Everyone I talk to has gone over budget which makes me want to downscale my plans. However that seems to defeat the object…

I want to build a timber framed house approx 1700sq ft 4 bed 2 bath with brick and tile finish.

I already have the land…My partner and I can do a lot of the painting / tiling and labour work so we can save a bit of cash.

Is £100,000 maximum realistic for the North of England including all major works, kitchen and bathroom fittings?

Or do I shelve the project?

Ok so i like landscaping alot im currently a student at a university studying communications…i really have no interest in college at all but im sticking to it just so i cant get that degree and get a real job. i work every summer at a landscape contracting company my boss is probably about id say 45? ma bey and he’s made a great living always a big spender has a huge house on alot of property and has nice thing cars…hummer. i wanna start my own landscape business and see where it goes i was wondering if it is actully a lucrative business that makes real money. or is it a risky business that many dont susseed in? either way im going to do it and it its no good i always have a education under my belt that i can put to use any info in this feild would be great…also how much money would one need to start from the ground up? and whats the average salary of a landscaper. also how hard would it be to obtain a loan for this type of business for a 21 year old student alredy owing school $

Inside the packed bar, the guys and gals were gathering for the Big Game to start. Before the game, however, there was an hour for political talk time. Their eyes widened in amazement when they saw Barack, bounding through the doorway with his secret service detail.

The bar had a big pit, with a huge crackling fireplace, where the patrons have their regular give and take. Obama was ready for some of that.

He started: “I stand for change. They said we set our sights too high in Iowa. They said now is not the time. I proved the cynics wrong in corn country and I’ll prove them wrong in the granite state. To show you I mean it, no speech, go at me. Our time for change has come.”

Guy number one—“Ok, Barack, you’re going for the power in the Big House, the big companies already have the power, how ya gonna make us little people powerful?”

Obama—“Stay tuned. One leap at a time. We are one people. Get me there first.”

Gal number one—“You say, CHANGE, well how are you going to cut the bloated military budget full of vast waste, fraud and abuse, when you’ve specifically said you’ll ‘expand and modernize the military?’ Why, it’s already half or more of the government’s operating budget, squeezing programs for children, health and all that. I’m an accountant and I know numbers.”

Obama—“Exactly. Our time for change has come. I’m going to change the old weapons with new weapons and the old soldiers with the new soldiers. That’s real change—at the grass roots.”

Guy number two—“You don’t seem to have any rough edges, Barack.”

Obama—“It’s all about the mood, dude.”

The crowd was getting agitated and the questions came faster and faster.

“Why are you for nuclear power with taxpayer guarantees?”

“Will you oppose Congress getting pay raises, pensions and health insurance until the American people get the same?”

“Do you favor repealing the anti-union nightmare—the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?”

“How can you talk about change and take gobs of campaign money from the big corporate lawyers and bosses?”

Obama, smiling: “It’s ALL about the mood, dudes. All the rest are details you can look up on my website—obama_is_us.org. We are choosing hope over fear.”

Gal number two—“Ok, answer this one that probably isn’t on your website. When are you going to meet with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and campaign in the black ghettos—say Harlem or Watts?”

Obama—“Whoaa, give that tough lady a Poli-beer on me! We are one nation.”

Guy number three (with an Obama face mask)—“I’m the old Obama, remember me? I was for single-payer, full medicare for everyone. I was strongly for Palestinian rights and for replacing NAFTA and WTO, not for tweaking them. I was for taxing the super-rich and defending class actions. I was for capping credit-card and loan shark interest rates. What happened to me?”

Obama—“Well, didn’t I tell you that I stand for CHANGE?”

Gal number three—“You seem to be for everyone, but not everyone is for everyone. Some are against everyone. Tell me, are the big corporations, the greedy defense contractors, drug, oil and insurance companies, starting to quake in their boots at the thought that you are now the front-runner?”

Obama, lifting his chin—“Well, Ma’am, we haven’t ordered our seismometer yet.”

Oooohs and boos float around the pit. A few start drifting away.

Guy number four—“You’re one of those smart Haavard lawyers, Barack. You were a constitutional law teacher. You were against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, why aren’t you putting two and two together—impeachment of the war criminals in the White House followed by conviction in the Senate?”

Obama—“You don’t understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people.”

Gal number four—“Hello, Barack. I’m Hermaphrodite and I luv your blended politics of harmony.”

Obama—“Great! Then how about a quick dance around the bar before we have to leave,” he said, humming to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic—“We are choosing unity over division, we’re sending a powerful message, that change is a coming to America, it is all about the mood, dude…”

I live in a 1500 sq ft apartment in MA. We live on the first two floors of a 3 story building. Unfortunately, due to the unique location of our ductwork, the heater is located in the center of our building, cannot vent directly out the building, and we cannot have a high efficiency heater. Our HVAC contractor has recommended a Bryant Evolution® System The Plus 80v™ Gas Furnace:
http://www.bryant.com/products/furnaces/gas/evolution80.shtml

My first question is whether or not this is a decent system. My second question is what kinds of questions should I be asking of him or look out for in the contract. Thank you very much for your help. (Big rookie here).

Gas hot water tank replacement and installation by a professional plumber.

wood stove
oil burner
electric heat
gas heat
solar heat
kerosene heat

If this is to long skip it.
Immigration hawks have been on a winning streak lately. An unprecedented surge of public outrage at the prospect of amnesty for illegal immigrants led to the defeat in June of the Senate immigration bill and the probable end of President Bush’s dream for comprehensive immigration reform. And that was merely the latest in a series of victories for supporters of tighter controls, including the Real ID Act of 2005, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, proliferating enforcement efforts at the state and local levels and a new package of modest but meaningful enforcement measures announced last month by the Department of Homeland Security.

What of the results? Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told The Times that "there will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this." While the enforcement climate is still too new to show results in government data one way or the other, Chertoff’s prediction doesn’t appear to be playing out. On the contrary, there is extensive anecdotal evidence that enforcement is actually having its desired effects: More illegal aliens are going home, leading to improved conditions for American workers and communities.

The first consequence of stepped-up enforcement is attrition of the illegal population — a steady decrease in the total number of illegal aliens as more people give up and go home. Attrition is the real alternative to amnesty, and we’re seeing it work.

The Arizona Republic ran a story last month explaining how migrants were leaving the state in anticipation of tough new immigration rules. Public radio station WBUR in Boston reported that "in the midst of the debate about immigrants coming to America, something unusual is happening in Massachusetts: Brazilian immigrants are quietly packing up and leaving." And the Chicago Tribune, reporting on the Pennsylvania town at the forefront of the resistance to illegal immigration, has written that "over the summer, when Hazleton officials created the nation’s first ordinance aimed at driving away undocumented residents, thousands of people apparently packed up and left."

Far from having "unhappy consequences," these developments are improving the economic bargaining power of less-skilled American workers. The Rocky Mountain News reported that in Greeley, Colo., "the line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant . . . was out the door." New England Cable News reported that only after a raid on a plant making leather goods for the military in New Bedford, Mass., were Americans and legal immigrants able to get hired. As one new employee said of the raid: "In a way, you know, it’s sad, and then in a way it’s good because at least it gives people that were not employed for so many years . . . a break to be able to work and support their families."

When illegal aliens were removed from a Crider Poultry plant in Stillmore, Ga., the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Wall Street Journal documented the benefits to local workers. The plant raised wages significantly, began offering free shuttles from nearby towns and provided free rooms in a company-owned dormitory. For the first time, Crider sought applicants from the state unemployment office and began hiring probationers and men from a local homeless mission. And, as the Journal noted, "for the first time since significant numbers of Latinos began arriving in Stillmore in the late 1990s, the plant’s processing lines were made up predominantly of African Americans."

