pattygreen

My own personal story proves that to be untrue.I did not know if God existed or not. I wasn't sure. So, I talked to Him as if he were real. I said into the air, "If there is a God out there who created me, I want to know you. Make yourself known to me." I desperately wanted to quit smoking at that time, so I also said, "If you are real, take away this great desire to smoke from me, so that I could know for sure that you are God." I also picked up an old bible that was given to me as a wedding gift and opened it for the first time ever and believe it or not, it opened up to John Chapter 3 and I read it. That is the chapter that has to do with being 'born again', and the famous John 3:16, that I had never heard of before I read it. I thought that there had to be something more to this life than what I had, so I figured I had nothing to lose by reading it. I thought that chapter was nonsense. How can a person be born twice? I didn't understand it. I was like the man Nicodemus in the chapter, not fully understanding what Jesus was telling him. So, I read that chapter and went to bed. The next day, I awoke and never had another cigarette again. My desire was completely gone! I began to read some more, till I eventually read the whole book. Believe me, I wanted to get to know this God. There was a time when I thought that I couldn't eat pork any more because the OT , as I read from the old to the new, gives some laws that I thought I was bound to obey if I were to accept this God as my God. I was willing to give up the pork. But as I learned from the whole book, I was free to eat pork and many other things through Jesus and his dying on the cross for mankind. This started my belief in God. Now, I fully understand what he meant when he said,"you must be born again." It is a spiritual birth. We are born once physically, and then after coming to a real belief in Jesus, God the Father will put a spiritual birth within you. Each person will experience this birth individually. Sometimes it happens immediately and sometimes gradually. (you know, some births take days and some come quick, only minutes)But, either way the spiritual rebirth happens to all believers in Christ. It is something of a mystery that born again Christians know all too well about because they have been born spiritually, and unbelievers don't understand about because they have not been born spiritually yet. That is why all believers want so badly for unbelievers to be born again also, because it is soooooo real and true.

Those who have 'truly' put their faith in Jesus will have a desire, which comes from God, to live righteously. Of course, noone is able to do that perfectly. But once you have asked Jesus to be your Savior, you will be forgiven for all your past, present and future sins. While you are growing in your faith and learning more about him, you will desire more and more to be like him, and thus the desire to do all the things that you feel you can't live without right now will deminish. When you do sin, God will forgive you once again. So, yes, you can still go to Heaven. If you ask Jesus to be your Savior, and then go on to live your life anyway that you choose, good or bad, and you ignore God, should you expect that he will still allow you into Heaven? He may say to you at the door, "get away from me, I never knew you." That is why it is important to have a relationship with God throughout your life, and not just want to "ask him to be your Savior" just to avoid Hell. God knows everyone. He knows the exact number of hairs are on your head. Now, that's personal. :redface:

..............................................................................

