New window A/Cs make a slapping, clicking sound

wrote:

And what does the 'blame game' do to solve the problem?
Joe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

About AC drips or Congressional constipation? For the latter I'd recommend an end to the super majority requirement, an end to earmarks of any kind and an end to secret single senator holds on nominations. I'd limit campaign contributions, make Congress work hours that look more like most workers, give Congress the same health care choices that everyone else has and most importantly figure out some way to reintroduce compromise solutions instead of the current "my way or the highway" slash and burn tactics we've seen for the last twenty years at least.
A responsible Congress would admit the deficit is at a record high because we now have to pay off two nearly 10 year-long wars, expenses like creating Homeland Security and compensate for a falling off of tax receipts from a super hot economy that nearly shut down. This is an unusual condition but it doesn't merit slash and burn panic. A responsible Congress would not turn the record deficit into some idiotic piece of political theater that's just making the US's role as the "leader of the free economy" seem a little shaky. If they're stupid enough to put us in default, it will injure us badly in the short term and even worse in the long run. Does the budget need trimming? Sure it does. Is there a budget anywhere that doesn't?
But across the board cuts are double-edged swords. Reduce the number of agents investigating Medicare fraud and it could have a negative net effect. The better approach would be to remember this "crisis" as a teaching moment - wars don't come for free and eventually the bills come due. I had hoped we learned that lesson in Vietnam, but apparently not. AfRaq makes Vietnam look like a righteous war even though the Domino Theory was completely disproved. Once the economy recovers, and the war bills are paid, tax revenues will increase and the deficit will shrink as it has many times in the past. That's when this mostly manufactured crisis will fade into memory.
People need to start thinking of the cost of wars *before* they approve fighting them. Most people don't realize that the Federal Income tax was started to offset the cost of the Civil War and has been funding wars ever since.
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm02_les03.jsp
"Early in our nation's history, the income tax was used only in times of war or national crisis to generate needed revenue."
Ask people what they would rather have tomorrow. The bill for ten years of fighting in AfRaq or an income tax refund of from $2K to $50K dollars (the various estimates of what the war will cost each taxpayer)? What about no income tax at all? We might pull it off if we learn to keep our military out of wars of choice.
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+is+the+Iraq+war+costing+per+US+family
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/25/transcript-boehners-speech-on-debt-talks /
Good catch. I didn't look for analogs. Kudos.

Yep. Sniff. Under Bush we had a 12,000 Dow, low inflation, unemployment in the 4-5% range, and more. This in spite of, as you said, two wars, Katrina, and 9-11. It was a swell six years. Then the Democrats took over Congress and things went to hell.
As for Homeland Security, it is, in the main, a consolidation of many agencies and departments. I suspect this merging results in greater efficiency and a diminishing of duplication of efforts. I'll bet the activities of the current Homeland Security department actually costs less than the entities it merged.

No, every penny of the current debt has been personally spent by Obama. From the "stimulus," to the "bailouts," to "cash for clunkers," and so on. In eight years, the Bush administration piled up $800 billion in deficit spending. The Obama administration topped that in its very first MONTH.

Your dates are WAY off. Clinton was impeached in December 1998. The 9-11 terrorists arrived in the U.S. in June of 2000.

Could be. My view is the 40+% of wage earners in this country who pay NO taxes are the ones not paying their "fair share."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

From
Bushwa. You're relying on a technicality that doesn't represent reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/28veterans.html?ref=todayspaper
"Studies show that the peak years for government health care and disability compensation costs for veterans from past wars came 30 to 40 years after those wars ended. For Vietnam, that peak has not been reached."
We haven't finished paying for the folly of Vietnam. The spending time lag is up to 40 YEARS. To assume that the current budget isn't loaded with past promises from past presidents and congresses is beyond belief. But not beyond HeyBub. One trillion of our *future* dollars will likely be used to care for the horribly blown-apart veterans of our current wars. Wars that were pretty much the discretionary actions of George Bush. Is Obama responsible, now, for every wounded veteran who fought under Bush? Technically, yes but morally, no. Even had he ended those wars the second he came into office, the costs would still be coming in like credit card charges from a soon to be ex-wife. Non-stop. For up to forty years.
The huge deficit we are facing came from a decade of drunken spending on wars, pro-industry drug benefit plans, the TSA, the build-up of the CIA, NSA and FBI, the creation of Homeland security and more. How successful (or fair) would it be if Obama said "I won't pay for anything previous administrations have committed to?"
Obama was also stuck cleaning up the mess caused by an under-regulated Wall St. and a deliberately starved and muzzled SEC. There was no one able to stop Wall St. from starting to sell insurance without a license or without the proper reserves regulators demand of insurers.
Which leads me to ask: Why are insurers supposed to be regulated? Because freemarket insurers have had such an unsavory history of taking premiums and declaring bankruptcy when faced with more than a trivial payout. After an unconscionable number of such defaults, the government HAD to step in. The largest CDO insurer, AIG, followed in the tracks of all those past insurer "bust outs." They didn't maintain the reserves regulators would have demanded of them - that would have "crimped" their profits. So what happened? We ALL got to pay for it by bailouts from both Bush AND Obama.
Federal law is basically a record of all of transgressions and failures of freemarket capitalism. It's why the Federal government is so large - there's no end to corporate villainy nor has there ever been:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act
"The American Civil War (1861-1865) was marked by fraud on all levels . . . unscrupulous contractors sold the Union Army decrepit horses and mules in ill health, faulty rifles and ammunition, and rancid rations and provisions, among other unscrupulous actions. In response, Congress passed the False Claims Act on March 2, 1863, 12 Stat. 696"
It is any wonder why Big Business is out to pare down the government? So they can get back to the freemarket ideas that lead to such abuses. And incredible profits. FDA? Got its start when pharmaceutical companies began selling poison potions to Americans nationwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA
"By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, cosmetics which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent."
I can give you examples from every corner of the business world. The people screaming to "starve the beast" really wouldn't want to live in a world without government oversight. They just don't know enough about the issue to hold anything but soundbite opinions that usually aren't even theirs to begin with. Federal law *is* the history of business operating without a conscience. In those cases, businesses operated in such a way that they had to have a conscience surgically attached by Federal law. Even after the recent freemarket debacle, it's amazing how many people believe Big Business can operate fairly without oversight and regulation. It's never happened in modern times and it never will.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.