text:
This is re-posted from Race42012.com, thanks to the author, MWS, for allowing me to share it.
Suze Orman- a personal finance guru for whom I have tremendous respect- says that much of our personal finance troubles come from our willing belief in lies, and that we can only free ourselves from these problems when we start to acknowledge the truth about our money. It is high time that we as Americans, and as Republicans, stop lying to ourselves about the single greatest economic threat to America. It is high time that we faced the truth about the nation's debt, and our party's role in creating it. So here are some facts:
When Ronald Reagan took office, the National Debt was $934 billion dollars. That was about 30% of GDP.
When George W. Bush took office, the Debt was $5.7 trillion. That was about 60% of GDP (that figure actually dropped in the Clinton years).
Currently, the debt is fast approaching $11 trillion, close to 70% of GDP. INTEREST on the National Debt in FY08 amounted to $451 billion, around 20% of government expenditures, and $1500 for every man, woman, and child in America.
The deficit for just the first four months of FY09 is $569 billion. Obama's "stimulus" hasn't even begun.
Obama has assured us that we will have trillion dollar deficits for years to come. That means that the next Republican President- even if she wins in 2012- will inherit a cumulative debt around $15 trillion. Considering that the economy is currently shrinking, and that the CBO projects that Obama's "stimulus" will drag the economy in a few years, that means the next Republican President could well inherit a debt that is larger than our entire annual economic output.
The economic boom of the last 25 years was largely artificial. While the federal government spent around $10 trillion we didn't pay for, the private sector followed suit. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans held around $2.5 trillion in consumer debt at the end of 2008. That's about $8500 per capita, and THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE MORTGAGES. Estimates vary, but leverage and falling home values probably have 20-30% of homeowners owing more on their homes than they are worth.
While we are not Argentina, it is worth noting that Argentina had a National debt less than 60% of GDP when they defaulted in the 90s. They still haven't recovered.
It seems clear to me, at least, that we are on a downward spiral that is going to end very badly. China is already closing off the tap of credit, as they are funding their own $600 billion stimulus. I cannot see how the not-too-distant future does not bring high inflation and high interest rates. And all of these problems don't even begin to address the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.
And so I am proposing the only heresy graver than questioning Israeli policy in the GOP…
It is high time that we acknowledge that we have both a moral and an economic imperative to raise taxes as soon as the economy stabilizes. It is time to forget everything you learned on the radio about economics. We have a moral obligation to pay our bills.
Now I can already hear the objections. "We are already overtaxed!" That may be true, but we still aren't paying for what we are spending. And for historical perspective, the top marginal rate in Reagan's 6th year of office was 50%, and that rate kicked in at a lower income than Carter's top rate (adjusted for inflation). So for most of the "miraculous 80s" the top rate was 50%. In the roaring 90s, the top rate was 40%. Currently, it stand at 35%. Now I know you don't raise taxes in a recession, but raising them when the economy stabilizes will not be the end of civilization.
Objection #2 brings in the full force of Talk Show Economics. "Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue, and raises taxes DECREASES revenue." This is only half true, and only to an extent. Generally, lower taxes stimulate growth, so it is fair to say that cutting taxes raises more revenue than would have been raised at the lower rate had the economy not grown. But it is not necessarily true that tax cuts raise more revenue than would have been raised had the rate not been cut. It depends on what part of the Laffer Curve you are on. And this is only common sense. If tax cuts ALWAYS brought in more tax revenue, then let's cut taxes to 0.0000000000001% and we'll have the debt paid off in no time!
We also cannot simply cut domestic spending and get out of this. The time for that is WAY past. Simply cutting "fraud, waste, and abuse" will hardly put a dent in it, despite popular fantasies about government bloat. If you really want to cut spending, make people pay for what the government is spending. If you want to shrink the government, make the voters actually pay for their government. Stop the free ride.
So what does this mean for 2012? I don't expect any Republican to have the guts to propose a tax increase, no matter how high the debt. So I would look to a candidate who showed real leadership when faced with a deficit. Any knucklehead can cut taxes and run up the debt. That's easy. Shoot, Bush could do it. I want to see a candidate who made tough choices that actually closed the gap, whether in the House, Senate, or Governor's mansion. I want someone who was willing to do what needed to be done.
Folks, it's not 1981 any more, and we can't promote the same policies that made sense in 1981. We can no longer afford the Empire. We cannot afford all of the good things that government can do for people, and we cannot afford tax rates that do not pay for what we spend. It is time to cut spending, and raise taxes. The 25 year bubble has popped. We can't fake it any longer, and the longer we try the worse it is going to be. It is time we stopped lying to ourselves about money. Let the Era of Austerity begin.
-Matt Sanders
Comments from the post, many are just as thoughtful
1. jrcutler Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Very true, this problem has gotten out of hand, and no one is prepared better to continue what has been done than Obama.
This is a terrible time to have a Democrat in the whitehouse. By the way, who do we answer to anyways when it comes to "our national debt" maybe if everyone knew the answer to that question, maybe out debt wouldn't be so out of control. If we owe our debt to ourselves, I don't see why spending will ever slow down, do you?
6. Matt C Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Kind of yes, kind of no.
I agree that we as the GOP must take full responsibility for our hand in creating the current deficits and debt. But just raising taxes will NEVER solve the problem because no matter how much extra money the government takes in, it will spend it on something else and create even larger deficits. Hundreds of years of history, with only a few that had balanced budgets, bear this out.
We absolutely must decrease domestic spending – and here's the rub: we're not going to be able to make a dent just by talking about discretionary spending. We need to take on welfare – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. Those social welfare programs eat up well over 50% of our federal budget every year, leaving us little to work with and showing just how ridiculous focusing on "pork" really is.
Here's my plan, and I've been developing it for quite some time now:
• Institute a 1% federal sales tax applicable to every good and service purchased. Include in the legislation that the total revenue from this tax must go directly to paying down our national debt, and that when the national debt hits zero, the tax is automatically eliminated with no opportunity to reinstitute it unless deficit spending occurs – and only then with a supermajority vote.
• Pass a balanced budget amendment requiring every budget submitted to Congress to be balanced except in the case of national emergencies, such as war or Katrina-like national disasters.
• Completely and totally privatize Social Security. The idea that the federal government is involved in a retirement program is philosophically ludicrous, and even moreso when you see that the average rate of return on SS investments is less than 2%. Sell it to the American public as a X years-long phase out plan and that they are getting more of their money on every paycheck to put in a retirement account of their choice – more money in the hands of more people, giving them more freedom and more choice! With the right salesman (or woman) this could be a winner.
Just eliminating the national debt and Social Security frees up over 33% of our total federal budget, and it heads off the impending fiscal doom of social security going broke and costing us trillions upon trillions of more money. The next step then would be to massively reform the rest of the welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which currently take up another 25% or so of our federal budget and are threatening to, just by themselves, increase to the point where spending just on those programs will be larger than our entire current federal budget. That is the part of the plan I'm still working on…
7. Matt C Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Oh, I forgot a couple other things, too – privatize the Post Office, which loses money every year they're in existence. There's probably a slew of entrepreneurs that would jump at the chance to open a mail delivery company, and I'll bet you anything they'll do it more cost effectively than government workers.
Also, privatizing Social Security frees up billions of dollars (if not more) of business money, since companies will not be paying half of every single employee's SS taxes any longer — allowing them to invest in technology, more jobs, etc. It could lead to a huge economic boom.
8. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I agree that we as the GOP must take full responsibility for our hand in creating the current deficits and debt. But just raising taxes will NEVER solve the problem because no matter how much extra money the government takes in, it will spend it on something else and create even larger deficits.
Amen a thousand times Matt C.
Tax cuts are not the problem. The three most infamous supply-side tax cuts: the Kennedy Tax cuts, the Reagan Tax Cuts, and the Bush Tax Cuts, all resulted in INCREASED revenue. The problem is that Government has never cut SPENDING except for a few year in Reagan's first term and for a few years in the 1990's.
The idea that placing additional an tax burden on job creators and American families will result in more prosperity is ludicrous, quite frankly.
This is where "The Old Man" was right. Many ridiculed his constant harping on Earmarks and Pork Barrel spending during the campaign. But let's give credit where it is due, he was right—it is the spending that is killing us.
9. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Matt C,
I agree with most of #6, and I hope I emphasized that we need to cut spending as well as raise taxes. I like your idea of a national sales tax to pay off the debt.
As for a balanced budget amendment, I'm all in favor, but it has to have teeth, or te Congress will ALWAYS declare some state of emergency. Currently Congress has a "Paygo system, where spending increases and tax cuts are supposed to be offset elsewhere. They simply get around this by tagging regular spending bills as "supplemental" or "emergency."
10. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
"Tax cuts are not the problem. The three most infamous supply-side tax cuts"
I agree they are not the problem, in and of themselves, but when we are so far in hoc, they become part of the problem.
(KN) "The idea that placing additional an tax burden on job creators and American families will result in more prosperity is ludicrous, quite frankly."
To clarify, the purpose of tax increases would not be to create prosperity, but to avoid disaster from the mountain of debt. That's why I tagged it the "Era of Austerity." It's not so much about artificially creating boom times anymore through buying what we cannot afford, but heading off catastrophe by paying for what we already bought.
11. fran Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
It will make a huge difference.
I grew up in Alberta when they did it. People whine and moaned but eventually the majority realized it was for the best:
It pissed me off every time during the debate when Obama would say we need a scalpel instead of an axe. We do need an axe. He needs to be well aware of these numbers!
12. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
"That's nothing, my mortgage alone is 200% of my personal GDP. I'd like to be in the 70% range like the government."
The difference is your mortgage is an amortizing loan that is structured for payoff in a set number of years, with the qualification that you have the income those payments.
The government is paying interest only, and STILL can't make the payments.
13. MPC Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
#1, the debt is owed to foreign investors, generally the Chinese and Japanese. Our government can spend with abandon because, until now at least, China has been willing to foot the bill, having confidence in future payout.
It's a death warrant to let the debt continue to balloon as it is doing, and if tax hikes are really the only way we can immediately stem that, it's a step we have to take. As the deficit runs up, that in itself will halt investment and growth. At worst, we get this:
Which is what happens when foreign countries start to smell trouble and unease and stop loaning us money in effect to pay for our debts. Obviously the dollar is considerably studier than the Argentine peso was, but with the comparative strength of alternate foreign currencies, particularly the Euro, this is not impossible. It doesn't matter how we cut it, but it needs to happen soon. Taxes must go up, and those programs have got to start getting trimmed.
With respect to that, I really like your ideas MattC. The problem is political feasibility. I'm afraid that short-sighted voters will not have the will to do anything about it until it's too late.
14. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The dollar could be headed the way of the Peso.
Consider that our current accounts deficit (trade deficit plus budget deficit) had been running about $1 trillion a year. This year, it'll probably be around $2.6 trillion (with the "stimulus"). That means a net outflow of $2.6 trillion this year in capital.
The world is awash in dollars. If China didn't artifically peg its currency to the dollar, the dollar would immediately weaken. And where are the trillions coming from that the Fed is handing out? Presumably, the printing presses. I don't see how we can avoid a massive weakening of the dollar, coupled with sky high inflation and interest rates.
Y'all may want to think about locking in 30 year mortgages, btw. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if mortgage rates are in double digits in 2-3 years.
15. John Mark Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I agree with MWS, that we seriously need to consider tax-hikes. Republicans have married the idea that tax-cuts are always good, the logical conclusion to that is that it would be good to have no taxes, and therefore no government. Therefore, we're stuck advocating the idea that's logical conclusion is anarchy. I think this hurts us politically as people look at Republicans and we're not expressing a real idea of what think the ideal rate for taxes, or spending is, instead we make it seem that its ideal not to have taxes and spending; meanwhile the Democrats come across as willing take a critical look at what taxes and spending should be. I don't think the Democrats have come to the right conclusion, but Republicans need to anaylize things beyond less spending and less tax-cuts.
16. Falz Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I stop reading at this point: "That means that the next Republican President- even if she wins in 2012-".
17. Michael Lawrence Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Good piece MWS. I'm inclined to agree. The national debt is far and away the issue that I am most concerned about as a voter. I wouldn't object to a tax increase to begin actually paying down principal on it. Though I'd want the tax increase to be across the board so that the 50% who don't pay taxes would have to start, even if was only a modest amount. It's ridiculous that half the people in this country pay no taxes and enjoy all the benefits.
18. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
John Mark and Michael,
Good points, both.
19. John Mark Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
17, Well there's some people who can't make money and who it doesn't make sense to tax. Also, unfortunately we've got to consider the implications of being the party who's calling for tax-hikes one the lower income people. I think a big reason for Obama's sucess, was that he was able to pound home the idea that his tax plan benefited 95% of Americans more than McCain's.
20. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't gotten a more hostile reaction than I have. Some have rightly pointed out that spending has to be cut, that tax increases must be accompanied by spending cuts, that tax increases should go to pay down the debt, and should be shared by all.
Hopefully this is representative of the party as a whole. If voters get serious about the debt, their leaders will follow.
21. John Mark Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
20, Don't get your hopes up. Post this on RedState and I think you'll get your hostile reaction.
22. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
John Mark,
I agree that folks who can barely take care of themselves shouldn't be paying taxes. But I know that half the country is not destitute. And when half the country is not invested in how taxes are spent, that creates a problem in a democracy. You are right that there are huge political problems with raising taxes on the middle and working class. Clinton learned from Mondale's mistake, and ever since the Democrats will only raise taxes on "the rich."
That's one reason Matt C's national sales tax makes so much sense.
23. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Don't let your misogyny keep you from the discussion!
24. John Mark Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I have heard that the 11 trillion dollar debt figure is not the useful figure to use as it includes debt owed by one part of the government to the other. Someone told me the public debt which is what we actually owe is more like 6.3 Billion dollars. That's still huge though.
25. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
John Mark,
The 6 trillion figure pretends that the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund is still there.
It's not.
26. SteveS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Good post MWS, and I too am surprised that the reaction wasn't more hostile. I think the reason is that what you wrote was simply too well argued for anyone to strongly disagree with.
I think a good place to start would be an increase in the gas tax. But you can't get elected calling for that.
27. sdpride Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
"If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by "entitlement" programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. "Taxes" is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.
Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word — "taxes" — is used to refer to both."
"If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it."
"Promoting the growth of the national economy would be one of the fastest and best ways of reducing the national debt."
28. Swint Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
This was one of the better posts I have seen on here lately. Not that I agree 100% with the proposals, but it was innovative and smart. I agree that this is a monstrous problem, but I am not convinced that significant tax increases are the solution. I do, however, like the 1% national sales tax with all of the caveats that Matt mentioned and getting rid of social security.
The problem, as has been stated, is the political viability. Implementing the necessary changes would be political suicide for the sitting President and maybe the party that institutes it. The only way I ever think it would be possible, barring a complete collapse of our country is a 2nd term president with an veep that is not running in the next election. Basically, what we had in Bush. This president will also have to have a lot of cojones as well. Even then I doubt congress would ever agree to it.
MWS and Kavon, do you mind if I repost this and some of the comments on both of my blogs at dryflypolitics.com and swint.instablogs.com?
29. Evil Conservative Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Congrats on the post. A lot of good insights.
One thing though that hopefully eases a little concern in terms of time frame to fix this:
"China is already closing off the tap of credit, as they are funding their own $600 billion stimulus. "
That's true, but NYU professor Roubini, who is a notoriously cynical economist right now, is saying that China is so tightly linked to our success (as our other nations) that to close off the tap would be disasterous for them.
Now that's what he believes. I agree, but at some point inside the next 50-100 years they will close it off and become the world's #1 superpower.
Britain choked on the gluttony of empire and imperial conquest. We're going out with a whimper on the sloth of entitlements.
30. Tom in SoCal Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
A national sales tax is the last thing we need. It may sound like a good idea, but it would lead us to the same situation as Europe. A high VAT (sales tax) and a high personal income tax. Do you think a 1% national sales tax would stay at 1%? Of course not, it would be increased to pay for … (fill in the blank).
In fact look at Europe closely, because that is where the Dems want to lead us. High taxes, the government in charge of many many things and very little productive growth.
31. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
"MWS and Kavon, do you mind if I repost this and some of the comments on both of my blogs"
Fine with me.
32. MWS Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Tom in SoCal,
"In fact look at Europe closely, because that is where the Dems want to lead us."
That's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing we pay off the debt, and that will take higher taxes as well as reduced spending.
33. Tom in SoCal Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
That might be what you are proposing, but in reality it would not happen.
34. MarkG Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I agree with Tom's skepticism of the national sales tax: It would rise over time, especially because another type of federal tax would simply make it easier for politicians to play three-card monty stunts with revenue streams.
Also, although consumption taxes, flat taxes, and the Fair Tax all have their appeal, I can say from living under the 16 percent VAT regime in Germany, a lot of economic activity occurs "off the books." Dodging taxes for services is rampant in the informal economy due to the punitive VAT rate (now 20 percent). But if it weren't for this gray market, many would not even be able to afford to hire the very services they provide for others. I knew many laborers such as plumbers and roofers who did much of their work after hours on a cash basis for friends of friends, and who said that they couldn't actually afford the rates they officially have to charge thanks to the VAT and various strangulatory regulations.
As to Matt's (MWS's) general point: Yes, tax hikes do deserve sincere discussion, but I'd frame it as an either-or proposition. Either we raise taxes or cut programs. Tax hikes should be addressed in the context of general tax code reform — tax rebalancing rather than higher taxes.
But I doubt many would take tax-cut bidding wars like we had in the last primary all to seriously.
35. ogrepete Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Nice post, MWS.
I've been worrying about this for quite a while. Our country is running toward bankruptcy faster and faster.
36. Doug Forrester Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:13 am
#34, I've got to almost entirely agree with MarkG here. Our whole set of taxes need to be rebalanced with an eye towards increasing revenue for debt repayment.