Cleosmom quote} I don't know anyone that voted for him that have turned their back on him. [End} Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Hey, AKA Obama Voters! Ready to Apologize yet? Voted for Obama? Ready to apologize yet? One Year Later: The 40-Percent President By Brad O'Leary Today, Obama's policies face public approval of around 40% or less. In fact, across the board, from his policies to the candidates he supports, 40% or less of the American public back the Obama brand. As they say, the numbers don't lie. Voters Running from Obama Only 43% of voters say they would vote to reelect Obama. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 45% of voters in competitive congressional districts this year would vote to reelect Obama today. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009) Voters Running from Obama-Backed Candidates Only 43% of Virginia voters cast their ballots for Obama-backed gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds last November. Only 45% of New Jersey voters came out for the president's gubernatorial candidate in that traditionally blue state last November. Only 47% of Massachusetts voters cast their ballots for President Obama's candidate in the special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. Only 37% of Americans would vote to reelect their Obama-supported Democratic congressman. (Rasmussen poll of 800 likely voters, November 24, 2009) Voters Feel Less Safe Under Obama Only 22% of voters say they feel safer on airplanes under President Obama than they did under President Bush. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 8% of voters give Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano an "A" for the job she is doing keeping America safe. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Voters Oppose Obama's War on Terror Policies Only 11% of voters think the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay should be shut down immediately. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 33% of voters agree with the Obama administration's decision to grant U.S. constitutional rights and a civilian court trial to the Nigerian national who tried to detonate a bomb aboard a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 13% of voters think the U.S. should not revoke the visas of all non-immigrant students in America who are no longer enrolled in school. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 45% of voters agree with how Obama is handling foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010) Only 31% support the Obama administration's decision to grant American constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants accused of terrorism so they can be tried in the U.S. federal court system as opposed to military tribunals. (Zogby poll of 3,616 voters, November 17-20, 2009) Voters Oppose Obama's Health Care Plan Only 32% think Obama's health care plan is a good idea. (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll of 1,008 adults, December 11-14, 2009) Only 13% of voters agree with the Obama administration's decision to bar C-SPAN from broadcasting negotiations about his health care bill. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 12% of voters agree with the provision in Obama's health care bill that would force some married couples to pay $2,000 more per year for health insurance than unmarried couples. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 21% of voters think that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund elective abortions. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010) Only 39% agree with the Obamacare provision that would penalize small businesses that do not offer health insurance to their employees. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009) Voters Disapprove of Obama's Handling of the Economy Only 34% of voters approve of Obama's effort to create jobs. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010) Only 28% of voters trust the Obama administration (very much) to get federal legislation passed that creates jobs in 2010. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009) Only 41% of voters approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010) Only 13% of voters think it is very likely that the Obama-Pelosi stimulus bill helped create or save 600,000 jobs. (Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, November 17-18, 2009) Only 21% of voters agree with the Obama administration that increased federal spending will help the economy. (Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, November 17-18, 2009) Only 35% of Americans think global warming is a serious problem. (Pew Research Center Poll of 1,500 adults, September 30 - October 4, 2009) Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll of 1,005 adults, November 17-29) Voters Disagree with Obama on the Second Amendment, Abortion, and Immigration Only 39% of Americans think the U.S. needs stricter gun control laws. (Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults, October 1-2, 2009) Only 18% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances. (Quinnipiac University poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010) Only 35% of voters side with President Obama in the dispute over whether or not local law enforcement should be permitted to enforce U.S. immigration laws. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009) From a historical standpoint, the Obama presidency is much like the return of King Charles II to England. The English greeted the return of the monarchy with euphoria, massive celebrations, and fireworks. England was enveloped in a cloud of happiness, much as America was when the Democrats regained total control of the White House and Congress. President Obama's approval rating soared to 65 percent. Old King Charles himself would have blushed if Elizabethan England had given him such admiration. But just like King Charles's, Obama's first year at the helm has left much to be desired. Not that Obama himself has changed much at all. He still has that same wonderful rhetoric and polished style that won him 53 percent of the votes on Election Day. But in past year, Americans have begun to pay more attention to the substance of President Obama's policies -- policies that he never hid from them during his candidacy. Today, only 43 percent of Americans would vote to reelect President Obama. Support for his policies is mired in the 30s, and the percentage of Americans who believe Obama can accomplish major tasks is in the 20s. Prior to the 2008 presidential election, we commissioned a number of polls through Zogby International asking American voters if they supported certain policy changes prescribed by Obama the candidate. In this newsletter, we have included an interesting comparison that shows how Americans felt about President Obama's substance and policies in 2008 and how they feel today. In fact, you can go to the barackobamatest.com website we created prior to the 2008 election and take the same test that over 900,000 Americans took in the two months leading up to the vote. By taking the test, you can see if you and President Obama agree on the major issues of the day, and you can determine if you would have voted for him had you known. In January 2009, Obama's rising tide lifted all Democratic ships. Today, however, the president's agenda is an anchor around the necks of all who support it. Aspiring Democratic congressmen, senators, and governors running for election this year will likely do well to keep the president, and his policies, at several arms' length. Brad O'Leary So,Cleo'smom, as you can see, even though YOU don't know anyone who voted for him that have turned their back on him, doesn't mean the people have not turned their back on him.

