Dan

It's been bad. I agree. I'll be in Columbus tomorrow to get things "started" and it's been no warmer there still I gotta start making the rounds. But, the cold won't/shouldn't really affect the bugs too much. Unfortunately for you (fortunately for me) they're well adapted to survive long, cold winters. In fact, all the snow melting (add in the spring rains) and flooding all the river plains will probably lead to a higher than normal crop of spring mosquitoes. So, if I had to bet, when the weather does finally warm.. it'll be pretty bad pretty quick.

That is correct!

I don't mind. I work in the mosquito control industry. I manage, oversee, and otherwise get involved in mosquito control programs nationwide, including your backyard (Chicago) and perhaps many of the posters here backyards (expect that dude in Anchorage - I haven't had the pleasure yet to kill stuff in AK ). The regulation I referred to is resultant from a Court ruling that adds CWA regulations (in addition to FIFRA regulations) to pesticide applications; specifically those applications made only for mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control in that we'll have to get permits for all applications made on or near waters of the US. Of course, no one knows what near means; furthermore a water of the US is being redefined to include most any puddle of aqueous solution containing hydrogen and oxygen bound in some recognizable form. You may notice that agricultural and general pest control applications aren't covered. Imagine that... the industries that apply less that 1% of all pesticides in the country are being regulated, while Agriculture isn't.

I really don't disagree with any of that. And don't get me started on the regulations. The industry of my endeavor is about to face the single largest regulatory oversight ever imposed by the EPA. With any luck the damn Republicans in the House can pass HR872; but I fully expect the damn Democrats in the Senate to stall it. Either way, it's made for one hell of a time trying to stay in business and be profitable. I could go on... but we'd derail this thread more than we already have.

First of all, my comment to JiA was in reference to: I couldn't ascertain who was doing the taking, giving, not taking or whatever from his quick response. My brain couldn't make the connections to make a coherent response to his one liner. That's all. I meant no dig by it. OK. I'm not arguing, in any way, for more corporate taxes. I'm not suggesting that we tax the rich more. So, there's really no need to keep bringing that back up. I signed over 40 tax returns last spring.. believe I know how much corporate taxes are. What you're suggesting is that giving the money via a one time lump sum is not the same as giving tax breaks over a multitude of years. I just don't buy it. The whole idea behind the tax breaks is to put more money back into the corporations so they'll re-invest, hire and otherwise put that money back into the economy. The bailouts did exactly that... only it occurred all at once. So, once again, in the broad sense, the idea is the same. Give the corporations, the driver's of the economy, more of their money back and they'll .. drive the economy. In the mean time... the Bush tax cuts are still in place, the capital gains tax has not increased and all the other bad things have not yet happened. So, these businesses should have the capital and the means to begin hiring again, giving raises, developing new things, etc. But, they aren't. So, now we want to elect a new set of politicians on the premise that they'll be the ones to get these corporations hiring again rather than taking their business overseas or using new technologies to cut their workforce and increase their profits. It's hard to imagine we can give enough tax breaks to amount to trillions of dollars in wall street's pocket in the next year or two. But, I guess we should try because apparently the first trillion wasn't enough to get them hiring again. Yes, Reagan cut taxes for everyone. Once. But, he also raised alot of taxes while he was President as well. Furthermore, as I stated, across the board cuts can occur, but that's separate from the trickle down idea. From the very Wiki flush: "A major feature of these [Reagan's] policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes." That's the trickle down theory. Again, how is giving some bum making $35,000/yr going to trickle down to anyone? He's pretty much down there already.

+1 doesn't say it enough. Exactly.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're assuming too much about my statement. First, let's set things straight a little. Are you saying that there's a difference between the government giving large corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks and them getting trillions of dollars in one lump sum? I understand that the trickle down theory generally refers to tax breaks, hence; I used the phrase, in the the broad sense. But, isn't a one time lump sum, equivalent to giving them tax breaks over the course of a decade or more? We didn't have a decade or more; the hope is/was that it would speed up the process. Trickle down economics is not and never was about an "across the board" tax cut for everyone. That's why they call it trickle down and not trickle up or trickle all around. The idea is you give tax breaks and benefits and otherwise help companies grow. They will, in turn, produce more, hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will then have more money to spend in the economy. That is the trickle down theory in a nutshell. But, no where in the theory is there a call for giving tax cuts to poor or middle class individuals. A politician may do that in addition to a Capital Gains cut (for ex), but that's a separate issue from applying trick down theories. And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all corporations are bad and that we should raise all corporate tax rates. I'm not suggesting that all my woes are to blame on anyone. I'm just suggesting that we've rarely given corporate America as much immediate money as we just did; and they're not hiring, they're not producing more, and they're not raising salaries. Now, perhaps there's many reasons such as technology and globalization that are responsible. But, that doesn't change the fact that the economy is still quite sluggish compared to the injection the "drivers" of that economy just got. And now we have individuals complaining, wanting to know where the jobs are. Well... as you just said they're over seas and lost to technology. But, that's hardly the sole fault of the President or any politician. So, to talk about electing a politician on the grounds that he/she can bring those jobs back is falling into a trap (my original point).

In the broad sense, is it not an economic theory which states that investing money in companies (typically by giving them tax breaks) is the best way to stimulate the economy? So, giving billions upon trillions to the automakers and wall street bankers is not investing government money into corporations? With the idea that it would stabilize their businesses and allow them to prosper so we could all prosper in return?

This is the problem... there is NO perfect candidate, ever. Everyone wants someone that's perfect, makes all the right decisions, always agrees with everything they want, and never changes his mind because changing your mind is admitting that your were previously wrong and, of course, the perfect candidate is never wrong. That's how pundits, on both sides, make their living. By pointing out any of these flaws. But, the reality is they're not flaws. They're just people. They make decisions that are complex, need to be defended and often change. Romney, for example, did pass a law similar to the Obama's. That's fact. He should be able to defend that; not criticize the new one and dismiss his support of the old one. I love the economy sucks crowd and how it's all on Obama. He did exactly what the Republican President and Congress were doing before he got into office. He gave billions to large banks and corporations with the idea that they'd become financially sound again, stabilize the markets, and then they'd re-hire folks and the economy would correct itself. Well, once again, we've proven beyond a doubt that trickle down economics doesn't work. And now what's the solution? Everyone says jobs, jobs.. we need a president that can get us jobs. Yet, at the same time we say cut.. cut.. cut... we need politicians that cut. How does government create jobs without spending? They've already given corporate America more money that God; that didn't work. So now what? We repeal the health care law? Because employers were hiring like crazy right up until that law was passed? If we're electing politicians because they're going to find jobs, we'll continue getting no where. I'm sorry, but the people falling into the "unemployment" bandwagon are falling right into the political machine's trap. You'll elect new guys because they'll promise exactly what you want, and in the end, continue to fail to deliver. Then the next election will have more new guys promising more or the same... and so on.

I can agree with that... me being special of course. ...and perhaps the rest of it. Most people are stupid. But, why do we have to follow stupid laws for stupid people? You can't legislate our stupid. I've seen plenty of people that can't drive for **** regardless of what they're doing, yet they're still out there driving around. I've had plenty of close calls while driving on my phone; unlike the idiots you mention though, I just drop the phone and grab the wheel - phone be damned.

It's something you see all the time. It's easy for so many of us to rail against the poor people after Katrina saying all they want are handouts and free housing. As though these people are any different than any other individual on the planet. Let beach erosion occur on Long Island and look at how many wealthy people expected the government to help. How many millionaires do everything possible to get out of paying taxes or move their factories wherever they get the cheapest land/labor/and tax rates. How do you attract the soccer mom to the mall... buy one get one free sales. Bottomline is... everyone wants something for nothing; from the wealthiest individual on the planet to the poorest. The real issue shouldn't be that they wanted it.. but should be that we gave it to them. And should the government be giving any residents, rich or poor, free money - in the form of housing or tax breaks or whatever. And if so, what's the most fair and equitable way that promotes our overall growth as a nation and a civil and secure society.

The Seat Belt laws are horrible. A great representation of my civil liberties being infringed upon with legislation that has to be passed because if you're against it you're anti-kid. I'm sure a 5-point seat belt would be safer; why not helmets while you drive; fire retardant suits? All of those would make driving safer if you got in a wreck. If I'm willing to risk putting my life in danger by not wearing a seat belt; I should be allowed that right. It's a stupid law, that I don't abide by (and have paid the fine for on numerous occasions). Cell Phone laws are just about as stupid. How is talking on my cell phone any more distracting that talking to someone in the passenger seat? And I don't buy the idea that one hand is holding the phone. How many people drive with both hands on the wheel at 10 and 2? Few, if any. Again, it's just something that legislators have to pass because if they don't they're deemed insensitive to some dead kid/person. I am just as capable of maintaining control of my vehicle while holding a phone to my ear as I am sipping on a cup of coffee while switching the radio and talking to my buddy in the passenger seat.. just that none of those things are deemed bad. Texting.. yeah I can see that. It's by far one of the more distracting things you can do while driving (I do it), due to the reading and typing involved. However, is it a law that we really need to enact and then spend invaluable resources trying to enforce when there's so many other things we should be spending our law enforcement dollars on. Which brings me to my final point below.... And that is my problem with these checkpoints and traffic stakeouts. How many tax dollars are spent checking to see if I have an insurance card in my vehicle while far more serious criminals are roaming the streets freely. Certainly, I'm sure there are occasions when a checkpoint or traffic stakeout gets a real criminal off the street; but it seems far more successful at stopping people and nickel and diming them for minor offenses than anything else. Why not spend the same amount of time trying to find the guy that's selling drugs to everyone in town, or stealing cars, or breaking into houses, or any other serious crime. I guess it's easier to get me for a faulty tail light or out of date inspection sticker than it is to run down drug dealers and armed robbers. If the intent is to get drunk drivers off the street then set the check point up outside the bars and get the drunks. If you can't do that.. then stop wasting all our time just to make sure we've gotten our insurance cards up to date and actually in my car.

To get this discussion back on track... I offer that NASA is the one that's vindicated. It's been what... a year? and already all the muslims love us and want to be us. Problem solved. These guys drove a car on Mars!... the Middle East was too easy for them.

A couple obscure or lesser thought about ones, perhaps... Modern English - I Melt with You. < John Cougar Mellencamp - Ain't even done with the Night < John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band - On the Dark Side <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgloaS4NGyM> Go Go's - We got the Beat < Prince - Little Red Corvette <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDduqH5cci>

Talk about being damned if you do and damned if ya don't... If Obama refuses to give in and fights to repeal the Bush tax cuts; he's partisan, far left and seen as refusing to work with Republicans. If he compromises and extends the Bush tax cuts; he's a follower that doesn't know how to lead. So, what would you have him do - be a far left-leaning, partisan president or have him try and work with Republicans?

Switch banks and/or credit cards. I haven't seen any increases in my transaction fees. I really dislike the logic that if you do regulate the industry they'll charge you more; therefore, you shouldn't regulate them. Not every bank has increased their fees, my small local bank hasn't. Use your power as a consumer, switch banks and tell them why. If enough people did that the bigger banks would catch on and lower their fees again. But, I guess it's just easier to pay the extra money and complain about it.

So Wall Street returning to form is not progress? GM being back from the brink of bankruptcy is not progress? The problem is Obama, like Bush, used the backs of taxpayers to give these corporations billions upon billions of dollars in an effort to save them. Give the businesses the money and they'll re-invest their profits by making more jobs and we'll all be happy. We'll, these businesses were saved. But, they're not re-investing they're money by hiring more workers and building factories and such here in the US. But, that's always been the problem with "trickle down" economics; yet no one ever seems to call them on it. Now, you want to blame Obama for not magically creating jobs and lowering the cost of everything you might buy as though he's the only one that has a hand in any of this. In fact, the only jobs he can create are government jobs, but if he does that then you blast him for building the size of the government. So, what exactly would you like to see this, or any President, do to actually create jobs? I know, I know he's created an "atmosphere" that's unfavorable for business growth with the health care law and such. I call BS. Corporate taxes are as low as ever. Unemployment taxes are as low as ever. Regulations, across the board, have been loosened over the past decade or more. Yet, corporations still aren't hiring. They're doing what business do.. pocketing the profit and making their shareholders happy. Yet, we all cry that they need even more breaks because we're all certain that that's what it'll take to get them hiring again. All the while neglecting all the breaks they've gotten for the last decade that did nothing but lead to the economic mess that we're currently in.

My guess is the answer depends upon whom you're asking. Wall Street brokers, Bankers, AIG execs, high level execs in the the big three automakers... they all seem to be doing quite a bit better than 2 years ago. I think the issue is... expecting anyone to come in and turn around the worst economic collapse since the great depression and make it all better in 2 years or less is just simply having expectations out of line with reality.

Hamdan ...still... Rocks!

.. that I don't have to wear a seat belt if I don't want to. I'm in no way infringing upon anyone while driving in my car going 70 in the right lane with people passing me and not wearing a seat belt.

Of course.

IMO, yes. There's zero security getting onto trains. Unless there's some "hidden" security that we don't see.

Exactly. If you can no longer use a standard scale to weigh yourself.... you're weight might be getting out of control.

This.. IMO, is a perfect example of the "whatever the Bills do, it's wrong" mentality. The vast majority of Bills' fans have hated the current uniforms since almost day 1. There's not been a season go by where there's not at least a dozen threads, here, started asking why or when we can get rid of them. The new FO office finally does that... and it's a money grab? Why can't it just be seen as the new FO recognizing what we fans know all too well... the uniforms are hideous and need to be changed? Does it help the play on the field? No. But, there have been too many mistakes to count over the last decade. Changing the uniforms was one. The new FO appears to be slowly trying to correct many of those mistakes. Again, I see this as just another indication that Buddy and Co. get it.. they're trying to fix what's been broken. And, yes, the uniforms have been part of that; albeit a small part. I really see no reason to interpret this move in any sort of negative light, at all. Yeah.. we may be a laughing stock; but I'd rather be a laughing stock in a nice dress than a laughing stock in a clown costume. To be honest, you're not the only one here that can't have reasonable discourse. There are a number of posters here (and I suppose everywhere) that post for the sole purpose of being contrary and trying to piss people off. So, you're not special in that regard, unfortunately. Honestly, JW, I appreciate your comments as I appreciate all intelligent, reasonable discussion. So, just put those posters on ignore (or have some fun with them), but if we all let the idiots control the asylum; then all of us that appreciate intelligent, reasonable discussion lose out.

Yes... I fear your "blasts". If that helps you sleep at night, by all means I'm shaking over here. The thought of your stinging rhetoric leaves me chilled. ..whatever. See that's sarcasm. It's kinda like how I might write a post expressing several arguments as to why the high speed train wouldn't work and then end with a ... yeah but what the hell spend the money anyway statement. It's how I might respond to Wacka's correction that's its billion, not million's of dollars. See a sarcastic response to further illustrate the absurdity of it would be... "Million.. Billion what's the the difference? Just move a few zeroes around." You, on one hand, would over react and claim how crazy a notion that is and conclude that I'm a tax and spend liberal that's lost touch with reality. A more rational, thinking person would read that and think obviously this guy is joking and let it go. Tip: one way you can usually pick up on sarcasm is when someone trivializes an outlandish statement. You say what about everyone else that's worried about spending the money. I should listen to them. I don't know any poll numbers for whatever good they may be, but for the sake of argument, what if the majority of people on the east coast want to spend the money? Shouldn't their voices be heard? Is yours the only one that matters? At one point, I recall arguing with someone here about building sand barriers in the gulf to keep the oil off the coast. Well, I thought it was a waste of money, as it turns out, it was. But, enough people supported and argued for it that they took my tax dollars and wasted it on a project that did absolutely nothing to keep oil off the LA coast. The lesson is we can't all, always get what we want. For every thing you don't want the government to do, there's someone out there that wants it done. Who's right? Who's wrong? That changes from day to day. I'm sure you disagree with that because you're always right and have all the bestest answers. As Wacka pointed out, we're talking $53Billion with a B, so yes I'm sure the 4X53Million is a good starting point. Doing some googling, the best I could find is that from 1971-2009, Amtrak got $5 billion from USDOT and $4Billion of that went to the Northeast Corridor. So, you gotta figure the Acela Express got the lion's share of that. So let's estimate it's cost at $2-3 Billion. Interestingly, Amtrak says the Acela Express is the only one of it's lines that make a profit. Making about $300million/year in 2005. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything other than to point to the massive amounts of money that have been spent on the Acela train, already. But none of it really addresses the concerns that I and others have brought up regarding the success of a high speed train. That's ok though, because I'm sure you've stopped reading and already prepared your response to rant about me wanting to spend Billions of your money now on something that I've clearly said I doubt will be successful.