tar

jduff, I heard today that the way the treasury would operate, if not able to borrow on the 17th is day by day, since they have no way to pick and chose who to pay and who not to pay. Let's say if they have 100 whatever dollars in checks to cut on monday and only 40 whatever dollars coming in every day, they would wait till they could pay ALL of Monday's bills, which would be Wednesday, and then they would cut all of Monday's checks. Tuesday's checks would have to wait till they had the funds to cover ALL of them. Hence all the bills would be paid. First paid 2 or 3 days late, then 5 or six and so on. The late payments would get longer and longer since they would have to wait two or three days, to pay the bills due on each successive day in line. iNow, I agree we needed the stimulus packages that the Congress put together following the sub prime crisis. I agree that Bernanke did a masterful job at fending off depression. No argument what so ever from me. I am concerned though about QE three or QE eternity. Emergency measures are one thing. Dependence on the Fed offering not only a discount window for EVERY bank, but Purchasing any ole loans they might have lying around, to the tune of 85 billion a month...for ever...is quite a different story. The punch bowl should be withdrawn, and we should learn to stand on our own two feet again. EVERYBODY now is dependent on the government. The poor are, the rich are, and us slubs in the middle are left to pay the bill. Regards, TAR2

iNow, Our economy used to run OK without such increases in the Fed balance sheet. The Fed would slow the velocity of money when things got too heated, and ease policy and loosen thing up when the economy slowed to much. They have a dual mandate of providing an enviroment that fosters growth and employment, without high inflation. The untried strategy part, is what do you do, as a Fed, when you can't cut the Fed interest rate any lower, because its already nominally zero. Now we are in untried territory, where the size of the monthly QE purchases are considered to have a slowing effect or a speeding effect, and this is where we are stuck, with the pedal not only to the floorboard, in terms of interest rate, but THROUGH the floorboard to the affect of 85 Billion dollars a month. 85 Billion dollars is a lot of money. People work and save for years to accumulate 10 thousand dollars, a life time to accumulate 100 thousand. And one group of men and women, tasked with regulating our money supply, by printing the required currency, and setting the Fed Funds rate, the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, have now the ability to ADD liquidity to the market. Emergency measures are one thing. QE 1 or QE 2, maybe. To kick start and get the engine running. But the money is not real, and can not be used as GAS itself. Not sustainably. Not without major warping of the ways that business is done. Not without wild dislocation of wealth and value. Mom and Pop make the economy. You and I make the economy. We are the ones that buy and sell, add value and consume it. Let me tell you a quick story. You always blame me for changing the topic or talking about something that is not at issue, but this, is in my estimation, the crux of our disagreements. My grandfather used to buy a roll of tokens for Delaware bridge crossing for a discount of the normal 10 cent fare. He would give a token to visiting family members, for the return trip, over the bridge, to save us the 2 or 3 cents, familywise, and gift us the 7 1/2 cents person to person...A few months ago, I was crossing the Delaware and found myself, at a near empty toll plaza, in a stall, with no taker, with my dollar hanging out the window. It was an easy pass lane I had not recongnized, as I was engaged in thought and conversation about something else. I made eye contact with an unengaged taker a few booths down, and gave him a pleading look in the hopes he would recognize my willingness and desire to pay the toll, and my situation. He waved me disappointing on. I did not want to run the toll, but I had already made the mistake and had NO WAY to correct it, (as human to human, I should have been able to). I later had to pay 25 dollars through the mail, and I knew this, as I pulled from the toll, with the sinking feeling that EVERYTHING MY GRANDFATHER HAD DONE with the tokens for years and years, and cousins and cousins and aunts and uncles, was wiped away, unjustly. 85 Billion Dollars is a lot of normal, person to person or business to business, or state to state, or nation to nation transactions. And we have been doing this, for how many months now? How many decisions and actions of yours and mine are nullified or maginalized by the strokes of government pens? The changing of rules, the changing of the game. False stuff, which wipes away years of playing by the old ones. Regards, TAR2