You know, bjean, I could care less what you think of me. I know you feel the 'need' to express how hateful and biggoted I am, even though it isn't true. I happen to be the least biggoted person out there. I come from a family of many differing colors and nationalities, and I don't have even one ounce of prejudice within me. I simply speak the truth about it because I can. I have black children, and sisters in laws and white brothers and philippino sisters in laws and many other nationalities within my family. I do not judge people by the color of their skin, nor do I vote for them for that reason. Character. That's what matters most about a person. So, think anything you want. And as for my daughter, she is blessed to have a parent like me in her life. I have taught her that it is wrong to stand behind someone because of their color and to not take their charachter into account.

I'm sure there must be some things that I might disagree on, but at the moment, I can't think of anything.

If you have been offended by my calling you immoral in your views, I will apologize right now for it. I'm sorry for offending you. I should not have called you immoral. (BTW, I said that "your stand on issues" was immoral. Not "you" personally) Is there a nicer way for me to tell you that your views are morally wrong? I can't think of any, except to say that God has spoken in the bible about what constitutes righteousness, and baby killing, sex outside of marriage or with your own sex, and stealing money from people and giving it to others to spend as they please wastefully is immoral. If you believe these things are okay, then your beliefs on these things are immoral. I can't say it any less offensively. BTW, I am not trying to 'convince' you that I am a Christian. I know that I am and that's all that matters. I am a christian, but I'm not perfect.

I am terribly sorry if what you say is true. I have gone to the same links and have not gotten a virus. It was not my intention to cause you to get one by posting a link. My apologies. Many people post links to other things here, and it is not right of you to advise others not to open mine for fear of getting a virus. Viruses "happen" sometimes. I could go to a link that you post and get a virus. I would not then say that I will "never" open anything you post ever again.

first of all, you DID call me a slow learner. You were responding to MY thread, therefore one can only assume you were talking about me. I'm not stupid. Concerning the question "are you black or something?": I beleive that after all that our president has done to foul up this country, and after all of the people who have turned their backs on him due to his first year, which clearly brought to light his inexperience and true agenda for this country, and after all of his mistakes and terrible judgements, it's hard to believe that there are some who would still be saying he's wonderful, unless you were a black person. I could see why a black person would stand by him no matter what he does. I believe that black people, and others, really wanted him to do well, because they may have felt that he represented them as a whole. (which isn't true, but may have felt that way) They were hysterically happy that he won the election because it was a first. It showed them that this country is great and that people of any color could be the president of the United States. I was very happy as well when he won. I didn't vote for him because he didn't stand for what I believe. But I was still happy that a black person was the president. (I secretly wished that McCain were black) I have black children, and I felt it was important for them to see that skin color was not an issue in the election. When my daughter and her boyfriend voted for him because he was black and for no other reason, I was disapointed in that decision. Now, 1 year later, she has learned from what she did. She regrets voting for him simply because he was black and wanted to see a black person reach that high goal. She sees that color should not have been her deciding vote. I am sure that many people have learned that same lesson through all this. BTW, I never said that I was 'your god'. Please!

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html

Experts are human beings just like everyone else. YOU call them experts, I call them talking through their butts. I've heard both sides of the argument on whether the stimulus 'stimulated' anything, and both can not give a 100% certain answer. I tend to believe that the stimulus money has a false appearance of doing some good, but that in the long run, when the money runs out, whose going to still have the job that the stimulus created? Most jobs created were gov. jobs, not private sector, and temporary. Whose going to continue the salary for these people? When the money runs out, they will once again be out of a job. And.... I'd apprecite it if you would not insult me in your posts. Calling me a 'slow learner' because I don't happen to agree with you is immature. You are NOT my teacher, and I will not "learn" anything from you, for IMO, your stand on most issues are immoral whether you think so or not. And if they're not immoral, they are simply WRONG!

