Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on January 31, 2012, 09:29:28 AM
-
Reality Check.......
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released
-
:)
-
:)
LMAO.
-
Thought I'd bump this for my retarded little friend Benny.
-
Only republican retards cheer high unemployment...
-
Thought I'd bump this for my retarded little friend Benny.
How 'bout your racist idiot friend 33.14?
-
How 'bout your racist idiot friend 33.14?
Stats speak for themselves. Obama is a lying sack of garbage who can't run on his record of debt, doubt, decline, and depression.
-
(http://www.bontheball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/communism-vs-capitalsim-korea.jpg)
-
Reality Check.......
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released
Seeing as how the previous president caused it, I really don't care
-
Seeing as how the previous president caused it, I really don't care
By that logic did Bill Clinton cause 9/11 by avoiding action at multiple instances when Bin Laden could have been taken out?
-
Seeing as how the previous president caused it, I really don't care
You don't care that Obama can't fix it?
-
Seeing as how the previous president caused it, I really don't care
Still in denial Vince? You think anyone with any financial commonsense knows that you don't create more debt to reduce or get out of existing debt? really Vince? A fucking 10 year old could figure that out.
-
did you hear what the CBO said about the effects of not extending the payroll tax cuts your repub buddies want to let expire?
you going to keep using CBO stats the next time a repub says the CBO is partisan?
-
did you hear what the CBO said about the effects of not extending the payroll tax cuts your repub buddies want to let expire?
you going to keep using CBO stats the next time a repub says the CBO is partisan?
Unless you know how to pay bills and balance a check book (with actual money in it).......
-
Still in denial Vince? You think anyone with any financial commonsense knows that you don't create more debt to reduce or get out of existing debt? really Vince? A fucking 10 year old could figure that out.
Nope....Bush and every elected official caused this recession by the fact of those subprime mortgages alongside going to war with 2 different countries at the same time.
Obama could have done better but considering the state of Congress, its surprising that anything got done. Until they start compromising instead of saying no to everything and blocking appointments, it will continue to be that way. You can say that the Democrats haven't done anything but neither has the GOP.
-
Nope....Bush and every elected official caused this recession by the fact of those subprime mortgages alongside going to war with 2 different countries at the same time.
Obama could have done better but considering the state of Congress, its surprising that anything got done. Until they start compromising instead of saying no to everything and blocking appointments, it will continue to be that way. You can say that the Democrats haven't done anything but neither has the GOP.
LOL...
-
Everybody think they know what's right for the country but nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weight
-
LOL...
Sorry Coach
Vince is right
-
Unless you know how to pay bills and balance a check book (with actual money in it).......
i can do both.. pretty simple stuff jack.. now.. my questions.. ?
-
Nope....Bush and every elected official caused this recession by the fact of those subprime mortgages alongside going to war with 2 different countries at the same time.
Obama could have done better but considering the state of Congress, its surprising that anything got done. Until they start compromising instead of saying no to everything and blocking appointments, it will continue to be that way. You can say that the Democrats haven't done anything but neither has the GOP.
This stuff started in the early 70s...progressive economics.
Whenever you bend the rules by utilizing more government control over the economy the people in power will find a way to profit from it. Like say requiring banks to loan to demographics that are unable to actually pay back normal mortgages.....or offer $2k limit credit cards to unemployed 18 years olds all through the 90s....or allow refinancing 2-3 times in the 2000s for cars and TVs and vacations......or now offer college loans and endless unemployment so people can go to school for 6-8 years and "find themselves" only to not want to work.
This has all come to a head now, and I honestly don't know of anyway to see it being fixed. Politics is just for plunder while things slowly fall apart.
-
This stuff started in the early 70s...progressive economics.
Whenever you bend the rules by utilizing more government control over the economy the people in power will find a way to profit from it. Like say requiring banks to loan to demographics that are unable to actually pay back normal mortgages.....or offer $2k limit credit cards to unemployed 18 years olds all through the 90s....or allow refinancing 2-3 times in the 2000s for cars and TVs and vacations......or now offer college loans and endless unemployment so people can go to school for 6-8 years and "find themselves" only to not want to work.
This has all come to a head now, and I honestly don't know of anyway to see it being fixed. Politics is just for plunder while things slowly fall apart.
some owning in this post, just sayin
-
'progressive economics' arent to blame. look at germany.
-
'progressive economics' arent to blame. look at germany.
Seriously, what subject are you not an expert on?
-
im extenting your moms asshole right now, its quite worth it haha
-
This stuff started in the early 70s...progressive economics.
