• 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!

GDP increases 4.1 percent Q2 2018

jaeger19 said:
no.. there is not plenty of evidence. In fact I linked to that very fact.. that there is little evidence to show that tax cuts pay for themselves. Its not about whether I "agree" or disagree"
.. its really about facts and logic and the science of statistics.

Your evidence is "wrong".. because you evidence assumes that correlation means causation...
In other words.. because there is an increase in the economy.. it MUST be because of the tax cuts...

When in reality it can be all sorts of other things.

Let me explain the power and the weakness of correlation.

Okay.. your evidence exhibits the weakness of correlation.

Lets say you eat a Chinese dinner.. and get into a car accident right afterward.

that's a positive correlation.. Chinese dinner... then car accident.

that means its possible that Chinese dinners cause car accidents. But.. statistically we cannot assume this is true because there could be intervening variables \

Lets say that we ate a Chinese dinner 100 times and got into a car accident 98 times right after the Chinese dinner... that would be a very strong positive correlation.. and yep it could be that Chinese dinners cause car accidents.

But again, you cannot assume that.. .because the reason you see a correlation between Chinese dinners and car accidents.. is actually because where you go to eat your Chinese dinner is a one way street and you keep going the wrong way on it.

That's the weakness of correlation as a statistic when you see a positive correlation.


Now.. here is the power of correlation as a statistic... when you see NO correlation.

So.. Lets say that you have a Chinese dinner and you get into a car accident. a positive correlation... so you study it.. and you eat 99 more Chinese dinners.. do everything exactly the same.. and you don't end up with another car accident. In other words.. when its studied enough. there no statistical correlation.

this means that you can be reasonably assured that eating a Chinese dinner has no effect on getting into an accident.

that's the power of correlation.


So.. lets look at your evidence. You have a quarter or so where there is increased growth in the economy... and the passing of the tax cuts. So.. yes.. in a snapshot there is a correlation between passing the tax cuts and growth. BUT just like the Chinese dinner.. its based on a small sample. Which means that its validity is very weak.

NOW. when you study the effect of tax cuts historically,,, and there has been plenty of history of the US cutting taxes... the evidence shows that cutting taxes.. does not correlate with those taxes paying for themselves.

(Just like when you study more instances of eating Chinese dinners.. there is no correlation).

So.. that's why my evidence is valid... while yours is not.

Its not because of my feelings.. its because of the science of statistics.
Click to expand...

Ok you win by shear amount of words.
 
MTAtech said:
In other words -- Thanks Obama; Trump, not so much!
Click to expand...

Using your logic, we should thank Trump, since he is in office. I dont tend to credit Presidents with everything that happens, but youre entitled to your opinion. I certainly cant point to any Obama specific policies that would be responsible for improving economic conditions.
 
jonny5 said:
Using your logic, we should thank Trump, since he is in office. I dont tend to credit Presidents with everything that happens, but youre entitled to your opinion. I certainly cant point to any Obama specific policies that would be responsible for improving economic conditions.
Click to expand...
My point, which should be obvious, is that Trump is merely enjoying the economy that Obama left him. Unemployment had been shrinking for years and growth had been stable for years too. Trump had no serious economic policies until December 2017, when the tax-cuts were passed. However, Trump does have the opportunity to screw up the economy with those same tax-cuts and his trade war.
 
MTAtech said:
My point, which should be obvious, is that Trump is merely enjoying the economy that Obama left him. Unemployment had been shrinking for years and growth had been stable for years too. Trump had no serious economic policies until December 2017, when the tax-cuts were passed. However, Trump does have the opportunity to screw up the economy with those same tax-cuts and his trade war.
Click to expand...

Obama didnt leave him a great economy. Slow growth, high debt, abusive trade agreements, high taxed and overregulated. Not all Obamas fault, but he certainly didnt improve it. And neither did congress. Theyre all too busy fighting for power to fix the govt issues which burden the economy. Trump has certainly taken immediate and positive action by approving the tax cuts, reducing regulation, and trying to fix the trade problems. Sadly he nor congress has tried to deal with the major problems of social spending or debt, but are possibly making them worse with runaway spending.
 
jonny5 said:
Using your logic, we should thank Trump, since he is in office. I dont tend to credit Presidents with everything that happens, but youre entitled to your opinion. I certainly cant point to any Obama specific policies that would be responsible for improving economic conditions.
Click to expand...