text:
Order online and your items will be ready to collect at our airside shop
Free Delivery For All Orders Over $300*
*Subject to our Shipping Policy
Product Description
Security tamper-evident bags Required? Please Email us if you are taking a transit flight and require packing in STEBs bag.
Manuka is the 'healing honey'. As a new forest begins, Manuka grows to protect the new life.
The plant is valued for its curative powers and produces this strong and rich New Zealand honey.
Honeyland honey is 100% pure, natural New Zealand Honey.
Available Sizes:
250g, 500g

subset: commoncrawl


text:
JERUSALEM — Israel on Sunday published a blacklist of 20 organizations, including a Jewish group in the United States, whose leaders it has barred from entering the country for supporting an economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel.
The list was drawn up under a nearly year-old law enacted to combat the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which Israelis overwhelmingly oppose, consider anti-Semitic and view as calling for the country's destruction.
Supporters of the pressure strategy favor the boycott of Israel until it ends the occupation of the West Bank, provides full equality under the law to Palestinian citizens of Israel and grants a right of return to Palestinian refugees. But refugees number in the millions, and their return would probably spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
"We have shifted from defense to offense," said Gilad Erdan, the minister of strategic affairs, whose office drew up the list, according to an article in Ha'aretz. "The boycott organizations need to know that the State of Israel will act against them" and not allow them to "enter its territory to harm its citizens."
The blacklist, which is to take effect on March 1, includes Jewish Voice for Peace, an American group with 70 chapters that says it has 15,000 dues-paying members.
Also on the list are other American groups like the Quakers' American Friends Service Committee, the feminist group Code Pink and the United States Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Organizations in Chile, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and South Africa are also named.
"These people are trying to exploit the law and our hospitality to act against Israel and to defame the country," Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, who is responsible for enforcing the ban, told Ha'aretz.
Spokesmen for the two ministries did not respond to requests for interviews.
Rebecca Vilkomerson, who heads Jewish Voice for Peace, which embraced the boycott movement in 2005, called the blacklist an effort "to bully and intimidate us."
"It's emotional, and it's hard," said Ms. Vilkomerson, who lives in Brooklyn. "My husband was flying home from Israel yesterday. Both his parents are 80, he was born and raised there, we're all close. It's the sort of classic conundrum between political principle and personal impact. I really don't know how it's going to play itself out."
Ms. Vilkomerson said that while the movement's supporters outside Israel would be affected, the biggest victims could be Palestinians living in Israel under temporary permits, including spouses of Israelis who are citizens or hold permanent residency. Under the law, citizens and permanent residents cannot lose that status for supporting the movement, but those with temporary-stay permits could have them revoked, she said.
Last March, Israel amended its Entry Law to bar anyone who actively promotes a boycott of the country. In a statement, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs said the 20 groups named on Sunday had "undertaken ongoing, consistent and significant action to promote and advance a boycott of Israel."
The ministry said the blacklist "explicitly excludes political criticism of Israel" as a criterion for inclusion on the list and was aimed at "central figures in key boycott organizations."
Yousef Munayyer, the director of the Campaign for Palestinian Rights, called the group's inclusion a "badge of honor."
"When Israel, which aims to portray itself to the world as liberal and democratic, blacklists activists dedicated to nonviolent organizing and dissent, it only further exposes itself as a fraud," he said.
The blacklist's publication shed some light on a policy that has been shrouded in secrecy and confusion.
In July, five members of an interfaith delegation were kept off their Lufthansa flight to Israel from Dulles International Airport. The five, who included a rabbi and two other members of Jewish Voice for Peace, along with members of Presbyterian and Muslim groups, were told that the Israeli government had ordered the airline not to allow them to board.
A lawyer, Eitay Mack, pressed under public-records law for copies of Israel's instructions to Lufthansa and other foreign companies or governments.
Mr. Mack said he believed that there may be more groups on the blacklist than the 20 named on Sunday, and that the government may also be compiling a blacklist of individuals to be barred from entry.
The law is being challenged on constitutional grounds, under Israel's version of the Bill of Rights, its Basic Law on Human Dignity, adopted in 1992.
Shachar Ben Meir, a lawyer representing the plaintiff in that case, which will have its first hearing next month, said the amended Entry Law violated the Basic Law's assurance of intellectual freedom and the freedoms of speech and conscience.
Israel and its allies are fighting the boycott movement on a number of fronts worldwide. Two years ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu budgeted more than $25 million annually to that fight, but little has been divulged about how the money is being spent. A report in Ha'aretz uncovered more than $1 million in government contracts with law firms in Europe and the United States to oppose the movement, but details were redacted on national-security grounds.
In the United States, the billionaire Sheldon Adelson is underwriting a variety of initiatives to fight the movement, including on college campuses, as polls show the Palestinian cause rapidly gaining support among young people while support for Israel is eroding.
Just how much economic damage is being done to Israel by the boycott movement is a matter of considerable debate.
Right-wing politicians and activists routinely speak of it as "economic terrorism," but Dahlia Scheindlin, a liberal Israeli pollster, said her surveys showed that Israelis see few effects aside from the occasional celebrity canceling an appearance in Israel, as the singer Lorde did last month.
"So perhaps paradoxically, they also feel resilient — there's a 'no one can really hurt us' attitude," Ms. Scheindlin said. "So far, it's not so much the boycott itself that feels like an existential threat, but what they're demanding and who they are."


text:
Town: Hunstanton
Pet FRiendly
Contact Searles Leisure Resort
Searles Leisure Resort offers the following:
Holiday Caravans for hire, Holiday Lodges for hire,
Located right on the glorious north Norfolk coastline, Searles Leisure Resort unites a perfect setting with something to suit everyone.
Searles Leisure Resort enjoys an superb position right on the glorious north Norfolk coastline, and unites a perfect setting with something to suit everyone. An excellent base for exploring this truly wonderful coastal area, Searles Leisure Resort also offers a fantastic array activities on the park, promising hours of fun for adults and children of all ages. The Resort boasts excellent entertainment, and a fabulous selection of eateries to ensure all tastes are catered for - all you have to do is relax!Searles Leisure Resort makes a perfect destination for unforgettable family holiday, and with miles of golden sandy beaches, quaint fishing villages and gentle countryside this much-loved part of Britain's coast delivers it all.Nearby popular Hunstanton, with traditional seaside attractions and sealife centre, is just a short walk away, and Sandringham House, Holkham Hall, nature reserves and theme parks are all within a short drive.Searles Leisure Resort offers a superb choice of two and three bedroom comfortable holiday homes and quality lodges.
Searles Leisure Resort offers the following facilities.
Local Area
Whether you're looking for a fun-filled, energetic break or just to relax and get away from it all, at a holiday park in Norfolk you'll find something to please everyone. All along the coast, from historic King's Lynn to Great Yarmouth, there are miles ofgorgeous sandy beaches.Norfolk has lots to explore,the Broadland's unspoilt countryside, the tranquil inland waterways lying under vast, arching skies - are a perfect setting for walking, cycling, windsurfing, fishing and boating of all kinds. Hire a boat for a day or take a trip on a Mississippi paddle steamer and enjoy the Broads' unique, magical atmosphere.
Local Information & Businesses
A superb choice of two and three bedroom comfortable holiday homes and quality lodges.
Weekly Prices from £164 - £1372
User Reviews
We have 0 in our database for Searles Leisure Resort. Only the last 10 are shown for each site
Have you been to Searles Leisure Resort? Please submit your review so that others can benefit from your experience.
Important note: Information provided here about Searles Leisure Resort is based on our best knowledge. However, please check with Searles Leisure Resort before booking to ensure that you have the information required. Reviews are the sole views of the contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of CampsitesandCaravanParks.com or Searles Leisure Resort.
(c) 4theUK Ltd
Cookies | Terms| Privacy Policy | About us | Contact Us


