Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Obama's State of the Union


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 1, 2012
RE: Obama's State of the Union
Permalink  
 


You're thinking of worsted.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 728
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

I too looked at worster, I figured Prima was typing too fast.

Samurai.

I agree Independents care more about the economy than anything else, including social issues.

I just have to say as an Independent leaning right Mitt has won me. Take a true independent and this can be the make or break for Obama. People rarely like to change horses mid-stream. This works to Obama's advantage.

That being stated Obama has had bad news this week.

Housing down
Consumer confidence down
Gas prices up

If gas prices continue to rise, so will food prices which will result in less discretionary funds and can stall employment.

Obama in my opinion will win or lose because of the economy, if it remains at this same level this will be a toss up.

__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

I get itchy when I hear MR. It's getting worsted. biggrin

Now he whats to fix what's wrong for the Poor {class}. Help the Middle. And the wealthy can take of themselves. He wants to plug the holes in medicare, and go after fraud and abuse in the healthcare recipient and provider system. - That's going to solve the healthcare system?

That isn't going to be popular in the LDS'ers who are in the food supplement and medical device business. After all people can make their own decision on who gives them the best products and services. 

I gotta get the new wool underpants that aren't itchy. evileye



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 1st of February 2012 07:55:30 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

its a type of wool weave. evileye

at least you read the post.aww



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Worster? 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Prima, the economy was far worster than them politicians and bankers would admit to us poor constituents. It's gonna get worster too. Europe and the Asia gotta do their thingy before we tough out. evileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Except for the TPs and OWS, biggrin

The R's are the same R's of Bush II. Until they fess-up, I'm going to look'em very suspiciously. In fact, I'm goin to keep the sixshooter, ready, if them get elected and runup the deficit more and give money to their charities. bleh

I mean business. Be the fastest congressional session in history. Recall is a wonderful thing. evileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Most of my independent friends are less concerned with social issues and more concerned with spending issues in this election.  

It will be interesting to see which independents come out and vote.   



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 728
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

I consider myself an Independent that leans to the right. I traditionally vote R, because of no other reason than the economy or the military.

I am not concerned that abortions will be illegal, or that gay marriage will not move forward...these are my social issues.

I am concerned that we will keep spending and spending at the level we are now. It is the economy to me. Just yesterday we got the reports on housing and as much as they said back in 07 by 10 we will be out of it, and in 10 they said end of 12, now in 12 my bet will be end of 13 on a good day.

Each time the value of homes decrease we as homeowners face 1 of 2 things. Higher RE tax rates to make up the deficit or cutting jobs, such as teachers, police and fire. Either option will equate into less spending money for the citizens of that county, which in turns will impact the businesses within the county and state. Corporate tax rate is higher in counties than RE. If they close up shop and leave we now go back to the county increasing RE rates or cutting jobs. It is a negative cycle over and over again until we can stabilize the housing market. We can't stabilize it until we stabilize employment. We can't stabilize unemployment because 1 in 6 jobs are tied to housing.

It is the dog chasing their tail.

The one comment he made had me LMAO...that colleges stop increasing tuition. Seriously, all of us want that, but that was pure rhetoric at best and pandering at worst. Colleges, even state that receive state funds will have more lobbyists going against this than the NRA.




__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 64
Date: Jan 30, 2012
Permalink  
 

Here’s an excerpt from a New Republic article by Alec MacGillis:


I met Lavallee, 58, recently in Rochester, New Hampshire, where he lives. A registered Democrat who sometimes votes Republican in presidential races, he is exactly the kind of swing voter who will decide this November’s election. Moreover, given his recent workplace experience, he is exactly the kind of voter who should be receptive to attacks on Mitt Romney’s business history—namely, the layoffs he presided over at Bain Capital. So what, I wondered, did Lavallee think of Romney’s business record? When I asked, he just laughed. “I’d like to have his success,” he said. “I’m just not as ambitious as he is.” But what about the layoffs that followed many of Bain’s deals, even as Romney and his colleagues made big profits? “That’s just how business works. Would I like it if my business shut down? No. But that’s what businesses sometimes need to do.”

