• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. jobs crisis may get bloody; Bloomberg, experts warn of riots

apdst said:
The curretn regime has passed far too many regulations.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of number. Never will be. It's a matter or necessary and reasonable or not.



If I didn't have to pay heavy road use taxes, fuel taxes, FET on tires and IRP registration, I would have more money in my pocket to re-invest in my business; pay for some health insurance for my employees; buy more equipment, thereby creating jobs.

When someone speaks of taxes, it's erroneous to assume that he is speaking strictly of income taxes.
Click to expand...

Studies show no matter how reasonable that sounds, it doesn't work that way. Give business more money, they pocket it. Only when and if they have reason to believe something will sell or make money will they invest, taxes be damned.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a matter of number. Never will be. It's a matter or necessary and reasonable or not.
Click to expand...

The drilling moratorium is purdy unreasonable, do you think?





Studies show no matter how reasonable that sounds, it doesn't work that way. Give business more money, they pocket it. Only when and if they have reason to believe something will sell or make money will they invest, taxes be damned.
Click to expand...

Oh, the madness!
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't. Explain why you think it is.
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno...because of all the jobs it killed and the damage that that is doing to the economy?







Not madness, but economics and reality.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. Economic reality is showing us that a regime that over-regulates private business is going to kill jobs.
 
apdst said:
Oh, I dunno...because of all the jobs it killed and the damage that that is doing to the economy?
Click to expand...


So, the reason for the regulation doesn't matter? Is that your position? Does it ever matter?





I was being sarcastic. Economic reality is showing us that a regime that over-regulates private business is going to kill jobs.
Click to expand...

No, you're making a leap, an unsupported leap. If putting lead in our peanut butter is dangerous, but cheaper, and provided jobs to the lead in peanut butter folks, a huge industry, should we not regulate the lead in peanut butter? While I purposeful provide an extreme example (though we did have a peanut butter problem), can you acknowledge that a regulation may be needed even if it costs jobs?
 
apdst said:
More costly regulations and more taxes take money out of the working man's pocket, everyday.
Click to expand...
regulations are a cost of business
if the business cannot make a sufficient gross profit to incur the expense of compliance with those regulations, then the business is not viable
but i will acknowledge there is the potential that there are regulations that are not needed, which would then elevate the cost of doing business above the level it should ordinarily be. but i am about to show you why this 'excessive regulation' refrain is actually a reich wing dog whistle. i am going to show you that you will be unable to identify for us any unnecessary regulation which imposes an unneeded burden on the cost of doing business. so, prove me wrong and show us this list of regulations which are not necessary and tell us why they should be found excessive
your failing to do so will prove my point ... that this dog won't hunt

apdst said:
More costly regulations and more taxes take money out of the working man's pocket, everyday.
Click to expand...
like regulatory compliance, the taxes paid by a business have nothing to do with what is paid to an employee. there is no nexus between profitability and established compensation
i will caveat that statement immediately above to say it is in correct in one instance: where the business (such as nucor) compensates its employees based on profitability. but because such instances of that form of compensation are so rare, your conclusion must be found bogus

what is actually true is that the government requires a specific amount of money annually. and whatever is not paid by the high end earners will ultimately have to be paid by the remaining taxpayers who are reaping much less from our capitalistic system

let me also note that business enjoys an array of tax deductions that the wage earner can only dream about. assets acquired in 2011 can be depreciated 100% in that same tax year. in comparison, the wage earner cannot write off the computer they bought, or the car they acquired, against income; (hell, they can't even deduct the real - and significant - depreciation of their homes.) this is but a single example to show that the tax system is heavily tilted in the favor of business ... such that the wage earner - denied such tax breaks - will have to pay more to cover the tax write offs given to businesses and their owners
but, like you, most wage earners are woefully ignorant of that imbalance
if they knew the reality of the tax system, they would become business owners/independent contractors

I think before the Left starts promoting the idea of the working class rioting, they must first think about is imposing the taxes and the regulations.
Click to expand...

i have modified this statement to turn it around on you:
I think before the Left [reich wing] starts promoting the idea of the working class rioting, they must first think about is imposing the taxes and the regulations.
Click to expand...


i look forward to seeing your extensive list of unneeded regulations
 
Boo Radley said:
So, the reason for the regulation doesn't matter? Is that your position? Does it ever matter?
Click to expand...