text:
- Back to Top
- OverviewJump to Overview
- FeaturesJump to Features
- WarrantyJump to Warranty
- ReviewsJump to Reviews
Martin D-41 Standard Dreadnought Acoustic Guitar
- Write a Review
- Questions & Answers
Flexible Financing
Free Shipping
Lowest Price
6-Month* financing available.
- Free Shipping (48 Contiguous U.S. States)
Martin's reputation is not built on hype. It's built on generations of guitarists who recognize the vibrant, brilliant tone produced by peerless craf...Click To Read More About This Product
Finely tuned reimagined classic with special appointments that's ideal for any genre.
Martin's reputation is not built on hype. It's built on generations of guitarists who recognize the vibrant, brilliant tone produced by peerless craftsmanship and quality woods. This gorgeous D-41 Dreadnought Guitar will show you exactly what we're talking about. A solid spruce top with Martin's unique bracing pattern is hand-joined to lustrous rosewood sides and the 2-piece back. Polychrome abalone inlays in the rosette and ebony fretboard, combined with full binding and gold hardware, make the D-41 as sumptuous to gaze upon as it is to play. Musician's Friend is proud to present the Martin D-41 Standard acoustic guitar.
The Martin D-41 was introduced in 1969 to fill a hole in the Martin line between the D-35 and D-45. Back in 1969, musicians were asking for a Martin guitar that had all the "glitz" from the front of the guitar, as they wanted to have the audience see the "shine" from the stage; however, they didn't want to pay for the pearl on the sides and back. At that point in history, the D-45 was the only dreadnought guitar with pearl. Its $1,200 price tag was a bit much for most musicians, so the Martin Guitar Company decided to offer a pearl guitar that would have the look of a D-45 from stage, but without the extra pearl on the back and sides. Coming in with a price tag of $800, the D-41 was just what players were requesting. The lower price, great sound, and optimal amount of pearl made the D-41 the perfect instrument for the professional/touring musician.
Martin D-41 Standard Acoustic Guitar with Golden Era ToneBack in 1969, Martin dreadnoughts didn't have the option of a vintage forward-shifted scalloped X bracing pattern. That was reserved for Martin's "Golden Era" dreadnought guitars from the 1930s. Martin's dreadnought guitars from 1931 to 1939 are arguably the most prized, sought-after guitars in the world. One main reason is the bracing pattern. Manufactured from 1931 to 1939, Martin dreadnoughts, such as the D-18, D-28, and D-45 had a forwarded-shifted, scalloped X bracing pattern. This "Golden Era" bracing pattern gave the Martin dreadnought guitars a unique and identifiable tone. Highly valued for the clarity on the high end, and a punchy, defined bass, musicians and collectors soon realized that these instruments were unique and extremely collectible. No other acoustic guitar had the Martin tone, and as a result everyone wanted one.
Vintage Sound Meets Modern Playability on this Martin D-41 Standard GuitarToday, you can get that vintage tone of the 1930s combined with the playability of a modern guitar. Martin has added the vintage forward-shifted scalloped X bracing pattern to this D-41 Standard Dreadnought acoustic to give you their most treasured tone. And to accompany the improved sound, the playability has been dramatically improved.
The D-41 Standard Dreadnought's neck has been changed to feature a modern, modified low-oval neck, with a Performing Artist taper and 1-3/4" nut. The wider string spacing and comfortable neck profile allow a player to move up and down the neck with ease. The D-41 Standard Dreadnought sounds vintage and is effortless to play.
Other Appointments on the Martin D-41 StandardAlong with an amazing sound and feel, this D-41 features a solid Sitka spruce top, solid East Indian rosewood back and sides, 41 pearl top inlay, hexagon fingerboard inlays, ebony bridge and fingerboard, dovetail neck joint, nitrocellulose lacquer, antique white binding, aging toner finish option, and bone nut and saddle.
Includes a hardshell case.
- Antique white binding
- Aging toner option (with two other finish choices)
- Vintage forward shifted 5/16" scalloped X bracing pattern
- Reduced hexagon pearl fingerboard inlays
Order this amazing Martin today.
- Body type: Dreadnought
- Cutaway: No
- Top wood: Solid Sitka spruce
- Back and sides: East Indian rosewood
- Bracing pattern: 5/6" forward-shifted, scalloped X-bracing
- Body finish: Gloss Nitrocellulose
- Orientation: Right handed
- Neck shape: Modern low oval/Performance Artist taper
- Nut width: 1.75 in. (44.45 mm)
- Fingerboard: Ebony
- Neck wood: Solid Mahogany
- Scale length: 25.4 in.
- Number of frets: 20
- Neck finish: Satin
- Pickup/preamp: No
- Headstock overlay: East Indian rosewood
- Tuning machines: Gold open-gear
- Bridge: Ebony
- Saddle and nut: Bone
- Number of strings: 6
- Special features:
- Case: Hardshell case
- Accessories: None
- Country of origin: United States
Musician's Friend Gold Coverage
Gold Coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty to protect your gear from unexpected breakdowns, accidental damage from handling and failures. This plan covers your product for one, two, three or up to five years from your date of purchase, costs just pennies per day and gives you a complete "no-worry" solution for protecting your investment.
Gold Coverage Includes:
- Unexpected and unintentional spills, drops and cracks
- Normal wear and tear
- Power surges
- Dust, internal heat and humidity
Other plan features include:
- For products over $200, No Lemon Policy applies. If it fails for the same defect 3 times, it is replaced on the 4th breakdown. (Does not apply to failures due to drops, spills, and cracks)
- For products under $200 experiencing the above failures, a Musician's Friend gift card will be issued for the full price of the product + tax.
- Shipping fees covered if required for repair or replacement
- Plans are transferable in the event merchandise is sold
- Plans are renewable on new gear
*Limitations and exclusions apply. See terms and conditions (Opens in new window) for program details
Term for New Gear begins on date of purchase but does not replace the store return policy or manufacturer coverage.


text:
From The PSPedia2
A powerful spear used by high-ranking rogues. It carries a high-output reactor as well as other modifications to increase power.
Item details
- The Japanese name of this weapon is ムクルッデイ.
- Shop availability of this weapon is as follows:
- English version: Unknown.
- Japanese version: Unknown.
Item data
Extend data
Image gallery
- No additional images currently exist for this weapon! Click here to upload an image and help us develop this page!


text:
Novo is being hunted down by the corrupt leader of OXY-RECO, Donald Prettar, who will stop at nothing to keep Novo from revealing his sinister lie to the workers. Novo, obsessed with completing his self inflicted mission, will yet again risk his life for those he feels responsible for, no matter what the cost.
WARNING: If you haven't read Novo volume 3, the preview below is chock full of spoilers!
You are viewing the text version of this site.
Need help? check the requirements page.


text:
SCECH Program Overview
SCECH Program Overview
State Continuing Education Clock Hours (SCECH) are earned by attending professional development activities approved by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE). These hours can be used for renewal of certificates and licenses issued by the MDE, Office of Professional Preparation Services.
Only approved Sponsors may award SCECHs for participation in their SCECH approved programs. Those Sponsors submit their programs to MDE for SCECH approval.
SCECHs are earned by educators attending SCECH approved programs by Sponsors that follow MDE's quality professional development criteria. SCECHs reflect the total number of instructional hours provided in a program. Please review the SCECH Program Overview for more information.
There are two categories of SCECH programs: Traditional and Non-Traditional programs.
- Traditional Professional Development:
- Conferences
- Meetings and workshops
- Non-Traditional Professional Development:
You must contact your local SCECH sponsor to obtain complete description, qualification requirements, instructions, and rules prior to starting the following assignments to receive SCECHs. Credit can only be earned by filing the appropriate documentation with your local SCECH sponsor within 30 days after the assignment is complete.
- Mentoring a new teacher or administrator in your school
- Supervising a college student during their student teaching or pre-teaching experience
- Serving on a P.A. 25 School Improvement Team or School Committee
The complete list of SCECH programs available in the SCECH Catalog
Contact the Sponsor of the program or Program Facilitator for registration and specific program information.
The complete list of approved sponsors is located at:
If you have questions, contact the State Continuing Education Clock Hours Coordinator at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Updated 06/16/2017.


text:
Several pepper sprayed, 1 stabbed in Banning
Two men were arrested during Independence Day celebrations in Banning after several people were pepper sprayed and one person was stabbed, according to a police spokesman.
Officers responded to the 2100 block of West Jefferson St. around 8 p.m. on Wednesday, where they said discovered several people suffering the effects of being sprayed in the face with pepper spray.
They said they found another person who had been stabbed several times. His condition has not been released.
Officers arrested Daniel Ray Lopez, 27, and Adrian Nicholas Mora, 27. They were taken to the Smith Correctional Facility in Banning, where they face possible charges of assault with a deadly weapon.


text:
Getting ready for 2018
First of all, I'd like to say thanks for stopping by to read another update from the team here at Bluewave Online Marketing. We now have a much wider range of services, with the ability to provide a true "One Stop Shop" for the marketing needs of businesses all across Australia.
We are on a mission to help business of all sizes (but especially small to medium business) from being overwhelmed with the complexity, or worse, being ripped off by marketers and advertisers. We are here to be the champion for businesses out there that are struggling to get their heads around the complexity of online marketing, and are failing to get the full benefit from their advertising spend. We aim to make things as simple and straightforward as possible, offering a wide range of services to be as effective as possible with the smallest spend.
Just what are we offering?
Instead of locking you into a specific service, we have flexible plans that allow resources to be allocated to the channels that are delivering the best ROI for your business including:
• Google AdWords
• Google Display Network
• Doubleclick Programmatic Display
• Facebook
• Youtube
• Instagram
• Snapchat
• Native Ads
• Retargeting
• EDMs and Marketing Automation
• Bing
• Onsite and Offsite SEO
• Google Shopping
• In App Ads
In addition to all of this, we offer expert, down to earth advice that is on your level, specifically tailored for your business.
Please have a look through the rest of the site, and give us a call for a quick chat.


text:
I take confidentiality extremely seriously and imagine that you do too. Most of my clients elect to send their files to me by email. However, we can discuss further security solutions ranging from password protection to working offline at your offices. If you are a new client, please contact me for my Non-Disclosure Agreement.
What is Contractually Speaking Ltd?
Contractually Speaking Ltd is a private limited company led by legal translator Richard Lackey and specialises in legal translations. It is registered in England and Wales under number 10213138 and has its registered office at 80 Seaford Road, West Ealing, London, W13 9HU, United Kingdom.
Details about the information I process
Description of processing
The following is a broad description of the way Contractually Speaking Lt. processes personal information. To understand how your own personal information is processed you may need to refer to any personal communications you have received, check any privacy notices that Contractually Speaking Ltd has provided or contact me to ask about your personal circumstances.
Reasons/purposes for processing information
I process personal information to enable me to provide translation services, to promote services, to maintain our own accounts and records, and to support contractors (where applicable).
Type/classes of information processed
I process information relating to the above reasons and purposes. This information may include:
- family, lifestyle and social circumstances
- business activities of the person whose personal information I process
- goods and services provided
- financial details
- education details
- employment details
- medical records
- company records
- information relating to civil and criminal trials
I also process sensitive classes of information that may include:
- physical or mental health details
- offences and alleged offences
- racial or ethnic origin
- religious or other beliefs of a similar nature
Who the information is processed about
I process personal information about our customers, clients and employees, complainants and enquirers, suppliers, advisers and other professional experts.
Who the information may be shared with
I sometimes need to share the personal information I process with other organisations. Where this is necessary I am required to comply with all aspects of the Data Protection Act (DPA). This may include business associates and other professional advisers, suppliers and services providers
Last updated: 25 June 2018