iNow, When have you known any strategy to not have unintended consequences. I am not sure exactly how the consumer price index chart you showed reflects increases in insurance payments, health care, gas prices and asset prices that have occured in recent years. Money is a store of value, and if you "create" 85 billion dollars a month, there has to be some effect on the value of money that is currently held. Whether it is minted in coins, on printed on paper, or written in magic marks on the Feds, balance sheet. The Fed now owns a lot of assets, and has to, at some point, unwind and reduce the size of their balance sheet. It is not a myth, that the banks have been able to unload somewhat questionable paper on the Fed, to increase the stability of their own balance sheets. The vigils against Wall Street had some reasoning behind them, as that it seems rather unfair that banks should be able to get more than market value for bad loans, AND be able to borrow money from the Fed at 1/2 percent, so that they can loan it back out, to GOOD risks, at 5 or 4 or 3.5 percent rates. And my credit cards are charging me a bit more than that. It is not a myth, that the middle class has gotten weaker and the upper middle, or higher class has gotten stronger. Asset prices have gone up. The stock market is nearly at twice the levels it was at the depth of the recession. Quantitative easing was and is an untried strategy, with unknown consequences, given the propensity of people to make their best move. It bothers me a bit that such a huge amount of money is created every month, and I get NONE of it. It bothers me that the market has gone up, and up and up, when the economy has been just crawling along, with jobs scarce, and employees "stuck" in their spots, living from paycheck to paycheck. And now the Fed is stuck. They can not allow interest rates to rise, or we can't pay our debts. This summer they announced an intention to start tapering the amount of easing, and the market sold off, and interest rates started to climb, and they immediatly reversed, and promised the punch bowl would be available for the forseeable future and the market recovered and kept rising, in the face of bad economic news, threats of action in Syria, Italian governmental problems, and now even with the budget deadlock, the market is not concerned, because "don't fight the Fed" is a powerful rule, and 85 billion a month, has to wind up somewhere, and since you can't make much money, keeping what you have in the bank, owning steadily rising assets as in stocks, is currently the best play in town. What is interesting, and scary to me, is that historically, at the end of a bull run, the retail invester shows up, and the smart money, sells everything that is not nailed down. I have heard on Bloomberg in the last few weeks, that the retail invester is returning to the market. So even if we avoid the default of our government, which I think we will, because we have to, we are still in a tough situation, where less government spending and higher taxes for us all, are going to be required. We can't grow out of our debt problems, when we are barely growing at all. We have some structural problems, and we have some dependence problems, and I think we should be addressing them both. You might have seen the 60 Minutes on the huge amount of people on disability in West Virginia and Tennesee and Ohio. I am rather sure we will make it through this crisis, but I don't think we should rely on government programs quite so much as we do. The situation with the disability claims, reminds me of when the neighbor gets together and forms a neighborhood watch, and everybody is all in and all excited about it, for about a week, and then it falls apart. Nobody is watching what these government programs become, when they become "the law of the land", and the system is then gamed. Regards, TAR2 I think we will make it all right, because of that famous rule that America will ALWAYS wind up doing the right thing, once all other options are exhausted.

Overtone, My point was that a rich person's wealth is not yours or mine to control. Especially when any attempts wind up thwarting any efforts for a average person to become wealthy. The ACA was put together with the insurance companies still at the heart. Companies do not owe healthcare to their employees, anymore than they owe free food and housing, or education. When I joined my company, 25 years ago, I chose them partially because they offered benefits. It was part of my compensation. It was a perk. The government can set minimum wage but they can't force a company to offer perks. It is not a company's responsibility to take care of its employees. It is the emloyee's responsibility to do the job the company is employing them to do. I was let go from my company when my dept moved to Atlanta, and I did not wish to move so far away from my Dad, or ask my wife to leave her job in NYC. For four months I had the opportunity to NOT have an employer. It is difficult to build up from nothing, an offering that people would pay for. To be a business in your own right, to offer value, for a charge. I put in applications to continue in the industry I knew, and studied for and passed the GMAT and applied to a local university to achieve a masters in organisational behavior, so that I might have the credentials and knowledge to offer value to organisations. My wife did not think the large investment in tuition that would be required, would have a payback, at my age (59) and her salary alone would not be enough for us to even pay the mortgage and the bills, much less tuition for me. So when another group in my former company offered me a position, at less than I was previously making, I took the spot. Stayed under my wifes policy that I joined 3 months into my unemployment. But the point, is that it is difficult to "make money", on your own. You have to take risks and make investments, and have a plan, and build an enterprise, and keep it functioning. And you have to offer something that is better than, or other than, what is currently available on the market. Money does not fall from the trees, and "making a living", is a fact of life. My life is not anyone elses responsibily. And I am not entitled to ANY way of life, but through my own efforts and associations. You speak of the super wealthy as if they have something that you are automatically entitled to take by force or law. This is simply not the case. Their wealth was accumulated and effort was made to invest it wisely. It was husbanded. It was created through effort and plan. Sweat and tears that you did not shed, make it their's and not yours. Someone who makes a higher salary than you, already pays more taxes than you do. It is not yours to say they can or should pay even more. And certainly not yours to step into their board room and dictate employee compensation. You speak of the businesses and wealthy and owners of the means of production, as if they are on some other team, and have no heart or soul or brains. I challenge you to provide for me, and for you, by pulling money out of thin air. Regards, TAR P.S. The Federal Reserve is pulling money out of thin air, and we are yet to experience the consequences. And its not you and me that are getting to spend it. But our savings are certainly being hurt.