Of course it matters, but the reason for the regulation has to 1) be reasonable and 2) do more good than harm to the country. The drilling ban isn't either.







No, you're making a leap, an unsupported leap. If putting lead in our peanut butter is dangerous, but cheaper, and provided jobs to the lead in peanut butter folks, a huge industry, should we not regulate the lead in peanut butter? While I purposeful provide an extreme example (though we did have a peanut butter problem), can you acknowledge that a regulation may be needed even if it costs jobs?
Click to expand...

Is the peanut butter industry going to be shut down because of that regulation? It isn't, is it?
 
justabubba said:
regulations are a cost of business
if the business cannot make a sufficient gross profit to incur the expense of compliance with those regulations, then the business is not viable
but i will acknowledge there is the potential that there are regulations that are not needed, which would then elevate the cost of doing business above the level it should ordinarily be. but i am about to show you why this 'excessive regulation' refrain is actually a reich wing dog whistle. i am going to show you that you will be unable to identify for us any unnecessary regulation which imposes an unneeded burden on the cost of doing business. so, prove me wrong and show us this list of regulations which are not necessary and tell us why they should be found excessive
your failing to do so will prove my point ... that this dog won't hunt


like regulatory compliance, the taxes paid by a business have nothing to do with what is paid to an employee. there is no nexus between profitability and established compensation
i will caveat that statement immediately above to say it is in correct in one instance: where the business (such as nucor) compensates its employees based on profitability. but because such instances of that form of compensation are so rare, your conclusion must be found bogus

what is actually true is that the government requires a specific amount of money annually. and whatever is not paid by the high end earners will ultimately have to be paid by the remaining taxpayers who are reaping much less from our capitalistic system

let me also note that business enjoys an array of tax deductions that the wage earner can only dream about. assets acquired in 2011 can be depreciated 100% in that same tax year. in comparison, the wage earner cannot write off the computer they bought, or the car they acquired, against income; (hell, they can't even deduct the real - and significant - depreciation of their homes.) this is but a single example to show that the tax system is heavily tilted in the favor of business ... such that the wage earner - denied such tax breaks - will have to pay more to cover the tax write offs given to businesses and their owners
but, like you, most wage earners are woefully ignorant of that imbalance
if they knew the reality of the tax system, they would become business owners/independent contractors



i have modified this statement to turn it around on you:



i look forward to seeing your extensive list of unneeded regulations
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if a regulation kills jobs?
 
apdst said:
Of course it matters, but the reason for the regulation has to 1) be reasonable and 2) do more good than harm to the country. The drilling ban isn't either.
Click to expand...


Then that is what you have to show, that it is unreasonable, which I think you would fail at, and that it does more harm than good. How did that entire spill thing work out for business in the Gulf?




Is the peanut butter industry going to be shut down because of that regulation? It isn't, is it?
Click to expand...

This is completely nonresponsive. Answer the point.
 
apdst said:
Of course it matters, but the reason for the regulation has to 1) be reasonable and 2) do more good than harm to the country. The drilling ban isn't either.









Is the peanut butter industry going to be shut down because of that regulation? It isn't, is it?
Click to expand...

BTW:

But the report found no large increases in unemployment claims, thanks in part to a big hiring push for cleanup crews and massive spending by BP on the recovery effort.

Drilling Moratorium Hasn't Cost Any Jobs In The Gulf, Feds Say
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a matter of number. Never will be. It's a matter or necessary and reasonable or not.
Click to expand...

Do you reckon it's reasonable to prohibit children from selling lemonade or from businesses offering free coffee to customers?
Studies show no matter how reasonable that sounds, it doesn't work that way. Give business more money, they pocket it. Only when and if they have reason to believe something will sell or make money will they invest, taxes be damned.
Click to expand...

The government should not be giving businesses money, as you claim they are doing, because we can see what happened when they guaranteed mortgages.