text:
Australia Wide
1300 660 225
Call Us
Taylex™ maintains an ISO 9001:2008 Quality Assurance program for both our concrete and plastic manufacturing processes. This ensures compliance with all of our Australian Standards Product Certifications under AS/NZS1546: 2008 and AS/NZS 1546.3:2008, which is compulsory under all State and Territory Legislation.
These programs are audited annually by an accredited, independent certifying company. The
Taylex audit process, which we perform on a daily and weekly basis, has been designed to ensure Taylex continually complies with all the relevant conditions of our certifications.
This process, briefly, includes:
56 Prairie Rd, Yatala QLD 4208
Phone: (07) 3441 5200
Fax: (07) 3287 4199
Mobile: Emergency assist 0408 989 662


text:
About Ty-D-Bol
Introduced in 1957, Ty-D-Bol is still the most recognizable brand of in tank toilet bowl cleaners with its well-known Ty-D-Bol man icon and blue bowl water. The company may be best known for its nautical spokesperson, the Ty-D-Bol Man, who piloted a boat inside the toilet tank. Nattily attired in a captain's hat, blazer, and turtleneck, the suave skipper greeted 60's, 70's, and 80's TV audiences when the bowl lid was lifted. For over 55 years, Ty-D-Bol has offered quality automatic toilet bowl cleaners at affordable prices and a continuous "Clean You Can See!"
About Willert Home Products
Willert Home Products is a premier manufacturer of many well-known and trusted household products. Founded by A.W. Willert in 1946, Willert Home Products began modestly with the production of a single product. Today, nearly 70 years later, the company manufactures close to one hundred household products and is still owned and operated by the Willert family with headquarters in St. Louis, MO.
Our family of brands include Ty-D-Bol, Bowl Fresh, Enoz and airBOSS. Exceeding customer expectations, striving for excellence in the products we manufacture, developing new product innovations, providing a rewarding work environment and giving back to our communities is the heart of our business. From our family to yours, Willert Home Products is a name you can trust with brands you can count on.


text:
Maurice Fulton has been a huge influence and a constant feature of so many DJ's sets. His productions are like no-one else's we can think of, perfectly fusing genres and vocals within a framework of super tight percussion and killer bass lines.
His remixes for Rhye, Roisin Murphy and Alice Smith demonstrate this outstanding ability perfectly.
We are so happy to welcome Maurice back to Brighton to play a 3 hour set and celebrate the 10th year of Disco Deviant with us all.
Disco Deviant mainstay Pablo Contraband will be joined by our newest resident and Unity stablemate Tech Support for a night of disco excess at our new favourite, Hideout.
As it's a small capacity venue (200) Advance tickets will most likely sell out. LINK to Tickets - Group of 4 deal £24+BF
Tickets are also available in Resident on Kensington Gardens, Brighton.
Install: FUNCTION ONE / MASTER SOUNDS RADIUS MIXER
ALSO on sale is our offering for The Great Escape this year - Erol Alkan joins Pablo Contraband for a Phantasy Showcase featuring Gabe Gurnsey and Cowboy Rhythmbox.


text:
Innovation: The Government Was Crucial After All
The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths
Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy: Markets, Speculation and the State
"The great advances of civilization," wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, his influential best seller published in 1962, "whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government." He did not say what he made of the state-sponsored art of Athens's Periclean Age or the Medici family, who, as Europe's dominant bankers but then as Florentine rulers, commissioned and financed so much Renaissance art. Or the Spanish court that gave us Velázquez. Or the many public universities that produced great scientists in our times. Or, even just before Friedman was writing, what could he have made of the Manhattan Project of the US government, which produced the atomic bomb? Or the National Institutes of Health, whose government-supported grants led to many of the most important pharmaceutical breakthroughs?
We could perhaps forgive Friedman's ill-informed remarks as a burst of ideological enthusiasm if so many economists and business executives didn't accept this myth as largely true. We hear time and again from those who should know better that government is a hindrance to the innovation that produces economic growth. Above all, the government should not try to pick "winners" by investing in what may be the next great companies. Many orthodox economists insist that the government should just get out of the way.
Lawrence Summers said something of the sort in a 2001 interview, shortly after the end of his tenure as Bill Clinton's treasury secretary:
There is something about this epoch in history that really puts a premium on incentives, on decentralization, on allowing small economic energy to bubble up rather than a more top-down, more directed approach.
More recently, the respected Northwestern economist Robert Gordon reiterated the conventional view in a talk at the New School, saying that he was "extremely skeptical of government" as a source of innovation. "This is the role of individual entrepreneurs. Government had nothing to do with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg."
Fortunately, a new book, The Entrepreneurial State, by the Sussex University economist Mariana Mazzucato, forcefully documents just how wrong these assertions are. It is one of the most incisive economic books in years. Mazzucato's research goes well beyond the oft-told story about how the Internet was originally developed at the US Department of Defense. For example, she shows in detail that, while Steve Jobs brilliantly imagined and designed attractive new commercial products, almost all the scientific research on which…
This is exclusive content for subscribers only.
Get unlimited access to The New York Review for just $1 an issue!
Continue reading this article, and thousands more from our archive, for the low introductory rate of just $1 an issue. Choose a Print, Digital, or All Access subscription.
If you are already a subscriber, please be sure you are logged in to your nybooks.com account.


text:
At the age of eight I knew all the lines of Return of the Jedi by heart. I have always been fascinated by technology, the future, the bigger picture.
After graduating from university I started my career in the tech industry, working for a motherboard manufacturer and then managing the $100 million/year monitor division (CRT monitors the size small cars) for the 3rd largest distributor of computer components and peripherals in the world.
In 2001 I started my first business, launching tech products in new markets, building sales channels and providing marketing support. Latterly I have made a natural migration toward digital solutions and now deliver consultancy through my company OSPGI Consulting. Most recently, I have come back to the bigger picture of technological development and I write about these themes on my blog and social channels.
Away from business, I am on the board of Kadikoy Rugby Club in Istanbul and I coached and built the women's section into one of the best teams in the country. I am also currently training to compete in the Marathon De Sable in 2021 and I am documenting this over on Snapchat.
Future-proofed business and marketing consulting for positive corporate change. My day job is building a consultancy firm.
We create the ideas and opportunities that allow our clients to better communicate their story and grow their business. Then we deliver the talent and teams to make those ideas a reality through marketing, technology and automation solutions.
The digital division of the business provides digital marketing strategy, creative and outsourced media management; packaged as a service to grow with the client, save them money and time.
I make seed investments, mentor and provide business development services for equity in early stage tech and e-commerce startups that have come to my attention through the consulting business.
To expand my investment activities, I have created Bridge Investments, a venture capital business to leverage my dual-location in Cambridge and Istanbul, thriving regional hubs for tech startups. Bridge is currently raising its first investment fund which is scheduled to close in early 2020.
Use the links below and adjacent for more investing information.
Get Ready For Pills Programmed To Respond To Your Cells' Needs
Smart pills can already track whether you're taking your medication and help regulate your bowel movements. The next [...]
US Farmers Can Now Grow Edible Cotton
According to a new Reuters report, plant biotechnologist Keerti Rathore had a specific goal in mind when he [...]
In The Future, Even Your Dish Detergent Will Be Spying On You
It's the future. You're running low on dish detergent, so the container starts bugging you [...]
With 20 years experience – good and bad – of starting and running businesses I can shorten learning curves, help new founders avoid pitfalls as they grow their company and speed up business development.
Areas where I can be particularly effective include branding, identity, marketing strategy, product development, sales channels and routes to market, strategic partnerships and investment strategy.
Get in touch below if you would like to have a chat.
I offer a number of fun, engaging and provocative speaking presentations that explore the direction technological advances will take humanity and the potential effects on society.
Sectors covered include Energy, Education, Finance & Commerce, Food & Resources, Government, Space, Healthcare, Transportation & Environment using information, ideas and content researched for my writing.
Contact me using the button below.
I divide my time between Cambridge and Istanbul.
The easiest way to get in touch with me is through my social media channels. You can reach out via Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn. If you prefer email use the button below.
If you need to write then the address is c/o Moore Thompson Chartered Accountants. Bank Chambers, 27A Market Place, Peterborough, PE6 8EA, United Kingdom.


text:
£23,500 over 3 years
Their mission is to create with young people a future where they take responsibility for their actions, have a thriving career and make positive contributions to Tower Hamlets.
To achieve this, Streets of Growth have developed the Appropriate Intervention Model (AIM) namely,
- Transitional Coaching enabling young people, in making changes for positive progression.
- Street School addressing tensions of lifestyle change needed for positive progression.
- Enterprise to inspire young people through business skills.
- Regeneration initiatives connecting young people into the social, physical and economic regeneration.
Website: www.streetsofgrowth.org
Specific Project
Earn Your Vision (EYV) programme is a bespoke approach that aims to engage, inspire and progress most high risk, vulnerable young people through focused, social, enterprise challenges and work experience activities in our Turning the Tables (TtT) Enterprise combined with their bespoke Street School that provides, accredited work/enterprise training and life skills/personal leadership development to support young people to develop life skills, (i.e. understanding the relevance of how 'you' think and behave impacts on how 'you' achieve), employment skills.
All of the above is underpinned with consistent transitional coaching by Streets of Growth (SOG) Youth Coaches to support young people to move out of violence, poverty and disrupt their cycle of negative behaviours/patterns so they can progress and self-sustain into their chosen life/career pathway.


text:
Integrated clusters are transformative, holistic learning communities that promote critical thinking, collaboration, and career preparation by valuing innovation, entrepreneurship, engaged teaching and learning, and interdisciplinary scholarship. Each cluster supports knowledge and skill generation and acquisition as well as application to serve others. Clusters enhance existing university strengths and build new ones. The integrated clusters form a university that becomes an open laboratory, a place where interdisciplinary ideas flourish across disciplines, community, and business.
- University Reinvention Initiative (URI): Data, templates, and process can be found here.
- Cluster Support & Draft Structures: Draft cluster support function descriptions and cluster team models are available
- Primary Cluster Affiliation: The list of faculty by cluster affiliation based on program. (As of 08/30/2017)
Faculty & Staff Resources
Resources are available related to the integrated cluster project funding process, project completion reports, and related forms. Also find the Transformation Timeline and event information related to PSU's transformation. Upcoming and past events can be found here as they relate to internal change progress.Explore
Cluster Connect
Responding to the need for a system of tracking projects, funding, engagement, partnerships, and sharing ideas, a solution was developed to better facilitate connections and cluster projects.Learn More
Review the vision and mission statements for our transformation to Integrated Clusters as well as frequently asked questions. You are also able to submit a question here or find contacts related to progress being made to support clusters.Explore
Campus Updates
Communications sent to faculty and staff across campus are centrally archived in the Updates section and are organized by category. Posts from President Birx and the Academic Deans can be found on the blog in addition to progress updates.Explore