Here is his record, for all 8 years. He inherited the second worst economic downturn in US history, and brought us out. Decreased the unemployment rate to under 5% after the great republican recession of 2008 raised it to just over 10%. So, yup, his policies improved economic conditions a great deal. Sorry you missed it.
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/986795-president-obamas-final-numbers-released/

You probably do not want to know what Obama did. But if you want to get some idea, click the link.
 
jonny5 said:
Obama didnt leave him a great economy. Slow growth, high debt, abusive trade agreements, high taxed and overregulated. Not all Obamas fault, but he certainly didnt improve it. And neither did congress. Theyre all too busy fighting for power to fix the govt issues which burden the economy. Trump has certainly taken immediate and positive action by approving the tax cuts, reducing regulation, and trying to fix the trade problems. Sadly he nor congress has tried to deal with the major problems of social spending or debt, but are possibly making them worse with runaway spending.
Click to expand...

Wow. The above is hacker at its best. Obama didn't improve the economy? When Obama was elected, 800,000 jobs a month were being lost and the auto industry was on the brink of bankruptcy. GDP was negative. Annual growth under Trump is unchanged from Obama. 2017 is the same as 2012 and lower than 2014 and 2015.

A top marginal rate of 39% is by no means "high taxed" by historical standards and I need to know what specific regulations make our economy "over-regulated."

fredgraph.png
 
jonny5 said:
Obama didnt leave him a great economy. Slow growth, high debt, abusive trade agreements, high taxed and overregulated. Not all Obamas fault, but he certainly didnt improve it. And neither did congress. Theyre all too busy fighting for power to fix the govt issues which burden the economy. Trump has certainly taken immediate and positive action by approving the tax cuts, reducing regulation, and trying to fix the trade problems. Sadly he nor congress has tried to deal with the major problems of social spending or debt, but are possibly making them worse with runaway spending.
Click to expand...

Let me give you some economic history clarification:
Slow growth Always and forever, if you have a recession with high unemployment, economic growth will be slow. The great Rcpublican Recession of 2008 left Obama with a beginning start with 10% unemployment and failing financial institutions. high debt Debt ALWAYS increases fast with high unemployment. Obama inherited the third highest unemployment rate of all time. Most of the increase was caused by lack of receipts since unemployed do not pay taxes. And programs to put people to work cost abusive trade agreements, high taxed Obama raise a few taxes for the more wealthy, but he cut taxes for the middle class. In general, taxes under Obama were among the lowest since the 1950's and overregulated Regulation had nothing to do with economic conditions per all impartial economists. That is simply a conservative talking point that is not relative to economic success.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
We went into recession in DECEMBER 2007 not when Obama came into office and in fact came out of recession in June, Let Wall Street Journal explain what Obama did

[
Click to expand...

Okay.. again.. he inherited a recession that was a deep one and was due to collapse of the housing market and banking system.

It was a deep FOREIGN RECESSION because foreign governments rely too much on Govt. spending
Click to expand...

hmmm.. foreign governments rely too much on government spending. Hmmm.. when did our government run a surplus again?

what the hell are you talking about. Reagan and Bush motivated the private sector, Obama bailed out the public sector. you don't seem to grasp the difference
Click to expand...

Ummm.. no.. Obama bailed out the PRIVATE sector.. you seem to be confused. Bailed out the banks and bailed out the auto industry. Those aren;t public entities. You need to get your facts straight before we move on.

You have done no such analysis and refuse to answer direct questions. What a waste of time
Click to expand...

.. I linked to an article that summarized all those economists that have done such analysis. The only really waste of time is when you pull basically raw revenue data and make flawed and invalid assumptions based on that data.. for example assuming growth can only be due to tax cuts (which I have explained to you).



Don't have to as data does it for me
Click to expand...

Only by making the flawed assumption that the economy cannot improve int he absence of a tax cut.

And only by making the flawed assumption that the economy cannot decline EVER after a tax cut.

No they weren't rebates aren't tax cuts, and the other tax cuts had strings attached. You buy what you are told and that makes you look foolish
Click to expand...

..Please tell me the string that was attached when Obama cut the payroll tax by 2%? the only one here that looks foolish here is you. Heck.. you don't even know what you are talking about. But okay.. tell me what strings were attached with the payroll tax cut. Please tell me what millions of employees that got an immediate bump in their paychecks " were told to buy". I want to know.

Bush tax cuts fully implemented July 2003 so once again you are wrong. Rebates ARENT tax cuts
Click to expand...

Ummm no.. the ARRA kept the bush tax cuts... AND ADDED MORE ON TOP OF THAT... so taxes WERE higher in 2003.

Didn't happen during the Obama term and therein lies the problem and why he lost the Congress
Click to expand...

Right.. it didn;t happen despite lowering taxes with the ARRA which continued the bush tax cuts, and decreased taxes even further. ITs simply a fact.. that Obama reduced taxes with the ARRA..

You seem to have a problem keeping more of what you earn so send yours back
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. you are the fellow that thinks I need to pay more to the federal government by reducing my state income tax deduction...

Seems rather simple to me, consumer spending depends on spendable income and tax cuts offer more spendable income to the consumers
Click to expand...

right.. it does seem simple to you.. but its NOT THAT SIMPLE.. IF what you said was true.. that tax cuts were that powerful.. then we could NEVER go into a recession.. because according to you.. since we had a tax cut.. people have more to spend and that will always keep the economy going.
but the fact is.. that's simply not true. There MIGHT be a temporary bump in spending after a tax cut.. but its been proven that other factors are much much more important... like people having jobs.. and wages.. than a tax cut.

Probably even more so now.. when taxes for the poor and middle class have been cut so much already.

You obviously have no idea what a deduction is and believe that you should be able to deduct your state and local taxes from your federal return.
Click to expand...

My state income taxes? Absolutely I should be able to. That income is already being taxed by the state and given to the state to pay for things IN MY STATE.

You seem to think my income needs to twice.. once by the state and again by the federal government. Which basically means that more money goes out of my state.. and ends up in federal hands.

It isn't about paying more in Federal taxes it is about paying your fair share and blue states aren't doing that as their state and local taxes are higher thus creating more deductions
Click to expand...

YOU just argued against blue states spending more money to their state and local government to handle local problems.. and argue for them to send more money to the federal government.. so it can be sent to other states who GET more from the federal government than they send.

Basically you are promoting federal welfare of states.

Please explain why you want more money being taken from individuals and their states.. and more money being sent to the federal government.

how liberal of you.
 
Conservative said:
We went into recession in DECEMBER 2007 not when Obama came into office and in fact came out of recession in June, Let Wall Street Journal explain what Obama did

[
Click to expand...

Okay.. again.. he inherited a recession that was a deep one and was due to collapse of the housing market and banking system.

It was a deep FOREIGN RECESSION because foreign governments rely too much on Govt. spending
Click to expand...

hmmm.. foreign governments rely too much on government spending. Hmmm.. when did our government run a surplus again?

what the hell are you talking about. Reagan and Bush motivated the private sector, Obama bailed out the public sector. you don't seem to grasp the difference
Click to expand...

Ummm.. no.. Obama bailed out the PRIVATE sector.. you seem to be confused. Bailed out the banks and bailed out the auto industry. Those aren;t public entities. You need to get your facts straight before we move on.

You have done no such analysis and refuse to answer direct questions. What a waste of time
Click to expand...

.. I linked to an article that summarized all those economists that have done such analysis. The only really waste of time is when you pull basically raw revenue data and make flawed and invalid assumptions based on that data.. for example assuming growth can only be due to tax cuts (which I have explained to you).



Don't have to as data does it for me
Click to expand...

Only by making the flawed assumption that the economy cannot improve int he absence of a tax cut.

And only by making the flawed assumption that the economy cannot decline EVER after a tax cut.

No they weren't rebates aren't tax cuts, and the other tax cuts had strings attached. You buy what you are told and that makes you look foolish
Click to expand...