Yes, people go into business in order to make money, and i suspect most people go to their jobs for the same reason. The idea of going into business to make money is not new. It is probably the oldest profession.
 
Greenspan worried more than 10 years ago that the rich poor gap was getting so wide that it threatened to destroy democratic capitalism entirely. What he meant was basically what Bloomberg is saying. When you see the actual numbers, it is so shockingly unreasonable that it is hard to understand why the poor and the middle class aren't rising up. Since Greenspan said that we've had the median income of the top 1% quadrupile while the median income for everybody else actually fell. We're reaching the point where we simply can't afford to support this kind of unprecedented and ongoing transfer of the nation's wealth to the rich.

Now, Greenspan is an economist not a sociologist. He starts from the assumption that people are rational and self interested. If you use that model, yeah, people would have revolted a long time ago. The costs of a revolution to the general public are less than the benefits of resetting the economic system. But, people aren't really wealth maximizing equations. They have a lot of inertia, they loath violence, they are mostly just interested in having enough more than having their fair share, etc. People are mostly unaware of how severely skewed the distribution of wealth has become. So there hasn't been a revolution.

But, the factors keep piling on. This recession that hit the middle class painfully, but has left the investors mostly unscathed is adding pressure. The GOP's attempt to put the entire weight of the deficit solely on the backs of the poor and middle class, were it to succeed, would add pressure. The continually widening rich/poor gap is continually adding pressure. At some point along that spectrum the people do decide it is time to revolt. Where that point is, or if we'll ever go that far, I have no idea, but the point exists. Is it when the top 1% are soaking up 50% of the wealth? 80%? Or is it just 34%, one percent past where we are now? Or is it just one Republican saying the wrong thing at the wrong time that will snap the tension? Or is it union busting? Or is it a second dip in the recession? Whatever it is, the rich would be wise to take heed. If they reel back their greed even a little bit they can probably avoid that outcome indefinitely, but if they keep going full force and eating up more and more of our country's wealth they'll eventually end up losing it all.

Now, that might not mean violence. Could just mean electing politicians that will sort it out. But either way, it would be a massive economic reordering.

My bet is that in the next few years we start to see an easing of this whole rush to squeeze all the money in the country into a handful of pockets. We move back towards something like the balance we had at least when Greenspan made that prediction, and there never is any revolution. But if instead we had 10 more "Bush" years where the median income falls while the top 1% sees their income quadrupile again, I have a hard time believing people wouldn't take action. At that point we'd be clearly on the path to a country with 1% of the people being absurdly rich and 99% of the people living in poverty with no hope of ever making it in to that 1%. This is a great country and I do not believe the people would let it collapse into that.
 
Grant said:
Do you reckon it's reasonable to prohibit children from selling lemonade or from businesses offering free coffee to customers?
Click to expand...

Is this the best example you have? Have you looked at the rationale for these minor things?

The government should not be giving businesses money, as you claim they are doing, because we can see what happened when they guaranteed mortgages.

Yes, people go into business in order to make money, and i suspect most people go to their jobs for the same reason. The idea of going into business to make money is not new. It is probably the oldest profession.
Click to expand...

However, they constantly give business money, business so in love with this country that they will take our money, cut jobs and move overseas. Business that despite this lack of loyality to the people of this country, taking our money, seeking to pay next to no taxes, and none if they can get away with it, moving overseas, these people still get the underserved support of conservatives who seem to think they have to pay the blackmail to these companies or there will be no jobs.

Both parties give them money. Both parties favor business over workers. And too many workers also favor business over their own well being.
 
apdst said:
No jobs lost according to...Obama? LOL!!!!!!!

We all know Obama wouldn't lie to cover his ass, too. :lamo
Click to expand...

Did they quote Obama? Please highlight that. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Is this the best example you have? Have you looked at the rationale for these minor things?
Click to expand...

I sent tou a link about the over regulation, but can you offer a rational as to why a child is banned from selling lemonade? Or a business offering free coffee?


However, they constantly give business money, business so in love with this country that they will take our money, cut jobs and move overseas.
Click to expand...

Why is the government, as they diid in the mortgage and automaker fiascoes, giving away money? Can you point to some examples of these giveaways? And the government, by the way, is showing no loyalty to American business.

Business that despite this lack of loyality to the people of this country, taking our money, seeking to pay next to no taxes, and none if they can get away with it, moving overseas, these people still get the underserved support of conservatives who seem to think they have to pay the blackmail to these companies or there will be no jobs.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that companies should be barred from leaving the country? Make them pay higher taxes? What is your solution?
Both parties give them money. Both parties favor business over workers. And too many workers also favor business over their own well being.
Click to expand...

There seemed to be a lot of support when when BHO got the American government involved in the automobile business, and there are still people who support this. Why complain about this now? People should have been marching through the streets at the time.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Did they quote Obama? Please highlight that. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure his black hands have creeped their way into the entire bureaucracy corrupting every man, and cooking every book in the entire government of the united states.
 
Grant said:
I sent tou a link about the over regulation, but can you offer a rational as to why a child is banned from selling lemonade? Or a business offering free coffee?
Click to expand...

No, you sent a link saying it was costly. And another that some THINK it is over regulation, but nothing objective to prove it is overdone.

Why is the government, as they diid in the mortgage and automaker fiascoes, giving away money? Can you point to some examples of these giveaways? And the government, by the way, is showing no loyalty to American business.
Click to expand...

Why do you think? They spend a lot more money on business than they do people on welfare. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with a reason.


Are you suggesting that companies should be barred from leaving the country? Make them pay higher taxes? What is your solution?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm suggesting you can't bibe them enough to keep them. In places where taxes have been eliminated altogether, they still left. You have to consider working for next to nothing, foregoing health care benefits, and becoming as cheap as where they are going. Appeasing them with mere taxes won't be enough.

But I sure as hell wouldn't give them any more money either.

There seemed to be a lot of support when when BHO got the American government involved in the automobile business, and there are still people who support this. Why complain about this now? People should have been marching through the streets at the time.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of support, from both parties. No me mind you, but there is support. The auto industry once took a money, in the millions I think, for a "jobs program." We gave the money, they fired folks, and made huge profits. Them folding would have been painful, and our leaders would have been blamed, wrongly so, but business won't do us any damned favors in return. And some, largely conservative, will make excuses for them while demonizing the individual who might need some help. It is all quite illogical.
 
AdamT said:
To the contrary, the decision was a naked abrogation of authority by the conservatives on the Supreme Court to steal a presidential election. Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas all reversed their previously-held positions on equal protection to reach the desired result, and notably held that their decision would have no precedential value. The court was also rife with conflicts of interest that would have required members of any other court to recuse themselves. It may have been the most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history.
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid that a Supreme Court judge on the facts of the case and using Florida state law, rather than judicial activism ignoring the facts of the case and the legislatures decisions of the state in question. I am not of the opinion that any of the justices ought to have recused themselves, but I won't debate that as it is purely a matter of your opinion vs. mine, based on nothing more than partisan leanings.
 
teamosil said:
Greenspan worried more than 10 years ago that the rich poor gap was getting so wide that it threatened to destroy democratic capitalism entirely. What he meant was basically what Bloomberg is saying. When you see the actual numbers, it is so shockingly unreasonable that it is hard to understand why the poor and the middle class aren't rising up. Since Greenspan said that we've had the median income of the top 1% quadrupile while the median income for everybody else actually fell. We're reaching the point where we simply can't afford to support this kind of unprecedented and ongoing transfer of the nation's wealth to the rich.

Now, Greenspan is an economist not a sociologist. He starts from the assumption that people are rational and self interested. If you use that model, yeah, people would have revolted a long time ago. The costs of a revolution to the general public are less than the benefits of resetting the economic system. But, people aren't really wealth maximizing equations. They have a lot of inertia, they loath violence, they are mostly just interested in having enough more than having their fair share, etc. People are mostly unaware of how severely skewed the distribution of wealth has become. So there hasn't been a revolution.

But, the factors keep piling on. This recession that hit the middle class painfully, but has left the investors mostly unscathed is adding pressure. The GOP's attempt to put the entire weight of the deficit solely on the backs of the poor and middle class, were it to succeed, would add pressure. The continually widening rich/poor gap is continually adding pressure. At some point along that spectrum the people do decide it is time to revolt. Where that point is, or if we'll ever go that far, I have no idea, but the point exists. Is it when the top 1% are soaking up 50% of the wealth? 80%? Or is it just 34%, one percent past where we are now? Or is it just one Republican saying the wrong thing at the wrong time that will snap the tension? Or is it union busting? Or is it a second dip in the recession? Whatever it is, the rich would be wise to take heed. If they reel back their greed even a little bit they can probably avoid that outcome indefinitely, but if they keep going full force and eating up more and more of our country's wealth they'll eventually end up losing it all.

Now, that might not mean violence. Could just mean electing politicians that will sort it out. But either way, it would be a massive economic reordering.

My bet is that in the next few years we start to see an easing of this whole rush to squeeze all the money in the country into a handful of pockets. We move back towards something like the balance we had at least when Greenspan made that prediction, and there never is any revolution. But if instead we had 10 more "Bush" years where the median income falls while the top 1% sees their income quadrupile again, I have a hard time believing people wouldn't take action. At that point we'd be clearly on the path to a country with 1% of the people being absurdly rich and 99% of the people living in poverty with no hope of ever making it in to that 1%. This is a great country and I do not believe the people would let it collapse into that.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think we will see an economic reordering after the Great Recession as we did after the Great Depression, and for mostly the same reasons.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you sent a link saying it was costly. And another that some THINK it is over regulation, but nothing objective to prove it is overdone.
Click to expand...

That it is costly and ineffective strongly suggests it is overdone. How can you defend those extra costs? It's easy to investigate the complaints, unless you're in serious denial.

Natural Gas Policy: Access, Not Over-Regulation and Subsidies

Keystone XL Pipeline, by the Numbers - Energy Tomorrow Blog


Why do you think? They spend a lot more money on business than they do people on welfare. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with a reason.
Click to expand...

Spending money on business? You mean as in the case of GM and Chrysler? I agree that it is completely wrong. There is no vehicle shortage in the US and no threat of there being one.
Nope. I'm suggesting you can't bibe them enough to keep them. In places where taxes have been eliminated altogether, they still left. You have to consider working for next to nothing, foregoing health care benefits, and becoming as cheap as where they are going. Appeasing them with mere taxes won't be enough.
Click to expand...

Certainly any company, and individual, will leave if their are better opportunities elsewhere. Many states and countries compete for companies in order to have more jobs for their citizens. There is nothing unusual about that. If the US government is not a good place to do business, and in the past it was among the best, then businesses will do what they are doing. Leave It is not difficult to figure out.
But I sure as hell wouldn't give them any more money either.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That runs contrary to the idea of free enterprise. As the US has been turning its back on the free enterprise system, national debts and unemployment have increased, and they'll continue to do so.
There is a lot of support, from both parties. No me mind you, but there is support. The auto industry once took a money, in the millions I think, for a "jobs program." We gave the money, they fired folks, and made huge profits. Them folding would have been painful, and our leaders would have been blamed, wrongly so, but business won't do us any damned favors in return. And some, largely conservative, will make excuses for them while demonizing the individual who might need some help. It is all quite illogical.
Click to expand...

It is not wise for the government to give money to businesses. The opportunity for corruption and incompetence and cronyism should be abundantly clear.
 
Grant said:
That it is costly and ineffective strongly suggests it is overdone. How can you defend those extra costs? It's easy to investigate the complaints, unless you're in serious denial.

Natural Gas Policy: Access, Not Over-Regulation and Subsidies

Keystone XL Pipeline, by the Numbers - Energy Tomorrow Blog
Click to expand...

You still don't understand what I need from you. Take this from your source:

Others are pushing for more regulation due to environmental concerns over a critical part of the gas-extraction process, hydraulic fracturing.
Click to expand...

Now, what is the concern, is it valid, and does it outweight what we get and any other option? This is what I'm asking you for and not some conservative foundation complaining.

Spending money on business? You mean as in the case of GM and Chrysler? I agree that it is completely wrong. There is no vehicle shortage in the US and no threat of there being one.
Click to expand...

They do provide jobs though, and since so many think government controls jobs in the US, the politiican can't afford to let that many be lost. Blow back would be rough. Also, business can donate a lot more money than you and I can, so there goes our tax dollars.

Certainly any company, and individual, will leave if their are better opportunities elsewhere. Many states and countries compete for companies in order to have more jobs for their citizens. There is nothing unusual about that. If the US government is not a good place to do business, and in the past it was among the best, then businesses will do what they are doing. Leave It is not difficult to figure out.
Click to expand...

Yep. Which means my father-in-law's generation was wrong to be loyal to a company that would never be loyal to him. This being the case, no since trying to appease them when there is simply not enough we can do. We are looking at having third world workers here, saying good ridance to business that won't pay our wages, provide health care, or contribute to the contry they use.

Of course not. That runs contrary to the idea of free enterprise. As the US has been turning its back on the free enterprise system, national debts and unemployment have increased, and they'll continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Great, we agree. Now talk to your conservative brotheren who constantly are willing to give them the farm all while kissing their feet and thanking them for the right to lick up that toe jam.

It is not wise for the government to give money to businesses. The opportunity for corruption and incompetence and cronyism should be abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

yes, as we've seen. And yet, it has been this way, our tax dollars going to business, for a long, long, long time. We spend far more on coporate welfare than regular welfare, by a large margin.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Now, what is the concern, is it valid, and does it outweight what we get and any other option? This is what I'm asking you for and not some conservative foundation complaining.
Click to expand...

What is happening is that roadblocks are being set up everywhere in order that this pipeline does not proceed, despite it being the highest technology in the world and 200,000 miles of it already in the ground. It is being over regulated to death. Someone tells you that there is a thereat and you will say further studies have to be made. Six months or a year later someone will make another claim, again unfounded, and further studies will be done.

Meanwhile the Chinese are moving in and the US inertia will leave them in the dark.

They do provide jobs though, and since so many think government controls jobs in the US, the politiican can't afford to let that many be lost. Blow back would be rough. Also, business can donate a lot more money than you and I can, so there goes our tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Where is the loss of jobs if GM or Chrysler goes under? Does that mean fewer cars will be made? Of course not! Cars will continue to be made and the same number of people will continue to work in order to supply these automobiles. Car companies have gione under many times before and workers just moved on to the more successful companies. It should not be the job of government to subsidize companies in order to help their competition. This is not only hurts the consumer, it also takes money out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

Yep. Which means my father-in-law's generation was wrong to be loyal to a company that would never be loyal to him.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Buut if your father-in-law was making buggy whips then both he and is employer could be out of luck. Your first loalty should always be to your family, though there is no reason why it can't exist elsewhere if it is reciprocated.
This being the case, no since trying to appease them when there is simply not enough we can do. We are looking at having third world workers here, saying good ridance to business that won't pay our wages, provide health care, or contribute to the country they use.
Click to expand...

You have allowed millions of third world workers to illegally enter your country and are supplying with with all the services they would never expect elsewhere. And there is no reason why companies should pay for your health care, rent, food or furniture. You should be adult enough to look after the possibility of illness or incapacitation and for over 200 years thats just what Americans did. Then business and government colluded to make health care horribly expensive and so you want to saddle business with this expense, making it almost impossible for them to compete in foreign markets for anything Made In America.

Great, we agree. Now talk to your conservative brotheren who constantly are willing to give them the farm all while kissing their feet and thanking them for the right to lick up that toe jam.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Leftists have never been strong on metaphors, as was made so clear in the lead in peanut butter example. .

yes, as we've seen. And yet, it has been this way, our tax dollars going to business, for a long, long, long time. We spend far more on coporate welfare than regular welfare, by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Yes. As you can see with this latest debacle where Obama gave $500 million to some political friends, as well as the deals with Chrysler and GM, this system is only to open for abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom