiveness.

Wow, so apparently the high tech companies are getting government money because they gave money to the Democrats and Obama. I'm kinda confused now though because I was apparently under the mistaken impression that the high tech corporations like M$, Google, GE (and no doubt Boeing and a few others) were the only things keeping the US on top and had been important to US supremacy since the early 1900s... (I understand that not all of them were around, but the point still stands!)