Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it

[an]

This is the kind of medical advancement that I’m talking about: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29636. This and many other just like it. If you’re alive in the next 5+ years (just some arbitrary number), I think you’ll be one of many who will benefit greatly from these kind of medical advancements that will greatly prolong your life expectancy and your quality of life as well.

[scaredyclassic]

I agree as to life expectancy but not so much as to life quality.

I think life quality will be heading steadily down.

All of this will be prolonging a long slow inevitable decline into nonfunctional mess.

The only thing that can save us is physical movement.

Yes movement.

We all need to move around a lot more.

[an]

This is another kind of medical advancement I’m talking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/12/cancer-survival-rates-doubled
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29669 (better quality of life for some)

[barnaby33]

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.

I absolutely loved this sentence. I just wished he’d actually typed out fuck you!

Nobody seems to have made the point that spending or taxing problems aren’t the base issue. The real underlying problem is the lack of economic growth. Not in ‘Merican bonars mind you, in real economic output. Since we are now officially energy constrained that can’t happen, hence all talk of real growth is absolute horse shit. Now heap on top of that all the fine points made herein about spending and taxing and we have a great thread!
Josh

[SK in CV]

[quote=barnaby33]

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.

I absolutely loved this sentence. I just wished he’d actually typed out fuck you!

Nobody seems to have made the point that spending or taxing problems aren’t the base issue. The real underlying problem is the lack of economic growth. Not in ‘Merican bonars mind you, in real economic output. Since we are now officially energy constrained that can’t happen, hence all talk of real growth is absolute horse shit. Now heap on top of that all the fine points made herein about spending and taxing and we have a great thread!
Josh[/quote]

I’ve been saying here for quite some time that economic growth is what is necessary to fix both the budget deficit and the debt. I said it early on in this thread.

I have no idea what you mean by “we are now officially energy contrained, so that [growth] can’t happen”. Who made it official? Is energy of any kind being rationed?

[all]

[quote=AN]This is another kind of medical advancement I’m talking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/12/cancer-survival-rates-doubled
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29669 (better quality of life for some)[/quote]

How can they tell 10y survival rate of those diagnosed in 2007? We need to wait 4 more years and enumerate them 😉

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
I have no idea what you mean by “we are now officially energy contrained, so that [growth] can’t happen”. Who made it official? Is energy of any kind being rationed?[/quote]

We’re certainly not energy constrained in the technical sense. I.e. we can certainly generate more electrical energy from a variety of sources, but cheap energy is more difficult. If you want serious economic growth you want to unlock a new cheap energy source. Of course between the environmentalists and the NIMBY’s it easy said than done.

Maybe Lawerence Livermore will unlock fusion sooner than later, but we’re probably still decades away unless you do a Manhattan style project.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=livinincali]
Maybe Lawerence Livermore will unlock fusion sooner than later, but we’re probably still decades away unless you do a Manhattan style project.[/quote]

The entire cost of the Manhattan project was just under $2 billion, roughly $25 billion in today’s dollar.

Our 2012 deficit was $1.1 Trillion dollars, enough to run 44 Manhattan projects in their entirety. Each employing 130,000 people.

Along with the trillion in debt from 2011 being enough to fund 5 Apollo Moon programs, each in their entirety for the decade, just imagine what we could have done…

Take the 2010 trillion in debt, and Hoover Dam’s $49 million dollar price tag (call it a billion today) and just go ahead and build another thousand of those.

[Arraya]

[quote=SK in CV]Is energy of any kind being rationed?[/quote]

Yes the ratioing mechanism is called a price point.

At the Fair Energy summit today, hosted by The Independent and Policy Review Intelligence, Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, will remind energy companies about new rules which mean they will have to be more open about the reason why electricity and gas bills are increasing. He says companies are exaggerating the expense of the Government’s energy efficiency measures.

His comments will follow the shocking claim from the Government’s Fuel Poverty Advisory Group that 300,000 homes will be pushed into fuel poverty by Christmas. A household is considered to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel for adequate heating.

The group also warns that unless the Government tackles the problem of people being forced to choose between heating and eating, nine million households could fall into fuel poverty by 2016. It is estimated that six million households

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya][quote=SK in CV]Is energy of any kind being rationed?[/quote]

Yes the ratioing mechanism is called a price point.

[/quote]

So energy is being rationed exactly the same as everything else we buy. Gotcha.

[an]

Another medical advancement that will greatly improve a lot of people’s quality of life if they can have the same success in human as dogs:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29872

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]Another medical advancement that will greatly improve a lot of people’s quality of life if they can have the same success in human as dogs:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29872%5B/quote%5D

This sounds exceptionally promising. Let’s hope they have similar successes with humans.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN]Another medical advancement that will greatly improve a lot of people’s quality of life if they can have the same success in human as dogs:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29872%5B/quote%5D

This sounds exceptionally promising. Let’s hope they have similar successes with humans.[/quote]
This is the reason why I’ve said before that if you’re alive and healthy today, it’s very likely that you’ll live much longer than your parents’ generation. Not because you eat better or exercise more, but mainly due to medical advancements like these. Yes, eating right and exercise will help a lot, but these kind of medical advancement will allow even the lazy to live well beyond their years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter][quote=AN]Another medical advancement that will greatly improve a lot of people’s quality of life if they can have the same success in human as dogs:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29872%5B/quote%5D

This sounds exceptionally promising. Let’s hope they have similar successes with humans.[/quote]
This is the reason why I’ve said before that if you’re alive and healthy today, it’s very likely that you’ll live much longer than your parents’ generation. Not because you eat better or exercise more, but mainly due to medical advancements like these. Yes, eating right and exercise will help a lot, but these kind of medical advancement will allow even the lazy to live well beyond their years.[/quote]

AN, Type I Diabetes is hereditary. It has a common onset in the child or teenage years.

You don’t get it from being lazy.

Most of its “victims” are of normal weight or even thin.

It has nothing to do with how one eats or if they eat too much (although a victim of Type I diabetes will have to alter their diet).

It is a malfunction of the insulin output of the individual, due to heredity.

**************************************

I think you are referring to Type II (adult onset) diabetes in your latest post, caused primarily from inactivity leading to obesity.

This “dog study” has nothing to do with Type II diabetes as they are different animals, entirely.

[an]

BG, you really don’t get it do you. It’s not about this one study. It about the advancement of medicine in recent years. If you fails to see that, well, then there’s no point in debating further.

[Author]

Posts