- The media and the left always try to say the battle is fought in the middle - they do this to make their EXTREME socialized ideas appear more normal more centrist. Look at how Obama and the Left tried to sell SOCIALIZED MEDICINE as something conservative that would improve service and lower costs. All Progressives try to appear center so they can pick off the left flank of the Conservative. In the USA there is no longer much of a Conservative wing in the UNIONS or the Democrats so they must just lie. They say main stream center ideas - they say protect the weak and the children and do not let the Conservative starve granny. Here is just some of the high lights from your link - [emphasis is mine]No, there isn’t. This whole confrontation is overblown and illusory. All of thevoices and personalities who come remotely close to power in mainstream political life in all these countries actually co-exist within the same narrow centrist spectrum. There is no Left of the old school – threatening to seize the means of production and the levers of the economy in the name of the proletariat.Not even Mr Livingstone advocates renationalising Britain’s industries or the "wholesale" confiscation and redistribution of private property. And Mr Johnson, while he is certainly a more forthright spokesman for business interests and lower taxes than David Cameron, would not deny the need to regulate the banks or protect the disadvantaged.The difference between the Centre Right and the Centre Left (for they are all that remains of the two sides of that old titanic struggle) is now almost entirely rhetorical. The CR wants a free-market economy with an entitlements programme attached to guard against social unrest. The CL wants an entitlement society with free-market activity attached to provide the necessary funds. The argument about the mix is very much confined to the margins – and about how you describe it. The actual differences being so slight (and there being so much flexibility needed to cope with fluctuating reality) that it is necessary to lard the descriptions with emotive, absolutist language to generate some faux passion.As you can see there are real difference but they are molded merged and mixed to make them appear to be the same when they are really diametrically opposed. Free enterprise free unregulated economy versus a controlled , highly regulated and taxed to provide for the entitlements programs of the left. They do this in an attempt to convince the people to leave them in power because the conservatives will take away the programs and the people will be staving in the streets. They will not recognize that the government at all levels in these nations [including the USA] are BROKE and even with tax increases can not continue funding at it's present levels so they lie.Next they say that governments can tax and spend it's way to prosperity - that government spending on government jobs and infrastructure will create a growing economy. Leaving the main question unanswered - if the nation can not increase the amount of "VALUE ADDED MANUFACTURING" [using natural resources like mined iron ore to steel - much higher value] to create new profits and wealth - where will the money [wealth] come from to pay the higher taxes?Well all this is nice to debate but it begs the question we must always ask - YES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY TODAY?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
ObamaCare's Killer Device Tax
The U.S. leads the world in medical technology. A punitive new excise levy jeopardizes jobs and innovation.
MORE IN OPINION »By HENRY I. MILLER
Much of the political conversation in Washington these days concerns innovation, job creation and competitiveness. But talk is cheap, and elected officials must enact policies that enhance economic activity and job creation. The medical device industry is an example of Washington doing exactly the opposite.Medical device manufacturing is one of the nation's most dynamic and vibrant industries. The United States is the global leader in medical technology innovation, and it is one of the few major industries with a net trade surplus. This industry is responsible for more than 400,000 American jobs—and is indirectly responsible for almost two million more that supply and support this highly skilled workforce. Most important, its products are essential elements of modern medical care. They include everything from CT scanners and pacemakers to blood pressure cuffs and robots used by surgeons.Yet instead of protecting this paragon of American ingenuity and innovation, the Obama administration and Congress have viewed the industry as a cash cow from which they could milk profits to help pay for the president's health law. So they added to the Affordable Care Act a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices that will take effect at the beginning of 2013.This tax is especially pernicious because it is assessed on sales, not profits. To put this in perspective, imagine that you've manufactured medical devices and had sales of $1 million, after all your costs and expenses—everything from materials and labor to research and development—your profit was $100,000. The excise tax would be $23,000, wiping out almost 25% of your profits.Many medical device companies have to ramp up sales before they become profitable. Due to the long, draconian and sometimes unpredictable regulatory process that must be negotiated before a product can be sold, it can take from $70 million to $100 million in total sales before these businesses make their first cent of profits. Nevertheless, they would have to pay the excise tax on their revenue.The nation's medical device industry is vulnerable. It is not comprised of behemoths: 80% of its companies have 50 or fewer employees, the very businesses we are relying on to turn the U.S. economy around. The new excise tax comes when regulatory delays and uncertainty are increasing, and as many device firms are shutting down or moving abroad to take advantage of the more favorable tax and regulatory climate in Europe. The tax will force companies to lay off employees, cut back on research and development, or diminish capital investment.The governors of five prominent states—Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Robert McDonnell of Virginia and Scott Walker of Wisconsin—agree. "As governors of states with a significant concentration of medical technology manufacturers, we believe that this tax could harm U.S. global competitiveness, stunt medical innovation and result in the loss of tens of thousands of good-paying jobs," they wrote in an April 30 letter to congressional leaders.Anticipating the excise tax, several companies already have announced layoffs or withheld investments. Recent surveys show that medical technology executives are examining a host of other undesirable options, including passing along the added costs through price increases. Even if the market would tolerate that—which is surely questionable given the current pressure to drive down costs—it would, ironically, raise the costs of medical care. That was not supposed to be an outcome of ObamaCare.The U.S. remains the global leader in medical device development and manufacturing, although reports from PricewaterhouseCoopers and others show that its lead is tenuous, in part due to regulatory uncertainties and dysfunction that thwart innovation. If we allow foreign competition to seize the lead, it will be difficult to regain.We need to create a more nurturing entrepreneurial climate, one in which ingenuity and innovation are rewarded, not penalized. Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to repeal the medical device excise tax. That would be a good start.Dr. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.
