How many 100W Incandescent light bulbs do you have stocked up?

Page 3 of 6  


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<puerile partisan propaganda pared>

This disparity of wealth has happened in society after society. Even our own. Sometimes the results are very, very bad for the very, very wealthy. In the long run, they are the very few against the very many. The massive failure of the free (for all) market in 1929 seriously amplified the interest in communism in this country. It also led to a great deal of socially-oriented legislation like Social Security. That cycle could easily repeat itself and it appears to be doing so as we speak.
The right-wingers are quick to say that it was government regulation that caused the 2008 crash but that fails to explain why the crash of 1929 occurred when there was none of this allegedly excess regulation. The more likely explanation is that capitalism has some serious defects that business doesn't seem able to correct without help from the government, whom they run to with their hands out like starving street urchins when things go wrong.
I think what disturbs me most about the strident voices on the right is that for all the talk about exporting democracy and the rule of law, they're working *very* hard to effectively reverse the election of 2008. If you can't abide by the outcome of a national vote, what kind of respect can you really have for the Constitution and the rule of law? It wasn't until just recently that I heard some seriously un-American gasbags declare they were dedicated to seeing the President of the United States fail. They don't realize how repugnant that sounds to people who respect the office, no matter who holds it. The "we lost but we're working hard to make sure the winners can't function" is pretty much the definition of a sore loser and that's a quality I've associated with spoiled brats, not real Americans.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2011 8:01 AM, Robert Green wrote:

When you turn a wing nut to the left, things loosen up, the wing nut comes off and everything falls apart. When you turn a wing nut to the right, it tightens up holding everything together but if you wind it too tight, the bolt will snap off and everything falls apart. The best way is to turn the wing nut to the right until it reaches the proper torque so you don't damage the bolt and everything stays together. ^_^
A repairman's guide to society, 12-28-11
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Daring,
Excellent.
You've managed to finally bring all this home repair politics into on-topic range and make a decent point while you are at it.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In other words, the extremes don't work, the balance lies somewhere in the middle. My version is to have both fiscal responsibility, and social safety nets.
But, as always on usenet, YMMV.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I read this morning about the trouble Israel is having with the super-ultra-orthodox Jews who've been spitting on an am orthodox 8 year old girl walking to school for not dressing according to their strict code.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/fury-at-ultraorthodox-jews-after-girl-abused-20111228-1pcv4.html
The SUO Jews have a birthrate that far exceeds the rest of Israel, and they're settling in "hot spot" areas all around the country. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Somewhere in the past 30 years or so, loonies and extremists began to exert disproportionate force on the rest of society. I am not sure what the cure is, other than saying if you want to be a loon, get a large compound to contain your looniness. Unfortunately, as David Koresh proved, even that's not a viable solution.
Now, we're locked in a battle over oil and sanctions that smells very much like the issues we had with Japan that some say was the root cause of WWII in the Pacific. It seems that the players for WW Three are already starting to line up. )-:
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2011 9:38 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

Don't look now but the bolt is about ready to fall off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2011 12:05 PM, JimT wrote:

Let's hope it gets tightened up again reel soon. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's see. I believe we're finally winding down a war or two that cost not only lives and made incomplete humans of a lot of wounded people, but also cost a lot of money. Whether or not the war was really necessary is open to debate, but until the "surge" in Iraq, it wasn't going too well. Whether our disengagement now will leave Iraq stable or not is something we'll see soon enough - hopefully the different tribes there will learn to live together peaceably.
During that time of extra expenditures, incomes to the governments was rather drastically cut, helping a false boom in financial products (much fraudulent) and housing (often fraudulent by either or both sides of the financing deals).
I also hope that things get tightened up again real soon. Both ends of the financing should contribute - expenditures and taxes.
As always, the above is a personal opinion, and I recognize some may have different ones.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Let's see. from : <http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/fed_receipt_sum_hist orical.pdf> Year Receipts Outlays in current dollars
George HW Bush 1989 991.1 1,143.7 1990 1,032.0 1,253.0 1991 1,055.0 1,324.2 1992 1,091.2 1,381.5 Clinton 1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 George W Bush 2001 1,991.1 1,862.9 2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 2004 1,880.1 2,292.9 2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 2006 2,406.9 2,655.1 2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 Obama 2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 2010 2,162.7 3,456.2
I think you're right, outlays are generally NOT in balance with receipts, except for a few Clinton years. So how are we going to fix this? Deeper recessions, or some stimulus, with some of the better off people contributing a little more?
Yes, it IS INDEED my old refrain. If this Christmas season was better than the last 4 or so previous ones, it was because the middle class was spending.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see, you're now going to just weasel away instead of admit that what you posted was flat out wrong. You tried to once again link the current deficit and debt problems to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and claimed that govt revenue was drastically reduced during that period, presumably by the Bush tax cuts. I showed you how revenue not only did not decline from 2003 until 2007 when those tax cuts were in effect, but actually grew 40%. The deficit was steadily declining and was down to $160bil in 2007. Conversely, SPENDING has risen by 40% in just four short years, from 2007 to 2011. Geeze, will you libs never learn?
You didn't answer my question. Is that how you'd run your household? Spending is up 40% in just 4 years, the family is racking up debt and can't make ends meet. Would you not immediately come up with a plan to cut that spending? Or would you sit around and piss and moan that the real problem is daddy needs to work harder, get another job and until he agrees to do that, you won't cut a dime in spending?
And trying to link the cause of the subprime fiasco and recession to a decline in govt revenue that never occured. How ridiculous and sad.