Stimulating waste Educators and their unions frequently complain how "precious educational resources" are wasted on trivial matters, such as standardized tests to determine whether children are learning and higher performance standards for teachers. But unionists haven't had much to say since word got out that 184 school employees from DeKalb County, Ga., including principals, teachers, and math and reading coaches, squandered $382,000 on a four-day "training conference" in Hollywood. Of the total, $291,400 went for hotels, flights, meals and incidentals (souvenirs?). The delegation stayed at the self-described "ultra-stylish" Renaissance Hollywood Hotel and Spa. Not included in the $199-a-night-plus-tax tab was the cost of dozens of substitutes to cover for the personnel "conferencing" in Hollywood. Even if the money had came out of the school budget, "educators" would be unable to defend these expenditures, coming at a time when more than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and when the recession and years of government profligacy have brought fiscal calamity to just about every level of government. Indeed, Atlanta's schools are in the grips of a $56 million deficit that already has led to program cuts. But the $382,000 came from the federal "stimulus" and was given to Atlanta to create or save jobs in Atlanta, or to buy computers, textbooks, classroom supplies and services that benefit students. Instead, Atlanta spent its loot to boost Hollywood's tourism industry. Far be it for "educators" to schedule the training sessions locally to save hundreds of thousands on travel, lodging and meals. No, waste is the certain outcome in public education, especially when it gets extra infusions of other people's money. (local editorial, unknown author) This is just another story among many that proves the stimulus money isn't 'stimulating' any jobs. Obama is wasting alot of money trying to get jobs up, yet it's only going into the hands of politicians who are abusing it.

You just don't get it. It has become apparent to the American people, who have finally opened their eyes over the last year or two, that we are drowning in our debt! This is their reason for wanting Washington to STOP the spending.( It's not cause he's black, although I know that's what you want it to be.) Debt kinda sneaks up on you. When it begins to hurt, (lost jobs, high prices for everything, taxes, etc.)You're the one who doesn't get it and honestly I am getting weary of trying to explain it to you. The bank bailout started under BUSH was necessary to save the financial institutions from collapsing. Our economy runs on money being available in the form of loans. Banks weren't loaning money which means small businesses couldn't meet payroll or buy inventory. The second part of the spending was the stimulus which I have explained over and over again - that it helped save or create jobs but more importantly stopped out economy from going into a second depression. Our unemployment would be 15% without it. The economy has turned around. Fewer jobs are being lost, and the GNP is growing. This spending was an investment in our future. NOT! This spending was overboard foolish! This is where we will NEVER agree. I , and many other people, do not believe that you need to spend money to get out of a recession. You only need to STOP spending money. We have had low slums before, and they turned around on their own. No one bailed anybody out, and noone spent us out of it. If you think our "FUTURE" is going to be better off for what Obama has spent, you really are nuts! When the economy improves, more jobs will be created and that is what helps the economy and to reduce the deficit.then people take notice and decide to DO something about it. Things weren't so bad for the people while Bush was president.Speak for yourself. 4300 troops lost their lives, I think that's pretty bad I was talking about a "bad" economy", not the presidents "policies and agendas, and the war". - for them and their families. And let's not forget that bush didn't pay for any of his programs and turned a surplus into a deficit. It wasn't until right before Obama got elected that things started 'feeling' bad for the people. Obama excellerated the problem with his spending sprees at a time when he should have been doing some reigning in of the pocket book.When the economy is on the verge of collapse is NOT the time to rein in spending - any economist can tell you that. The deficit does matter but not while our economy is hurting. Bull! Whenever you are in debt, you STOP spending and getting yourself further into debt. And passing a comprehensive healthcare bill will help LOWER our deficit. Most definitely untrue! It has been proven that the HC bill would have bankrupted us even further over time. Now things are terribly bad, and what does he avoid doing? Cuts. Stopping the spending. No. he doesn't want to anger anyone right before an election. If he cut this program or that program and he didn't give so and so their grand gifts, he would anger some people.I guess that's why Pres. Obama just created a bipartisan deficit reduction panel (by executive order)to look at ways to reduce the deficit - because the "party of no" republicans who were for this panel and sponsored it voted no when Pres. Obama was for it. The people can't have it both ways. They must give up some of their 'free' handouts in order to reign in the spending and get this nation out of the hole. Let's start with the free handouts to corporations - called corporate welfare. I have previously posted what this costs us and I am all in favor of doing that and making it very costly to them if they move jobs overseas. Me too. Then the States need to raise their own funds for their private Pet projects, and the people need to WORK for what they get.

We are soooo worried about the poor in this country. Liberals say they 'need' all these government handouts. I say the government has made them dependant. The poor today have no idea what it means to be poor. Poor, to most, is not having cable TV.

Poverty: It ain't what it used to be As America's economic malaise grinds on, we increasingly read and hear about how this budget reduction or that program cut would hurt "the poor." The hand-wringing has become so widespread that a Hartford Courant blogger complained the other day about the effects of snow days and school holidays on child nutrition: "In Connecticut, most students in Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London get free lunches because the districts' residents are so poor." The message? No school, no food, as if inner-city children would starve without government handouts. But let's define poor. If these were Appalachian families in the 1950s, that'd be one thing. But this is 21st century America, where The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, renowned as America's leading authority on poverty, cites government data that paints a very different picture of "poor households." Forty-six percent own their own homes, and two-thirds live in housing with at least two rooms per person. Eighty percent have air conditioning; three quarters own a car and 31 percent own two or more; 97 percent have a color TV, and more than half own at least two; 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two thirds have cable or satellite TV service; 89 percent own microwaves; more than half have a stereo; more than a third have an automatic dishwasher; a third have cell and land-line phones. These households may be "low income," but they have a good amount of material wealth, a goodly amount purchased with or made more affordable by government largess intended to help them make ends meet. But this is what happens when the government doesn't means test its programs or monitor how taxpayers' money is abused. But what of the nutritional concerns? "Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II," Mr. Rector wrote in 2007 in a column for the National Review. "While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have 'enough' food to eat, while only 2 percent say they 'often' do not have enough to eat." And if poor children are so malnourished, why did President Obama form a task force to battle childhood obesity with special focus on inner-city children from low-income families? (no name article in today's editorials)

Here it is.

You need to get over it, really. When liberals did the exact same kind of stuff in protest of those who they didn't agree with politically, I heard nothing about it. Were the liberals 'really' going to hang Bush when they put his image on a poster and hung a noose around his neck with blood dripping off of it?:sad: Come on!!!! I'm not a liberal, and I can admit that my opposition was not "really" going to hang Bush. They were simply expressing their anger over Bush's policies. Nothing more. (Oh, and they didn't hate Bush cause he was white.:w00t: How would you have liked it if we threw that at you liberals? "You guys hated Bush cause he was white!" :cool:) And the tea partiers are doing the exact same thing, and you need to be upfront and honest and admit that as well. No one is 'really' planning on hanging those who don't agree with them. Are you black or something? Cause you certainly are coming off as an offended black person who is hanging on by a thread to your President simply because he matches your skin tone. Cause there is really no reason to admire Obama or anything he is doing to this country of ours. I, personally, could care less about his skin color and I'm sure most Americans don't care either. He was elected wasn't he? That right there shows you that noone cares about that. You need to stop your racism in reverse. You are blaming white people for their hatred of Obama's agenda and policies on the color of their skin. You are trying to say that the tea party group has a racist agenda, when in reality, it is you who seems to be racist against them. We are trying in this country to put hatred and racial issues behind us. You are not helping that American agenda. When you say that those who are against Obama are against him because he is black, it fosters racism against white people. BTW, I saw plenty of black and spanish people at the tea party gatherings. They just don't like the BIG government that Obama is pushing, and it wouldn't matter if he were purple! Here is an example of liberal hypocrisy! Obama Joker Poster Stirs Outrage, Bush Joker Poster Not So Much Not surprisingly, the Obama Joker Poster reported by NewsBusters Saturday is already drawing some outrage. According to a television station where the posters have been spotted, "Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous." Yet, when Vanity Fair's Politics & Power blog published a somewhat similar visual representation of George W. Bush last July, nobody seemed to complain. In fact, throughout the Bush years, demeaning drawings of the President and Vice President Dick Cheney were quite commonplace. But, according to KTLA.com, depicting Barack Obama in unflattering terms is a no no Looks like the photo of Obama as the joker didn't clear. Oh well, it was there.