A few days later, I called Lavallee back and pressed further, but he held firm. “He’s a businessman, and, if I was a businessman, that’s what I’d do. I’d be in business to make money for me and my company,” he said. I was curious if he knew what Romney’s business involved. “Just from watching TV, it looks like his company would purchase other companies that were going bankrupt, reorganize them, get rid of what’s not needed, and keep the good part of the business,” he replied. But what about when the businesses failed and Bain made money anyway? “They did make an investment and had to recoup the money they could,” he said. If Romney didn’t snare profits like that for himself, Lavallee said sympathetically, he “wouldn’t be in business. He’d be working in a factory like me.”

Again and again on the campaign trail in recent weeks, I spoke to voters whose positive attitudes toward Romney’s wealth and business background surprised me—people who had every reason to resent his success but in fact were inclined to celebrate it. In Council Bluffs, Iowa, I met Dan Strietback, 32, a manager at a Panera café, who told me that, while he knew Bain had laid off plenty of workers, he saw the economic model it was part of as “the best method for the United States of America.” “Everyone’s going to fail now and then,” he said. “It’s when you pick yourself up and carry on.” But what about the sheer scale of Romney’s wealth? “I look at Romney as someone who got some help from his family but worked his butt off for it,” he told me. “It makes me want to work hard, too, and maybe get some money for myself, too.”


It seems that middle of the road Americans don’t resent successful capitalists who worked for their money as much as David Axelrod would like to think. In the interest of full disclosure, Mac Gillis does discuss how Kennedy was successful in trashing Romney on the issue of Bain in 1994, but, as we know, the issue didn’t prevent liberal Massachusetts from electing him governor a decade later. MacGillis also provides evidence to suggest that the tax fairness issue may gain traction. Romney will need to explain more explicitly the double taxation issue and the growth rationale for keeping capital gain rates lower than marginal rates, and he will probably need to address the carried tax issue in the context of comprehensive tax reform.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Jan 30, 2012
Permalink  
 

I live in a neighborhood made up mostly of Republicans and Independents. Many of the Independents I know are not voting only on the economy.  They are worried about a Republican putting another Supreme Court Justice on the bench just as much as I am. They are also worried about the extreme views of the current Republicans regarding birth control and the support of a constitutional amendment defining life beginning at conception. These things are not just important to Dems.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Jan 30, 2012
Permalink  
 

Independents for the most part will vote based on how the economy is doing - and it is currently improving.  They're not going to vote for a guy who is so out of touch with regular people that he thinks that $374000 in 1 year  is chump change or a blowhard who calls his opponents in his own party - "maniacal liars" or that Reagan going to talks with Gorbachev was the same thing as Chamberlain appeasing Nazi Germany.



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 64
Date: Jan 29, 2012
Permalink  
 

Most independents decided over a year ago that Obama is not up to the job and are ready to fire him. In 2008, they were willing to overlook his lack of leadership experience because he successfully presented himself as an inspirational figure at a time of crisis and heavy disdain for those in power. But few on the left, right, or center are feeling inspired now, and after that is gone, there is not much left. His SOTU was fairly pathetic. He avoided the major issue of the day, long-term entitlement spending. He ran away from his biggest “accomplishments,” which were achieved largely through the leadership he had outsourced to Nancy Pelosi and company but are extremely unpopular, and offered little more than campaign rhetoric designed to inoculate himself against anticipated Republican attacks and to present his anticipated opponent as a rich guy to be resented. (I think Romney is off the mark when he says that Democrats are appealing to the politics of envy. They are appealing to the politics of resentment.) The tired cliché is true. Since Obama cannot win on his record, his only chance is to deflect from it and make the other guy the issue.

Populist resentment is stirring for some, but it has never been a winner in American politics. If Al Gore had stuck with the Clinton-Gore pro-growth optimism theme rather than run away from it (which he did for his own psychological issues) to adopt instead more populist us-versus-them rhetoric, vote counting in Florida would have been unnecessary and he would have been president. (The irony, in retrospect, is that a case could have been made to take on the crony capitalism of the Rubin-Summers-Geithner-Jim Johnson crowd during Clinton-Gore years that sowed the seeds for the housing and credit meltdown a decade later, but, however courageous and foresightful, that would have been a suicide bomb for his campaign). The “two Americas” strategy didn’t work for John Edwards, either, thank God.