..Please tell me the string that was attached when Obama cut the payroll tax by 2%? the only one here that looks foolish here is you. Heck.. you don't even know what you are talking about. But okay.. tell me what strings were attached with the payroll tax cut. Please tell me what millions of employees that got an immediate bump in their paychecks " were told to buy". I want to know.

Bush tax cuts fully implemented July 2003 so once again you are wrong. Rebates ARENT tax cuts
Click to expand...

Ummm no.. the ARRA kept the bush tax cuts... AND ADDED MORE ON TOP OF THAT... so taxes WERE higher in 2003.

Didn't happen during the Obama term and therein lies the problem and why he lost the Congress
Click to expand...

Right.. it didn;t happen despite lowering taxes with the ARRA which continued the bush tax cuts, and decreased taxes even further. ITs simply a fact.. that Obama reduced taxes with the ARRA..

You seem to have a problem keeping more of what you earn so send yours back
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. you are the fellow that thinks I need to pay more to the federal government by reducing my state income tax deduction...

Seems rather simple to me, consumer spending depends on spendable income and tax cuts offer more spendable income to the consumers
Click to expand...

right.. it does seem simple to you.. but its NOT THAT SIMPLE.. IF what you said was true.. that tax cuts were that powerful.. then we could NEVER go into a recession.. because according to you.. since we had a tax cut.. people have more to spend and that will always keep the economy going.
but the fact is.. that's simply not true. There MIGHT be a temporary bump in spending after a tax cut.. but its been proven that other factors are much much more important... like people having jobs.. and wages.. than a tax cut.

Probably even more so now.. when taxes for the poor and middle class have been cut so much already.

You obviously have no idea what a deduction is and believe that you should be able to deduct your state and local taxes from your federal return.
Click to expand...

My state income taxes? Absolutely I should be able to. That income is already being taxed by the state and given to the state to pay for things IN MY STATE.

You seem to think my income needs to twice.. once by the state and again by the federal government. Which basically means that more money goes out of my state.. and ends up in federal hands.

It isn't about paying more in Federal taxes it is about paying your fair share and blue states aren't doing that as their state and local taxes are higher thus creating more deductions
Click to expand...

YOU just argued against blue states spending more money to their state and local government to handle local problems.. and argue for them to send more money to the federal government.. so it can be sent to other states who GET more from the federal government than they send.

Basically you are promoting federal welfare of states.

Please explain why you want more money being taken from individuals and their states.. and more money being sent to the federal government.
 
jonny5 said:
You failed.
Click to expand...

Well hey.. I tried..

but you seem to want to ignore science and statistics.

That's your purview.. but I will point out... it kills your credibility..

Carry on.
 
RSHERMR said:
Let me give you some economic history clarification:
Slow growth Always and forever, if you have a recession with high unemployment, economic growth will be slow. The great Rcpublican Recession of 2008 left Obama with a beginning start with 10% unemployment and failing financial institutions. high debt Debt ALWAYS increases fast with high unemployment. Obama inherited the third highest unemployment rate of all time. Most of the increase was caused by lack of receipts since unemployed do not pay taxes. And programs to put people to work cost abusive trade agreements, high taxed Obama raise a few taxes for the more wealthy, but he cut taxes for the middle class. In general, taxes under Obama were among the lowest since the 1950's and overregulated Regulation had nothing to do with economic conditions per all impartial economists. That is simply a conservative talking point that is not relative to economic success.
Click to expand...


I am not sure I would bother here. He is not willing to even acknowledge basic statistics at this point.
 
MTAtech said:
Wow. The above is hacker at its best. Obama didn't improve the economy? When Obama was elected, 800,000 jobs a month were being lost and the auto industry was on the brink of bankruptcy. GDP was negative. Annual growth under Trump is unchanged from Obama. 2017 is the same as 2012 and lower than 2014 and 2015.

A top marginal rate of 39% is by no means "high taxed" by historical standards and I need to know what specific regulations make our economy "over-regulated."

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Now here is the real irony here

See.. Obama really didn't improve the economy.... Oh he probably kept the economy from going into depression and gave it time to recover. but actually improving the economy.. not really.. much more of that growth was due to the economy making corrections after the recession.