Been there, done that. We had a huge stimulus package. Unfortunately it didn't achieve much because it was the govt spending money. A lot of it went to bridges to nowhere and the likes of Solyndra. Now with a $15tril national debt, you want MORE of it? No, wait, make that $16tril because that is the new debt ceiling Obama is now seeking.
And I don't understand the false choice offered in your proposition of either deeper recessins or some stimulus. You think the joke of a cut in the social security tax of two months is stimulus that is going to actually do something?

Which has nothing much to do with anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course, when taxes go down, and there is an artificial inflation of the economy based on fraud, revenues can go up. But not really enough to account for the wars. As you could see, during the Clinton years there was a few years of surplus. If you claim that was because of the dotcom bubble, then the slight narrowing of the gap between revenue and outlay during the Bush years was also because of the false housing bubble. Let's make the same assumptions now, please. I will still maintain that it is better to have a few billionaires pay more tax than the man in the street.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Once again, the total cost for both wars as of right now is about $1.3tril. That's for 10 years of war. Average it out and it's $130bil a year. Revenue in 2008 alone was $530bil higher than it was in 2001. If you add up all the increased reveue from 2001 until 2008 it actually just equals the cost of the two wars.
As you could see, during the Clinton years there

While it's true both contributed to tax receipts, it's not true that they were anywhere close to the same proportions. For one thing, during the dotcom period we had a very strong economy. The overall economy during the Bush years grew substantially slower than it did in the Clinton years. Just look at a chart of GDP. As for tax revenues, most real estate transactions don't pay federal taxes, particularly the over heated home market. By comparison stock sales are taxed, so the dotcom had an inherent advantage in generating govt revenue.

What same assumptions? Why would you want to start class warfare when what we have is a SPENDING problem? Spending has gone up 40% in just 4 short years, from 2007 to 2011. Show me where taxes have been cut 40% during that period and then we can talk about taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have the figires ready for the war expoenses, but I really think it was several times higher than that.
Traditionally whether economically sound or not (I think it is) spending goes up during a recession while revenues go down. There, I said it. However, there was absolutely no slack or cushion set up during Bush's wars, just a recipe for more expenses, then, now and for a whole lot longer. Or do you think all those returning vets will improve the economy? Going back to other periods after a war had ended shows expense upon expense until the vets were retrained. This latest set of wars has produced more recovering wounded than any before and you want to cut spending? How patriotic!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the problem with libs, isn't it? It's always emotion and don't confuse me with the facts.

Uh huh. But the troubling part here is that we're no longer in recession and the deficit is still $1.6tril. And Obama's last budget forecasts deficits of $1tril a year for the next decade. He planning on putting us back in recession?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, the NY Times said a year and a half ago (July 24, 2010): "The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans a staggering $1 trillion to date"

So if we hadn't wasted that $1Trillion on the war, or at least had done it a more economically (focus on Afghanistan, for instance), the deficit would have been far, far less, and we wouldn't have had the thousands of dead and even more wounded, in body and soul, whom we do need to care for for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we could have paid attention to our situation at home.
I may not be able to answer any more since I will have to pay attention to my kids and grandkids etc for our upcoming New Year's celebration. Sorry, it is only for immediate family, but if you want to come along later in the week, we might still have some leftovers ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The lie repeated. Let's start with the facts, shall we? The stock market peaked and began it's crash in spring 2000. That signaled the recession that started the next year. Faced with a recession and the impact of 911, Bush cut taxes. And it worked. The recession ended and the economy grew. Despite the two wars, the deficit was steadily declining, even as spending increased. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160bil. If that is Soooo bad, what the hell do you libs say about $1.6tril? That's right, the deficit right now is 10x what it was in 2007.

What would you libs have done after 911? Send a cake? And once again, Monday morning quaterbacking is real sweet ain't it? No need to make decisions to protect the country in the face of uncertain threats in an imperfect world. You just sit back, wait for events to unfold and then piss and moan, knowing now what worked and what didn't work.

The lie repeated. The deficit in 2002 was $158bil. The deficit in 2007 was $160bil. Lockstep? I think not.

Obama's spending is not just higher, it's exploded. The federal govt is spending 40% more in 2011 than it did in 2007. How much longer is Obama gonna try to claim that it's all Bush's fault? Did you see Reagan running around the country bitching about how God awful everything was that Carter left him? And why did he have to approve paying higher salaries at TSA? Hmmm? Maybe they should have taken a pay CUT instead, just like civilian employees have to do if their employer falls on hard times. Here's what's really going on:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
"The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds."
And trying to throw the medical care for vets of the recent wars in there is pathetic. In the universe of a $1.6tril deficit, it doesn't even register.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-snip-

Are you adjusting for inflation or something? The DOW got close to 12K in 1999. It jumped in the 10-11.5 range until after 9/11/2001 when it dipped below 8k.
Then it was artificially inflated to 14K by 2007-- and crashed to less than 1/2 of that in 2008-9.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last time I checked, there was a lot more than one gjuy responsible for 911. The Taliban, giving safe haven to Al Qaeda for their terrorist training camps being one example. What would you libs have done if not go to war to remove them from power? Send them a cake? Send the FBI with a search warrant? Or just send a cake?

Which of course is a bold face lie.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Going to war in Afghanistan was right. If you stop halfway, that's not good. If you then go to war in Iraq, that doesn't help.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.