text:
#179 28 min 38 sec Reaping what we sow: Agriculture's role in climate change
Dr Richard Eckard is an Associate Professor and Director of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, a joint initiative between the University of Melbourne and the Victorian DPI. He sits on science advisory panels for the Australian, New Zealand and UK governments on climate change research in agriculture and leads research programs in enteric methane, nitrous oxide and whole farm systems modelling of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Richard has published over 90 scientific publications, holds a number of national and international science leadership roles, being a keynote speaker at numerous industry and international science conferences over the past few years.
More information
Host: Dr Dyani Lewis
Producers: Kelvin Param, Eric van Bemmel
Audio Engineer: Gavin Nebauer
Voiceover: Dr Nerissa Hannink
Series Creators: Eric van Bemmel and Kelvin Param
Read Transcript show transcript | print transcript | download pdf
Welcome to Up Close, the research talk show from the University of Melbourne, Australia.
I'm Dyani Lewis, thanks for joining us. Over the last 150 years, human activity has caused ongoing changes to the earth's climate. Now in an effort to stem the flow of carbon dioxide into our fragile atmosphere many of us are finding ways to live greener and lessen our environmental footprint. Walking where we used to drive and wearing more layers instead of turning up the heating. But where does food sit in all of this? Climate change is raising serious concerns about our future food security, yet fingers are being firmly pointed at the agriculture sector and in particular livestock production as major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. To tell us more about agriculture's role in and response to a changing climate, we are joined on Up Close by agricultural scientist Rich Eckard. Rich is Associate Professor and Reader at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment here at the University of Melbourne and he's also Director of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre. Welcome to Up Close, Rich.
Thanks for that, Dyani.
Now, Rich, the way in which we use land has changed immensely over recent centuries. Could you start by painting for us a picture of how landscapes have been changed to accommodate agriculture?
Obviously, with agriculture there's been extensive land clearing. There's been cultivation of soils for planting crops. In the case of livestock industries, where there was range land those range lands have changed over time since livestock production came into them. But also there was forest before and that forest has been cleared, all that carbon has left the landscape and it has been replaced by agricultural production. All of that has been essential for food production for a growing population so we have to actually do that. But it has meant a change to the landscape a change to the carbon stored in that landscape and a new source of emissions.
If we set aside land clearing for a moment, what are the main other ways in which agriculture contributes to global warming?
The introduction of livestock for example the ruminant side of livestock like cattle and sheep, they've got four stomachs when we've only got one. And the first stomach is a very large sack the rumen that mainly relies on microbes to break down high fibre diets that they eat. That generates enteric methane. So enteric means coming from the rumen and that methane is a greenhouse gas global warming potential of 25 times that of CO2. The other greenhouse gas from agriculture production would be nitrous oxide and that's produced in soils wherever nitrogen fertiliser or nitrogen from legumes or nitrogen from animal waste has been put into the soils. And in those soils the nitrogen can de-nitrify into a gas called nitrous oxide. That's a powerful greenhouse gas around 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Rich, how do these agricultural emissions compare with emissions from other industries?
Well obviously the coal-fired or fossil fuel powered energy sector is the highest source of emissions anywhere in the world. In most countries, that is the largest emission source. And that's just from the burning of either coal or oil or gas for energy production. Transport emissions, the burning of diesels and fossil fuels in cars is about the second largest emissions' sector. In some countries agriculture is about the same size as transport being around 20 per cent of emissions. In Australia even though we have extensive agriculture, agricultural emissions are around 15 per cent of the emissions. But you go to countries like New Zealand or Brazil, you'll find agriculture is 50 per cent or more of their total emissions just because of the structure of the country. In most industrialised countries agricultural emissions are less than 10 per cent.
Now, Rich, in many places around the world, prior to agriculture there were vast swathes of grassland with wild ruminants. How do we actually know that modern livestock produce more of these missions than say the wild bison did when they once used to roam North America and Europe?
Yes, the argument is made quite frequently about have we just not replaced those native wildlife with domestic ones. In Africa, certainly you can make some argument around that although there are some good numbers now that suggest the total ruminant population in Africa is actually larger than the native wildlife that used to be there prior to Western colonisation. In North America again, large herds of bison were replaced by livestock. But again the total livestock numbers are higher than the original bison population, so the methane profile is higher. Australia and New Zealand are quite unique in that there were no native ruminants prior Western arrival and development. So the methane profile from livestock both in Australia and New Zealand is vastly different to what it was 200 years ago.
Rich, you've been looking at ways to minimise these greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural systems. So if we start by looking at methane are there measures that we can use to prevent methane production?
Yes, there are a number of methods we've worked on and reviewed over the years and they range from breeding methods, feeding methods and rumen manipulation. So we can manipulate the microbes in the rumen of the animal. However, we're looking at research that is only in its infancy in understanding the complex interactions between billions of microbes in the rumen. And only in the early stage of that research have we identified the populations of microbes that don't produce methane and the others that do. For example, the kangaroo produces less methane than a traditional ruminant like a cow or a sheep and understanding why that is and can we actually learn from that.
So how do you go about manipulating the populations of microbes in a rumen?
With great difficulty. There are chemicals that can do that, so feeding sulphates and nitrates for example, all these techniques work on starving the methane-producing microbes of the energy they need to produce methane and that's usually hydrogen. Methane is carbon and hydrogen together. So if you starve those microbes of one of those two, you can't starve them of carbon because the rumen is just completely carbon from a forage-based diet. But you can actually restrict their access to hydrogen by putting that hydrogen into more productive processes. So if you take that hydrogen and put it into making more energy for example, because all our carbohydrates are based on carbon and hydrogen as well. And if you can put it into the carbohydrate pathway then it's more productive and you get more energy out of each amount of food that you feed.
Presumably this doesn't impact on how much nutrition the animals get from their diet, does it?
No, it actually makes them more productive. And so some of the nutritional strategies we're looking at have actually gone down that route. What can we feed animals so, in the short term, we can get a reduction in methane? And certainly feeding animals on dietary fats, for example, that has a number of effects, not the least of which is increasing the fat content of the diet as a source of energy. But we've discovered that by feeding some of the bypass products of other processes like biodiesel-extracted canola for example, we can feed the residue, which still has enough oil in it actually reduce methane in the animal. So it's not only a slow release form of energy going into the animal, it has some protein in the meal so we get a milk production response out of that. But for every extra one per cent of oil that we put in the diet of a ruminant, we get about 3.5 per cent less methane.
So what about the animals themselves? Are there some ruminants that produce more methane than others?
There's clearly genetic differences between animals and we hope to capitalise on that as well. Some animals within the same breed, within the same genetic type within a breed produce more methane than others. We are still in an early stage of understanding why that is. We can identify some traits that are there but we don't have any easy markers for selecting those animals. At the moment it's a very expensive measurement process to measure each individual animal to understand which are the low producing methane animals and which are the high producing. In some cases they're not consistent. If they're on low quality diet they might be low methane producing, but put them on a high quality diet and that difference disappears. So it's still in the early stages of understanding that. But we do have about a 10 to 15 per cent difference between animals within a breed in their potential to produce methane. We also think that there is potential to actually raise animals with different methane profiles. Because a lot of the microbes in the rumen interact with the genetics of the animal. And that interaction can be capitalised on in how we actually raise the animals. So if you raise them through a lineage of low methane producing mothers you can end up with animals that produce less methane. The issue we've got there is the environment that they live in is prolific with microbes. So if you change the microbial profile of it, it can just recolonise from the environment. But the microbes that produce methane are quite unique. They are, archaea is the term we use for them, and they are phylogenetically very different from the rest of the microflora that exist in the rumen.
I'm Dyani Lewis and my guest today is agricultural scientist Rich Eckard. We're talking about the contribution of farming practices to global warming here on Up Close coming to you from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Now, Rich, what about nitrous oxide then, obviously livestock produce a large amount of nitrous oxide or are responsible for nitrous oxide production as well?
The nitrous oxide from agriculture production would come from any form of nitrogen that's put into the system. So it can be fertilisers, it can be legumes that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and obviously the animals themselves. What they do is all the surplus nitrogen that they eat is excreted, so it goes either out in dung or in urine. Now urine is usually the highest concentrated source of nitrogen particularly as you go into the move intensive grazing systems like dairy systems where the urine is very concentrated. In fact, the content of that is very similar to urea fertiliser. So you can often get up to 1,000 kilos of nitrogen per hectare equivalent being deposited within the urine patch in a dairy system for example. So it's not surprising that a lot of that is actually subject to loss either as an ammonia gas, which then can precipitate back down to earth, into the soil and become nitrous oxide, or is directly de-nitrified in the soil and lost as nitrous oxide.
So is there anything we can do to minimise the nitrous oxide?
The research has been quite positive around this. Around the fertiliser technologies we have coatings that we put on fertiliser that are inhibitors. What they do is they just inhibit specific microbes in the soil and prevent them from converting that into nitrate, which then becomes nitrous oxide. Some more exciting technologies around the animal where we can spray paddocks with these inhibitors to keep the urine in that form and stop it going to nitrous oxide. But more recently some work out of New Zealand has suggested, and we're starting a project up with them at the moment, looking at how we can actually feed animals on some of these products that actually keep the urine in the ammonium form and don't allow it to go to nitrous oxide as well. We favour this feeding technology because it costs a lot less than spraying the whole paddock or putting a coating on all the fertiliser. You're actually targeting the active ingredient, where you need when you need it at the quantity you need it.
So if these kinds of inhibitors exist, why aren't they being used?
At the moment there just hasn't been a driver for it. Nitrogen fertiliser is quite cheap, obviously if you're getting nitrogen from legumes it's derived out of the atmosphere, you're getting it for free. Because of that the losses that have been occurring in our agriculture systems have not been of an economic value to farmers. But typically in a grazing system, this might sound terrible, but in a grazing system you are losing up to 60 per cent of the nitrogen in the system that's cycling. It never actually completes the cycle. So if you look at the cycle at any one point of the nitrogen that's actually transferring into the animal, more than 60 per cent of it is actually lost before it actually completes the cycle. We think these technologies will really help to improve the efficiency of that cycle. So not only from a greenhouse gas point of view, but all our research is focused on what is the productivity benefit. Because we've got to keep in mind we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we've also got to feed a growing planet. So we will have to actually increase agricultural production not reduce it.
So by making things more efficient, you're generating an economic imperative in a sense?
There's two issues here. A number of countries are looking at policy mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand has an Emissions Trading Scheme, Australia has a Carbon Farming Initiative, in Europe they're looking at controlling nitrogen inputs into agricultural systems. In North America they're looking at similar policies, so there are emerging policies to actually drive the incentive for farmers to reduce emissions and by doing so become more efficient. But also in terms of the cost benefit to farmers, our focus is very much on why would a farmer adopt this technology. So we've got to make sure that it has an economic imperative to it as well, a productivity benefit and outcome where they are more nitrogen efficient and it's going to cost them less. Notwithstanding that we have to double agriculture production by 2050 to feed the world, we've got to become more efficient with the inputs that we're putting in.
Rich, you've mentioned population, I was wondering is it likely that we will even be able to address these agricultural emissions as long as our global demand for food and in particular our global demand for meat production continues to increase?
