Abortion is murder,the mother has the right to her own body,but the unborn baby is not part of a woman's body,what is she having an abortion for,just convenience?
"All men are created equal,with the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness".
Abortion is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers believed in.
The abortion law is actually unconstitutional.

November 19, 2008
Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail
by Brian M. Riedl
Congressional Democrats are now demanding another economic stimulus package to "inject" as much as $300 billion into the economy. The package will fail -- just like last year’s $333 billion in emergency spending and $150 billion in tax rebates failed. There’s a simple reason why.

Government stimulus bills are based on the idea that feeding new money into the economy will increase demand, and thus production. But where does government get this money? Congress doesn’t have its own stash. Every dollar it injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It’s merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

Of course, advocates of stimulus respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store spare cash in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). The money gets spent whether it is initially consumed or saved.

Governments don’t create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is redistributing existing income. If the money is borrowed from American investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If the money is borrowed from foreigners, the balance of payments must still balance. That means reducing net exports through exchange-rate adjustments, thereby leaving net spending on the economy unchanged.

Yet Congress will soon borrow $300 billion from one group of people and then give it to another group of people and tell us we’re all wealthier for it.

Lawmakers commit this fallacy repeatedly. They tout unemployment and food-stamp spending as stimulus without asking where the programs’ funding comes from. They hype a federal bailout of the states as stimulus, as if having Congress do the taxing and borrowing instead of state governments makes it a free lunch.

And, especially in this era, when "our crumbling infrastructure" seems to have become the new mantra, legislators and lobbyists tout a 2002 Department of Transportation (DOT) study that they believe proves that every $1 billion spent on highways adds 47,576 new jobs to the economy.

The problem is that the study doesn’t actually make that claim. It stated that spending $1 billion on highways would require 47,576 workers (or more precisely, would require 26,524 workers, who then spend their income elsewhere, supporting an additional 21,052 workers). But before the government can spend $1 billion hiring road builders and purchasing asphalt, it must first tax or borrow $1 billion from other sectors of the economy, which then lose a similar number of jobs.

In other words, highway spending merely transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."

The DOT tried to correct this misperception in an April 2008 memo specifying that their analysis refers to "jobs supported by highway investments, not jobs created" (italics in the original). The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service also released studies making the same point.

In reality, economic growth -- the act of producing more goods and services -- can be accomplished only by making American workers more productive. Productivity growth requires a motivated and educated workforce, sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology, a solid infrastructure, and a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts.

The best measure of a policy’s impact on economic growth is through productivity rates. Lower marginal tax rates encourage working, saving and investment, all of which increase productivity (as opposed to tax rebates, which are grants that require no additional productive efforts). Reforming -- rather than merely throwing money at -- education and infrastructure will raise future productivity. These necessary improvements would take time and shouldn’t be considered short-term "stimulus."

It’s time for lawmakers to stop futilely trying to wave the magic wand of short-term "stimulus" spending, which threatens to push the deficit above $1 trillion. Focusing on productivity will build a stronger economy over the long run and leave America better prepared to handle future economic downturns.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

First Appeared in The Wall Street Journa

Israeli Attacks on Hamas Justified
By Dr. Earl Tilford
December 30, 2008

The Hamas Charter proscribes peace with Israel. Ceasefires are possible only when advantageous to Hamas and always are temporary. Accordingly, as soon as the latest ceasefire expired, Hamas operatives fired a barrage of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. On Dec. 27, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) responded with air attacks on specific terrorist targets including training camps, command centers, rocket manufacturing facilities and military storage areas. While there will be collateral damage and innocents killed or maimed, the majority of the nearly 300 persons killed so far are Hamas operatives.


As soon as the first strikes went in, Hamas released video images of children being carried to ambulances. The world will continue to see homes and apartments turned to rubble, lots of injured children and weeping mothers. In most—not all, but most—cases this is pure fiction. Hamas provides the pathos the Western press craves.


Israel’s concerted response has also been measured. As of Dec. 28, 210 fighter-bomber and attack-helicopter sorties had delivered 240 munitions of various sorts from laser-guided bombs to Hellfire anti-tank missiles. These precision-guided munitions limit collateral damage. The word “response” is important.