Tridimity, Inequities are indeed disturbing, but realistic workable avenues to address them, have been attempted in both our societies, to some large degree of success, but also with some unintended consequences. Its important to remember, or to factor in, game theory. All players are always looking for their own best move, and it is therefore better to play the game and set the rules in such a way that personal victories are consistent with societal victories. It is probably not possible to set the rules in such a manner as that the outcome is predetermined. It is probably not desirable to set the rules in such a manner as that the outcome is predetermined, as that then the system itself would be tyranical and oppressive in nature. I am afraid we are left with an imperfect situation, where human judgement must be relied on to both set the rules, and live by the rules. Altruism and human concern are requirements for the thing to work out, but those things are already built into human judgement, and cannot be legislated, or enforced. The system itself cannot excercise human judgment, it can only reflect it. And any one of us can tell pretty quickly when someone else is using bad judgment and is acting contrary to the spirit of the law. As in the current shutdown, where your will and my will, reflected in our trust in and backing of the current set of laws by which we operate, is being blatently disregarded. We might like to see things go more to the left or more to the right, or toward this horizon or that, but there is no one sensible, using good human judgement, that is in favor of the boat sinking. Or perhaps a better analogy, you can't shut off the engines of the plane, because you don't like the current flight plan. That is treason. Regards, TAR2 But perhaps its also wrong for the pilot to take the plane where the passengers refuse to go. And diving into the sea, on principle, seems to me a bad choice for the pilot to be making, as well. There was a moment in history, where taking the plane down to its fiery demise in a PA field, was heroic. This moment is not such a situation. Right or left, we need to keep flying. Or we dismiss the human judgement and efforts that we have all been making to get us airborne in the first place.

I have a tendency to overthink things and take things down a long complicated road, based on incorrect assumptions. But here is my convoluted reasoning. If you have a paper cup from the scene that might have logically contained the foriegn substance that poisoned you two, you might take it to authorities and ask them to test it for foriegn substances based on your suspicions. Perhaps finger prints, linked to the presence of some intentionally deposited substance, would point to the particular purpetrator, and guide the wheels of justice in the proper direction, to hold the bad actor responsible for their crime. This course of action would perhaps be preferrable than condemning the establishment for your misfortune, which would after all, be the reaction that the perpetrator, in this fiction of mine, would have intended to occur by commiting the crime in the first place. But with the lack of any evidence to prove such a fantasy, one would have to use the shotgun, public questioning approach, and see if any others in the community have ever had such unexplained symptoms. The results of this questioning might bring other facts to light, that reasonable people will put together to determine if the cause is due to bad hygiene at an establishment, or due to the actions of a particular bad actor, or due to some accident of some sort, or due to whatever probable cause the collective evidence would point to. In anycase it would be good to isolate the cause, for your own peace of mind, and perhaps for the wellfare of others, as well.

Moontanman, Well if you had some leftovers later, without the same reactions, how about drinks? Do you get anything else there, that you both consumed that night, that could have been spiked by a disgruntled employee? Regards, TAR2 I was looking at the physical reactions to psilocybin and some seemed consistent with you symptoms. I am not up on the current drugs being taken in various neighborhoods and amoungst various segments of the society these days, but there might be some substance currently in use, that would cause the health reactions you two had. Especially disturbing and weird to experience if you did not know you were drugged or thusly poisoned.

