On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:43:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:25:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:52:32 -0400, wrote:


By your standards I am poor but I also think taxes are too low right
now. Certainly I don't want to send any more money to Washington but
they will spend the money anyway.
It is better not to foist it on our kids.

Huh? This nonsense about the deficit is out of control. Sure, it's a
problem, but certainly not a fatal one.

The government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends with
nothing but higher deficits in sight and you don't think it is a
problem?

For the short-term. No. It's a necessary evil. For the long-term. Yes.

The Nobel Prize has very little to do with the average worker. I bet
99% of them can't even name more than one current prize winner in any
category.

Again, this has nothing to do with your original claim. Sounds
anti-intellectual to me.


You are the one who seemed to be saying nobel prizes translate to
jobs.,

Where? I never said that nor implied it.

It has been the best business model for the last 2 decades.
Walmart is the nations most successful retailer, McDonalds is the most
successful restaurant and most of our electronics come from China.

Ummm... 2 decades is a pretty short time frame.


Do you see the trend changing?

For next year? No. For another two decades, it's too early to tell.

Maybe you want to rephrase.
The fact is, the first company to actually produce that mythical
dollar a watt solar collector is going to rule the world. That is
about where solar actually starts to make sense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...r-wind/4306443

I guess we're the ruling country.

Let's see if they can deliver that panel for a buck,

It's your claim that producing a panel for that cost is a ruling
event.


If they can actually bring this to market for a buck a watt with a
reasonable life expectancy, it will be a game changer.
Mechanix Illustrated is famous for writing stories about things that
din't actually happen.

Well, I'm just point out that your bar has been reached... at least
according to what you said.

Cheaper isn't always better. Example: McDs. And, it's not even clear
that cheaper is actually cheaper in the long run.


Humm, lets see.
Ruth's Chris Steak house stock was $20 in 2007 it is $5 now
McDonalds was $40 in 2007 it is $70 now.
Maybe cheaper is better.

As long as you don't factor in health...

I doubt there is much difference between a steak and a burger, health
wise.

It's all about fat content. Pick the right steak and the wrong burger
(e.g., McDs) and there's a big difference.

The steak at Ruth's will have a lot higher fat content than a McD
hamburger.
That is what USDA prime means, more fat. (AKA "marbling")

http://www.weightlossforall.com/mcdo...ories-list.htm
http://www.weightlossforall.com/fat-content-beef.htm


Yet Bob says those were the last days that the middle class actually
got a raise. (pre 1973)

I don't know what Bob said.

He said just what I said. The US Middle Class has not had a raise
since 1973 ... and he said it 30 times or more here.

Take it up with Bob. I am not his savior.

It is a statistic that is all over liberal TV, I know you have heard
it.

A statistic? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I know you liberals are fast and loose with statistics. Bob was
quoting Andrew Sullivan.

I'm not a liberal except socially. Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan


Who wrote that Wiki?
Sullivan is a gay writer for Atlantic Monthly, formerly from the New
Republic. How conservative can he be? Libertarian may be a better
description.

You claimed he's a liberal. He and others claim he isn't. To answer
you question, many people, and it's been vetted by many people. I
don't see any dispute in the article header and there are lots of
references. Feel free to discount all that.