The world governments have to come together and ... then take unilateral action to combat it in the most practical and sensible ways.

Is that really surprising, if you think about it. When you force hydraulic fluid to do work it warms up, so why shouldn't the air warm up when forced to turn a turbine.

P.S. I am not an expert in these things, I just worked on the electronics and computers that controlled hydraulic machinery.

But they warned that firm conclusions should not be drawn until more research had been carried out.

I thought wind power was the answer to CO2 caused global warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137170/Wind-farms-link-rising-temperatures-detrimental-impact-wildlife-weather-say-scientists.html

Wind farms linked to rising temperatures: Scientists concerned about impact on wildlife and weather.

Wind turbines could warm local climates up to ten times faster than the natural rate...

Publishing their findings in the scientific journal Nature, they said: ‘We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms.

‘The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors.

You might be interested to know that the author of the scientific study on which this article was based has written a statement claiming misrepresetation of the work's findings.
- ryan , Hampshire, 02/5/2012 11:41

But when it has been ice free the earth had a tropical climate almost to the arctic circle, definitely at for north as England. Sounds pretty good to me.

Betreger, that can't be true, if you don't believe the free market is always good for you, you must be a socialist.

The question I asked was, "show me the math." You couldn't even begin to show me the math.

You let a lot people down in here.

I then showed you the math with the available data.

Liberals want to stick it to the rich.

I noticed you skipped over the part of my post that says Romney wants to do what you suggest, only in a less extreme way.

Liberals saying they want to cut the military, and then not cutting the military is part of the fraud and deceit they are playing on the less informed liberals. I know this. I was in the military.

So, you say our national debt is small. Then I guess almost 9% of our mandatory spending on servicing the debt is no big deal? More than $200B in interest payments alone is not a big deal? Ok then. Let's borrow more. Let's see where the limit is.

So, you admit you cannot show me the math and you just want to try something EXTREME for no justifiable reason and with no idea what'll happen in the following years. It sure will FEEL good to finally STICK it to the rich for that first year, eh?

I've stated several times in the past if I were given the power to do it, I could easily cut the military budget by 20 or 30% with out hurting our military capability.

For example, why was Clinton successful at balancing the budget (if you didn't count everything) and why was Obama successful at lowering the deficit by a statistically insignificant amount? Clinton was DRAGGED to a balanced budget (if you didn't count everything) by a house and senate full of republicans (no filibuster proof senate, though).

As for your statement about not recommending being a single-issue voter and believing the debt/deficit is the biggest problem and therefore must never vote republican... Well, I guess this is an example of two people looking at the same thing and seeing two totally different things.

If the debt/deficit is not our biggest problem, what is? We are on a path to hyperinflation.

We now have president/vice president debates that are nothing more than BOTH SIDES CALLING THE OTHER SIDE A LIAR. How is that possible?

And I'll give you the benefit of doubt since you're relatively new here,

... but I've stated multiple times I'm not a republican. But I'm definitely even more NOT a democrat.

As a matter of fact, I've become so disenfranchised...

Romney has stated he wants to lower the tax rates across the board and ...reduce or remove some deductions and PLACE A CAP on total deductions. The house and senate must work out the details. The liberals are currently focusing on the "lower the tax rates for everybody" and calling it a $5T tax cut for the rich since the math doesn't work out and not mentioning anything at all about the second part of the statement. The liberals will soon claim Romney is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor because we must also address some cuts to social programs. And again, keep in mind, these are 2009 numbers. The current numbers are worse, they just haven't been made public yet.

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

... line 29... column L... $204,322,325,000.

8,211--------------Returns GREATER than 10 MILLION dollars
$204,322,325,000---Total taxable income from them
$1,133,650,000,000--to try to shore up this deficit
$16,176,000,000,000--to try to eventually start lowering this debt

So, you tell me, what would happen if we had a 100% tax bracket for anyone making more than $10M?

The truth of the matter is if you give every leech in the U.S. $96,000/year from the producers, there would be one big party in Vegas and the Boardwalk and the next year, this country would crash and turn into a country no better off than Somalia.

I think I've given you enough information to demonstrate where I've been before. From the above statement, it looks like you want to increase spending and increase revenue. So, show me a tax schedule that would do it based on the latest numbers generated from the statistics of the latest year of tax information available from the IRS.gov web site.

As I've said before, I've "run" the numbers to make enough cuts ...

... (based on the last budget APPROVED by the house and senate or the budget DICTATED by our current president--I forgot which one I based my caclulations on.) to run a little bit of a surplus to start paying down the national debt. The static numbers I used would have zeroed out the debt in about 12 years if I remember correctly, taking into account the difference in lower interest paid each year was applied to the principle. This was 2 years ago using the latest number from the IRS (2 years old). (now it's 4 year old data) Scanning through all my posts, I didn't spot it. Besides, those numbers won't work anymore because of the damage Obama/Reid has allowed to happen. As for this particular suggestion on how to erase the current tax code and start all over again, I have not "run" the numbers to see how much revenue it would generate. At the particular time of this post, it was merly a suggestion that EVERYBODY who earns income should pay SOMETHING.

...would really cost more like 25% of GDP, based on per capita income = $48,100 according to CIA, and family size approximately equals 4 (slightly more than 4, iirc). So even if the real cost of the general welfare is twice my guess, there would still be at least half of GDP remaining for us to compete over, and that would be more than enough to motivate me.

is nothing more than a guess and an opinion.

What I hope you will address is whether half of GDP would be sufficient to:

(1) meet the reasonable needs of every American
(2) leave enough to motivate competition for the surplus

Answer Key:
(1) ~ $96,000 per family of four is more than sufficient, obviously, as demonstrated by the millions of families of four and even more, doing quite well thank you with significantly less.
(2) This is the disputable part. Let's dispute it.

Simplifying the tax code would go a long way towards increasing revenue to the treasury. I'm all for a graduated flax tax system. No more deductions (schedule A). No more credits. No more standard deduction. No more personal exemptions. No more married filing separate or joint. No more head of household. No more qualifying widow(er). Everybody files without claiming to be married or single. They claim the number of people they are supporting. If one of the people you support is an income earner, you add that to the income for that family unit. Everybody pays *something*. Even if it's only $12/year for the lowest of wage earners.

Posted 598 days ago: (2008 numbers straight from the IRS...)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

Consolidated from Column A (income group), Column C (% of returns) and Column R (Total tax)

Income group - % of returns - % of total tax
$0 - $25K-------41.3%-----------1.2%
$25K - $50K-----24.1%-----------6.4%
$50K - $100K----21.7%----------17.9%
$100K - $500K---12.1%----------41.3%
> %500K----------0.6%----------33.3%

Posted 632 days ago:

You defend it all? Well, how the heck are we going to continue to pay for it all? The quick answer I always hear is to raise taxes on the rich, control private corporations more, and increase wealth transfer to the poor. This endless cycle of government taking more, keeping more, and handing out more is the downward spiral of our nation. We can't continue to raise taxes and expect to get more in revenue. If you tax more, you'll get less business. With less business, you'll get less tax revenue.

In D.C. speak, my VA benefits have been cut two years in a row already, and I'm looking at a bigger cut next year. You don't hear me whining. And you won't hear me whine. When word gets out about the bigger cut next year, you'll see all the veteran lobbyists start to walk back and forth with signs. But I won't be part of it. I'm willing to take these cuts. But I'll be darned if I'll be happy with my benefits being the *only* thing cut in order to be able to continue paying for things like:

-National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million/year
-National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million/year
-Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million/year
-John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000year
-Beach Replenishment. $95 million/year
-Exchange Programs for Alaska, Native Hawaiians, and Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million/year
-Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million/year
-General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million/year
-Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million/year
-Taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion over ten years.
-Mohair Subsidies. $1 million/year

My proposal would put a floor on "need" so competition would be only for luxuries, or better versions of the necessities, so housing with standard carpeting (or maybe linoleum, simple tile or Bella wood floors and the like) would be provided, Persian rugs would require competing successfully for economic reward...

As for this statement, it smells too much of communism for me.

Annual income Tax rate
0 < 48,100 0%
48,100 < 100,000 5%
100,000 < 250K 10%
250K < 2M 25%
2M < 10M 50%
10M < 100M 75%
100M < 1B 90%
> 1B 100%

And based on the things I see our federal government spending the dollars I give them every year, I think I pay twice as much as I should.

I've worked as a tax professional at H&R Block so I'm well aware of most adjustments, deductions, and credits. I'm a strong advocate of SIMPLIFYING the tax code. I'm a strong advocate of BROADENING the tax base. And I'm a strong advocate of cutting federal spending. Real cuts--not base line budgeting cuts!

I've done the math before. And each year I do the math, it's getting worse. And if we don't fix it soon, we will soon go the way of many other countries in the last few decades and suffer through the plight of hyperinflation.

So, are you aware of the current distribution of taxpayers and how much each pays? ... Are you aware of the number of people who either don't pay any income tax what so ever or actually get a negative income tax check?

I'm going to assume you know that you can raise taxes to what ever you want.... ONE TIME. And I assume you know anything you do to taxes will have an effect on the taxable amount next year.

Are you aware of how much of the GDP goes to state and local taxes?

So, can you get a bit more specific than there's a $15.8T pile of money we can take from next year without anybody suffering deprivation?

Yes, this thread is not titled appropriately for talking about the math of how to fix our financial mess.

Reed, I've got to hand it to you for being the first to point out our GDP and our government spending needs and the big difference between them. Welcome to these forums. I can't argue with you on those numbers. However, to talk about it like that makes it sound really easy to do. Seems like we could fix our financial problems overnight. Seems like it's a no-brainer.

However, its practical implementation turns out to be quite different from the academic discussion.

I suggest a distribution of wealth somewhere between the status quo, and the ideal Christian society, in which all excess (in fact, all privately held wealth of Christians, if you take Jesus at his word!) would be given to the poor.

When have I said zero out safety nets? How much is enough? Show me the math that is sustainable. (Show me the MATH Guy)

Let's begin with a ballpark estimate.

Economy - overview
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48,100.

Notice, that's nearly $200,000 per family of four on average. Of course, most families have much less income than that (and fractionally more children), while a very few have astronomically more.

330,000,000 capita * $48,100/capita = $15,873,000,000,000 ($15.873 Trillion)

So, here is the "math that is sustainable" you requested, with a side ethics of ethics at no additional charge. Half the current United States GDP could be earmarked for safety net programs (Less would be needed for modest but sufficient food, housing, utilities, medical care, transportation and education, I'm sure, but I'm using hyperbole to emphasize that caring adequately for everybody in need is easily sustainable.) and nearly $8 Trillion would still be available for defense and to stimulate competition by rewarding whoever is more productive.

The defense budget is something like $2 Trillion, last I checked. It could be half that or twice that, and it wouldn't really matter. The point stands that the remaining several Trillion dollars are more than enough to motivate such competition as the capitalist model requires, and whoever cannot be motivated to put forth their best effort for their equitable share of that jackpot is too insane to make anything that anybody needs or wants.

Nobody must suffer deprivation in order for all of us to enjoy the benefits of civilized competition. The math is sustainable.

As has been pointed out a number of times, US taxation as a proportion of US GDP is at a low compared to the last 50 or so years, thus it would appear taxation as a higher proportion of GDP than currently in place has been demonstrated to be sustainable.

Utopia for everyone! Never been thought of or tried before in history.

Well there ya go. A total government take over of all production in the US would solve all our social problems.

Half ("half" < "total") the current United States GDP could be earmarked for safety net programs (Less would be needed for modest but sufficient food, housing, utilities, medical care, transportation and education, I'm sure, but I'm using hyperbole to emphasize that caring adequately for everybody in need is easily sustainable.) and nearly $8 Trillion would still be available for defense and to stimulate competition by rewarding whoever is more productive.

When have I said zero out safety nets? How much is enough? Show me the math that is sustainable.

Economy - overview
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48,100.

Jord & John,

Logged back on tonight and BOINC is working! I am getting new tasks, my PC is crunching them and sending the results back (also receiving credits.

Really appreciared your help last evening. The end result is that we have another PC crunching the data. You never know we might just find something soon!

Thanks for all your help and very prompt replies and suggestions. You certainly know your way around BOINC!

Hopefully I can now work my way back up the stats.

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, exit BOINC again (same way as before).
Go back to your BOINC Data directory and edit your cc_config.xml file.
Put these lines into it (take out the old ones and replace with these):

<cc_config>
<log_flags>
<sched_op_debug>0</sched_op_debug>
</log_flags>
<options>
<http_1_0>1</http_1_0>
</options>
</cc_config>

Save the file.
Restart BOINC and try to make contact again.

What the extra line does is change the way BOINC communicates with the Seti servers from using HTTP 1.1 to HTTP 1.0 .. this helps in most cases cure the problem of miscommunication.