Whenever you bend the rules by utilizing more government control over the economy the people in power will find a way to profit from it. Like say requiring banks to loan to demographics that are unable to actually pay back normal mortgages.....or offer $2k limit credit cards to unemployed 18 years olds all through the 90s....or allow refinancing 2-3 times in the 2000s for cars and TVs and vacations......or now offer college loans and endless unemployment so people can go to school for 6-8 years and "find themselves" only to not want to work.
This has all come to a head now, and I honestly don't know of anyway to see it being fixed. Politics is just for plunder while things slowly fall apart.
Even in the 70's we were not trying to blow everyone the fuck up or police the world. War is very expensive and our military budget is bigger than every other country combined together. Take that along with the constant export of jobs to other countries and its a disaster.
Bush's general idea for lowering the taxes was that the "Wealth would trickle down"...WELL HE HAD 8 FUCKING YEARS AND I SURE AS HELL DIDNT GET A FUCKING DROP BUT I GOT A PINK SLIP FROM ALLTEL AND WAS LAID OFF ALONG WITH 400 OTHER PEOPLE IN 2007 CAUSING ME TO DO WHATEVER I COULD DO TO PAY THE BILLS LIKE....UM...MAYBE STAND ON A TABLE WITH BILLY GUNS AT THE OLYMPIA FOR A COUPLE DOLLARS MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OF MYSELF!!!
Wealth never trickles down. Bush gave the wealthy a tax break and instead of them speading the wealth, they used it to ship more jobs overseas and pocketed the rest of it. That's why we are in this fucking mess. At least Obama is trying to put things back in order....not doing a great job but when you have a troop of assholes pulling political stunts, its no wonder
-
Anyone who believes a 10% real unemployment rate is as dumb as tbombz...
-
zero hedge is a good site
-
Anyone who believes a 10% real unemployment rate is as dumb as tbombz...
it's something like 50% for black males, lol
-
it's something like 50% for black males, lol
Well over 50% for black males under 25
-
it's something like 50% for black males, lol
It doesn't take into account the number of them that are still in high school or college....... ::)
-
It doesn't take into account the number of them that are still in high school or college....... ::)
LOL. Then maybe its 75%!
-
LOL. Then maybe its 75%!
Vince owned himself like usual... :o
-
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/AA-to-Cut-Up-to-15000-Jobs-138477399.html?dr
AA cutting 15k jobs as Obama's economy is rip roaring ahead and there are two crack pipes on every stove and car on blocks in every driveway.
HOPE AND FUCKING CHANGE!!!!!
-
Bad Economy Forces Welfare Agency Hiring Spree
The city’s Human Resources Administration has already hired 100 new employees and plans to hire another 100.
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2012 | Updated 9:39 AM EST
Getty Images
Economic woes have forced at least one city agency into a hiring spree -- adding more workers to process the demand for food stamps and other assistance.
The Human Resources Administration added more than 100 workers last July and plans to hire another 100 to serve the burgeoning number of New Yorkers applying for food stamps and rent assistance at their offices, according to the Daily News.
About 1.8 million New Yorkers are now on food stamps, which marks nearly a 65 percent increase from four years ago, according to city records. The increase in applicants has led to overcrowding at HRA offices throughout the city, and the agency said at a council hearing Tuesday that it had to hire scores of new workers and supervisors to manage the situation.
The HRA has also expanded its waiting rooms to accommodate the swell in applicants.
The city implemented a web-based food-stamp application program last year, but applicants still must be finger-printed at HRA centers before they can become eligible for benefits.
Advocates for the poor applauded HRA’s efforts to address overcrowding but, citing a survey that found long wait lines prevent nearly half of applicants from receiving welfare benefits, said more needs to be done.
“HRA faces an overcrowding emergency that is a result of a high level of need resulting from a lagging economy in the wake of the great recession,” said Liz Accles, an analyst for the advocacy group Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, according to the News.
The HRA’s deputy commissioner said alleviating overcrowding is a top priority.
The agency has recently lost $200 million in state funding due to budget cuts.
Find this article at:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Welfare-Human-Resources-Administration-Food-Stamp-Rent-Assistance-New-York-City-138471289.html?dr
-
'progressive economics' arent to blame. look at germany.
Germany is the best production-wise in a weak field in Europe, and they have some self control over their finances.
-
Even in the 70's we were not trying to blow everyone the fuck up or police the world. War is very expensive and our military budget is bigger than every other country combined together. Take that along with the constant export of jobs to other countries and its a disaster.
Bush's general idea for lowering the taxes was that the "Wealth would trickle down"...WELL HE HAD 8 FUCKING YEARS AND I SURE AS HELL DIDNT GET A FUCKING DROP BUT I GOT A PINK SLIP FROM ALLTEL AND WAS LAID OFF ALONG WITH 400 OTHER PEOPLE IN 2007 CAUSING ME TO DO WHATEVER I COULD DO TO PAY THE BILLS LIKE....UM...MAYBE STAND ON A TABLE WITH BILLY GUNS AT THE OLYMPIA FOR A COUPLE DOLLARS MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OF MYSELF!!!
Wealth never trickles down. Bush gave the wealthy a tax break and instead of them speading the wealth, they used it to ship more jobs overseas and pocketed the rest of it. That's why we are in this fucking mess. At least Obama is trying to put things back in order....not doing a great job but when you have a troop of assholes pulling political stunts, its no wonder
You missed the whole point of my post....this is not a problem brought about since 2000.....and Alltel is not a career so stop with the pie in the sky blaming. Bush did not fire you from Alltel for fuck's sake. While you were sitting around working easy as a glorified temp I got relatively rich. Not Getbig rich mind you but pretty happy.
-
Germany is the best production-wise in a weak field in Europe, and they have some self control over their finances.
One reason Germany does so well is a close-knit conglomeration of small to medium sized businesses that work hand in hand with one another. They provide a multitude of goods and services to big industries such as Daimler and BMW. If you need an electronic part, theres a business right around the corner that can truck that part right over rather than waiting to ship it in from China. The US doesn't have this.
-
One reason Germany does so well is a close-knit conglomeration of small to medium sized businesses that work hand in hand with one another. They provide a multitude of goods and services to big industries such as Daimler and BMW. If you need an electronic part, theres a business right around the corner that can truck that part right over rather than waiting to ship it in from China. The US doesn't have this.
They also dont have a ghetto thug subculture socialized into crime, stupidity, dependency, etc.
-
They also dont have a ghetto thug subculture socialized into crime, stupidity, dependency, etc.
In Germany this is the Turks. They hate the Turks there. They also don't allow everyone to go to college per se....if you don't place well on tests you go to tech school.
-
Even in the 70's we were not trying to blow everyone the fuck up or police the world. War is very expensive and our military budget is bigger than every other country combined together. Take that along with the constant export of jobs to other countries and its a disaster.
Bush's general idea for lowering the taxes was that the "Wealth would trickle down"...WELL HE HAD 8 FUCKING YEARS AND I SURE AS HELL DIDNT GET A FUCKING DROP BUT I GOT A PINK SLIP FROM ALLTEL AND WAS LAID OFF ALONG WITH 400 OTHER PEOPLE IN 2007 CAUSING ME TO DO WHATEVER I COULD DO TO PAY THE BILLS LIKE....UM...MAYBE STAND ON A TABLE WITH BILLY GUNS AT THE OLYMPIA FOR A COUPLE DOLLARS MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OF MYSELF!!!
Wealth never trickles down. Bush gave the wealthy a tax break and instead of them speading the wealth, they used it to ship more jobs overseas and pocketed the rest of it. That's why we are in this fucking mess. At least Obama is trying to put things back in order....not doing a great job but when you have a troop of assholes pulling political stunts, its no wonder
The worst part is you didn't give yourself a cool nickname like 'Billy Guns'
-
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bush%20vs%20obama%20policy%20impact.jpg?uuid=M4KmSkzjEeGk0SPB0M4ulg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html
Column: Doing the math on Obama’s deficits
Posted by Ezra Klein at 09:49 AM ET, 02/01/2012
The campaign trail can be a lonely place, so Mitt Romney frequently invites friends to accompany him. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is an occasional companion. So is Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. But more often, Romney brings a large clock.
Romney’s people made the clock themselves. It has two giant flat-screen televisions pushed side by side. It’s surrounded by a green foam sign. And it’s hooked to two computers feeding it a live count of America’s rising debt burden, which stands well above $15 trillion. The clock represents President Obama’s economic failures. It’s there so Romney can point to it and tell the crowd that if he’s elected, he’ll “do a better job slowing down that clock.” But if you’re a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn’t answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.
But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.
Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.
When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?
So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.
In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.
The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.
There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.
In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.
For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit. You can see the breakdown in the chart atop the post, or in a larger, more readable, chart here.
What is often assumed in this conversation is that all deficit spending is equal and all of it is bad. That’s not the case. Deficit spending when the economy is growing is different from deficit spending when the economy is in crisis.
Nor is all deficit reduction alike. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will expand the economy. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will shrink the economy. Which brings up some other questions Romney’s clock can’t answer: What number we should see on it now? And when, and how fast, should it start slowing down?
That will be the subject of next week’s column.
The campaign trail can be a lonely place, so Mitt Romney frequently invites friends to accompany him. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is an occasional companion. So is Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. But more often, Romney brings a large clock.
Romney’s people made the clock themselves. It has two giant flat-screen televisions pushed side by side. It’s surrounded by a green foam sign. And it’s hooked to two computers feeding it a live count of America’s rising debt burden, which stands well above $15 trillion. The clock represents President Obama’s economic failures. It’s there so Romney can point to it and tell the crowd that if he’s elected, he’ll “do a better job slowing down that clock.” But if you’re a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn’t answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.
But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.
Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.
When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?
So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.
In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.
The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.
There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.
In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.
For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit. You can see the breakdown in the chart atop the post, or in a larger, more readable, chart here.
What is often assumed in this conversation is that all deficit spending is equal and all of it is bad. That’s not the case. Deficit spending when the economy is growing is different from deficit spending when the economy is in crisis.
Nor is all deficit reduction alike. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will expand the economy. Sometimes, cutting the deficit will shrink the economy. Which brings up some other questions Romney’s clock can’t answer: What number we should see on it now? And when, and how fast, should it start slowing down?
That will be the subject of next week’s column.
==============================
Thoughts?
-
Yeah - EZRA Klein is totally full of shit and Obama's chief kneepadder at the WAPO.
Obama supported almost every single policy that he claims is the cause of the problem.
And he has ADDED ON TOP OF A BAD SITUATION!
He refused to support his own debt and deficit panel resulting in a debt downgrade, passed a 860 billion worthless stim bill, passed a health care bnill that is a tsunami on the economy, etc.
-
Yeah - EZRA Klein is totally full of shit and Obama's chief kneepadder at the WAPO.
Obama supported almost every single policy that he claims is the cause of the problem.
And he has ADDED ON TOP OF A BAD SITUATION!
He refused to support his own debt and deficit panel resulting in a debt downgrade, passed a 860 billion worthless stim bill, passed a health care bnill that is a tsunami on the economy, etc.
So you are saying that you do not agree with the chart at all.
I don't think you can talk about "supporting policies" that caused this issue, because if that's the case, then NO ONE in Washington would be able to say that the policies were bad ideas and should be modified.
Who in Washington DIDN'T "support" these policies when the economy was good?
Romney would have totally done the same Healthcare Bill, you and I both know this.
I don't think Obama is a genius... far from it, but you rail against him so emotionally and with very little rational thought most of the time.
If the Republicans cared about the shit they spew, they would not vote for Mitt or Newt, but pick Paul... They won't though... You know why? Because they are full of shit.
Neither Newt, nor Romney have anything better.
I was watching something last night and whoever it was asked a simple question about "Newt's Policies... What are they?"
There was nothing but crickets.
-
So you are saying that you do not agree with the chart at all.
No, i am saying its worthless because Obama was elected as "CHANGE" , not "GWB sucked, but i can do my own bullshit and then blame the last guy and say but he did it too" ! !
Please tell me your thoughs on this brief clip.
-
-
No, i am saying its worthless because Obama was elected as "CHANGE" , not "GWB sucked, but i can do my own bullshit and then blame the last guy and say but he did it too" ! !
Please tell me your thoughs on this brief clip.
I agree with you... I too bought into the Obama, "I'm gonna be different" stance... Which was obvously a crock.
What I'm saying is that none of the motherfucking front runners in the Republican party are any better on ANY fucking level.
They are worthless and the one person who IS different and has been different for his ENTIRE career is the one person they REFUSE to let win.
-
I agree with you... I too bought into the Obama, "I'm gonna be different" stance... Which was obvously a crock.
What I'm saying is that none of the motherfucking front runners in the Republican party are any better on ANY fucking level.
They are worthless and the one person who IS different and has been different for his ENTIRE career is the one person they REFUSE to let win.
I told you I am voting for A B O, whoever, even a death row inmate if need be, because of the 10% chance they will do the right thing as Obama is 100% chance of doing the wrong thing.
-
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/AA-to-Cut-Up-to-15000-Jobs-138477399.html?dr
AA cutting 15k jobs as Obama's economy is rip roaring ahead and there are two crack pipes on every stove and car on blocks in every driveway.
HOPE AND FUCKING CHANGE!!!!!
Keep up the good work 3333, some of us realize the truth and some just don't get it. Fuck Oslama fucking girl.