Better enforcement doesn’t result only in economic improvements. While there is an ongoing scholarly debate about the overall crime rates of immigrants versus the native-born, there’s no doubt that tougher enforcement has had a notable effect on gang activity. In an upcoming study, my Center for Immigration Studies reports that using immigration law against gangs has helped bring about a 39% drop in gang activity in the Washington suburb of Fairfax County, and Dallas police report a 20% drop in the murder rate as a result of the same initiative.

Of course, the consequence of uncontrolled immigration that most ordinary Americans see is what political scientist Peter Skerry calls "social disorder." Hazleton offers a good example: While cleaning graffiti from her building, a local locksmith told the Tribune that "about the same time the ordinance passed, the whole tone of the street changed. Virtually overnight, it was a totally different place."

As recent enforcement victories are sustained and expanded, we can begin to document the benefits in other areas: less stress on hospital emergency rooms, less-crowded classrooms, slower growth in government social spending. But the results we’ve seen so far are clear: We can get illegal aliens to return home, and doing so will improve conditions in American communities. Why didn’t we start doing this a long time ago?

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-krikorian24sep24,0,6872271.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Spin this one liberals.cnn.com

Bill and Hillary Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of million to million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clintons’ total wealth at between million and million.

The Clintons looked at the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons had the blind trust since former President Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1983 and had no control over its transactions.

Once they peered inside it, they discovered it included investments in oil and drug companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart, campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.

The report, filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Government Ethics, provides the most detailed look at the Clintons’ holdings as their wealth has expanded since the former president left the White House in 2001.

The new report also shows that the former president made million in speaking fees between January 2006 and Wednesday. So far this year, Bill Clinton has given 34 paid speeches for a total of .9 million. (Full story)

Trust included oil, drug companies
The blind trust held stock in pharmaceutical companies, including 0,000-0,000 in Biogen Idec and Johnson & Johnson and 0,000-0,000 in Amgen, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. It also invested in General Electric and Raytheon, two leading defense contractors. The trust had a varied portfolio, with investments in numerous other companies, including Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco, Walt Disney and eBay.

The report said all the proceeds of the sales are being placed in a cash account. The massive unloading of stock means the Clintons face large capital gains taxes.

Though all the blind trust transactions were handled over the years by a trustee without the Clintons’ knowledge, some of the holdings could have been awkward for Hillary Clinton as she pursues the Democratic presidential nomination.

The blind trust held stock worth 0,000-0,000 in NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, which many Democrats have denounced as biased against them. The trust also held stock in Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart de Mexico.

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation’s largest retailer. But she has recently called on the company to provide better worker benefits and last year her Senate campaign returned ,000 to Wal-Mart’s political action committee. At the time, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

Friday’s report comes on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure report, made public Thursday, which only covered activity in 2006 and did not reflect this year’s liquidation of the blind trust.

Clinton and other presidential candidates were required to file financial disclosure documents with the Office of Government Ethics by May 15. But Clinton and Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain asked for 45-day extensions because they all had blind trusts that the ethics office demanded be opened.

Campaign: Reporting goes ‘above and beyond’ requirements
"As a presidential candidate, Sen. Clinton was required to make her assets public," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trust. Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose to go above and beyond what was required of them and liquidate their assets in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest."

When it comes to family affluence, the reports show that the New York senator is the wealthiest of all members of Congress seeking the presidency. Among all presidential candidates, however, Republican Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, stands alone with assets of between 0 million and 0 million. Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat John Edwards have each reported assets of about million.

Last year and this year, Bill Clinton earned fees from 0,000 to 0,000 speaking to such corporations as IBM, General Motors, and Cisco Systems, finance giants such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, and trade groups such as the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association. He also has been paid to speak to nonprofit or charity groups, including the TJ Martell Foundation, which finances leukemia research, Nelson Mandela’s Children’s Fund and, last March, to the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles.
Thanks to all that answered the question. Here’s another point, yes it was a blind trust, and I own mutual funds also but I know exactley what kinds of companies I am invested with, with the kind of money the Clintos have and had invested in these funds, it would be foolish to think they didn’t know how, who and where there money was invested. Just food for thought