Eye on the Stimulus Do Direct Stimulus Jobs Really Cost $533,000 Apiece?! by Christopher Flavelle, ProPublica - October 16, 2009 On Thursday, the government released a flood of data [1] about the stimulus, showing how 9,000 federal contractors spent their stimulus dollars — including the value of the contract, each project’s status, and how much each of the contractor’s five highest-paid officers were paid. But when it came to presenting that data, Recovery.gov [2], the government’s official site for stimulus information, highlighted one number in particular, posting it on the site’s main page [2] in large font: “JOBS CREATED/SAVED AS REPORTED BY FEDERAL CONTRACT RECIPIENTS: 30,383.” To make extra certain of getting viewers’ attention, the number itself appears in bright green. As the economy continues to shed jobs [3], it’s easy to see why the administration is keen to highlight the number of jobs created by the stimulus. When the numbers were released, Jared Bernstein, the administration’s chief economist, said [4] the job count “exceeds our projections,” adding that it supported the conclusion “that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first seven months.” But do the 30,000 jobs represent a good return? And since the federal contracts for which data was reported this week represent just a sliver of the overall stimulus package, what do they really say about the impact of the stimulus as a whole? Let’s start with the 30,000 jobs themselves. The federal contracts in question represented $16 billion in stimulus spending. Assuming the number of created or saved jobs reported by each contract recipient was accurate—which, as we’ve reported before [5], is still an open question—that breaks down to $533,000 for each job. That’s more than five times the projection of the president’s own Council of Economic Advisers [6], which estimated [7] in May that every $92,136 in government spending would create one job for one year. Five hundred thousand dollars per job might sound like a lot of money, but wait: The data released this week covers only the jobs directly created by federal stimulus money so far. It doesn’t cover indirect jobs — the people who make the materials that contractors need to complete their project, or make the sandwich when a construction worker buys lunch from the proverbial roadside diner. So, if the $16 billion in federal stimulus contracts generated 30,383 direct jobs, how many indirect jobs were created or saved? We asked the White House, which told us they believe that for each direct job created or saved, there is one indirect job. Assuming that’s right, that $16 billion created or saved some 60,000 jobs — which still clocks in at $267,000 per person. What about the second question — the relationship between the 30,000 direct jobs reportedly created or saved by that $16 billion, and the job impact of the stimulus as a whole? We asked the White House for the logic behind Bernstein’s statement that this week’s numbers “point to the conclusion that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first seven months.” Their response: Because the $16 billion in federal contracts represents about 5 percent of the $339 billion spent so far, they multiplied the 30,000 jobs by 20. The result is 600,000 direct jobs; and, relying again on the assumption that each direct job produces one indirect job, the White House doubled that number to 1.2 million. Of course, that assumes that for every part of the stimulus will have roughly the same job-creating impact as federal contracts. That’s contradicted by the Council of Economic Advisers’ own report [7], which said that while every $92,136 in government spending creates one job for one year, it takes $145,351 in tax cuts to achieve the same result. As much as 28 percent of the stimulus is going to tax cuts; if the Council’s estimates are right, then the White House’s assertion — that every part of the stimulus will produce the same job impact as federal contracts — starts to look a little less certain. The bottom line, it seems, is that knowing for certain how many jobs the stimulus is producing remains, for now,as tricky as ever.

why? Bjean, do you move around alot?

Fair enough. I wont try to convert you.

That is sad. I hope they find a nice home for the baby. Babies are very adoptable. I'm sure they will find a home for him or her. I personally know of a few families that want to adopt babies. Too bad there is soooo much red tape involved.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=126da0678ae5d3e6&mt=application%2Fvnd.ms-powerpoint&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3Da5679d2f6e%26view%3Datt%26th%3D126da0678ae5d3e6%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTm1mMs_VO25o-dQQaSoi2pX8701g This is some archeological proof with photos that God does exists and that the things he has written for us in the bible really did happen.

Excellent! I agree, totally!