Back to making the other guy the issue. Gingrich, of course, would give Obama such a target rich environment with the independents that he wouldn’t need to resort to class warfare. With Romney, Obama’s only avenue of attack is to present him as a white bread capitalist rich guy whom somehow, as much as you don’t want me, you will want less. But most of the things that have been liabilities for Romney in the Republican primaries will be assets for him with the independents in the general. Too moderate a Republican? By golly, that’s exactly what the independents want, especially after having felt burned going the other way in the last election. Romney’s negatives with the independents are now at their high watermark, not only for having been savaged for being a rich capitalist by members of his own party, but for, until now, having responded weakly to those attacks. His standing with independents will recover sufficiently.

In the long run, the tax stuff won’t hurt Romney. If Obama wants to make the case that capital gain tax rates should be increased to 30%, let him make it. I don’t think too many members of his party will go along with that. Romney is already giving signals that he may be willing to reconsider the carried interest rate in the context of more comprehensive tax reform (carried interest was only a third of his income in 2010 and a quarter of his income in 2011). Once he secures the nomination, he would be wise to go further with that, and he really needs to get ahead on the issue of comprehensive tax reform overall and demonstrate more clearly his willingness to take on long-term entitlement spending.

It’s still Romney’s to lose.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

Newt says that MR taxes should be "0" because taxes were paid by the entity company. 

Newt is trying to make a wedge issue in saying that MR is out of touch in not providing tax records. -Newt is correct.

My issues are generational wealth and wealth that is beyond the needs of everyday living. How much generational $$$ can be passed forward, and for how long? Does that wealth create a feudal-permanent-class? Does that wealth create slothiness? Does that wealth get recycled or is spendthrifted?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

Debt:

Merger and Acquistion-such as Bain. 

Bain had low cost capital-Bain looked for companies that needed capital else company would fold-Bain lent company money for equity rights-company now had even more debt and at higher costs than before. Should Bain be the reason a company take on more debt inorder to survive?evileye

So how is your student loan debt coming along?



-- Edited by longprime on Friday 27th of January 2012 09:52:42 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1223
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

Why Mitt Romney's tax rate, as it is the capital gains rate, is an issue and a supposed surprise to some is beyond me. Why would this be a revelation?

Even my dog knows better than that. The dumb one. That would be the one on the left in my picture.

Listening to Gingrich complain about it, and act like it's a big discovery is quite sickening. One would think he would know better than that. You expect it from the Democrats, who are apparently clueless and jumping on the bash the rich bandwagon as fast as they can, but you don't expect something so silly from him.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 572
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

Revenue: $2.2 trillion
Spending: $3.6 trillion

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

You're right razorsharp - you're right - as usual.  I know so many senior citizens with investment income that they don't want taxed.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Jan 27, 2012
Permalink  
 

Tom1944 wrote:

the system is now rigged and a class of rich people purchased themselves a low tax rate.


 I am not rich but I pay the same 15% tax rate on my investment income as does Romney.  The system was not "rigged" by the rich, it was "rigged" by senior citizens who want to pay no taxes on their investment income.  Romney earned his money like everyone else, paid taxes on it, and is now living off of his investments like every other senior out there.  

I want as a President a guy who is so smart he can make a fortune and afford to give millions of dollars to charity.  That's the American dream.  



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Date: Jan 26, 2012
Permalink  
 

Are the American people really this dumb?..Obama comparing someone's effective rate to someone's marginal rate....talk about being dishonest. Yeah...I'm in the 25% bracket, but pay less than 15% in taxes.

I can't believe people fall for this crap.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1223
Date: Jan 26, 2012
Permalink  
 

"Razor, that's a load of hyperbolic bull****e, and I'm sure you know it. If you're okay with Mitt, and others like him, paying an effective rate of 13.9 percent on their millions in investment income (money that did nothing more than leverage itself to make more money to the enrichment of a single individual---not to create jobs, or any sort of tangible product), while middle class working/not lazy people pay almost double that, you need to comes to grips with the fact that the majority of those people aren't okay with it. And that fact will be reflected on election day."

Really now? The middle class/working/not lazy people pay almost double that. Really? And who exactly pays almost double that as an effective rate? Who? What income level? I'd take a guess it would be people who earn over about 500K, paid as salary. Maybe you define that as middle class.

Invested money is money that you can LOSE. It isn't exactly doing nothing but leveraging itself. It helps companies expand and is a risk, certainly people have lost alot of money over the last couple of years. Now I do think investments should be taxed exactly the same as earned income, but I surely don't blame the people that invest their money and get the tax rate. I just wish I could do the same.






__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Jan 26, 2012
Permalink  
 

All this talk about income and taxes is just a distraction. It is soo beside the point, in the classic "arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" sort of way.

The real problem is over-spending. And the real over-spending is on entitlements. THAT is where the problem is. Pathological altruism is killing us.



-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 26th of January 2012 08:47:38 PM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 26, 2012
Permalink  
 

MR effective and marginal rates are practically the same. 

Wage slaves are tied to the income. So I image that for most of us, the next dollar earned  is marginally taxed at 25% federal, ~10% payroll taxes =~35%, 

                                   *******                            *******

MR pays on the next dollar or the next million dollars 15% federal. He is exempt from payroll taxes since he has no earned income. 

Now suppose MR only has income of carried interest of $75,000. His net would be $63,750 and paying taxes of $11,250. aww

Now suppose DS has an earned income of $75,000 (which is close). His net would be $56,250 and paying fed tax of $18,250.

If only MR banks the difference of taxes , $7000, at 0%, in 10 years he would have accumulated $70,000. As for DS, after 10 years of savings, he would have close to $0.00 . disbelief

                                  *********************************

MR has an income of many millions $$$$. He pays a lot in taxes. But what does he do with the rest of the money besides his tithing? Does he set his grandkids up for life with trust funds, and 529's? Does he hire more gardeners and maid help? Does he buy American made products and replace them yearly?  Does he make jobs? or is MR a spendthrift?evileye



-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 26th of January 2012 03:52:43 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 26th of January 2012 03:57:19 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 26th of January 2012 03:58:03 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date: Jan 26, 2012
Permalink  
 

razor _ I read that most of Mitt's income was from carried interest. When he initially made his fortune under Reagan this was taxed at 28-34% or whatever the rate was. Carried interest is now given favorable tax treatment and is taxed at 15%. So the reality is that the higher tax rate was not detrimental to economic gain but the system is now rigged and a class of rich people purchased themselves a low tax rate.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

Poetsheart wrote:

If you're okay with Mitt, and others like him, paying an effective rate of 13.9 percent on their millions in investment income (money that did nothing more than leverage itself to make more money to the enrichment of a single individual---not to create jobs, or any sort of tangible product), while middle class working/not lazy people pay almost double that, you need to comes to grips with the fact that the majority of those people aren't okay with it. And that fact will be reflected on election day.


 You are missing a very important step.  Mitt earned money and paid ordinary income taxes on his earning.  He took those earnings and invested them and now pays 15% on interest income just like everyone else.  If the middle class earns money and then invests it, middle class people will also pay 15% on their investment income.  Mitt is rich because he worked hard and now can live off of his investments.  That's the American dream and it was earned by Mitt through his hard work.  Saying Mitt has to pay more in taxes is ridiculous because it ignores the first step, namely that he has already paid income taxes when he first earned the principle.  It is a sham that lower income people are so jealous of successful people.  I want a President who is smart enought to earn a lot of money and then live off of his investments and that is no bull ****.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

we also need concern ourselves the few millions of taxpayers but a few thousand (.1%) of USA who own the wealth of the Nation.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

geeps20 wrote:

increasing the capital gains tax on a few millionaires is a drop in the bucket...it just makes the jealous types feel better.


 

it IS about the cap gains rate. there is considerable discussion. whether to do 401k, Roth/trad IRAs, whole life insurane and annuities vs a trading account with protections. see your tax accountant

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

Since much of the money that Mitt has invested was earned as a commission on what his client's money earned, he only paid 15% on that too - through the carried interest loophole. He had $7m in carried interest income in 2010, long after he left Bain.



-- Edited by Cartera on Wednesday 25th of January 2012 04:32:08 PM



-- Edited by Cartera on Wednesday 25th of January 2012 04:33:54 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

increasing the capital gains tax on a few millionaires is a drop in the bucket...it just makes the jealous types feel better.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

Poetsheart wrote:

while middle class working/not lazy people pay almost double that, you need to comes to grips with the fact that the majority of those people aren't okay with it. And that fact will be reflected on election day.


 Actually we pay 3x that amount. Mitt doesn't pay payroll taxes consisting of (7% employee, 7% employer, 1-2% unemployement, 1% workmans comp) on every dollar and if added to 25% marginal tax bracket, were are looking at 42%. And since we wage slaves have mandatory group health, with spouse for 6-10%; Which puts the wage slave close to 50%. evileye

Your calculations will vary.

We can go into closer examination into health insurance benefits that past governors and past MOC have entitled themselves. doh



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

He's boxing them in. He has carefully built walls that surround the R's and they know it.  Their options are becoming limited. 

Even if the R's win the Presidential election, Just what does anyone think the R President will do except to spend money, lower interest rates, reduce taxes, give preferential incentives... just like what W did. evileye



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

Razor, that's a load of hyperbolic bull****e, and I'm sure you know it. If you're okay with Mitt, and others like him, paying an effective rate of 13.9 percent on their millions in investment income (money that did nothing more than leverage itself to make more money to the enrichment of a single individual---not to create jobs, or any sort of tangible product), while middle class working/not lazy people pay almost double that, you need to comes to grips with the fact that the majority of those people aren't okay with it. And that fact will be reflected on election day.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

He favors reducing income inequality. That is code for stealing from those who work hard and are successful and giving their money to those who are lazy but vote for Obama.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Date: Jan 25, 2012
Permalink  
 

still laughing that Obama had the audacity to state he wants a smaller government

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Jan 23, 2012
Permalink  
 

http://news.yahoo.com/mixed-record-obamas-state-union-goals-084843573.html

Mixed record for Obama's State of the Union goals

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his annual address to Congress, many goals he outlined in previous State of the Union speeches remain unfulfilled. From reforming immigration laws to meeting monthly with congressional leaders of both parties, the promises fell victim to congressional opposition or faded in face of other priorities as the unruly realities of governing set in.

For Obama, like presidents before him, the State of the Union is an opportunity like no other to state his case on a grand stage, before both houses of Congress and a prime-time television audience. But as with other presidents, the aspirations he's laid out have often turned out to be ephemeral, unable to secure the needed congressional consent or requiring follow-through that's not been forthcoming.

As Obama's first term marches to an end amid bitterly divided government and an intense campaign by Republicans to take his job, it's going to be even harder for him to get things done this year. So Tuesday night's speech may focus as much on making an overarching case for his presidency — and for a second term — as on the kind of laundry list of initiatives that sometimes characterize State of the Union appeals.

"State of the Union addresses are kind of like the foam rubber rocks they used on Star Trek — they look solid but aren't," said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. "Presidents will talk about solving some policy problem, and then the bold language of the State of the Union address disappears into the messy reality of governing."

For Obama, last year's State of the Union offers a case study in that dynamic. Speaking to a newly divided government not long after the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., Obama pleaded for national unity, a grand goal that never came to pass as Washington quickly dissolved into one partisan dispute after another.

Many of the particulars Obama rolled out that night proved just as hard to pull off.

Among the initiatives Obama promoted then that have yet to come to fruition a year later: eliminating subsidies to oil companies; replacing No Child Left Behind with a better education law; making a tuition tax credit permanent; rewriting immigration laws; and reforming the tax system.

The list of what he succeeded in accomplishing is considerably shorter, including: securing congressional approval of a South Korea free trade deal; signing legislation to undo a burdensome tax reporting requirement in his health care law; and establishing a website to show taxpayers where their tax dollars go.

One of Obama's pledges from last January's speech — to undertake a reorganization of the federal government — he got around to rolling out only this month. And other promises are vaguer or more long term, such as declaring a "Sputnik moment" for today's generation and calling for renewed commitments to research and development and clean energy technology; pushing to prepare more educators to teach science, technology and math; promoting high-speed rail and accessible broadband; and seeking greater investments in infrastructure.

"Clearly as time goes on and a presidency matures you get less and less of it and the State of the Union becomes an aspiration for what you want to do as opposed to a road map for what you can accomplish," said Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer. As voters' enthusiasm fades and opposition deepens, Zelizer said, "You lose some of your power and you get closer to the next election and no one wants to work with you."

Last year's address already contained more modest goals than the speech Obama gave to a joint session of Congress a month after his inauguration, which although not technically a State of the Union report had the feel of one. At the time Obama called for overhauling health care and ending the war in Iraq — promises he kept — but also for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and imposing caps on carbon pollution — promises unmet.

Some of his goals, such as immigration and education reform, have resurfaced in multiple addresses, but still without being accomplished.

And rarely has Obama's rhetoric as president reached as high as the lofty promises of his campaign, when he pledged to change the very way Washington does business and remake politics itself. It's a far cry from those promises of change to the ambition of meeting monthly with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders — but even that relatively modest goal, from Obama's 2010 State of the Union, went unfulfilled.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard