Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Re: Post-Tornado Rebuilding Will Be Shot in the Arm for Local Economies
we'll see about the shot in the arm when illegals are caught working
on the project
on the project
On Jun 1, 7:47 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Post-Tornado Rebuilding Will Be Shot in the Arm for Local Economies"There is no silver lining to a funnel cloud, as anyone who survived the tornadoes can attest, but reconstruction can help rebuild local economies as well as neighborhoods." (New York Times)In other words, there is a silver lining to a funnel cloud.What Is Seen and What Is Not SeenThe Bad Economist Confines Himself to the Visible EffectFrederic Bastiat
> June 2001 • Volume: 51 • Issue: 6 •This excerpt is from the first chapter ofSelected Essays on Political Economy, translated by Seymour Cain and edited by George B. de Huszar, published by the Foundation for Economic Education.In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause;it is seen.The other effects emerge only subsequently;they are not seen;we are fortunate if weforeseethem.[1]There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to thevisibleeffect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must beforeseen.Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.
> The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals. Often, the sweeter the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter are its later fruits: for example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality. When a man is impressed by the effectthat is seenand has not yet learned to discern the effectsthat are not seen, he indulges in deplorable habits, not only through natural inclination, but deliberately.
> This explains man's necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after a long time that he learns to take account of the others. Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic phenomena, contrasting thosethat are seenwith thosethat are not seen.The Broken WindowHave you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow,[2]when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
> Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose,flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
> Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child.That is what is seen.But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops atwhat is seen.It does not take account ofwhat is not seen.
> It is not seenthat, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another.It is not seenthat if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
> Let us next consider industryin general.The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement;that is what is seen.If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement;that is what is not seen.And if we were to take into considerationwhat is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well aswhat is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industryin generalor tonational employmentas a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
> Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
> On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.
> On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.
> Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.
> From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."
> What will theMoniteur industriel[3]say to this, or the disciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans,[4]who has calculated with such precision what industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have to be rebuilt?
> I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, enteringwhat is not seenin the ledger besidewhat is seen.The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifyingwhat is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"NotesThis pamphlet, published in July 1850, is the last that Bastiat wrote. It had been promised to the public for more than a year. Its publication had been delayed because the author had lost the manuscript when he moved his household from the rue de Choiseul to the rue d'Alger. After a long and fruitless search, he decided to rewrite his work entirely, and chose as the principal basis of his demonstrations some speeches recently delivered in the National Assembly. When this task was finished, he reproached himself with having been too serious, threw the second manuscript into the fire, and wrote the one which we reprint.Editor.In French, Jacques Bonhomme, used like "John Bull" in English to represent the practical, responsible, unassuming average man.Translator.Newspaper of the Committee for the Defense of Domestic Industry, a protectionist organization.Translator.Auguste, Vicomte de Saint-Chamans (1777-1861), Deputy and Councillor of State under the Restoration, protectionist and upholder of the balance of trade. His celebrated stand on the "obstacle" here quoted by Bastiat comes from his Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations, 1824. This work was later (1852) incorporated in his Traité d'économie politique.Translator.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-2/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
**JP** pls help this person for job
DEAR ALL
Please help this person in finding a suitable job.
Regards……?
Post-Tornado Rebuilding Will Be Shot in the Arm for Local Economies
Post-Tornado Rebuilding Will Be Shot in the Arm for Local Economies
"There is no silver lining to a funnel cloud, as anyone who survived the tornadoes can attest, but reconstruction can help rebuild local economies as well as neighborhoods." ( New York Times)
In other words, there is a silver lining to a funnel cloud.
What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen
The Bad Economist Confines Himself to the Visible Effect
Frederic Bastiat
June 2001 • Volume: 51 • Issue: 6 •
This excerpt is from the first chapter of Selected Essays on Political Economy, translated by Seymour Cain and edited by George B. de Huszar, published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.[1]
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.
The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals. Often, the sweeter the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter are its later fruits: for example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality. When a man is impressed by the effect that is seen and has not yet learned to discern the effects that are not seen, he indulges in deplorable habits, not only through natural inclination, but deliberately.
This explains man's necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after a long time that he learns to take account of the others. Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are seen with those that are not seen.
The Broken Window
Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow,[2 ] when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.
On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.
Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.
From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."
What will the Moniteur industriel[ 3] say to this, or the disciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans,[ 4] who has calculated with such precision what industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have to be rebuilt?
I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, entering what is not seen in the ledger beside what is seen.
The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"
Notes
- This pamphlet, published in July 1850, is the last that Bastiat wrote. It had been promised to the public for more than a year. Its publication had been delayed because the author had lost the manuscript when he moved his household from the rue de Choiseul to the rue d'Alger. After a long and fruitless search, he decided to rewrite his work entirely, and chose as the principal basis of his demonstrations some speeches recently delivered in the National Assembly. When this task was finished, he reproached himself with having been too serious, threw the second manuscript into the fire, and wrote the one which we reprint.Editor.
- In French, Jacques Bonhomme, used like "John Bull" in English to represent the practical, responsible, unassuming average man.Translator.
- Newspaper of the Committee for the Defense of Domestic Industry, a protectionist organization.Translator.
- Auguste, Vicomte de Saint-Chamans (1777-1861), Deputy and Councillor of State under the Restoration, protectionist and upholder of the balance of trade. His celebrated stand on the "obstacle" here quoted by Bastiat comes from his Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations, 1824. This work was later (1852) incorporated in his Traité d'économie politique.Translator.
Do We Deserve Our Fate?
Do We Deserve Our Fate?
by Walter E. Williams
The latest Social Security Trustees Report tells us that the program will be insolvent by the year 2037. The combined unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars. That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the national debt. Those entitlement programs, along with others, account for nearly 60 percent of federal spending. They are what Congress calls non-discretionary spending. About half of discretionary spending is for national defense. Each year, non-discretionary spending consumes a higher and higher percentage of the federal budget.
The language Congress uses to describe their spending is corrupt beyond redemption. Think about the term entitlement. If one American is entitled to something he didn't earn, where in the world does Congress get the money? It's not Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from another American. Therefore, an entitlement is a congressionally given right for one American to live at the expense of another. In other words, Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. As such, it differs in degree, but not kind, from that uglier part of our history where black people were forcibly used to serve the purposes of their slave masters.
What about the terms discretionary versus non-discretionary congressional spending? Non-discretionary refers to uncontrollable things like sunsets and sunrises, low tides and high tides and laws of thermodynamics. By contrast, all congressional spending is discretionary and controllable. For political expedience, Congress has written laws to shield certain spending from annual budget scrutiny by calling it non-discretionary.
The level of congressional spending is unsustainable, but how willing are Americans to do anything about it? A courageous member of Congress, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, has put forth a budget plan that would trim the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years by reforming Medicare and Medicaid, making defense cuts and imposing hard spending caps on domestic spending.
Ryan's plan was immediately attacked as trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. In the wake of this attack, even some of his Republican backers, including House Speaker John Boehner, have become lukewarm in support.
The president and his supporters call for tax increases as a means to cover the deficit, but higher tax revenues cannot eliminate the deficit. Controlling for inflation, federal tax revenue today is 23 times greater than it was in 1960, but congressional spending is 42 times greater. During the last half-century, except for five years, the nation has faced a federal budget deficit. It's just simple math. If tax revenues soar, but congressional spending soars more, budget deficits cannot be avoided.
People ask what can be done to save our nation from decline. To ask that represents a misunderstanding of history and possibly a bit of arrogance. After all, how different are Americans from the Romans, Spaniards, French and the English? These were once mighty nations standing at the top of civilization. At the height of these nation's prosperity, no one would have predicted that they'd become third-rate nations, especially England. If during Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1887 had a person suggested that England would become a third-rate nation and later challenged on the high seas by a sixth-rate nation (Argentina), he would have been declared insane.
One chief causal factor for the decline of these former great nations is what has been described as "bread and circuses," where government spends money for the shallow and immediate wants of the population, and civic virtue all but disappears. For the past half-century, our nation has been doing precisely what brought down other great nations. We might have now reached the point of no return. If so, do we deserve it?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams84.1.html
Re: MSNBC's Ed Shultz Calls Laura Ingraham a "Right-Wing Slut"
Thats quite a claim to fame!
How's Nina "I hope his grandchildren get AIDS" Totenberg doing?
On Jun 1, 1:06 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 4:35 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *Ed Schultz Audio: Laura Ingraham Is a 'Right-Wing Slut'*
>
> lmao... how true.
>
> GregfromBoston wrote:
> > Who's Ed Schultz?
>
> The guy who called Laura Ingraham a right wing slut... duh.
>
> The right has quite a few of them. That's why you guys are so easily
> swayed.
> Republitards are by their nature weak minded and will anything a
> pretty face tells them to no matter how ridiculous.
> They're basically cuckolds.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Obama kicking Tea Party butt!
So long as your worried about Palin, Rush and Beck . . .
On May 31, 5:08 pm, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Obamas approval ratings going up Up UP UP UP!!!!!!!!!!!! Palin, Rush,
> > Beck ratings going DOWN DOWn DOwn Down down! Don't you know? Ain't it
> > a hoot? Don't cha just love it? Wheeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama
> > killed more terrorists than beck every did? Don't you Know?
> > HA! HA!
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> DemocraticMoonbats.jpg
> 15KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Strauss Water-all about the lunch in China
Re: Strauss Water-all about the lunch in China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wosGvoChLc
The Americans are in debt to the Chinese for more than they can ever
repay.
The Chinese are calling in their markers in the form of taking the
best of America's water.
Dr. Leuren Moret is an expert in this field.
She discusses the matter at the end of Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy
Theory" concerning Water.
We in Israel pay 470% more for their fluoridated water than do the
Americans.
All requests for an analysis of what is in our water are denied.
If that is the "exciting water experience" that you're seeking - then,
by all means, quietly and idly sit by and let others monopolize your
potable water.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fwd: Event Today: Debate on Government Role in Broadband Networks
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation | 1101 K Street, NW | Suite 610 | Washington | DC | 20005 |
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: If I Were President
Geez, Ahlert actually makes rational, common sense. Sounds like a Republican, and of course, folks like Studio, Sugarshack, Euwe and all of the Euwetopians would immediately hate someone like this. Moonbats hate anything that makes rational, common sense.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/ahlert.php3?printer_friendly
May 31, 2011/ 27 Iyar, 5771
If I Were President
By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There's an episode of the old cartoon Popeye where girlfriend Olive Oyl sings a song entitled, "If I Were President." In keeping with that spirit, a very short list, in no particular order, of what I would attempt to achieve with four years in the Oval Office:
- With respect to Israel: I would make it clear we're tired of the international tap dance and its anti-Semitic overtones. Israel is our BFF and those Arab nations who refuse to recognize its existence will be weaned off the foreign aid teat ASAP. As for the "peace" flotilla headed towards Gaza in June, it wouldn't be the Israeli Navy boarding and inspecting the ships. It would be the U.S. Navy.
- With respect to Islamic terror in general: we would no longer interested in winning hearts and minds, or nation building, or engaging in politically correct warfare. Anything considered a threat to America's national security would be met will lethal and devastating force. Once the threat was eliminated, the troops would come home. The threat re-appears? So would we.
- Energy: as a result of the above reality, an historically unprecedented and massive push for energy independence would be undertaken — via executive order by the Commander-in-Chief responding to one of the primary threats to our national security. Why an executive order? To eliminate enviro lawsuits, like the one that just stopped Shell oil from drilling in Alaska. This nation is quite capable of being both environmentally responsible and energy intensive, without being held hostage by people who think driving a Prius makes them morally superior. Those who want to live like a cavemen would be free to do so. Those who wish to live in the 21st century would be equally free to do so.
- Our borders: same executive order, same reason. Heaven help the first sitting president who has to tell the American public that the terrorist who just killed thousands of our fellow citizens, snuck into the country across our unsecured southern border. There would be no "vested interests" in either party who would be allowed to compromise our nation's sovereignty for any reason.
- The budget: my administration would begin with the very simple premise that the most effective government is one that works from the local level outward, not the federal, command-and-control level inward. In keeping with that premise, some Cabinet-level Departments, such as Education and Energy, would be axed. My administration would get rid of the practice, wherever feasible, of states sending money to Washington, D.C., only to have federal bureaucrats siphon their"vig" off the top before sending it back. That's nothing more than a federal power grab, and it's inefficient to the max. I would convene a national conference of both small and big business owners, aka the people who actually work for a living, and have them tell the politicians what it takes to get the economy moving again — not the other way around as is currently occurring. I would televise the entire thing.
Next, my administration would lower tax rates across the board. Can't figure out why companies "outsource" jobs? So would you, if the government was making it next to impossible to stay here. I would de-regulate for the same reason, with one caveat: no more wrist-slap, he's suffered enough sentences for those who game the system. If you do the crime under my administration, you would do the time — big time.
Next, I would dig the Grace Commission Report out of mothballs and start working on its recommendations for cutting spending. I would really go through the budget line by line, item by item, and once again televise the ongoing procedures. I'm betting it would be one of the more compelling "reality shows" ever broadcast. My administration would also make sure the public is well aware of who sponsored what "pet program" that lives on like a vampire, sucking the lifeblood out of the American taxpayer.
Speaking of taxpayers, I would institute another national conversation regarding tax reform, one vested with an energy and determination required by a country on the brink of bankruptcy. Whatever reforms are adopted, one principle would be part of the equation: everyone would pay income, consumption or "fair" taxes, even if the lowest bracket is one percent. The days of nearly half the country subsidizing the other half, aka the "free lunch" fiasco — which is the best way to insure that government spending never gets under control — would be over.
• States' rights: it's been a long time since Americans understood why this country is called the United Statesof America. Fifty separate constituencies would be given maximum freedom to innovate, to compete, and do anything else to improve the lives of their citizens without the heavy hand of Washington, D.C. interfering. Government works best when it satisfies the greatest number of people as often as possible. Americans understood that for most of their history. Re-teaching that lesson would be a priority under my administration.
• Overall leadership: two things come to mind. First, I would give new life to the idea that America is the greatest nation on earth. Just as importantly, I would communicate that message in no uncertain terms to the American public. No one did it better than Ronald Reagan, and my administration would strive to get that "shining city on a hill" message to resonate once again. The contemptuous notion endorsed by progressives and the current president that American exceptionalism is the same as every other country's exceptionalism is utter crap, best expressed by a comedian who once remarked, "30 million illegals can't be wrong." Every aspect of our greatness is still intact, save one: we're no longer communicating the wonders of America and the greatness of our Constitution to our children. That's a national embarrassment. I would do everything in my power as president to change that equation.
Second, under my administration, the notion that government must cater to the lowest common denominator of human behavior would be deader than the proverbial door nail. The "no-expectations" approach to governance has been an unmitigated disaster. Good government shouldn't dictate behavior, but it can sure as hell raise the bar regarding what's acceptable and what's not. When Bill Clinton signed on to welfare reform in 1995 we were told people would never adjust and there would be mayhem. They adjusted. The bet here is the overwhelming majority of Americans would also adjust to other expectations regarding decent behavior as well. Why is this important? Because we're currently learning a painful lesson: no country can survive if most of its citizens are corrupt. My administration would confront such corruption head-on.
That's about it — for now. A rant? To be sure, but one that gives me a bit of a cathartic feeling. I'm sure Olive Oyl felt the same way.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: The comments to this op-ed are priceless
Of course, there is no mention of Soros's communist inspired gifts to higher education. These types of gifts from the Tides Foundation, anything from Soros's organizations (which is the equivalent of the Communist Party USA) are just honky dory with Boston.com.
What hypocrisy!
"Conservative foundations are, according to Bernstein, "threats to academic freedom'' while Ford, she is quick to point out, funds only programs that encourage free expression on campus. She cites, for instance, Ford's recent "Difficult Dialogues'' initiative, which offered campuses $100,000 each to host conversations about "fundamentalism and secularism, racial and ethnic relations, sexual orientation, and academic freedom.'' "
"Such dialogues are not difficult on most campuses because the outcomes are agreed upon. Secularism is superior to fundamentalism; white people are to blame for racial tensions; sexual orientation has genetic roots, and all orientations are morally equivalent. And what's the party line on academic freedom? It has suffered, Bernstein said, because of the Bush administration's "war of terror.'' "
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:13 AM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
http://links5.boston.com/omkfkjcswzzdmflfdkqgjdmgscdlmcsnnqvmmqtkqjwr_wdwlsfsdd.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: HBO’s 'Too Big to Fail' – A Reality Check
Once again, Rockwell gets it half right. Rockwell either conveniently forgets, or purposely ignores the fact that the Bush Administration called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms repeatedly, (17 times in 2008 alone!) all to fall upon deaf ears by the Democrats:
Lou either conveniently forgets, or purposely ignores the facts that by the mid 1990s, the Clinton Administration had in fact adopted a "quota system" , and unabashedly favored expansion of, and the empowered use of the "Community Reinvestment Act", believing that a governmental response to economic problems in inner cities is generally more effective than a market solution.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Again, Rockwell either conveniently forgets, or purposely ignores the fact that in 2003, the Bush Administration was encouraging and pushing the Congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all which fell upon deaf ears by the Democrats. The Democrats fought change to Freddie and Fannie vociferously:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
Lou either conveniently forgets, or purposely ignores the facts that by the mid 1990s, the Clinton Administration had in fact adopted a "quota system" , and unabashedly favored expansion of, and the empowered use of the "Community Reinvestment Act", believing that a governmental response to economic problems in inner cities is generally more effective than a market solution.
Eugene Ludwig, President Clinton's Comptroller of the Currency and head of the Office of the Comptroller and Currency, was a strong proponent of expanding the reach of Community Reinvestment Act. Ludwig said in his confirmation hearing that his first priority as Comptroller would be to eliminate
"discrimination from our financial system, root and branch."
Ludwig told bankers,
"If you seize this issue as an opportunity, you will reap the benefits in the form of new business and heightened respect from the press, the Congress, and your communities." (See the CATO Institute, a non-partisan Libertarian Think-Tank, link provided below)
With regard to the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno said,
"No loan is exempt, no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement."
Finally, Lou Rockwell, the purported "Libertarian" that he is, ignores former President Clinton's admission of guilt. On September 26, 2008, His Holiness said:
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have, may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Lou Rockwell. A political hack, who parades himself as a "Libertarian". A purported "Libertarian" who is ignorant of our history, our culture, our system of government, macro or micro economics, and a purported "Libertarian" who is in favor of ObamaCare. How......Oxymoronic. In truth and fact, Lou doesn't have a clue what a "Libertarian" even is.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Lab Outsource
eMarketing by Connect Marketing Services (418,302 Email Addresses - 98% All Over Pakistan)
This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer
wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
©2011 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.
This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer
wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
©2011 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.
**JP** Please attention!
Please help us to find this baby's family also her mother's dead body is damaged in water by fishes and turtles.
--
Hassan Shahbaz
Web Designer/Developer
I-Tech Designers
+92-321-771-3956
+92-345-330-1111
web: www.itdesigner.biz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
--
*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*-*&*Best Regards,
Hassan Shahbaz
Web Designer/Developer
I-Tech Designers
+92-321-771-3956
+92-345-330-1111
web: www.itdesigner.biz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
**JP** SAFFAAAK BHERHIYAYE AUR MULK KAY AWWALEEN NASOOR
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Re: You might be a Republitard if you're...
I should have said, "Poor Studio....Bless His Heart".
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Poor Studio.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:56 AM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:21 am, lbiglee75 <leroys...@gmail.com> wrote:They don't???
> Studio, I get a kick out of the modern day Democrats. Since the death
> of JFK and scarping his policies. They never mention them.
I'm more of the belief you're not listening.
I kinda' doubt that very much.
> If he was
> running for President today he would be a republican.
Ronald Reagan couldn't even run as Republican in today's political
environment.
If Ron Paul's political philosophy ruled for the last 50 years...
> How many Democrats is behind Ron Paul's effort
> to audit the Fed?
you would have died broke a long time ago.
That would be Republicans and Democrats.
> Who had control of the congress when all the jobs
> went over seas for the past 50 or so years?
Keep voting for your poison of choice.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: You might be a Republitard if you're...
Poor Studio.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:56 AM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:21 am, lbiglee75 <leroys...@gmail.com> wrote:They don't???
> Studio, I get a kick out of the modern day Democrats. Since the death
> of JFK and scarping his policies. They never mention them.
I'm more of the belief you're not listening.
I kinda' doubt that very much.
> If he was
> running for President today he would be a republican.
Ronald Reagan couldn't even run as Republican in today's political
environment.
If Ron Paul's political philosophy ruled for the last 50 years...
> How many Democrats is behind Ron Paul's effort
> to audit the Fed?
you would have died broke a long time ago.
That would be Republicans and Democrats.
> Who had control of the congress when all the jobs
> went over seas for the past 50 or so years?
Keep voting for your poison of choice.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Being Pulled Over
Being Pulled Over
Catfish sent me this heart warming story.
An Arizona Department of Safety Officer pulled over a pick-up truck
owner for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the driver,
the man behind the wheel handed the officer his driver's license,
insurance card and a concealed weapon carry permit.
The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mr.
Smith, I see you have a CCP. Do you have any weapons with you?"
The driver replied, " Yes sir, I have a 357 handgun in a hip holster, a
.45 in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot."
The officer looked at the driver and asked, "Anything else?"
"Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge and an AR-15 behind the seat."
The officer asked if the man was driving to or from a shooting range
and the man said he wasn't, so the officer bent over and looked into the
driver's face and said "Mr. Smith, you're carrying quite a few guns.
May I ask what you are afraid of?
Mr. Smith locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered,
"Not a fucking thing!"
Sounds sumpin' like the arsenal my buddy Jim carries with him when he
travels.
Today let's remember all the people who fought and died to protect,
among other things, our Second Amendment rights.
Posted by Denny Wilson on 02:1
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
I just found this - what a great idea and I hope someone talks to that general and to his wife as well
And to his wife. Get the stories and the thoughts down while we
can. We have already lost the stories of too many of these wonderful
people.
can. We have already lost the stories of too many of these wonderful
people.
http://boudicca.mu.nu/archives/316913.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
**JP** سعودی حکام کے طرف سے چھے سال پرانے ورک پرمٹ تجدید نہ کرنے کی تجویز
از۔ یاسر عمران مرزا
سعودی عرب میں 30 مئی کی صبح سے ایک اہم خبر گردش میں ہے کہ سعودی حکام کی طرف سے اعلان کیا گیا ہے کہ جو افراد 6 سال سے سعودی عرب میں مقیم ہیں، حکومت ان کے ورک پرمٹ یا اقامے اگلے سال سے تجدید نہیں کرے گی۔ جس کے بعد ظاہر ہے 6 سال سے مقیم افراد کا سعودی عرب میں رہنا ممکن نہیںہو گا۔ یہ خبر کافی تہلکہ انگیز تھی اور اس دن صبح اخبارات میں شائع ہونے کے بعد تمام مقیم غیر ملکیوں میں جنگل کی آگ کی طرح پھیل گئی۔ سعودی عرب میں مستقل طور پرمقیم افراد جو کہ اپنے خاندانوں سمیت یہاں مقیم ہیں وہ الگ پریشان ہو گئے اور جو لوگ اکیلے یہاں رہتے ہیں اور اپنے ملک میں موجود اپنے خاندانوں کا خرچ چلاتے ہیںوہ اپنی جگہ پریشان۔ دوسری طرف مختلف پاکستانی چینلز نے بھی بنا تحقیق یہ خبر پاکستان میں پھیلا دی ہے۔ میرے لیے بھی یہ خبر ، عجیب اور افسوس ناک تھی۔ بعدازاں میں نے عرب نیوز کی ویب سائٹ کھول کر خبر کو تفصیل سے دیکھا تو مجھے بات کی جس طرح سمجھ آئی وہ میںبیان کرتا ہوں۔
عرب نیوز کے مطابق سعودی وزیرمحنت عدل فقیہ نے بتایا ہے کہ سعودی عرب میں 6 سال سے زائد عرصہ تک کام کرنے والے غیر ملکیوں کے ورک ویزوں میں توسیع نہیں کی جائے گی۔یہ فیصلہ اس لئے کیا گیا تاکہ سعودی شہریوں کو زیادہ سے زیادہ ملازمتوں کے مواقع فراہم کئے جا سکیں۔ انہوں نے بتایا کہ اس وقت سعودی عرب میں بے روزگاری کی شرح کافی بڑھ چکی ہے اور عرب ممالک میں جاری احتجاج کی ایک وجہ یہ بھی ہے۔ تاہم یہ فقط ایک تجویز ہے اور ابھی تک اسے حکومتی سطح پر قانون کی شکل نہیں دی گئی۔ یہ بھی نہیں بتایا گیا کہ یہ قانون کب تک لاگو ہو گا۔ مزید برآں یہ قانون صرف پیلی کیٹیگری کی کمپنیوں کے لیے ہے۔ جو کمپنی پیلی کیٹگری میںآئے گی اس کے ملازمین مزید پڑھیے
Best Regards
Blogger, Designer and Developer!
Please verify the truth yourself.Don't always trust the information shared on the internet.
Personal Links
Blog | Linkedin Profile | Facebook Profile | YouTube Channel | Flickr Photostream | Follow me Twitter
Author Developer of Following websites
Technology Blog | Jeddah Photo | Dinga City | Dinga | Likhari | HTC Care
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Free Seminar of IT Security Training
eMarketing by Connect Marketing Services (418,302 Email Addresses - 98% All Over Pakistan)
This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer
wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
©2011 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.
This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer
wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
©2011 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.