Overtone, Perhaps liberals are more intelligent and have more ideas than conservatives. But all liberals are not trustworthy pillars of society, and all conservatives are not drunken bigots. If Obama won as a liberal, with lets say 60 percent of the vote and all the people in the country in the top 5 percent on the IQ scale, voted for him, that would mean that at least the 55 percent are NOT in the top 5 percent in intelligence, and would have to have voted for him regardless of their relative stupidity. Those people could have been fooled or hoodwinked or could just be going along, to pretend they are associated with the liberal ideas that only the smartest are actually capable of actually having. And then there is the other 40 percent, which might, in actuality include one or two individuals that have a lot of brain power. Perhaps amongst the leaders of business, or the Elk lodge, there is someone who you would deam capable of having ideas. Just as reminder, a vote for Obama was a vote for change. It was never defined exactly what we were changing from, and what we were changing to. The word change, or the word liberal, means nothing, in an of itself. Anti-estabablishment, might mean something, up until the point where you ARE the establishment, and then what? At least conservative values put some value on what good people have already struggled and died for to establish for the rest of us. Again, who is the we and who is the they, in this discussion. If the 5 percent don't already control the place, by virtue of their superior ability and trustworthyness, then I would be surprised. Regards, TAR2 And an interesting note, in terms of Gerrymandering sectioning off suburban and rural areas that often vote republican. These areas often include professionals and managers and people of high education and intelligence. Some of the "richest" areas of New Jersey in terms of these people of higher capability, than the average city dweller, moved out of the cities, into the suburbs and countryside in the 60s and 70s and 80s in a migration known at the time, as "white flight". Leaving once highly valued real estate, as in East Orange, to a population that tended toward crime and drugs and government dependence. I lived there myself and witnessed the decline. My first home with my wife was a house we rented from my former college, which was a fine school, called Upsala College, that drew its students from middle and upper class areas of NJ and Connecticut. A lot of vulnerable young girls, whose parents increasing declined to send to an area where rape and robbery and drugs, were on the rise. My school opened a small satelite campus in the countryside, but eventually went bust, and closed. My pregnant wife and I had taken our baby and fled ourselves a few years prior, after being broken into twice, living two feet away from a drug addict mom, who kept her bedroom door locked whether she was in it or not, so her children would not steal her drugs (she could not reprimand or control her children, because they would call Dyfus or some such entity, on her), and several other encounters, that led us to believe we were not in the town where we wanted to raise our children. But the point, is that IF there is a five percent that is best suited to run the place, they are not going to be able to, if they can not win an election. And since the majority is not amoung the top 5 or 10 percent, the top 5 or 10 percent have to Gerrymander the place, to set it up, so they have more political say, than their numbers would permit. Regards, TAR2 to each according to their need from each according to their ability? Maybe something a little like that. But I don't want to go all the way there, and I certainly don't want to be TOLD to go there.

you have a house of lords and a house of commons, after all, do you not? And a Queen?

Tridimity, But such division would only point out the fault in both camps. And none of us is purely conservative, or purely liberal. It is the fringes, the ultra left, and the ultra right, that do not understand the value and reality of the other position. You have probably read Animal Farm. You are probably aware that communes were tried extensively in the States, following the late sixties...and for the most part, did not work out. You are probably aware that social states in Europe have drawn outsiders in, to suckle on the communal cow, and it has caused some problems. More problems than the additional potential "hands" solve. The problem lies more, in my estimation, in the defining of "we" and "them". I liked my company more, when my leadership, and the decision makers were on my side, when together we made a good product, and took personal responsibilty for it. All of us. There was not worker and management. We were all on the same side. Just had different jobs to do, different roles, but there was intrinsic value and ownership of the product and process, that was held by each. No one had to told what we were trying to do. We already knew, and together met the challenges. We were given tools and resources to do the job, and we got it done. My company now is contolled by sales people, and sigma six, best practices, outsourcers of process. Everybody is "told" what to do, and jumps, "because a VP wants it done"...I tend still to do the right thing, and "get the job done", but it is sometimes now done "in spite" of the barriers laid down by the process, not because of them. Still, back to Animal Farm, you need the means of production. You need the capital formation, the owners. And you need the talent and leadership of intelligent thoughtful "doers" and organizers, project leaders and team leaders. You need people in charge and people following their lead. Intellegence and education and talent, still define a difference between one "worker" and another. And you can not manufacture a pecking order any more real and workable than the ones that already develop and are evident and workable in the real world. Could you be president of the U.S.? Takes a lot of talent, a lot of heart, and a lot of work to get to such a role. And if you had anything close to what it would take, you would be at least a Senator, or a Governor, or a Mayor, or the head of your local school board, or be running a firm or organisation of some size. And conservative values, and liberal values do not include or exclude a person from a working society. It would be silly to imagine that anything could work, without them both. Without the individual, the whole thing falls abuptly. Without the leader, the sheep wander aimlessly. Without the sheep, there is no wool. It is my contention that we already have done a good job in America in establishing the rule of law, that honors the individual, and protects us each against abuses of power, that the other might engage in. The president can't just have his way. He has to find the course that we all want to follow. The owners, and the slaves are us. And we together owe a lot of money. A lot more money than we together have. We have to spend, as a federal government, less. But we have to stay open. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, I am no doctor, but it sounds like there could have been someing "bad" on or in the pizza. Was it a mushroom pizza? Wild guess type of specuation, but there are mushrooms around that are very toxic to people and can cause illness or death. There are also mushrooms around that contain halucinagins. Considering a mushroom is already a fungus, I don't know what would be entailed in a mushroom "going bad". Nor am I familiar with the growing and harvesting of mushrooms, commercially, enough to know if it is possible for an undesirable strain of mushroom to accidently find its way into a delivered batch. But it sounds like you were poisoned or drugged and I somehow hope it was an accidental contact with a naturally occuring substance that reached you trough mistake or oversight or correctable faulty process, rather than a purposeful, willfull criminal prank, or act of some sort. (Like an actor at the pizza place sprinkling the pizza with a substance). But I do remember having a fever one time when I was young were there were "items" (toasters or whatever) all over my bed, wheighing down the blanket. You didn't mention fever. Did you ever take your tempuratures? Just some speculations. Regards, TAR2

There is a certain amount of stuff that goes on in politics that one just has to bear. I often have said, that if it wasn't for money and politics, things would get along pretty well. Unfortuneatly its a joke, and the reality is, that everybody's concerns and arguments are valid. There has to be money and politics, and winners and losers. We are constantly in a state where we have the best compromise between all the varied forces and directions. Everyone is concerned about slipping down, one slippery slope or another. Point here, is that the government should not be shut down, this game, that we are engaged in, can not be called, on account of rain. First we should pass the CR. Then continue the arguments. The government IS too big. We are TOO dependent on it, for it to shut down and default on the responsibilities we have already given it. It is our government. I think its true that many racists in this country would like to see the black man, squirm and fail. I don't exactly know how to properly unwind such hatred. The power structures in this country, and in the world, are already set, by everyone's past and present agreements. Wars have already been fought to settle some of these issues. Yet Detroit still went bankrupt. And the ghetto is still here, and the "Man", is still around to "get over on". I see in the elitist, in power, and the elitist out of power, the same fears and hatreds that I see coming from the KKK, or the tea party. We are having the same "problem" with the poor, huddled masses, that we have always had. We know what is best for them, and will dole it out to them...if they behave, and are not too uppity. Class warfare is not over. Despite our attempts to establish the rules and structures that would encourage a strong and independent middle class. Recently the rich have gotten far richer, and the middle class has gotten poorer. We, the most of us, still report to a boss. And I have, myself, felt constantly disenfrancised at my place of work, and continually a little less "in control" of things, as I used to feel. Somebody else, is making the decisions, and it used to be "us". Maybe its the "best practices" and computerized decision making processes in charge now. I don't know. Perhaps its the people that write the code, that are the new elite, the new holders of power. The quarterback on the football team used to be in charge. Now its some nerd in the back room. And things are out of "our" control. Which slippery slope would you like to avoid sliding down? The loss of personal power, the loss of the value of human judgment, is the slope I would like to avoid. The indepedence and strength of each of us, in turn, creates a strong and independant nation. It makes us all "elite". I don't know the answer. But I think I know the question.

Nice. Thanks Trapped Light. I enjoyed those games. Liked Susan's queen sacrifice, especially. Surprising and deadly.

And still I agree that what the tea party republicans in the house are doing is akin to extortion and is near criminal in nature. SEND A CLEAN CR TO THE SENATE NOW! And then work out a sustainable comprimise budget that will work for the good of the country. Refine the ACA to be more sensible and work better, and not cause any of the problems it might cause if its cobbled together and fractured by partisan goofiness. Provide the country with some responsible, thoughtful, adult leadership. That is what you were sent to Washington to do. Not burn down the store because the keeper won't pay the protection money you demand.

Overtone, No I don't object to providing aid to people in need. I find it hard to take that we spend money to fly 1500 or whatever, WIC directors to a conference in Washington, to do it. Its the building of a seperate power structure to fill every need we have, and the associated millions that are spent on things other than formula and applesauce and antibiotics that would actually impove the situation. Its stuff like the Mayor of NY limiting the size of sugary drinks, because he is concerned with our obesity problem. I saw a product at the store today. It was a hangover prevention subtance, filled with vitamins and a list of healthy stuff...I thought it rather odd, since the most effective prevention I can think of, is to not drink so darn much that you would get a hangover in the first place. I have a thing, about human judgement being crucial. I have a theory that everybody has it and excercises it. We automatically help out our neighbors and even strangers, when they are in trouble. Its a kind of natural state of affairs. Its what good people do. Along with that, goes the responsibility to choose your own way in life. Take on the risks and responsibilities that will cause your life to be the way you want it to be. Pay the dues, do the work, excercise a little delayed gratification, get the schooling and training and knowledge you need to add value to society. Perhaps its the protestan work ethic. I don't know where I got it, but I have it. It is someone elses responsibility to be responsible for their own life, and the lives of the children they bring into the world. I am not their child's daddy and a girl should not get pregnant KNOWING that society will take care of both her and the baby if she does. Perhaps I have come to this apparently heartless and cruel assessment of the affect that government programs have on the way of life of people I have talked to and witnessed in Newark NJ, and Kettle WV. A black man who had 4 children with three different women, interested mostly in "speading his seed", without worry of actually having to provide for the mothers or the children. And a quite widespread Meth epidemic in the West Virgina hills, where the government programs take care of lives of the children whose parents destroy their own. I do not blame the children for these irresponsible actions. I blame the fathers and the mothers who bring children into this world, without the wherewithall and intent and desire to take full responsibility for their own child's health and welfare, education and the preparation of that child for a life of security, value, and happiness. I am full willing to give up a few of my rights and a few of my dollars for the benefit of everyone else, because I know that 200,000,000 people are giving up a few of their rights and a few of their dollars, for my benefit. But I would rather not see a whole segment of the population living in a dream world, where security, value and happiness are thought of as birthright that requires no personal effort and sacrifice to obtain. I have no problem helping out my fellow citizen. It just is not something I need a law hanging over my head, inorder to do. And I would like to retain a general "feel" in the country, that when a problem arises we take care of it, and not wait for Uncle Sam to put together a powerstucture, with the whieght and authority of the Federal Government, to address local, personal issues, that are much better addressed, on a local, personal level. Regards, TAR2

Tridimity, I do not think the AHA is the universal healthcare you have established in England. I read some of the site yesterday (healthcare.gov), and for most people, the law doesn't do a single positive thing. We still have to buy insurance from the insurance companies, and the actuarials at the insurance company, still establish the rates and payouts and deductables and such. You can buy a bronze, silver, gold or platnium policy with your own money, and each is more expensive and lowers your deductables and raises the insurance companies percentage of payout as you go up the line. The government does not pay ANY part of your medical expenses. If you can show low income, you get an advanced tax credit, that can be applied directly to your policy payments, but you still have to actually pay the premiums for the coverage you have selected. Don't think that we have established "free" clinics, that anyone and everyone can just walk into. We still pay for our insurance and have to pay as we go, for any healthcare services we use. Its just now commanded by the government that we have purchased insurance for ourselves. And the cost for such may be lower and subsidized for low income people, but someone is still paying the insurance companies for the policies, and the insurance companies are still deciding what is covered, and what is not, within the directives, of a very complex and confusing law, that STILL puts the cost of healthcare on the backs of the user of the services. (or on the general tax payer to subsidize low income people in the purchase of their minimal policy). Regards, TAR2 Regards, TAR Tridimity, You have a point. And I agree with it, on the family thing. People already help each other out, without the government. and I do not consider I have gotten anywhere on my own. I just consider that I have done my part in getting everyone where they are. I was reluctant to receive unemployment when I lost my job last year. I had NEVER in my life received unenployment insurance, although I had paid in for 30 years. I wound up applying and receiving unemployment for 4 months till a secured an other position at the company I have been working for for most of my adult life. I also know that people make a company and a country, and the elite and CEOs are wealthy on the backs of us workers. There is a "same in kind" aspect to slavery, and working in the coal mine for the company store, and working as I do, to pay the bank. But who controls the means of production is a separate discussion, from who should pay for your lunch or doctor visit. Regards, TAR2

Overtone, 10 or 15 years ago I remember reading about a conference in Washington of WIC directors. It brought to my mind, the image and realization that there is a beauracracy of thousands of people in the Federal Government, with the authority of Federal law, and a large budget, whose only job it is to find and feed and care for women with infant children whose fathers and families have for one reason or another failed to do so, to the standards of the federal government. It seems to me there is a expectation of entitlement that is fostered, when such a government establishment is existant. If the government becomes everybodies mommy and daddy, in every area of life, who is left, to provide adult supervision, to the government, itself? And who is left to dole out the wealth, if there is no one responsible for creating it, and husbanding the countries resources, in the first place? A side concern of mine, which probably should be a central concern, is the 85 billion of loans and securities that the Federal Reserve is puchasing every month. When the Federal Reserve owns ALL the assets, who among us, then has say over their disposition? Who actually owns the assets? Mom and Pop? No. The states? No. the Congress? No. The president? No. Big Business? No. The people? No. The big banks? Maybe. Are the banks then responsible for feeding everybody and taking care of everybody? They perhaps should be, but they don't act like this is their role, and most people still consider feeding their family and putting a roof over their head, and paying the mortgage is a personal responsibility. Regards, TAR2

Swansont, And just for the record, this summer NJ replaced departed democratic senator Laudtenburg (who I voted for) with a Republican, who questions the unfunded mandate aspects, and the unappropriated use of 20 different government agencies, in the implementation of the AHA. Regards, TAR2

Swansont, I don't disagree. Gerrymandering, has always skewed results of house seats, thus more firmly embedding the power of the party generally in power at the local level. I think through history it has worked both ways, both in favor of republicans and democrats in different situations. When I lived in a democratic district I registered as a democrat, now I live in a republican district and am registered as a republican. Being in New Jersey, as a moderate, registered republican, I would NEVER have a voice in federal government, if my district was Gerrymandered to include some population centers in my county, which are highly democrat. My father, who is a democrat, lives in a highly republican area, and rarely gets a representative that he votes for. However NJ usually sends democrats to the Senate, based on popular vote. So you can't hold the fact that the Republicans won the seats that they won based on concentrations of Republicans in the districts that they represent, against their rights and obligations to be said representatives. Even if the president is elected by 60 percent of the population, there is still the other 40 percent that he is obligated to lead, and stand for. Those that disagree with his policies do not evaporate, and such honest disagreement should be worked into the conduct of his office. While the "tea party" is basically demonized, and rightly so in many ways, there are some principles and reasonable concerns underlying some of the dramatized debates, that many moderates, both democrat and republican, socialist and capitalist, would perhaps consider reasonable and important to adhere to and maintain. Enough perhaps, for many to be right in feeling "railroaded", if things go irreversably against their better judgment. Regards, TAR2

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on. Some understandable things, based on rules and laws are in play, but there are other things which are false, or manufactured or manipulated that are also in the mix, since the crash. We have pursued some untested "stategies", whose consequences are unknown. Someone still has to pay for healthcare, with or without the AHA. People can decide between bronze, and silver and gold and platnium coverage, all constructed by the same actuaries we had at the insurance companies, anyway. If you choose the lesser policies, you pay higher deductables and higher percentage of the health care costs you incur. WHO pays for your policy is you. Either through higher premiums or higher taxes, to counteract the advanced tax credits given to individuals who can prove inordinately low income. No normal indiviual will accrue any benefit, or get anything "for free". The COST of health care should be what we attempt to lower. Not structuring laws that force people to buy insurance and companies to provide insurance for their employes, which only benefits the insurance companies, and causes the unwanted condition of hurting small businesses and caused most business to hire part time employees for 39 hours a week to escape the responsibility the law creates. So the AHA is the law of the land, but many think it is not an improvement, and causes more problems than solutions, and hurts more people than it helps. There was an election that resulted in the house going to the Republicans, many of the elected, having run on the platform of repealing the law. They are empowered by the people that put them there to try and do it. Certainly not in the way that just played out. It is foolish and irresponsible to shut down the government, and certainly beyond the pale, to carry this particular battle into the debt ceiling date. Failure of the government to pay its debt will raise interest rates on our already unbelievable debt and many hundreds of billions of dollars are involved in every percent of interest we have to pay to service our debt. We will have no money to spend domestically if we do not keep, as a country, an extremely high credit rating. So I agree that the tea party members have an obligation to fight the battle they were sent to Washington to fight, but they must do it by reaching a compromised, sustainable budget FIRST, and work later, for a 43rd time, to repeal the AHA. Maybe even wait, till when and if the will of the people votes in a Republican Senate and a Republican President, at which time, the repeal or modification of the law would be more appropriate. In the mean time, their job is to maintain the honor and respect of the U.S. in the eyes of our debtors, internal and external. The faith and credit of the U.S. must remain beyond question. And its their job to see that responsible budget, and responsible governance is, and remains the case. Perhaps we should, since this government just shut itself off, be allowed to choose a new one.

ydoaPs, Are objects, in your proof, limited to concrete objects, or are abstract nouns allowed? If abstract nouns are not allowed, should we eliminate such constructs as "a system" from consideration, or can we consider the "essence" of a system, as an emergent real quality of a system, dependent on the particular summation and schema understood results of a multitude of particular momentum interactions, that "add up" , over time, to some quantity or quality, that is not present or characteristic in or of a particular momentum transaction? Regards, TAR2 Although I would argue against the notion of "the ghost in the machine", I would not argue against the spirit of the thing. Then 6)Souls are not the types of things which can have forces acting on them. would require some futher explanation, as to what type of thing the soul, or spirit or essence of a complex living organism exactly is to be considered. Conflating the issue, is the subject and object nature of information. An "external" form is manifested "in" the synapses and ion exchanges, in a human brain. The analogy created thusly is "of" the external objects, and is ALSO a real true, "form" in and of itself, when taken in the context of the body/brain/heart group arrangement of ion exchange over time. Thusly somethings more than the patterns and ideas, and perceptions, existing in a human brain, are implied by the structure and patterns and momentum interactions, therein contained.

DimaMazin, Could you frame the predictions in English sentences, with object, subject and predicates, so that I as a math handicapped individual, might understand what it is you wish to prove or predict? Regards, TAR2

DimaMazin, I don't understand math real well anymore, but the equations you posit, and then redo don't seem to me to have anything behind them. I might not know the meaning of a Japanese phase, but I can recognize when somebody makes some squiggles, as if they are Kanji characters, and they are just nonsense squiggles, and NOT Kanji. I don't even look for any meaning in your equations, because they don't smell right, to begin with. At least with real equations I know there is a meaning behind, that I just don't know enough to grasp. I think your equations don't qualify as having meaning behind. So I don't think you have any basis for degrading the math of Einstein and Minkowski. I am fairly sure your math falls very short of theirs. Regards, TAR2

Gees, Our consciousness is not transferred magically between bodies. We have language and symbols and art and technology, and music and eye contact, and touch and the results of one person's conscious manupulation of reality to compare with our own capabilities. We can have an idea, and share the thing, and transfer it thusly to another. To be emulated or dismissed, fostered and improved or discarded as unworkable. If consciousness exists outside one body, it is because it exists in other bodies, not because it exists in the air between, in and of itself. It might exist in a sense, in the patterns of voltages in a wire between, or in the frequency and amplitudes of the electromagnetic signals between, but we know these ways of getting a pattern from one to another, and they are thusly not magical, but actual ways that consciousness is transferred. And I did not propose that animals are not conscious. But would suggest that animals do not have human consciousness, since they are not humans. They are conscious of being dogs, or horses or whatever, and have the capabilities to witness and respond to reality as living organisms, with brains and feelings and senses and hungers and thirths, same as humans, but without the language and technological skills that we, as humans, possess. Unlikey that the language and technological skills of a human, dependent on the complex evolved mechanisms of a human brain, body and associated society, can find themselves transferred intact to the body and brain of a horse, outside the experiences of the particular horse in question, whose breeding has occurred along side and concurrent with humans and our evolution. Similarity and analogs are one thing. "Connections" are already present. Such things are apparent to me, for real, and no magical, "other", impossible connections, are required to explain the situation. We are already in and of reality. Completely and without question. One might hope or think, or imagine that their consciousness is immortal. And this may be true, in the sense that the "memory" of TAR exists in other conscious beings that have witnessed me, or my works, or my thoughts, and these memories will persist and still be the case, in the minds and awareness of those I have touched, or evidenced in my works, and children and such...but once I die, I won't be posting, anymore...ever. Regards, TAR

Gees, Consciousness exists outside my body. I am 100% sure of this. It also exists in your body/brain/heart group. So mine is outside yours and yours is outside mine. The central concern is what is the extent of consciousness that exists outside of ones own. The proof of consciousness other than your own, is ubiquitious and clear. You only need to study another human for about 15 seconds to know that something similar to what is going on in your own body/brain/heart group is going on in their's as well. So this consciousness thing is something that is not exclusive to a single "soul". You can do it, but so can 8 billion others, that we know are currently doing it. But this still does not make it a substance that transfers intact from being to being. From my experience, each being is aware of its own position and moment in time, and this "focus" is the cause and explaination for consciousness. It is the thought that one can be other than this very focus that causes one to be, in the first place, that I think is literally false. You have, several times, brought as a fact, that people have studied reincarnation for 1000s of years, and thus we should take this as human knowledge of reality, and accept their baseless speculations, as scientific fact. You fail to separate the figurative from the literal, or give proper value to human imagination and human agreement. There was a time when it was "true" that slaves were less than human. Should we take this time honored tradition, as "the facts of life"? No. We should not. Not if we are operating under the asumption that all men (and women) are created equal. That is, we ALL are conscious, and are all conscious of the same reality. And each of us has full access to reality and is equally responsible for it, and subject to it. Human agreement, based on our mutual recognition of the other's belonging to the same world, is the basis of civilization. We can achieve much more helping each other out, than killing each other off, in general, and acheive a situation where peace and security is more valuable than domination and control. But why, in this light, is the belief in false gods, and silly secrets, and ancient stories about the structure of the universe, something I tend to argue against? Because the world and my existence in it, is already amazing, already wonderful, and already really "something". There is enough real stuff to together experience, without throwing in false imaginary stuff, that nobody but the one that made the story up, has any access to. I would prefer to deal with facts that any conscious person, could become conscious of, just by experiencing the thing. It does not follow, that the birthmarks on a man's chest, means that his consciousness really belongs to a dead guy. It makes no sense. No sense at all. Regards, TAR2