esantoro

My apologies for jumping the gun on my minimum wage claim. I should have Googled it. I based my assumption on the fact that the formula for determining poverty has not changed since the 1960's, but politicians of all stripes don't want to change it because doing so would raise the official poverty numbers on their watch. To mitigate my error somewhat, the minimum wage still has not kept up with inflation. In the 1960's and 1970's, the minimum wage as with all things of financial value and whatnot were tied to reality. This I did Google: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how...?pagewanted=all Further mitigation, if I may: "Adjusted for inflation, [the minimum wage has] declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 [in 2001]. I wasn't aware that the minimum wage is set to go to $7.25 this July. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Thank you for correcting me on the minimum wage, but when the wage is adjusted for inflation I am not far off the mark. I should also say that I don't hold my views because I think poor people deserve help. I hold them because a stacked deck affects 90 percent of Americans in negative ways. The artificially increased values of real estate the past 20 years is the most recent example. Limited health care for even those who think they are covered is another. I do see race playing a large hand in this, but in very subtle ways. After World War II, America had to do something at least topically to dismantle apartheid in this country, especially after what NAzi Germany had done to Jews, Poles, and Gypsies. But at the same time the Civil Rights movement took place,financial mechanisms were also being tinkered with to skewer the playing field, which accounts for the fact that 80 percent of Americans are not better off than they were nearly 40 years ago. This has come about by design, not chance.

The #30 handpiece has a Jacobs style chuck. I was sanding with the handpiece for about 10 minutes and the chuck fell off. Is this chuck like a drill press chuck that has to be tapped in place with a mallet? Is the Foredom #30 handpiece the same. Being a Chinese device, the instructions are very sparse and say nothing about lubrication, yet I know the Foredom's must be lubricated. Am I supposed to lubricate any part of the hand piece? The flex shaft? Will the same grease I use for the speed reducer on my 441 work or must I use something else? Thanks, Ed

The irony is that we end up already paying as much as Europeans do and get much less. In this regard, we are a nation of suckers who lack the spines to make government put big business in its place. The only winners are insurance companies who care less about people than the government does. Weaken the government and increase the reach of big business and this is what you get: From a review of Thomas Frank's _The Wrecking Crew_ "Mr. Frank follows the conservative movement from the turn of the Twentieth Century through the Depression and New Deal, focusing most heavily on the movement's rebirth under Ronald Reagan and on into the new millennium. Along the way, he discusses the growth of lobbying as a major force in converting the nation's capital into a massive feeding ground for corporate special interests. Frank also highlights the manner in which conservatives have repeatedly run the country into huge spending deficits in order to "defund the left" while simultaneously politicizing government management positions by favoring ideology over competence. The end result under Republican conservative stewardship is government that demonstrates itself as ineffectual and incompetent, offering but further proof that big government is inherently incapable of working and needs to be outsourced to private, professional concerns who can do the job correctly (and then inevitably failing to do so). "There is little good news in THE WRECKING CREW. Author Frank shows that our national government has been hollowed out under Republican conservative control, savaged into an ineffectual husk. Furthermore, he illustrates clearly that this was no mistake, that it is part of a deliberate process not just to privatize government and eradicate government regulation but to make these changes permanent by destroying the liberal left (and with it, of course, the Democratic Party). Frank demonstrates well that present day politics has truly become, to invert von Clausiwitz's famous maxim, "a continuation of war by other means." Regrettably, one side of the battle continues to play the game as politics, as elections won or lost and citizens swayed or not, while the other side approaches it as an act of war, a no-holds-barred contest in which the only goal is the complete and utter destruction of the other side. THE WRECKING CREW is compelling and informative even as it paints a bleak picture of an America being driven rightward and increasingly toward the excesses and inequities of the pre-New Deal era. We all know how that era ended in October, 1929. "

Certain compromises can be made. Certainly $50 is not an issue. Mandatory vacation days would be nice but not necessary. With a reasonable working wage, people would be able to take unpaid time off if desired. The situation is never either or, as compromises can always be made. I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years. It hasn't been adjusted because the people it would benefit most don't vote, which doesn't mean neglecting to adjust the wage is the right thing to do, as other problems occur that affect all of us. Who was it who artificially inflated housing values up to 100 percent for the last thirty years? Government or private business? The answer probably is a bit of both, but with the lobbying of the bankers. There is no proof that private industry runs anything better than the government does. There is evidence of success and failure for both. Without the lobbying interests of private business, government would run differently. If we changed the ways politicians funded campaigns, they would not need to beg for contributions. To say that a government that bends over backwards for business does not work is not the same as saying that government does not work. Good government works. Good business works. Good business is not accountable to the people, save that people vote with their dollars. But that's not he same as journalists and the people covering government's every step and forcing government to make the necessary change. It's easier to force government to change -- that is a government that's not in the pockets of big business -- than it is to force Microsoft to make a better operating system. Just because people are paying for Microsoft Windows does not mean that it is the best product out there. All of us non-mac users could easily switch to Linux.

Just received this tool in the mail. I'm impressed. For around $92 shipped with a Speedster speed control box (a must have that is $30 to buy separately) that allows full speed range control it should be a better purchase than the dremel. Thanks for the suggestions to get a rotary tool like this. ed

But what's wrong with a few more philosophers and artists and a few fewer Wall-Mart greeters and fast-food register jockeys? And workers who put in a 40-hour week, wherever they work, should be paid a livable wage that includes or allows the purchase of healthcare.

I was in Europe from 1998 to 2004. I didn't really see people living beyond their means, though I sensed this was changing, as American-type consumerism was getting more and more of a stronghold. Time, for the most part, was spent with other people, not buying things or thinking about what to buy. Most people were of similar economic means. There was not a great disparity between the financial elites of the city and the rest. I spent my time mixing with both. There was, though, a sense that the financially better off were very secure in their positions and that social class was understood, accepted, rationalized, was just there. nothing to be done about it. No place is perfect, but there was much less restlessness there than here. My goal is to maintain a European consciousness and lifestyle with American means. Working with leather is a good focal point for that kind of life. It makes one focus on experience rather than consuming beyond the ordinary. There's less need to consume, because the leather has you obsessed. When you're out doing other things, it is your current project in leather that is on your mind. And when you're working the leather, you are the country club, you are Gucci, you are Swaine Adeney Brigg, you are Madison Avenue, you are the Brooklyn Bridge. Put simply, you are trucking with the gods. One of the things that made it possible and rather easy not to live beyond one's means is that one is not bombarded by images of a future, better life, an always receding promise. That bombardment is much easier in LA or NYC, but not in the rural countryside where you still see hay carts drawn by cart horses and senior citizens riding bicycles. I think there is a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. Capitalism taken too far encourages a self-imposed slave system with not a single master, yet with discipline one could carve out a secure place. Universal health care would nearly make this incredibly easy, and on some level conservatives know this. They know that with universal healthcare, Nos. 1-4 could be very happy becoming philosophers and not Wal-Mart greeters. Social climbers would have to ask themselves what is all the climbing really for. The way I see it is that No. 10 gets his wealth only if people are reaching beyond their means. He needs to make sure they keep reaching. That's why he needs 1-4 getting handouts at the table. It keeps 5-9 reaching. It is these mechanisms I did not see in Europe, and it felt easier to breathe there (I would think even for a No.10) though I sense this is changing. But it can also swing back the other way, which I think is more possible there than here. But I suppose the same could be done here. It just takes a discipline that seems foreign. _The Truman Show_ is a little talked about film that digs to the heart of this matter, that illustrates the propaganda mechanisms that keep people tied to the treadmill. The film is superb if you cut out the final two minutes -- leave Truman at the wall. Just leave him there. Audiences would have been disturbed even more than they were with the close of _The Sopranos_. Maybe our European members could weigh in on this to see if I'm missing something. Ed

I think there is an economic theory somewhere that argues that in order for No. 10 to be able and willing to pay a significant portion of the tab, Nos. 1 through 4 have to be manufactured to be unable to pay their share. This is what keeps Nos. 5 through 9 showing up eagerly to work Mondays through Fridays. They don't want to be like 1-4. They are happy in the feeling that their lots are better, and if they work hard enough maybe some day No. 10 will ask them over for Fourth of July barbecue, where 1-4 serve the guests and pick up the trash as their second or third job away from McDonalds and Wal-Mart, in order to make a bit of money to be trained as IT technicians, only to see that when they finally graduate, No. 10 has shipped the IT jobs to India, as the cost savings allows (or once allowed) him more easily to stomach the 59 percent at the restaurant table. The alternative is more educated people and a more level playing field of competition, which would make No. 10 work much harder to maintain his position. Who would then pick up No. 10's trash? I think No. 10 was happy paying the $59; the once Caucasian table made it even more palatable. Just how does No. 10 feel about the shift of ethnic demographics in this country? Can we say that this shift is not playing into the economic mechanisms of the last 20 years? For the record, my ancestry is from Italy, Sicily, to be exact. I understand the position you're supporting. I think I see it differently. I know I'm playing with the analogies, but in playing with them I am able to further express just how I see the economic mechanisms working. And I could be dead wrong. Ed

I lived in Europe for six years and never worried about getting sick. I always felt I had enough. My salary was localized, not American. To my understanding and from my research, when you factor in health care, vacation days, education, leisure time, overall quality of life, life seems better in Germany, Denmark, and quite a few other countries. I suppose if one has a certain type of discipline, he or she could make a similar life here in the U.S., though people tend to conform to the climbing and consuming that goes on around them, which could lead many Americans to reach beyond their means.

here are some different numbers I found: Top 1%, $364,000, pay 40% of income taxes. Top 5%, $145,000 pay 60% of ". Top 10%, $103,000 pay 70% of ". Top 25%, $62,000 pay 86% of ". Top 50%, $30,000 pay 97% of ". These numbers seem to fit my understanding of things, but I'm unclear on how one can come up with 353 percent for 100 percent of income. Supposedly this info comes from the IRS in 2005. Ed

Something else is peculiar about No. 10 at the table, if I haven't already expressed it. I would argue that in the last thirty years, he has not had to work as hard for his wealth, but that much of that wealth was generated through tax structures. The government gave him a hand up, up, up, up. What is this, a socialist country? Why not return to the tax structures of 1970? I do think the Immigration Act of 1965 plays a lot into this. A lot. Yet journalists and politicians are not pushing that button. ed

I agree that we end up paying about just as much as Europeans do, but get about half as much or less in return. Propaganda is what makes many Americans think it is otherwise. If we are getting so little in return, where is it going? To cross reference posts, No. 10 at the table has his hands on some of it. Why does he need this boost from the rest of us, if he's not willing to pay his share. Again, I refer you to Warren Buffet: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax...icle1996735.ece ed

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! This challenges my perspective from the other direction. Mine was left of center, maybe further left. Yours right of center, maybe further right. I'm left wondering where the tenth man ends up eating, and what the restaurant owner has to do to make up for the missing $52, because surely the others will not be able to continue to eat there. Let me propose that Robert Frank has the answer to this dilemma in _Richistan_. The tenth man withdraws some of his untaxed income from an offshore account and pays his annual membership to an exclusive club or gated community and whiles away the rest of his days in a top-tiered special economy exclusively for the wealthy. This economy and its functioning is all but separated from the economy in which the nine other men reside. What if the tenth man decides he no longer likes the American tax structure? Does he really benefit by moving his business to another country, where there is much less income disparity between the top and the bottom? I say let the tenth man out of the restaurant and out of the country. Call his bluff. He'll fold. Something else will come in and assume his place. This tenth man has been leaving the restaurant since 1980, and is currently all but gone. The nine remaining men and the restaurant owner are deciding how to go forward. This is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. The only problem is that this tenth man is still being subsidized by the $28-economy of the other nine men,yet he no longer eats at the same table. This tenth man did not build his wealth all by himself. He used benefits created by the system to gain leverage, the understanding being that doing so would benefit all at the table. The gains are privatized in the hands of the tenth man but the risks are socialized among the remaining nine. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax...icle1996735.ece One more thing, since the Immigration Act of 1965, the faces at the table are not the same as they were throughout most of the twentieth century. Those darker hued faces at the table were very helpful in doing the poorly remunerated grunt work of the service and financial sectors where our man No. 10 made his wealth. The move away from a predominantly Caucasian table has been further impetus for our tenth man to leave (The film -Mission to Mars_ is a curious metaphor for this flight), but this is something number ten is unable to admit to himself in the light of day but recognizes in the dark of night when he thinks no one is looking (cf. Trent Lott). And it's easy to dismiss, because it is done through passive, indirect action. The orchestration is rather beautiful in its elegance and rational appearance. Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ is about this very dilemma, but it was presumed that her capitalists created REAL value. In her system Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground, as it would have been easily beaten out by a better product from day one. Nike, by now would be gone, too. Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Gone. Gonegonegonegonegonegonegone.................... (Swaine Adeney Brigg, Ghurka, and, of course, Walden Bags would still be around.) Something of greater value would have taken their places. And things of greater value would never have perished. Cars would be getting 100 miles on a fart. Or something like that. Ed

The edging also looks very similar to what Jack George uses on its cases. I think JG may be using a special machine. Campbell Bosworth's product is similar to what JG uses. I like that key chain. Could you post a full picture of it? ed

That could be edge paint with some burnishing involved. Try the matte plus from Campbell Bosworth. ed

Many corporations also function in ways that on the surface make it appear that they don't make any money. That could be an advantage for a couple of years. In the world of taxation, I am finding out, it appears that losses are not always losses,and gains not always gains. That's way a corporation makes a profit by paying teams of accountants millions of dollars. That's why many CEO's get paid primarily in bonuses. The one-sided conversation? I had to throw the ideas against the wall to see how they run down. Blissful Insanity. Ed

As with my lamp fix, smelting lead, dremel resuscitation, and various other experiments, I can't seem to let this one go either. It seems to me that civilization has been the progression of power changing hands from the physically, thus biologically, stronger to the physically/ biologically weaker. Let's pick a CEO at random and a steelworker at random for an all-out brawl and place our bets. It seems that this is what the stock market does but with the advantaged reversed. All living organisms have a finite lifespan. It seems to me that the pinnacle of human existence was reached when the physically, biologically powerful started losing out in the race, which was a sign of physiological decrepitude in the human race. Assuming early forms of humans existed 400,000 years ago, I say we have no more than 100,000 years left in us. I would further argue, even as a connoisseur of technology and not a Luddite , that the rise of technological technology has actually been a signal of the onslaught of this decrepitude -- like bacteria in a petri dish shitting all over itself and dying out amid the waste. It seems that this thread has veered off-topic and should be placed in its respective category. Not true. Death and taxes. Death and taxes.

Perhaps I should not run for president, as my simplified understanding on closer scrutiny may reveal an economic system of very primitive societies. Imagine if there is finite money available. There would be a more physical and more violent competition for that finite money. In such a primitive system, those with more physical strength would be the wealthiest. And.... Wait for it..................... Wait for it................ Wait for it..................... THE PEOPLE WITH THE MOST PHYSICAL STRENGTH ARE THOSE WHO USE THEIR HANDS IN DAILY LABOR.

Here's what I have found out. These two taxes together are known as self-employment taxes(SECA). You can deduct only half of what you end up paying in SECA from your gross income for federal tax purposes. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98846,00.html Even on the small business level, you can begin to see how the tax structures are weighted in favor of corporations and individuals with incomes over $102,000 . And you can begin to see how much the wealthy have to lose with more progressive tax reforms. You can also begin to see how the current tax structure is set up to remove tax revenue from the system and place a proportionately greater tax responsibility on those with lower incomes, those, it is assumed, who would be the most inclined to benefit from services paid for with taxes. This might work out ok if those same tax revenues were not actually going to benefit those individuals who already benefit from the tax structure due to their higher incomes. My understanding of this system is simplified in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Let's say that there is a total of $100 out there in the economy. If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25 percent, tax revenues would be $25. Perhaps this number could go down to 17 or 18 percent. We don't have such a system. Our system is something like this, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration for effect, but only a bit. In our system, 90 percent of the people make $10 of the available $100 in the economy. Let's say they are taxed at 25 percent. Their tax contribution is $2.50. The wealthy make the remaining $90 of the available $100. Their tax contribution is $13.50. Total tax revenues to run what needs to be run is $16. In my simplified example, we have a tax system that is funded only 64 percent of what it should be. This is a failing mark, and I bet that a more accurate accounting would reveal a funding of less than 50 percent. If the wealthy are taking 90 percent of the earnings, those earnings are not available for others to make, and such a system will remain underfunded. I'm either asininely wrong in my simplification, or the current tax system is asininely wrong. The one thing that probably screws up my whole simplification is that the Fed prints more money, thus throwing it into the pot artificially, which screws up any kind of straightforward accounting and defers financial turmoil, which is what we have now. Just to let you all know, I will be running for president in 2016. ed

Yeah, that is a tricky situation. If I was going to spend good money on something and was in the area of the maker, I'd want to drop buy and have a look. I think this is where liability becomes a greater issue. What if a potential client comes buy and you have not de-iced the front steps? I'm willing to bet that there are quite a few people out there who make it their full-time job to research , set up, and execute schemes very much along these lines. The only bit of advice I can give that I feel confident about and have put into practice is to make such arrangements only after email and telephone correspondence has taken place first, and then arrange a particular time for a meeting/appointment to take place. The rationale is that you want to make sure the potential client is absolutely, categorically interested in what you make and sell. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong. America the Beautiful. Ed

I just got my yearly notice/balance/statement sheet, whatever you call it ,from the social security office. When you work for an employer, you pay 6.2% of your salary to Social Security. Your employer matches that. You also pay 1.45% in Medicare taxes. Your employer matches that too. NOWWWWWWWWWW....When you are in business for yourself, you must pay both the full 12.4% of SS taxes and the full 2.9% of medicare taxes. Combined you are paying 15.3 percent of your income for these taxes. I believe that you must pay these percentages for income (once all your deductions have been subtracted) of $400 and above. My question is this. When you figure how much federal income tax you owe, do you first deduct from your taxable income what you pay for the above taxes (my understanding is that you deduct the above taxes from taxable income), or are you in effect taxed twice? Thanks for any input. Ed

I think most businesses are home businesses of this sort, so there is no problem. On your Schedule C for 2009 you can take the home office deduction. You can only take the home office deduction for the year if all the other expenses still leave you with business profit. The home office deduction cannot add to your losses for the year. If you do have losses for the year, the home office deduction can be carried forward to taxes for 2010. I know some of this info was not requested but it just found itself coming out as a packaged deal. Someone please correct me, if any of my info is incorrect. One thing about the home office deduction is that you'll have to pay taxes in some manner if you sell your home. I'm not sure of the intricasies of this situation. I think I nailed my Schedule C for 2008 and am now even better prepared for 2009 and can more readily see strategies taking form as I make the necessary business purchases. This all leads me to another tax question I have, which will have to go in a separate thread. Ed

One of the things I took from the article is that many people in white collar jobs are unsatisfied on many levels and that one of the prime motivators for them to climb the status level is that they have been well socialized into consumer roles. In a consumer society, positions that receive high monetary remuneration have to go, for the most part, to those who are most likely and most willing to put that money back into the economy. A hierarchical system of slaves with not a single master. When you work with your hands to create, there is the potential to be in a world that is completely your own, which is something that I don't even think CEOs have. To work with one's hands, and to create in one's little sphere, is a revolution of sorts. Working with leather is unique, I think, because it ties you into the whole past of human civilization. I don't think cotton can do this in the same way, because there are too many intermediary techniques involved in making the cloth. However, maybe in some societies those techniques are still on a human level, so the process does have that revolutionary sense. When working with leather, you can also hear the animal making noises and almost see it romping through the fields. Viva la revolucion!!!!

For a much smaller machine, I like the yamata/Feiyue, but only with the Monster wheel from Sailrite, which is another $130. This machine works well for prepping 3/4 oz suede and I have played around with up to a half inch of full grain leather. The maximum bobbin thread you want to use is 138. The maximum top thread is 207. But with these thicker threads, you will have more frequent bobbin changes. To put this machine in a case, you're looking at another $30 to $100 (for the sailrite case, which is a very good case) and you're almost up to $500. So now having gone through all this it's probably better to save a few hundred more and get an even better machine, one better suited for leather. I got this one because I needed the heaviest duty machine I could find in a portable footprint. For this, it's nice little machine. http://www.efortunemall.com/servlet/Detail?no=27 ed

I use the dremel/rotary tool for sanding edges burnishing edges filing metal parts grinding metal parts and for those odd things that pop up around the house from time to time. ed