Absent provocation, there would be no Israeli attacks on Gaza. Hamas launched over 300 rockets and countless mortar shells in the six days following the cease-fire. Evidently the terrorists used the ceasefire to rebuild and restock their arsenals. Nevertheless, a United Nations condemnation of Israel is almost certain. Passions in the Arab world run high with promises to avenge the deaths in Gaza. Many Western governments will add their condemnations as the American Christian left chimes in with a chorus of loquacious laments.


One wonders how the world would react if Spain moved forcefully to stop Basque terrorism or if the American Christian left would bleat quite so loudly if Mexican insurgents targeted San Diego with rocket and terrorist attacks. How would Britain react to similar attacks launched by the Irish Republican Army? Why should Israel be denied the right to respond to aggression? How many rockets does it take to warrant a strong and decisive response?


An Israeli ground invasion may be forthcoming. It will be bloody because Hamas is dug in and ready to make it costly for the IDF. Urban warfare, especially amid the rubble and ruin of city streets, is the most difficult form of modern warfare. Nevertheless, Israel is justified in moving decisively against Hamas.


Three years ago Israel pulled out of Gaza, using military force to remove Jewish settlers and relinquishing its southern border crossings to Egyptian control. Israel offered the Palestinians an opportunity to live side-by-side in peace. How did Hamas respond? Hamas fighters took over Gaza in a wave of violence, murdering hundreds of Palestinian political rivals and destroying much of the urban infrastructure left by the departing Israelis. One example was the destruction of greenhouses in northern Gaza, facilities that could have provided food and potentially agricultural exports for the Palestinian economy. Hamas destroyed these facilities because Jews built them. Israel offered its hand in peace and Hamas responded with shouts of “Next year in Jerusalem!”


Then came the incessant rocket attacks into nearby Sderot and Ashkelon, a major metropolitan area just north of Gaza. Over three years, Hamas fired thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel and in 2006 dug a tunnel into Israel to kill two Israeli soldiers and kidnap Israeli Private Gilad Shalit, whose fate remains unknown.


And what of Egypt? Israel’s “partner in peace” allowed Hamas to dig over 100 tunnels under its border with Gaza. Egyptian border guards looked the other way while weapons and ammunition flowed through those tunnels into Gaza.


Israel and the Palestinian Authority are in agreement over the creation of a Palestinian state. Negotiations are over where the lines will be drawn. Hamas’ intransigence and terrorist attacks complicate those negotiations. Indeed, Hamas does not want any agreement with Israel. It is impossible for Israel to reach an accommodation with an entity dedicated to its extermination. The only hope for attaining a just peace in this tragically afflicted region is the complete destruction of Hamas.

V & V
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Earl Tilford, a fellow with The Center of Vision & Values at Grove City College, is currently working on a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A former Air Force intelligence officer and former Director of Research for the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University.

You people are insane,I support Israel and am surprised Israel didn't defend itself long before now,Gaza was attacking Israel with deadly missiles for quite a few years.
The people of Gaza are getting warnings of Israeli bombs.
Israel took missile attacks from Gaza for years and nobody warned them of missile attacks.
I say let Israel destroy he unsavory elements of Gaza.

He better learn more about Economics before he does that ignorant junk he's talking about doing.
He thinks the government can fix the problem,which is STUPID,government is not the answer,government is often the problem.

Well,there's a scientific group that says we are now getting cooler,in fact the average world-wide temperature has gotten cooler each year of the last 10 years,besides,it just snowed in Phoenix,Arizona,and Los Angeles,California.
"Global Waring" is a big sham,a LIE that's being perpetrated by Al Gore and his mindless minions.

I live here between Whiteville,NC and Tabor City,NC,about an hour from Myrtle Beach,SC and about 30 minutes from Ocean Isle,NC and Sunset Beach,NC.

I don't think there is,Carolina's won by an average of 25 points per game and the closest game they've played was a 15 point win.

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
Boston

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

Hey,believe me,you would have remembered if we had ever been together and that's a guarantee.

Hey,I used to date a woman that was 19 years older than me and her nae was Judy too,but I don't think she was you.

Well,he voted to raise taxes on the middle-class,
He didn't need to post BS,his votes are BS.
He's voted to raise taxes 94 times,so he is BS.