It's a very difficult question that. The simple answer is no. We have to more than double food production by 2050. In fact if you look at the estimates from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, they are suggesting a 70 per cent increase in food production by 2050 to feed 9.5 billion people on the planet. If you look beyond that, that's not the peak. The peak is now suggesting to be about 14 billion on the planet by the end of the century. So a simple equation tells you that if we have to increase food production by that volume, there will be a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. You can work it back from the minimum protein required per human being in the world, back to the volume of food that's needed to produce, back to the amount of nitrogen that we need to actually input to create that protein. Just simply calculating through there will be a net increase in nitrous oxide as a result. Notwithstanding that though, I think we are confident that we can reduce the amount of emissions per unit of food we produce and so produce that food with less emissions than would have been the case. I think that's our responsibility primarily. We cannot achieve a net reduction in emissions. Some countries might be able to achieve that, but at the expense of their capacity to export food to the rest of the world. So I think the realistic target is emissions intensity, so reducing the emissions per unit of food we produce. Where it comes to livestock there are some realities there where livestock do produce more emissions per unit of food than cropping for example. But it's a very complex issue because cropping does involve cultivating the soil. So you're losing all the soil carbon that is stored there as well whereas livestock systems that soil carbon stays and actually builds over time in permanent grasslands. So it's not a simple equation saying just get rid of livestock. At the same time the global requirement for livestock is still increasing and the demand will be there, although the demand might actually not be in the Western world so much it might actually be in the developing world.
So many people are turning to vegetarianism to lessen their impact it's a little bit more complicated than whether this is actually a good thing, is that right?
Entirely correct. I always say the percentage of the world's population that have the privilege of choosing a vegetarian lifestyle is quite limited. Limited to the affluent Western world and it's not a population group that are increasing rapidly. So most of the population increase is going to take place in Africa and Asia, India and China in particular is where the largest growth will occur in the future. If you start looking at these demographics around the world, you see reasons why livestock production is still going to remain integral to those systems. You take India for example where the cow is sacred, but they still eat other meat sources, so that's unlikely to change. In China, most of the Chinese population don't even eat ruminant meat, even though the demand is increasing, they're mainly on white meat sources so fish and poultry, that's their dominant protein if they have access to protein. That's likely to continue into the future so that's not going to change much of the ruminant methane profile there. South America you've got a strong cultural background to ruminant production and meat consumption. In Africa it's their wealth source. They keep livestock for their bank account and for draft and for transport. So there's other reasons why they keep livestock other than just food production. So when you boil that all down the drive towards a more vegetarian lifestyle, we have to say, for your personal footprint it will reduce your personal greenhouse gas emissions' footprint. So it's an entirely valid choice for those who want to make that choice. But if you are thinking that it's going to take over and become a global phenomenon, it's really only a minority of the world that even have the choice of going in that direction. So we've got to be realistic about what we can achieve there.
I'm Dyani Lewis and I'm joined on Up Close today by Rich Eckard who's telling us about farming emissions and what can be done about them. Now, Rich, what are other things that consumers can do to make environmentally prudent choices when it comes to shopping at the supermarket?
There's a lot of choices that we can make, as I said, you can look at a more vegetarian lifestyle, slightly lower red meat consumption in your diet, notwithstanding that it'll probably be healthier for you. At the same time, you know dare I say those who like their red meat, kangaroos don't produce as much methane as other traditional livestock. So if you have to make a choice that's a valid choice as well. The whole issue of food miles has probably been overplayed. Food miles is the concept of if a product has to transport a longer distance to get to you that it has a high emissions' footprint. That's not necessarily true, we've actually looked at that. The New Zealand Government looked at it very intensively because there were criticisms of food produced in New Zealand transported all the way to Europe that it had high food miles. But when you actually complete a full lifecycle assessment, which is counting from cradle to grave all the different sources of emissions, once you produce milk powder and put it in the hold of a ship, the transport across to Europe is negligible. So you can actually produce food in New Zealand with less greenhouse gas emissions than you can if you produce it right next to the supermarket in London, just because of their energy costs and their structure of their agriculture. So food miles is not actually a valid choice to make necessarily there are other choices we can make.
How about something like frozen food?
Obviously there's extra energy required in refrigerating particularly meat products when they transport around the world. Again the New Zealand Government looked at this very carefully and they discovered that lamb produced in New Zealand, that is slaughtered and transported refrigerated still arrives in the UK with a lower total lifecycle footprint than lamb produced in the UK. It's the economies of scale once you've put, you know 1,000 animals into the hold of a ship, the actual embedded emissions per unit of meat transported across the ocean actually becomes negligible.
All of this information is rather hard to grasp as a shopper in a supermarket to determine what impact each individual item of food actually has.
The market research would suggest that consumers are still not buying on things like food miles or embedded CO2 emissions. They are mainly still buying on price. If there's a driver from a group like Walmart for example it's more a company strategy. It's more the Japanese Government for example that is wanting to have recognition and labelling on their products as to what the embedded emissions are. It's still not driven by the consumer, they still are buying on price.
Now when it comes to food in comparison to something like buying a large car, I mean is buying food that has an environmental footprint in a way justifiable?
Well certainly I would say that agriculture is probably your most legitimate form of emissions because my view is you can turn the lights off and you can walk to work, but you have to eat. At the same time there's alternative technologies emerging for electricity. We have renewable energies, but the price is still too cheap to get fossil fuel energy, coal-fired power is still too cheap because it historically was subsidised by governments to build all these power stations. So we're paying a far lower price for that than we should. The same with transport emissions there's hydrogen cell cars emerging. There's electric cars emerging, so other technologies are coming about and notwithstanding it's more healthy for us to cycle to work or walk to work. But in terms of agricultural emissions, there is minimum amount of emissions that has to be produced to produce the food that we eat and we have to eat. We can make choices within our diets, as we talked about earlier, but at the end of the day there will be emissions from agriculture because of food production.
We have spoken about the contribution that agriculture makes to climate change but I thought we could look at the flip side now of how climate change is impacting on agriculture?
It's quite an issue for us. We've been looking at how agriculture will be affected around the world and there's no doubt that in many countries agriculture will either be positively or negatively affected. If you look at the Northern hemisphere, say Canada across Siberia, Northern Europe, with the warming of those regions, because there's such a large land mass there, even just one kilometre further north that might be viable for agriculture can mean a huge increase in say grain production from those regions. So there could be benefits there. Some of the tropics we're looking at getting far larger rainfall events. Now that can be positive and negative. There can be floods that destroy agricultural land, but certainly in some of these Southern hemisphere countries like Australia there are going to be fairly substantial impacts. More so as you go inland in Australia, so we could actually see a contraction of agriculture production in Australia towards the coast. In some cases that can be of benefit where you're actually moving grain production from lower rainfall regions to perhaps slightly higher rainfall regions. You might actually with warmer winters get more production than you would have otherwise. But notwithstanding all of that, an increase in temperature our current systems might be able to handle one degree. But once you start talking about two degrees average increase in temperatures globally agriculture production will be severely affected. Notwithstanding that we've got to actually more than double the production.
How do we go about gathering the information to be able to predict some of these region-by-region differences that are going to occur?
There's a lot of research going on in that area at the moment using global circulation models. These are very complex models that try to predict all the circulation patterns, the currents, the air currents the temperature changes. Some of the sophisticated models include all the natural disasters that take place as well, so they are accommodating volcanoes and disasters like that, monsoons, cyclones and from those we can actually get them to predict for us what the future climate might be in a region. We then downscale those emissions and add them to local weather data to try and predict what might happen in a region. But at the end of the day most of our modelling is starting to say, well let's just say what if the temperature went up two degrees? What if rainfall went up 10 per cent or down 10 per cent and just exploring the resilience of the system within a region. So there you can answer the questions using modelling. Will this grass be the best species to grow in 50 years time or do we need to look at another grass? If we bring another grass in there to feed those animals, is that going to be as nutritious as the one we've got there? Those are the kinds of questions. So in a lot of the temperate regions of the world, the regions where the grasses could be challenged by say a two-degree increase in temperature and it's easy to bring in some of the more tropical grasses. But the tropical grasses are less nutritious and so you can produce less animal product from them, they'll grow more but it's more fibre not more energy. So that balance is quite important to look at and that's what we've been looking at and helping the agricultural industries understand what the implications are for that.
Does some of this information get fed back into changing the way we make our decisions to plan for the future as well?
Very much so - this research has to then feed back into the plant breeders to suggest if you want temperate species to survive in an area where the temperature is going to increase, do we switch to a tropical species? Or do we just breed a species of grass that is more temperature tolerant within the same variety of grass that we've got? Or do we breed a grass that has a deeper root system so that it can actually access moisture deeper down for that longer dry period that we might have each year? That's the important direction, so we're sending the information back to the plant breeders. We're sending the information back to the industries to advise them on where their next investment needs to be or where they need to think about system changes.
So finally, what is your own prediction for the future? Are there going to be major changes in farmland practices, perhaps the species that we breed and what we eat? Or will we essentially be just tinkering around the edges?
In some cases we can afford to tinker around the edge for at least until 2050 because our analysis would suggest that much of the grain production systems and much of the wheat production systems, much of the grazing systems that we currently have will still be the same species in 2050. So most of the dairy production say in Southern Australia and New Zealand would still be based on a species perennial ryegrass and it will still be the most productive species. Although possibly slightly less productive than it would have been So we won't be switching species in that time horizon. But when you start going out to 2100 that's when we need to start having different species coming through. That's when we need to have far more structural change. That's where in Australia we'll probably find most of the production moving coast-wards and generally production being more severely affected. That's when the real crunch will come because that's where we have the 14 billion people on the planet. So there's going to be a need for what we call sustainable intensification. This is a term coming out of the United Nations at the moment, the Food and Agriculture Organisation has coined the term sustainable intensification. So it's implying can we produce food more sustainably but inherently understanding we'll need to intensify the systems we currently have. So each hectare of land is producing more than it currently does but with less impact on the environment.
Quite a few challenges ahead of us it seems. Rich, thanks for being our guest today on Up Close.
Thanks, Dyani, appreciate it.
Rich Eckard is Associate Professor and Reader at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment here at the University of Melbourne. He's also Director of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre. Relevant links, a full transcript and more information on this episode can be found at our website at upclose.unimelb.edu.au. Up Close is a production of the University of Melbourne, Australia. This episode was recorded on 19 January 2012. Our producers for this episode were Kelvin Param and Eric van Bemmel, audio engineering by Gavin Nebauer. Up Close is created by Eric van Bemmel and Kelvin Param. I'm Dyani Lewis, until next time, goodbye.
You've been listening to Up Close we're also on Twitter and Facebook. For more information visit upclose.unimelb.edu.au. Copyright 2012 University of Melbourne.
show transcript | print transcript | download pdf
© The University of Melbourne, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
You may also like
Download mp3 (24.7 MB) Listen now Read transcript
Download mp3 (27.6 MB) Listen now Read transcript
Download mp3 (37.5 MB) Listen now Read transcript
Download mp3 (26.7 MB) Listen now Read transcript