See.. that's a real conservative view.. the understanding that the President and the Government are not the be all end all of the economy.

That's what ironic about some of the people who call themselves "conservative" here on this board. They think the economy starts and ends with the federal government and the President which is actually a very liberal view. .
 
jonny5 said:
Obama didnt leave him a great economy. Slow growth, high debt, abusive trade agreements, high taxed and overregulated. Not all Obamas fault, but he certainly didnt improve it. And neither did congress. Theyre all too busy fighting for power to fix the govt issues which burden the economy. Trump has certainly taken immediate and positive action by approving the tax cuts, reducing regulation, and trying to fix the trade problems. Sadly he nor congress has tried to deal with the major problems of social spending or debt, but are possibly making them worse with runaway spending.
Click to expand...

I am just curious.. but why as a libertarian do you believe that the federal government should be responsible for running the economy.

Generally libertarians believe that the government should not be meddling in the economy.

Well.. real libertarians.
 
jaeger19 said:
Now here is the real irony here

See.. Obama really didn't improve the economy.... Oh he probably kept the economy from going into depression and gave it time to recover. but actually improving the economy.. not really.. much more of that growth was due to the economy making corrections after the recession.

See.. that's a real conservative view.. the understanding that the President and the Government are not the be all end all of the economy.

That's what ironic about some of the people who call themselves "conservative" here on this board. They think the economy starts and ends with the federal government and the President which is actually a very liberal view. .
Click to expand...
You have a point there. During the 2008 campaign, the conservative mantra was "the president can't create jobs." Then, when Obama became president, the mantra shifted to, "why isn't Obama creating jobs?" Now, the conservative mantra is just lies, "Trump is creating more jobs than Obama," when 2017's job gains are the lowest since 2012.
 
RSHERMR said:
Let me give you some economic history clarification:
Slow growth Always and forever, if you have a recession with high unemployment, economic growth will be slow. The great Rcpublican Recession of 2008 left Obama with a beginning start with 10% unemployment and failing financial institutions. high debt Debt ALWAYS increases fast with high unemployment. Obama inherited the third highest unemployment rate of all time. Most of the increase was caused by lack of receipts since unemployed do not pay taxes. And programs to put people to work cost abusive trade agreements, high taxed Obama raise a few taxes for the more wealthy, but he cut taxes for the middle class. In general, taxes under Obama were among the lowest since the 1950's and overregulated Regulation had nothing to do with economic conditions per all impartial economists. That is simply a conservative talking point that is not relative to economic success.
Click to expand...

Merely inconvenient facts, if you are a Republican.
 
MTAtech said:
You have a point there. During the 2008 campaign, the conservative mantra was "the president can't create jobs." Then, when Obama became president, the mantra shifted to, "why isn't Obama creating jobs?" Now, the conservative mantra is just lies, "Trump is creating more jobs than Obama," when 2017's job gains are the lowest since 2012.
Click to expand...

Well.. what you are seeing is the evidence that the party is actually not conservative. Who you are calling conservatives are actually right wing.. actually right wing liberals (high spending, bigger government., even higher taxes.. its just on WHO they apply those to.)/..
 
Conservative said:
The problem is you cannot prove that tax cuts didn't increase economic activity and the revenue nor can you show where tax cuts actually cut tax revenue.
Click to expand...
I can...or at least show that economist Mike Kimel has "proven" this point:



OK. So, Hauser’s point is clear – no matter what happens to taxes, the government only manages to collect about 19% of GDP. Presumably then, from a perspective of paying down debt, there’s no benefit to raising taxes and plenty of benefit to cutting taxes. (Later he goes on to argue that lower taxes = faster growth, which I’ve dispensed with in the past – latest example here. Still, if given time, I might come back and examine Hauser’s special way of reaching his conclusion. But that’s for another day.)

Now, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me put up a graph. And for grins, let me embed a small table in that graph. The graph shows total federal receipts divided by GDP. However, it is color coded. In years when there is a cut in the top individual marginal tax rate, or when the most recent change in the top marginal tax rate was a tax cut rather than a tax hike, the area under the curve is colored gray. When there is a tax hike, or the most recent change was a tax hike, the same area is colored red. Here’s what it looks like:​

Hauser_2527s_Law_Figure_1.webp

So there it is. There’s Hauser’s law. Notice the size of his narrow band – its width is over 5% of GDP! Now take a gander at the little table. In tax hike periods, the smallest amount collected was 18.3% of GDP. By contrast, the median collection in tax cut periods is 18.2%; in other words, in over half of the tax cut years, collections were less than the smallest amount ever brought in during the tax hike periods. Furthermore, both the median and average for the two series are a full percent of GDP apart. Hauser is essentially sweeping humongous differences under the table.​

https://angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html#comments
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. what you are seeing is the evidence that the party is actually not conservative. Who you are calling conservatives are actually right wing.. actually right wing liberals (high spending, bigger government., even higher taxes.. its just on WHO they apply those to.)/..
Click to expand...
Or maybe conservatives are merely hypocrites and don't really believe what they say they believe. They *say* they are the party of family values but support a president who is a serial cheater who consorts with prostitutes and porn stars and has no reservations from grabbing women by their genitals.

We've already covered how conservatives are hypocrites on taxes, deficits and spending. It's not that these particular people aren't *true* conservatives, it's that true conservatism is partisan hypocrisy.
 
MTAtech said:
Merely inconvenient facts, if you are a Republican.
Click to expand...

Inconvenient facts?? Recession starts in December 2007 and ends in June 2009, What ended the recession?

https://wallstreetpit.com/13300-what-ended-the-great-recession/

You want badly to prop up failure and the question is why? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

All the BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and Treasury.org is irrelevant to you. Employment of part time for economic reasons is ignored, Discouraged workers are ignored, the loss of the House in 10-12 then the Senate in 14-16 is ignored, the Treasury data showing tax cuts leading to revenue growth ignored, basic civics with the Democrats controlling the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 ignored, the Obama stimulus passed the end of January 2009 and signed in mid February ignored. Employment when the recession began of 146 million Ignored, Employment two years after the stimulus of 139 million, ignored.

I could go on but all this is irrelevant to people who live in an alternate universe. Sorry people but inconvenient facts are actual data that can't be ignored
 
MTAtech said:
Merely inconvenient facts, if you are a Republican.
Click to expand...

Inconvenient facts?? Recession starts in December 2007 and ends in June 2009, What ended the recession?

https://wallstreetpit.com/13300-what-ended-the-great-recession/

You want badly to prop up failure and the question is why? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

All the BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and Treasury.org is irrelevant to you. Employment of part time for economic reasons is ignored, Discouraged workers are ignored, the loss of the House in 10-12 then the Senate in 14-16 is ignored, the Treasury data showing tax cuts leading to revenue growth ignored, basic civics with the Democrats controlling the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 ignored, the Obama stimulus passed the end of January 2009 and signed in mid February ignored. Employment when the recession began of 146 million Ignored, Employment two years after the stimulus of 139 million, ignored.

I could go on but all this is irrelevant to people who live in an alternate universe. Sorry people but inconvenient facts are actual data that can't be ignored
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. what you are seeing is the evidence that the party is actually not conservative. Who you are calling conservatives are actually right wing.. actually right wing liberals (high spending, bigger government., even higher taxes.. its just on WHO they apply those to.)/..
Click to expand...

Noticed that you continue to run from data never addressing your desire to have your state and local taxes deducted from your federal income tax liability. Noticed that you never post data showing tax revenue being reduced AFTER tax cuts are fully implemented. Noticed that you are on almost every anti Trump thread promoting Obamanomics. Looks to me like your lean is a total lie
 
jaeger19 said:
I am not sure I would bother here. He is not willing to even acknowledge basic statistics at this point.
Click to expand...

Ah, but I do. I know economic stats very well, me boy. But thanks for trying.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am just curious.. but why as a libertarian do you believe that the federal government should be responsible for running the economy.

Generally libertarians believe that the government should not be meddling in the economy.

Well.. real libertarians.
Click to expand...

Govt isnt responsible for running the economy. I support what Trump is doing to get them out of it. And criticize him, and congress, for not doing more to get govt out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom