redblueamerica.com

Hi Folks!

Windows vista is also causing lots of boot issues, so I often get questions like this:

I have a Dell Dimension, which won’t boot to Windows (Vista), and none the repair options work:

Startup repair: Reports repair fail due to problem with registry

System Restore: Reports no restore points available

Windows Complete PC Restore: Reports no backups available

Windows Memory Diagnostic Tool: No memory problems

Command Prompt.
Can’t think of any appropriate command to use here.

So I booted with the system DVD (as one would with XP) but the upgrade
option has been greyed don’t want to do a new install. I want to fix existing
installation.

What should I do?

------------------------------------------------------------

And here is the answer:

You can't do a 'repair install' because you need to launch the Vista DVD
from within Windows, not, as you have been doing, booting straight from the
DVD; that is why the 'upgrade' is greyed out.

If you cannot launch Vista and none of the repair variants will work a clean
install is the only other option.

To save problems in future it is actually a good idea to image the hard
drive, using something like True Image. What I do is install operating system, download all updates, check system I working okay for a day or two, activate system, then image the drive/partition. Any time I get a problem I can re-image the drive/partition quickly and be up and running without much trouble. And minor fixes are done by using any registry repair tool, there are plenty of them on the market today.

Cheers,
Carl

why increasingly tax the entrepeneurs who make our economy the "marvel" that it is?

c'mon, sober up. we're not uganda, but we're not the EU or china, and the trend away from the top is not a micro-trend; rather it's a long, storied arc. buffett simply wants higher taxes on those who can most certainly afford it, and would even still be living largest among all of us.

let's just be level about this: like the above, most of the arguments against increasing taxes ever more progressively are only driven towards sheltering the greed of those who've struggled to master it, and fear ever having to. i don't necessarily support forcing money out of the wealthy, because that would not affect their greed, and would probably only reinforce it. but it's a difficult problem - how do you get the wealthy to, i dunno - maybe buy a smaller yacht? it's really up to them, not us. taxation isn't the real answer - it's a change in the perspective of the wealthy.

"If Trump ends up with $2.5 billion instead of $3 billion, I suspect he'll still be really happy with that $2.5 billion."
Of course 2.5 billion would make a person almost as happy as 3 billion. But will it induce you to risk the first billion?

People who make their money from investments rather than jobs have to think completely differently about potential outcomes than most of us (who do make our income from jobs). Obviously, if you had to give up a job making 3 billion for a job making 2.5 billion you would not have too much to complain about. But what if instead we were talking about investments with high chances of failure? What if you had to choose between investing 1 billion of your dollars with a 10% chance of returning 3 billion dollars or a 10% chance of returning 2.5 billion dollars? What if the chance were only 1%? Would you still take the risk? Or might you instead find a safer place to keep your wealth?

By taxing the last 500 million you have not altered the odds of success at all. You have only altered the rewards. What you do with this sort of tax the rich scheme is reduce the incentive for people to risk the capital they have. They can, of course find very safe investments. But safe investments are not the sort which spawn new industries. They are not the sort of investments which lead to new inventions or productivity enhancing processes.

The point I am trying to make is that investment income includes a risk that the initial investment itself might not get returned at all. Jobs in contrast very rarely fail to repay the worker for his or her time. A job could disappear, but that only means that future income is lost. It does not mean that the workers have to pay back income they already received.

Let's break that down a bit:

When people say tax the rich more, they are saying they want 'equality of outcome'

I don't think that's true. Sure, there are some unreconstructed Marxists out there, but in the mainstream of center-left thought, the idea of higher taxes for the wealthy isn't to make the rich not rich -- like the poor, we will always have Donald Trump with us. The idea is that the rich, who have benefited from our system, have a special obligation to make our society work well. If Trump ends up with $2.5 billion instead of $3 billion, I suspect he'll still be really happy with that $2.5 billion.

it doesn't matter that you worked less then me.

There are a whole host of reasons why any individual becomes wealthier than another, but boiling it down to "you worked less than me" is not high among them. There are lots of people with very little money who work long and hard without ever becoming financially comfortable. And the economy just lost 63,000 jobs last month -- I'm guessing the vast majority of those people work working plenty, and working plenty hard.

obviously Buffet has created lot's of value in the market place, so should he be punished for that and forced, with a gun, to share with those who didn't create as much value?

Well, he is volunteering.

The cost of living coupled with wages is the same now as it was in the sixties. People today are simply too wasteful with their money and depend heavily on credit. Losing your job 40 years ago wasn't such a problem when you have only 5 bills and three months salary saved in the bank.
___

Anywho, I agree progressive taxation is pointless. The tax brackets themselves are fine by my standards, though I believe the first $20K made a year should be tax exempt and there should be a greater number of tax exemptions. My only complaint with the rich is they get to discount too much of their income as a tax break. Buying a $60K Mercedes is not a business expense, nor is a $1200 lunch.

Can this man even form a complete thought?

No matter how much you tax the rich, it does nothing for you. You gain nothing, nada, zilch, zero, nyet.

There is not one red cent put in your pocket when the "rich" are taxed, but you could lose your job if the "rich" decide not to expand their businesses, buy luxury items (which someone has to create), etc.

I have been listening to the "Kool Aide" liberals for 50 plus years and everytime they tax the rich, I end up paying more in taxes and take home less money.