waitforufo

Still waiting… But when they show up and give us all that extra terrestrial super technology its gona be AWSOME! Better than free gubment cheese. On a more serious note. I'm always amazed when people think our ancestors must have been incapable of the technological accomplishments displayed in the archeological record. Things like fitting large stones together. Perhaps, just perhaps, people in the past were not as impatient as we are today. Perhaps the average workers of that time, if they showed up to carefully and slowly chisel rock, were given an abundance of bread and beer. Since beer and bread made them happy showed up every day. Slowly they got lots done. Also, who's to say they didn't know things then that we have yet to rediscover today. Who know what was lost when the library at Alexandria was burned?

I believe Tom Friedman is correct. Perhaps he left off however, that after the bust, people always go to jail. I hope your "Yes" is correct because my lively hood depends on it. That is why I ask my children and their friends about their bandwidth usage and needs. Strong belief like yours however is what bubbles are made from.

Perhaps it will be a bandwidth bubble. By this I mean do we really need more data bandwidth. Both fixed and wireless? My young adult children (early 20's) and their friends seem to have waning interest. Media overload makes them not trust anything they see, hear, or read on television, radio, or the internet. I have asked these young people if they are interested in HDTV or 4G wireless services, etcetera, and an amalgam of there responses would be something of the order "I would rather have a real life and a virtual one."

If this was a question to me, based on my post 16, then yes you can choose not to vote for particular races or issues.

Washington State has mail in ballots. I have had mine for about a week now, so I can vote any time up to Election Day. If I don't want to pay for a stamp there are local drop off locations. This is a great system. You look through the ballot and vote the things you know and then you have time to sort out the rest. The state mails out a voter pamphlet where the candidates make their pitches and their opponents make their rebuttals. Similar with issue oriented contests. If that’s not enough you can look on line, or my favorite you can call the candidate's election office. I just love to here them choke when I say "I'm holding my ballot in my hand right now, why should I vote for your candidate or issue?" Another favorite is "Obviously you're just paid to answer the phone, is there someone there that actually knows the candidate's positions?" I find judge positions to be the hardest to vote for. It's almost impossible to find information. Giving out real information would show the judge is not impartial. So, I guess if you like how their picture looks, you vote that way. Okay, if they are running for re-election, and if you dig hard enough, you can at least find a few of their important decisions and decide if you agree or not. If their not standing judges, you can look for cases they represented as lawyers and base your decision on that. But you really have to dig, and what you find is often quite obtuse. I don't know how people did it before the internet.

Thank you. Credits vanish as income increases thereby increasing the marginal rate. I thought the article was clear. Since my last post, most seem to be ignoring the fact that these "tax credits" are just a government money give away. People will be given a tax return for money they never paid in. How long can our nation survive if people can just vote themselves money? Democrats tell us that this tax return is to offset payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. So, in other words some people have to pay for these benefits and others don't. Both of these entitlement programs are near bankruptcy and the Democrats are trying to figure out ways to make sure less people are paying in. Brilliant. Foolish for me to assume that people are entitled to these entitlement programs because they pay for them. The WSJ article they mention a "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. This is the one tax credit is not extended to people who pay no taxes. Who do you really think will receive this clean car credit? My guess, no one. Why? Because if you make enough money to purchase a clean car you will be "phased out" from tax credit eligibility. For many if not most, this will also be true for the $4,000 tax credit for college tuition. If you can afford to spend $4000 on sending your child to college, you will likely find that you have too much income to be considered eligible for these tax credits. A 50% tax credit for saving $1000? How will this one be figured out? Again who will be eligible for such a credit? Do people who pay no taxes save money? So, targeted tax cuts but targets with no bullseye. In the mean time people will be actually working to fit themselves into daddy government's social engineering plan. Pathetic. Why not just make money and live free? ParanoiA, with regard to "McCain taxing benefits for the first time ever." I believe you are referring to ads saying McCain wants to tax medical benefits for the first time ever. Currently in the US you are not taxed on medical insurance costs paid by your employer. Those without employer paid medical insurance pay taxes on all the money they use to pay for their insurance. McCain has proposed a tax credit for medical insurance costs. Under the McCain plain the cost for all medical insurance paid by the employer and the employee would be considered employee income. This increase in income would be offset by a tax credit. This would put those paying their own insurance on an equal footing with those who receive medical insurance as part of their employment compensation. I believe it is primarily unions that are against this plan.

Another link about Obama's "tax cut" Illusion. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html This pandering is really quite amazing. Also, somehow people never seem to think that this part won't apply to them. A great example of a Democrat targeted tax cut. Basically it says never expect to find yourself in the bullseye of that target.

As I said... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/

I smoked from 16 to 28. I have now not smoked for 20 years. The first month was definitely the worst. After that I would say the cravings are all physiological. Even though I have not smoked in 20 years, there are still times, at least a few times a week, where I have a perfect memory of the nicotine high. That memory, which is obviously a craving, I'm sure will be with me the rest of my life. With time however, the craving becomes more of a curiosity than a true desire. I think cold turkey is the only way to go. Ultimately you will have to not smoke and not use drugs like chantix. Why not just start out that way. Find yourself a support group. That might be difficult, since most friends of smokers are smokers. By quitting smoking, you are quitting one of your strongest friendship activities. So, no matter what they tell you, their id will be hopping you fail. Good luck.

I agree with those that think these debates, for both president and vice president, are watched much like people watch NASCAR. The contest is interesting but what people really want to see is a spectacular crash. Viewed from that perspective no big crashes and only minor gaffs. I do find it interesting how regional pronunciations of words like nuclear draw such interest, but Joe Biden claiming that Article I of the constitution defines the executive branch of government draws little attention. This is but a minor gaff but in the context it was given he should have been correct. "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." - Joe Biden Article 1 establishes the legislative branch and the vice presidents roll within it.

This is off the hydro storage concept but why not just move to local DC power distribution and local battery storage. When electrification first began there was quite a battle between Edison and Westinghouse regarding DC or AC electrification. Westinghouse had Nikola Tesla on his side and won the day. Technology however since that day has improved significantly. AC electrification has the primary advantage of simple voltage transformation and transformer coupling. Once you reach a fixed location like a home or most businesses no transformers are found in the distribution system. Now there are transformers in most electrical equipment or appliances but most of those are part of a rectification to DC circuit. The remaining transformers are generally found in AC motors. Motors that could be replaced with DC motors. Today semiconductor based DC/DC voltage step up and down voltage converters are common and efficient. Efficiencies of 87% are easily obtained. So hybrid systems could be developed that received AC power from the grid and rectify that power to DC at each location. Each location could then have battery storage. (Think of it as a private water cistern in your attic which is actually quite common in many locations in Europe.) An advantage of such a system would be that DC power could be generated locally by various means and also stored in the battery for later use. Various means include local fuel cells, solar, and perhaps but less likely wind. (I just don't see small scale wind systems becoming economical or popular, but who knows.) I know most people on Science Forums would like to get completely away from burning fuel, but local consumption of fuel reduces transportation losses thereby reducing fuel consumption. Also natural gas to the home is very efficient when generating heat for both home temperature control and for cooking. Waste heat from the fuel cell could also be used for home heating. People are used to constantly available and reliable power sources. Local solar and wind will never be capable of providing such performance. The presentation below discusses some of the issues involved. http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/meetings/gm2007/html/SLIDES/PESGM2007P-001299.PDF This presentation gives efficiency gains for various distribution methods. It does not consider alternative means of power generation with the exception of local fuel cell generation. The presentation does show that the modern DC and AC systems are very comparable in terms of efficiency. The primary problems are 1) Making the conversion from AC to DC. a) What do you do with all your old devices and appliances? b) Now you have to purchase all new devices and appliances, or purchase DC to AC converters. 2) Purchasing your selected back up supply system(s) a) grid b) natural gas fuel cell 3) Purchasing your alternative supply systems a) solar b) wind 4) Purchasing the battery. 5) Storage space (This equipment will fill a moderate sized closet.) 6) Maintaining all this privately owned supply system. 7) Safety (If you have ever been around a large storage battery that overcharged you know what I am talking about.) Maybe Nikola Tesla wasn't so dumb after all.

You should check out Grand Coulee Dam and Banks Lake at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam Banks lake is discussed under the irrigation section of this post but it is also used as an ancillary reservoir for power generation. Don't look for to much support for this idea however. Most environmentalists never met a reservoir they liked.

My wife and I used to volunteer at a local food bank. Well it did more that just give away food to the needy. They also gave money to people who came in with three day pay or vacate notices from their landlords. The first time you were in need, food or money, they just gave assistance. The second time however the required the recipient to receive training. If you needed food assistance, you took a cooking and nutrition class. If you needed money, you took a home budgeting class. My wife taught the cooking class and I taught the budgeting class. About 80% of those looking for additional assistance walked away, stomped would be a better description, when then were told of this training requirement. I don't know about those that refused training, but above you describe perfectly those that did receive training. I lasted as a twice a month trainer for about 5 months. I remember saying "… then all you have to do is add up this column and make sure the total does not exceed your income." With that one of my students said "no you don't understand, I don't dos I gets." Even I laughed, but I quit volunteering. If I would have continued I would be in the penitentiary today. With regard to the bail out however, I just know too many educated people who are underwater with no one to blame but themselves. They are not, or at least should not, be one of those people you describe above. I have two siblings in this boat. Both college educated. My four other siblings are worried about their retirement savings but other that that are just fine. Two of those are not college educated. Also, the media keeps referring to this as a Wall Street bail out. I see this as a main street bail out. Look at the baby boomers, of which I am one. Never has America produced such a spoiled narcissistic generation of people. No retirement plan, little savings, no home equity, but they do have an expensive lifestyle. This year the baby boomers start entering their 60's. Where are these people going to be if their measly 401k savings plan goes poof and their home is foreclosed? For the good of my children I feel compelled to bail them out, but not for their own sake.

Okay, I have heard all the well placed anger directed at politicians, lobbyists, and executives, but I'm starting to feel like I'm the only one upset with my neighbors and siblings. You know who I'm talking about. That person you know that has been treating the growing equity in their home like a magic bank account. Every time interest rates, real estate demand, and tax policy increase their home equity they rush to refinance. We all know that the latte and valet life style doesn't come cheap. All the while during their spending frenzy you were warning them that leverage works both ways. Now they are broke, and they all sing the same tune. "Well, if I couldn't afford the mortgage, why did those evil people give me the loan? It's not my fault!" I'm not happy about a few executives walking off with their golden parachutes. Bailing out my neighbor and sibling spendthrifts however, makes me want to puke. Will we do it? Of course, we need to keep our personal 401k afloat, and our personal real estate values from tanking. Don't we?

I agree with your analysis of Williams. I posted it more for his comments on congress's role. I have been quite disappointed in Republican presidents that in effect tell congress "give me what I want and I'll let you spend like drunken sailors on shore leave."

Interesting article on the subject, "Stubborn Ignorance" by Walter Williams. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Stubborn%20Ignorance.htm

This seems to me to be strategy on McCain's part. Time spent talking about Palin is time not spent talking about Obama. There is not much time between now and the election. People know McCain. The less people know about Obama, the better it is for McCain when the election comes. McCain is currently down in the polls. How much of that is the Palin choice and the negative campaigning against her and how much is the banking crisis? You can make your own call on that. Either way Obama is still not above 50% so swing voters are still swinging. When the election comes, swing voters will in my opinion look for the candidate that is optimistic and that they know best. With all the negative campaigning against Palin, and less talk about Obama, that person could likely be McCain.

Excellent post.

Are you writing about the bush tax rebate stimulus plan? My understanding was that if you did not actually spend the money it would be considered taxable income. Still, the amount of tax paid would still be based on your marginal rate. Also, if you were not smart enough to just cash the check, you know good old benjamins, perhaps you deserve to pay that tax.

Excellent post. Particularly that last bit. I am one of those that will vote for McCain. Since we have both made up our minds, and are unlikely to change, current campaigning can and probably should ignore us. Both campaigns need to be selling the swing voters. Selling committed voters, particularly the entrenched base is just wasting time. I do think Obama however is in a tight spot. He won the nomination by appealing to the more liberal side of the Democratic Party. Moving to the center is difficult because there is just too much video of him during the primaries. McCain can sell himself. Palin doesn't need to say a thing to conservative Republicans she just needs to show up. So Palin can spend all of her time selling McCain. Still, I think Obama and Biden need to spend most of their time selling their ticket and get away from criticizing their opponents. Obama won the primary talking about hope and change. In my opinion he never was to clear on the specifics but at least that was an optimistic message. Americans vote for optimists. People like JFK and Reagan. That is where the swing voters will land. Recently I have seen more optimism from the McCain/Palin ticket. But I wear that tint in my glasses. Pangloss had a good point about the quick response nature of the campaign. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in McCain. I thought his initial response, assuring Americans of the soundness of the economy, was the responsible one. Inciting panic during a bank run is never a good idea.

Democrats have a tendency to call subsidies tax cuts. So for example the earned income credit (EIC) also called the earned income tax credit (EITC), which is a subsidy for low income earners is called a tax cut. You don't pay any taxes but you get "tax return" anyway. So Obama may just be planning to send low income earners more money even though they don't pay taxes. Democrats also have a tendency to call tax cuts subsidies as well. I recall the head of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Clinton saying the middle class in America was the greatest recipient of housing subsidies. The justification for saying this was that people are able to deduct mortgage interest from their income when filing their tax returns. This "tax cut" was therefore as subsidy. In other words, letting you keep the money you earn is subsidy, and giving you money you did not earn is a tax cut. That's Democrat speak for you.

This thread is about the "the depraved state of US politics." It certainly has been a three ring circus since the conventions. I can't help however, but think that most of the discussion in this thread is irrelevant. For the life if me I can't understand why Obama doesn't have poll ratings in the middle fifties. Why can't the guy seal the deal? Okay, you can blame it on the media for exaggerating silly issues if you like. In every campaign, politicians make gaffs. Often times these gaffs are what the media makes of them. Personally, I think the best way to handle all gaffs is to just quickly move past them. I think Obama spends too much time on his gaffs (or the gaffs the media attributes to him if you like). Time better spent on real issues. Time better spent winning over swing voters. Take for example all the time Obama and his campaign are spending comparing his experience with Palin's. Winning that argument just proves he should be vice president. Why waste time on this issue? Take for example all the time spent on discussing how much of a tool Palin is to the right wing of the Republican party. How does that show the Obama is qualified to be president? To seal the deal Obama needs to prove to the voters that he is qualified to be president. It really doesn't matter what McCain's, Palin's or Biden's qualifications are. If he can prove that he himself is qualified for president, his poll ratings would dramatically improve. Generally I think people feel that McCain is qualified to be president. Voters at this time however would rather not vote for a Republican because of Bush. So McCain is holding at about 47% in the polls to Obama's 45%. Obama is however still ahead in the electoral college. This is still Obama's election to lose, but lose it he might.

The Palin / Obama faith double standard is indeed happening and is quite interesting.

I have made my point in this thread and I'm done. ParanoiA, I'm glad you enjoyed my post, feel free to use it any time.

Actually, what I am saying is that if you want to ban books, don't run for mayor, become a librarian.