Most homes and many businesses have one or more television (TV) for entertainment and getting information. While in many cases, the TV is installed on a table or TV stand, increasingly the TV owners are preferring to mount the TV on the wall. There are many reasons why TV Wall Mounting is becoming popular, with space saving the main reason why wall mounting is popular. Many people are living in small homes, especially in large cities like Melbourne, so instead of wasting floor space, for keeping a TV stand and TV, they will mount it on the wall, utilizing space which would be otherwise wasted.
The TV owner will also not have to spend money on a TV stand or table if he is wall mounting the TV. If there are children in the house, wall mounting is preferred since the children cannot push or move the wall mounted TV, unlike a stand or table mounted TV. TV owners who would like to find out how to mount the TV on their wall, should be aware that the procedure for mounting the TV depends on the size and weight of the television. Usually the weight of television of size 32 inches or more is higher, and the plaster of the wall will not bear the weight of the TV and a wall bracket will be required.
For heavier and larger TV sets, the TV owner can choose between three different types of TV brackets depending on the flexibility he requires and his budget. The swing arm type wall bracket allowing full motion for TVs allows the user to change the position of the TV in all directions. This bracket is usually the most expensive TV bracket. The tilt type bracket for wall mounting allows the user to move the TV up or down, though it is not very popular. The fixed wall bracket for TV mounting is popular since the position of the TV is fixed, and it can be maintained at eye level.
Since installing a TV properly requires some amount of expertise and tools, most TV owners will outsource the task to specialists. However, to save time and money the TV owner will want to find out what should prepare the home for the TV installation. The first step involves finalizing the location of the TV in the house. Though many people install the TV in their living room, some people may prefer to install it in their dining room or bedroom if they watch TV before going to sleep. Within the room selected, they should then finalize the exact location of the TV for mounting.
While finalizing the TV location, it is important to ensure that there is seating arrangement in the room. The distance between the TV and viewer should be maintained based on the safe viewing guidelines. To prepare the area for the TV installation, it may be necessary to remove all the furniture and other items in the area, so that the TV installers can keep their installation equipment like drilling machine and move freely while installing the TV. Suitable provision should be made for placing the power and TV input supplies. After the TV is installed, the installers should test the TV to ensure that it works properly.
As an individual, let’s say you have no savings, owe more money on your house than it is worth, and have a 50% chance of losing your job in the next 12 months. Would it make more sense to:
a) cut your spending and save more money
b) take out another loan and spend more money
Most individuals realize that (a) is the best option. In other words, when times are difficult, shouldn’t there be a tendency for individuals to cut back and save rather than take on more debt and spend? If that is true for an individual, shouldn’t it be true for your neighbours?
If it’s true for your neighbours shouldn’t it be true for your town, city, and country? If that is true, why is the federal government attempting to take more money from taxpayers and investors in order to spend it? Shouldn’t the government be cutting its spending like everyone else?
If the government decreased its own spending and took less money from taxpayers, wouldn’t that immediately allow taxpayers to save more money by definition? If the government decreased its borrowing, wouldn’t that free capital up to be invested in private companies that are productive? Additionally, if the government decreased its borrowing, wouldn’t that tend to lower interest rates overall? If this is true, isn’t Obama’s proposal literally the exact opposite of what he should be proposing?
On Bloomberg.com, Betsy McCaughey reports that tucked into the “stimulus” bill is a provision that will dramatically affect individual health care.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book,“Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
One of the more troubling aspects of the structure of the TARP bailouts is the potential to have government officials and their political agendas influence the day-to-day operations of the corporations who received funds. Already we hear threats from politicians demanding that TARP funds be spent in certain ways. Now we see signs of actual influence in company operations. From yesterday’s Financial Times web article “Treasury pushes Citi to cancel jet order,”
The US financial sector’s new political masters began exerting their influence on Tuesday as Citigroup was forced to scrap the purchase of a $50m executive jet that was seen as a misuse of money at a time when the bank is reliant on public support.
Only a day earlier, Citi had insisted it would complete the acquisition of the aircraft. But it backed down after officials acting for Tim Geithner, the new Treasury secretary, expressed strong opposition to the move…
Mr Geithner and his colleagues know that any full-scale overhaul of the financial sector will almost certainly require more funds from Congress. So their immediate priority is to restore confidence in the recapitalisation process, which polls suggest is deeply unpopular. An essential element of this is convincing the public that the money is being used in ways that benefit the wider economy.
Two more expensive failures this week from our government. I am of course speaking of the Obama stimulus package which the Senate passed on Tuesday and the Treasury Department’s proposed plan for its continued effort to shore up our financial system, also unveiled on Tuesday. If someone had asked me to predict the worst possible scenario for these two efforts I would have suggested that a huge stimulus package (which fundamentally does nothing to help) and “more of the same” from Treasury (which doesn’t address the fundamental problems in the banking sector) would have been my picks. That is exactly what we received.
The stimulus bill is predicated upon the flawed view that the economy is in some sort of deflationary spiral, i.e. that the problem is fundamentally one of consumer panic, and for which the antidote is a government burst of spending. By putting money back into the pockets of Americans it is thought we can restore their confidence as they see that burst of spending stop economic decline. This of course ignores the question of how such spending is financed, through the sale of Treasury notes, in effect pulling that money from the pockets of consumers before putting it back, and mortgaging future taxpayers to do it.