- Permalink Reply by on
Obama's Public-Equity Record
The auto bailout makes Bain Capital look like an amateur on job losses and outsourcing.
MORE IN OPINION »By KARL ROVE
President Barack Obama's re-election organization is spending a lot of time attacking Mitt Romney over his careers in venture capital (investing in start-ups) and private equity (investing in troubled or failing businesses).To reporters at Bloomberg Businessweek, Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod recently ripped Mr. Romney for "leveraging companies with debt, bankrupting companies and making money off of those bankruptcies . . . [that] cost jobs and certainly wages and benefits."And an Obama campaign briefing paper says "Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices . . . cut employee wages, benefits and pensions . . . laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries."The president is guilty of the same alleged sins.The Obama administration, after all, forced General Motors and Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and then capriciously ordered thousands of local dealerships closed.
Karl Rove talks about what President Obama's campaign team might be thinking heading into the next election and Joe Trippi discusses the importance of voter turnout and networking.The auto industry bailout cost lots of Americans their jobs. GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign plants. The Detroit Free Press recently noted that fewer Americans work at Chrysler than did before the bankruptcy. Based on data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, I estimate that as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies' dealerships.Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout plan imposed cuts in wages and benefits for current and future workers at both GM and Chrysler. And he loaded up both companies with debt they can never repay. The bailouts cost $80 billion; $51 billion is still outstanding and $24 billion may never be recovered, according to the Treasury Department's latest report. As GM's profits stall, its stock languishes at a level less than half that necessary to recoup Mr. Obama's investment of taxpayer dollars in the company.The president's actions have produced big bucks for a foreign business. Last month, Fiat reported that, powered by its U.S. Chrysler subsidiary, profits were up tenfold the past year. Without Chrysler's earnings, Fiat would have lost money.Fiat is likely to deploy those profits in expanding its world-wide operations, even as it's still unclear if it will deliver on its promise of billions in technologies for fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S.Mr. Obama also shifted production—and jobs—overseas. As part of the administration's restructuring, GM will increase production in China, Mexico South Korea and Japan—almost doubling the number of vehicles it makes in those countries, according to a confidential report by the company to Congress in May 2009 (obtained by the Detroit News). Many of those cars will be imported into the U.S.About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Fox News Contributor and is the author of the book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.Click here to order his new book,Courage and Consequence.There are differences between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney rescued companies with private money collected from investors including union pension funds, college endowments and private individuals. He had to go through the normal process of laws and courts. His principal focus was on long-term growth for companies in which he invested his company's reputation and money. And he had to make a profit to be successful.Mr. Obama's story is very different. The auto industry was bailed out with taxpayer money. The president restructured GM and Chrysler by fiat and then forced them into bankruptcy, presenting the courts with a fait accompli.The president wanted the auto industry to survive, but he also wanted to reward political allies—so he gave 20% of General Motors and 55% of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers union. He stood by as the UAW forced the closure of a plant in Moraine, Ohio, where workers had joined a rival union.The secured creditors of GM and Chrysler—including retirees, pension funds and endowments—had their investments virtually wiped out by the president's plan. Though taxpayers will never get all their money back, the president still calls it all a big success.If the auto industry bailout is the best Mr. Obama can do, Republicans should take heart. Because matched against his overall record of presiding over high unemployment, trillion-dollar annual deficits, and a growing number of Americans in poverty and on food stamps, the bailout is not the political game changer Team Obama believes it is.Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).A version of this article appeared May 10, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama's Public-Equity Record.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations, Trans.: J. Chitty; Notes: Ingraham
http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#...[10/25/2011 11:39:42 PM]
THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
"Nihil est enim illi principi Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat, acceptium, quam
concilia coestusque hominum jure sociati, quæ civitates appellantur." Cicero, Som Scip.
[1]
FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY
JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA:
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.
1883.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- More on natural born to post from -
No comments:
Post a Comment