Obama is nothing but a liar.
He'd rather for US to be forced into buying foreign oil instead of tapping our own reserves,he's against coal and nuclear too,his motto should be "No we can't".
Obama also has a "Global Poverty" bill that will tax every American an extra $8,500/year to give to people that don't even live in this country.
His economic plan is straight fro 1977,'78,'79,and '80,the Jimmy Carter years as is his foreign policy directive.
And if you don't remember the Carter years then you'd better thank God you weren't around those 4 years.
The best thing about Carter was the second he left the White House and the best President we ever had in my lifetime,Ronald Reagan.
Obama said people needed to quit having the temperature at 72 degrees year round.He's Jimmy Carter's ideological brother which is the equivalent of being sorry.If Obama gets lucky enough to blind enough people to get elected President then we are in for a disaster,we'll have $12/gallon gas and 22% unemployment.
And it was the Republican congress that balanced the Budget.In '93 and '94 Bill Clinton put US into a recession.

January 8, 2008
Barack on Iraq War: ‘Not Much of a Difference Between My Position and George Bush's Position’ — July 2004 (Lanny Davis)
@ 11:43 am
Addendum to last messages —

Is there a reason why the media has not asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) how he can base his campaign on attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on her war vote while saying his position on the war was no different than President Bush's as of July 2004? To wit:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,

“On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.”

— Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04

How could the media have missed reporting this?

Three Obamas on war —

1) Critic of Hillary Clinton on war authorization vote — a core message of his campaign

2) Obama: "No difference" between Bush position on war and his own (Chicago Tribune, 07/04)

3) Obama: "Doesn't know" how he would have voted on war vote (Chicago Tribune, 10/04)

Noblesse Oblige

In the midst of the Spizztzer scandal and The Revisionist Wright Revelations a very important Senate vote went largely unoticed. The Democrat budget blueprint just voted on in the Senate would repeal the Bush tax cuts, effectively raising taxes on the middle class.

In their campaign rhetoric the dems speak of taxing the rich but to the Democrats, the middle classes of the US are the rich. Under the budget blueprint individuals making more than $31,850.00 and couples making more than $63,700.00 would see tax increases. From Boston Herald:

WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.

Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years.

Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

Obama is attacking McCain for reversing his stance on the Tax-cuts, however calling for a tax raise whether on capital gains or the middle class at a time when we are in a slowdown is ridiculously stupid.

Hitting capital gains and adding new middle class taxes steals from the middle class both coming and going — one tax hits your 401K, the other takes directly from your paycheck.

Both Democrat candidates have clearly demonstrated by their vote what the average american can expect from them. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

In email I got a correction, which I always appreciate:

Hey Thanos - I didn’t want to leave a comment about this on your blog. There’s a misstatement in your post about the nonbinding Democratic budget blueprint. The Senate didn’t vote to repeal the tax cuts; the tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010 (a provision that was in the tax cut bill) unless Congress passes a bill to extend them. The end result is the same: it’s tax and spend under the guise of “fairness”; but our ideological opponents often seize upon even the slightest inaccuracy to call into question our integrity.

For the record I *always* appreciate correction of facts that are incorrect here, it doesn’t damage our credibility. Please if you do see something wrong here, always leave a comment because I get to those much faster than I do email.

The email is correct, which is why in other comments and places I was calling this a “stealth attack”. It’s a senate straw poll/trial budget balloon to see if they have enough nays to kill a bill or ammendments to the budget to extend the Bush tax-cuts. If they can keep it from coming to the floor, or vote the extension down then in effect they raise taxes. The concern is noted, but a vote even on this non-binding resolution lets Americans know exactly where Obama and Clinton stand on raising taxes.

ShareThis

by BlogRollingDesign by Beccary and Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS · Copyright © Thanos 2006,2007

That's right,FOX is the only fair news network.

I don't care,I want McCain to win,HRC and BHO both voted for anybody making $31,850/year to pay 50% income taxes,they're both tax and spend Liberals and BHO and HRC are both natural born liars.

The bill that passed was,according to Jim Webb,inferior to the 1 McCain has and the Dummocrats won't let that 1 be voted on.This bill doesn't transfer the benefits to family members where as McCain's does,but the Left-wing hypocritical LIARS won't let that 1 be voted on.

Damn Democrats and Obama,he wants to be able to legislate how we live our lives.He has a lot of egg heads supporting him,but evidently they are in love with Communism.

Hey,on the men's team Tyler Hansbrough won the national player of the year award.