text:
1578 Piedmont Avenue NE
Atlanta's very first shopping center, built in 1925, originally had eleven stores. A Masonic Lodge on the second floor later became a noted restaurant called Gene and Gabe's, one of President Jimmy Carter's favorite dining spots. The restaurant later became a theater where a play called "Della's Diner" was a 1980s cult classic. Smith's Olde Bar has been a neighborhood staple since 1993.


text:
According to a spokesman, "sporadic outbreaks of low-level disorder" occurred after the bands finished playing at Bramham Park near Wetherby.
The trouble, which included lighting fires, was mainly dealt with by the organisers' security staff.
But later a number of arrests were made by police, mostly for assault.
Around 57,000 people attended the three-day event which was being held at the private estate near Wetherby for the third time.
Until Sunday night, there had been no reports of any trouble.
Previous Leeds Festivals held at Temple Newsham in east Leeds were marred by toilets being set on fire at the end of the performances.
Artists appearing on Sunday included Kings of Leon, Razorlight and Babyshambles with proceedings brought to a close by the Foo Fighters.


text:
Investing in Hoarder Real Estate
The real estate market can be full of surprises, and not all of these surprises are the pleasant kind. Investing in real estate can be a challenging and rewarding process. Some properties may come with their own challenges, be it water damage, termites, noisy neighbors, popcorn ceilings, or whatever unwanted qualities may accompany the residence. A property may appear as a great deal, but some quirks may be found upon unlocking the front door. The condition of a home is a big selling point and some homes may be considered a lot of work, especially those residences that used to be owned by an individual with hoarding tendencies.
When coming across a hoarding household, do not run screaming. If the home has potential, the clutter and possible filth that may be encountered should not deter serious investors. Look at the property as a whole, and determine if it is worth the investment. These homes will honestly be a lot of work and money to restore, but try negotiating for a low buying price to cut the costs. The investment can turn out to be worthwhile in the end.
Keep in mind that it is not necessary to burn or bulldoze the house down in order to save it. Even extremely cluttered and filthy properties can be cleaned up with some effort and elbow grease. Don't want to get dirty? There's no need. Professional cleaning companies can aid in the cleanup efforts. Note that the job is too big for ordinary maid services, who specialize in frequent, smaller cleaning jobs. There are companies, such as Address Our Mess, that specialize in hoarding and clutter clean up. Address Our Mess offers services for hoarding, animal hoarding, clutter, and filth clean up. Even if the home is overflowing with items and/or biohazards, the qualified, trained staff are able to handle the job and restore the home to livable conditions. Not only do the services include discarding garbage and donating items in good condition, but the services also include deep-cleaning to help remove any filth present in the property.
After the property is cleaned and restored to a habitable space, the home can be made over and staged to help with the sales. A little (or even a lot) cleaning, paint, décor, and care can turn a once unattractive home into a beautiful temptation. Many may be intimidated by the tasks that accompany investing in a hoarding home, but those that consider the investment may be rewarded. Help is available to restore the residence and reward the hard work and determination.


text:
Events Calendar
Access Health Open Enrollment.
Monday 03 December 2018, 09:30am - 04:30pm
Hits : 21844
by Nella
Find us on Mondays - Fridays, 9:30AM-4:30PM at health centers and libraries across the state during Open Enrollment. We're here to answer your questions and help you enroll. OPEN ENROLLMENT ENDS ON THE 15th of DECEMBER 2018 We are happy to offer 20% off Lyft rides to all enrollment fairs and enrollment locations. Use LYFT CODE: NEWBRITAINOE for NEW BRITAIN Learn.AccessHealthCT.com/Locations. THIS EVENT IS FREE
Website: http://4155l2gg5ga3d1m572z1uo2qov-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AHCT-OE6-Slim-Jim.pdf
Location Trinity-on-Main 19 Chestnut Street New Britain, CT 06051