Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Our leaders are incompetent. Our citizens are incompetent. We have a growing number of the population dependent on government redistribution for their livelihood. All of the other arguments are just noise.
The United States was built on self-reliance. It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be. Life is not fair. Some have taken advantage of this great system (the best that has ever been created to give the masses the opportunity to take care of their own business), and they are better prepared to provide for their children. They shouldn’t be penalized and demonized because they have worked hard to do this.
It’s time to step up and work our way out of this fiscal mess. It starts on an individual level. Start taking care of yourself and your own kids. Quit relying on the endless excuses we hear from the phony politicians and their intellectual cronies for your dependent status.
---
This a classic Washington charade lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi
ZERO CUTS - NO BALANCE - ONLY REVENUE INCREASES
Well what did we really expect out of this debacle.
ZERO CUTS - NO BALANCE - ONLY REVENUE INCREASES
We are no closer to a solution to reform entitlements and addressing the nation debt.
Obama is running around calling the deal a tremendous victory for himself because some rich people have to pay a lot more taxes at the expense of losing 700,000 jobs.
Obama won - yippee. Obama spiked the ball. La-De-Da
But this is a huge American failure that will be passed to the next generation - if we last that long before China pulls the plug on propping up US bonds.
Obama failed to meet his fundamental 2008 and 2012 campaign promises to limit the growth in spending.
ZERO CUTS - NO BALANCE - ONLY REVENUE INCREASES
-----
America is the loser. The people are the losers. Our children are the losers.
-----
Brent,
I agree. It starts on an individual/family level.
In my opinion, the day of the high-spending middle class American is over. Many in the middle class for decades have been unwise spenders, investors and savers. Now they're stuck with a slow crawling economy with above average debts and low savings. Over the last two decades, individual debt has climbed and the savings rate has dropped. From 1990 to 2008, median home prices doubled. The average price for a new car in 2008 was $27,704. Of course those buying new homes for the first time had to buy furniture(usually new) and the dot.com boom had people buying computers and internet access. Then of course there are cell phones for every household member. Many consumers purchased for "needs" what previously generations considered as "wants". Over-confident consumers felt they had a continuous flow of money to support their new upscale lifestyle but recessions happen, housing bubbles happen and some get caught without reserve savings or a nest egg to fall back on because they failed to save and invest. If you spend anytime at all in Europe you'll see that Americans have more toys and bigger everything; cars, boats, motorcycles, houses, pools, appetites and clothes. IMHO, the big spending days are over at least for a while for the American middle class. Cut out the impulse buys and stick to a "needs" buy policy. Those parents who want their children to get a higher education should consider opting for a community college those first two years to reduce some education costs including room & board. Be smart, educated consumers and don't be suckers for the impulse buy.
Sorry Bent, I read your name wrong as Brent.
Amen. Once we Americans depend on the government and its leaders to take care of us, we're done.
CarmineD
Amen. Once we Americans depend on the government and its leaders to take care of us, we're done.
CarmineD
Well we are DONE
"Well we are DONE" @ Future
Not quite. Just 4 more years and then it's a second chance for a new beginning.
CarmineD
I think mr Rasmussen is totally out of whack here. First off,this country was NOT built on self reliance,It was built on who knew how to beg the government out of the most money they could to HELP THEM,start a business.Usually,these people had an inside track on who to contact,and what kind of LIE to tell the government about why they needed this money,and guess what, most of them ALREADY HAD MONEY.(I.E THE OIL COMPANIES).Romney learned his lesson about disparaging the 47%.He lost the election.I have my own business,and I have employees who work hard.However, if at some point they have to get help from the government that I can't provide,more power to them. What does mr Rasmussen think about all the corporate welfare that REALLY puts a dent in our economy? I can answer that for you.He thinks it's alright for the government to help MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES,BUT HE THINKS IT'S A SHAME TO HELP A WORKING MOTHER WITH FOOD STAMPS,to feed her kids.Most of these so called entitlements are not ENTITLEMENTS,but help for people who really need it.People on high horses should quit talking down to working people whose luck was not as good as their own.Without these working people,you wouldn't be a BOSS.
It must be difficult for the writer to be a genius in sea of incompetence. Fortunately for him, he is enthusiastically supported by those who would stereotype an entire economic class of working people.
I have little patience for those who view this country's fiscal challenges as easily solved by making big spending numbers into small spending numbers as though there are no consequences of any importance for doing so.
There are a great many people in this country who work hard without acquiring great wealth as well as many who acquire great wealth with little effort - making a lie out of two more stereotypes.
@Freeman,
Excellent comment. Hope you had a nice Christmas and a great New Year :)
To heck with the government, I wants me some of that Greenspun money and lots of it. They don't come through it will prove how selfish and unconcerned they are for their fellow citizen.
The cold day in hell has arrived when I agree with Ref. We will likely disagree on causes of his observations but he is absolutely spot-on as regards effects. But as to the subject of the letter....more Cassandras worming their way from the woodwork., [Jeez, talk about mixed cliches]. The United States faces a number of challenges, some unique and some global. Our biggest challenge is that we are viewed as a role model by many in the rest of the world and how we respond to those challenges, how we exercise leadership is a test in itself. We have a political system which is going through predictable change with competing interests within the Republican Party. We have competing political, economic and cultural interests which have grown increasingly divergent. In many places those interests are resolved by hauling away a few dozen or more and putting them up against a wall and shooting them. In the US we have a tradition of providing rich sinecures and allowing them to live life to its fullest. I have absolutely no sympathy with the purveyors of doom and gloom....although it's a lucrative gig. Will it get worse? For some, likely yes....the uneducated, the unmotivated, the marginally able, the folk who believe that they must have an 84" TV and every other toy advertised thereupon. We are not, however, going to collapse, become a second world country, lose our representative democracy, start shooting dissidents en masse. We will not only survive these speed bumps of progress, we will thrive.
Jim Weber,
That $40-$60 billion extra tax revenue per year from top wage earners won't cover the $1.1 trillion dollar annual deficit. How would you propose closing the gap between tax and spend? Sooner or later, the tax man will come after the middle class. The average American family will have to start looking at its own household budget trimming where they can in order to pay for the higher tax bill that will eventually come their way. That tax bill will impact their wallet and their buying habits. It's wise for families to start planning financially to spend less in the future. It's the price we pay for more government spending as a percent of GDP which is now at 41% versus 19% in the 1930's.
Freeman and the B-Brigade start out with recycled posts and regurgitated ideas:
'It starts on an individual/family level.
In my opinion, the day of the high-spending middle class American is over. Many in the middle class for decades have been unwise spenders, investors and savers."
I say:
What you are describing is the permanent transformation of the American middle class to the working poor. This will only work for a while.
Then they may resort to the 2nd amendment solution that will negate the security guards in the gated communities and put targets on the backs of outsourcing execs, union busters and the like.
Until the working poor have their 2nd amendment rights taken from them. The 2nd amendment will be modified in a heartbeat if used by the working poor.
To Freeman and the others:
With your newly pseudo self enforced lifestyle where only the upper classes and the working poor, after saving for 15 years can buy a Harley what makes you think that the Harley, Davidson company will be able to sustain itself with 80% of its current customers no longer "allowed" to buy a new one?
Harley would be a boutique operation or gone.
Freeman
The tax man knows where I live. I don't dread his arrival as you seem to. When the time comes I'll handle it.
Jim Weber
Jeff,
The term is self-imposed, not self-enforced. Luckily, families still decide their household budgets and what toys they can afford. Buy a new Harley or a slightly used one? I stated household budget trimming, not stop buying period. Yet, another Reductio ad absurdum argument from you.
Jim Weber,
Being a retired guy I'm sure you can handle the tax man. Good for you.
"It's time to step up and work our way out of this fiscal mess," ... said the conservative letter writer who (most likely) cheered on George W Bush's trillion-dollar invasion/occupation of Iraq in 2003, without giving a single thought to the cost, either in human lives or taxpayer dollars.
We can nudge this along by cutting government programs. Eliminate some programs and gradually decrease the amount of assistance from other programs. By gradual, let's say 2-3 years, not another generation growing up on assistance only. Before you have a child, be sure you can support yourself, a partner, and the child. TEMPORARY help from UC and SNAP EBT food stamps is OK but not as a life style.
Ref: Did ya notice that the legislation has more spending added than tax revenue enhanced? Most of it for Hollywood and the movie industry. Gee, wonder who O.'s friends are.
Freeman
Judging from your professed concerns about upper tax brackets I'm sure you can handle the tax man too. I applaud your success.
Jim Weber
I,m sure Mr Rasmussen Letter will go over big with people who have worked all their adult life and have been laid off and virtually zero chance of getting a job again, or the many families who have to make a choice between food and medicine because they can't afford both in this economy or college students, who if they graduate, will be up to their eyeballs in debt for student loans and have little chance of employment.
Self-reliance is certainly a desired goal, but in the present economy the chances of achieving are virtually nil.
I really wonder when or even if Americans are going to wake up. Congress just passed higher taxes on a tiny, tiny slice of Americans and basically did nothing else.
I know many people here feel we are too big to fail economically, but I think they are wrong.
Jim Weber rightly points out that spending cuts of just about any kind negatively affect peoples' lives but he, along with many others, offer no alternative to help get our deficit spending under control.
Progressives like Alan Combs say just keep spending until the economy recovers, but he seems to ignore that our government overspends in good tomes or bad times, so I have to ask...when is it... that Mr. Combs thinks government will stop overspending and under taxing?
The stock market is happy... but for how long? I heard the argument between a Conservative and a Progressive this morning about our credit downgrade last year. The Progressive argued that the downgrade was 'solely' caused by the debt ceiling fight. The Conservative argued that the downgrade was 'solely' caused by our huge debt. How about admitting that 'both' things caused the downgrade?
My goodness! We can't agree on anything and we all seem to be cemented into our positions. Talk about a recipe for disaster!
Michael
Boffo, Bent! The "useful idiots" disagree since they are parasites enjoying a ride on the "gravy train." To those witless wonders, being self-reliant is a foreign term; one they have no knowledge or concept of. They feel comfortable only when their thinking is done for them by some pencil-pushing, unelected, unaccountable governmental bureaucratic drone. They sell their souls for a few pieces of silver and "feel-good" about themselves. Thank God most American's have more honesty, ethics and morals than the greedy & grubby parasites.
Mission Accomplished!
Bush's no-jobs-created trickledown voodoo tax cuts have finally been exorcised from our body.
Now the top 1% will finally have to shop around for the lowest price on caviar and kobe beef.
Lastthrows,
You can be happy that people making over $ 450,000 now have to pay 3 1/2 % higher income taxes, but please explain how this makes an appreciable difference in our yearly deficit spending of over 1 trillion dollars and our debt of over 16 trillion dollars? Please also explain what else the government should do to address those issues?
Michael
Jim Weber,
It will be interesting to see if the $40-60 billion in additional yearly tax revenue from top wage earners will solve our debt, deficit, jobs and economic problems. It will also be interesting to see how consumers respond to their taxes going up. Those median household income families earning $50,000 now have to pay $822 in additional social security taxes this year.
The increased rates for the top earners is only the beginning. As it should be. The next step is to eliminate the hundreds of deductions enjoyed by a small number of people who can afford tax attorneys on their payroll.
Freeman
$40-60 billion is a start and it means $40-60 billion we don't have to borrow. As for the additional $822 in social security taxes - it might hurt spending as much as it helped spending during each of the past two years it was in effect.
JIm Weber
NVRef: "It will be interesting to see if the $40-60 billion in additional yearly tax revenue from top wage earners will solve our debt."
This coming from the crowd that wanted to defund public television to save a few million bucks.
If it weren't for hypocrisy GOPers wouldn't have a reason to be.
$40-$60 billion isn't a start its a joke. Tell us Mr. Weber what is the percentage that 40-60 is against 16 trillion? Need a calculator?
Freemen consumers will not buy, or at the very least cut back more, the debt and deficit will continue to rise and more companies will leave and /or outsource to foriegn countries.
Happy New Year!
chuck: "$40-$60 billion isn't a start its a joke. Tell us Mr. Weber what is the percentage that 40-60 is against 16 trillion? Need a calculator?"
Rightwingers cheered loudly when the Bush/Cheney regime marched troops into Iraq. How much would that adventure cost? How many would die?
Who cares -- the neocons and their low-info sheeple were throwing a good old fashioned war party! Mission Accomplished! (NOT)
Last Throes you live in the past. Talk present and stop pointing the finger.
As far as Iraq, I had 2 nephews, a niece and my son-in-law that served. My son-inlaw also served in Afghanistan. I was never for the war, my family as many others had alot invested. So that being said when do you think the finger pointing of what was, 10 years ago, will be settled and we can move on to address the present problems? You obviously have no answers as you like to live in the past that you can't change.
chuck, the Iraq debacle cost taxpayers at least a trillion and counting, and we'll be making payments on it for years to come.
Ten years ago? Let's do the math. The war lasted eight years, meaning President Obama got us out only recently. (I know, it's hard for rightwingers to remember that with their selective memories.)
If you're having a hard time understanding why the GOP has lost twice to Obama, and five of the last six presidential elections, look no further than George W Bush. People have basically said enough is enough. We don't need miracles from our leaders but we do expect a minimal level of competence, which Bush didn't have. And guess who pays for those mistakes?
Last Throes seems we do have a difference. I expect my leaders to have more than minimal levels of competance and obviously you don't.
Its interesting that the middle class is the largest consumer in this capitalist consumer based society. Without that continued purchasing, where do people expect that our small and large businesses get their income from? How can they continue to employ these very same people?
We live in a consumer society.. our economy depends on continued buying and spending by the middle class or the economy fails.
That is the real problem that we face going forward! How to convert from a consumer society to a saver society without trashing our GDP and passing the torch to another nation to take our place as the largest consumer and all the good economic things that come with that status.
I am sure everyone reading this depends in some way on spending and consuming in this country... even if you get your income from the government.. that is tax money derived from consumer spending.
So if you advocate reduced spending and consuming... lets see your plan for our new economy to support low growth - no growth and a lower GDP.
We already have a low growth - no growth and lower GDP economy Bimmerdude.
"The huge number of Baby Boomers in the workforce fueled an economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, generating sufficient tax revenue to cover a relatively small group of retirees. But a welfare state that seemed like a good deal 50 years ago is rapidly turning unaffordable in the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
Boomers started retiring in large numbers in 2011, marking the beginning of an era when younger workers and retirees will divide a weaker tax base.
Simply put, there are too few workers to support the growing ranks of aging Americans, and government spending can't grow faster than the economy indefinitely.
The share of the U.S. population 65 and older is 13.5% vs. 9% in 1960. It is projected to rise to 16.1% in 2020 and 19.6% in 2030".
Entitlement Crisis, Slow Economic Growth Era Begins
http://news.investors.com/economy/123112...
Former President Bush served 2 terms and will most likely be rated as one of the 5 worst Presidents ever. I voted for the guy twice and I get to live with those decisions.
Now fast forward to today. Unless he totally changes course and does a Clinton (not likely), many of those that criticize me for supporting Bush twice will be able to join me. They will have voted twice for President Obama, who will join former President Bush among the 5 worst Presidents ever.
You cannot pass tax increases that amount to 1/40th of spending increases in a slow economy when we are deficit spending at a 1 trillion dollar per year clip with a 16 trillion dollar debt .... and expect a good economic outcome. Economics simply don't work that way. Just take a look back at the guy I voted for twice and you have to know it won't work.
Michael
President Obama has implied that people are not to depend upon themselves, that they are incapable of doing anything for themselves, that they MUST rely upon government assistance, when he said "you didn't build that."
That one simple statement (when taken in full context) puts a damper on individual initiative. Obama is telling people that no matter what they might accomplish, they do not deserve that much credit for it, that it would have been impossible without the government in some way, so one should depend even more on what the government can do for them.
* George Bush averaged a 2.7% ratio of deficits to GDP, Barack Obama so far 8.9%.
** Under Bush, excessive federal spending reached about 20% of GDP, but under Obama it has grown to 24%.
*** Every month of the Obama administration has seen jobless rates higher than they were in any one month of Bush's eight years.
Motorsports,
I do not argue that America should go on a full on austerity program. Doing so would hurt many people and the economy overall. I also support cuts in military spending and for us to stop being worlds policeman and benefactor.
That said, to continue to spend as we are and only raise taxes a small amount on a small sliver of Americans is akin to economic suicide. If we don't change to a course that isn't the one Conservative Republicans favor but also isn't the one President Obama favors, an economic calamity is going to visit us all.... the only remaining question is .... when?
Michael
NVRef: "George Bush averaged a 2.7% ratio of deficits to GDP, Barack Obama so far 8.9%."
Of course those numbers are BS. Why? Because Obama inherited two mismanaged trillion dollar wars and the Great Recession from Bush.
Ref, name one other US president of the modern era who took office with more critical problems than did Obama (besides Democrat FDR who was elected to fix republican Hoover's disaster).
(I don't expect to get a reply to that question, btw.)
LastThrows,
You make good points in that quite a bit of our economic problems were created by two wars that were not paid for and tax cuts we could not afford.
However, I have listened as Bob Beckel and other Progressives have said they are 'sure' now that President Obama has been re-elected and won his tax increases, he will go after entitlement spending in the next several months.
I hope these true believers are not going to hold their breath waiting. Either he will not even try to address entitlements or if he does, it will be a token effort where he claims that he cannot get enough support from Progressives in Congress to pass any meaningful changes.
Bush fought wars and provided tax cuts and did not pay for either. Obama simply spends in other areas, raises taxes a tiny bit on a tiny sliver of Americans and doesn't pay for what he spends either. There is a difference between the two, but it is a difference that hardly matters in the long run. Bush was not responsible economically. Obama is not responsible economically. And sadly, neither is Congress.
Michael
Last Throes not to beleger the point but:
If you're having a hard time understanding why the GOP has lost twice to Obama, and five of the last six presidential elections,
Lets see last elections: mmmmmmmm
Clinton,Bush,Bush,Obama,Obama.
Seems you also need to do some math expert!!!
LastThroes,
At the end of Bush's term and the beginning of Obama's, the housing bubble severely impacted the economy. Enclosed is a table of government spending from 1992-2012. The data is from the Office of Management & Budget. Notice how entitlement spending doubled from $976 billion to $2,053 trillion. Discretionary spending grew $803 billion to $1.28 trillion. Just like Bush, so far Obama hasn't tackled the main driver of our debt, entitlement spending. Soon, comparisons will show that Obama's performance in office has been worse than any President preceding him as the facts will propel themselves through the political rhetoric.
http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infog...
chuck, I meant to write that republicans have lost five of the last six POPULAR VOTES in presidential elections (and lost four of six Electoral Colllege votes due to the Supreme Court decision in 2000). My bad.
Ref, the Heritage Foundation is not an impartial judge. You do know that tea party leader Jim DeMint was just appointed to lead that group, right?
I'm trying to help some of you understand why Rs have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. Basically, the general public is grounded in reality, unlike right-wingers. Faux News, Limbauh, and yes, the Heritage group are propagandists who are making big bucks by lying to their sheep but some people will never believe that.
For NVRef, I repeat my question: "Name one other US president of the modern era who entered office with more critical problems than did Obama (besides Democrat FDR who was elected to fix republican Hoover's disaster)."
No mumbo jumbo, Ref. Name just one besides FDR in the last one-hundred years.
Lastthrows,
Of course the people you mentioned are propagandists. What about the other side that supports legislation that has a 40 to 1 spending increase ratio to tax increases. Let's face it; there are NO honest brokers here.... and that is the real problem.
Many of us are more than willing to admit that the Republicans and Conservatives have not been honest brokers. It is now time for all Americans to admit that there are NO honest brokers and that if we don't embrace that fact and stop trusting these people, we are all screwed.
Michael
LastThroes,
The data is from the White House Office of Management & Budget. Table 8.1.
LastThroes, list the critical problems Obama faced when he entered office.
Ref, you don't have an answer. Let me help: Over the last hundred years there is NO OTHER president (besides FDR) who entered office with more critical problems than did Obama.
Thanks for playing, Ref.
According to Mr. Rasmussen, our system is "the best that has ever been created to give the masses the opportunity to take care of their own business. . ."
Sadly, that's no longer true. The United States now trails Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and France in upward mobility. People born in poverty in those countries have a far greater likelihood of making their way up the economic ladder.
Why? Because those "socialist" countries have been using public money to ensure that education keeps pace with technological advances. Germany and Denmark in particular have invested heavily in youth employment programs and thus generate high-wage manufacturing jobs.
These "socialist" countries have been using public money to fund universal healthcare. In the U.S., by contrast, one-third of the population cycles in and out of poverty every year because of medical problems.
After the financial downturn in 2008, Germany didn't adopt austerity measures. Instead, the government subsidized private companies to keep workers on the payroll because they recognized that it would be cheaper in the long-run to keep people employed.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these "socialist" countries have tax policies that specifically promote greater income equality. They recongize that everyone benefits from a prosperous middle class.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...
An economy is not a zero sum game. The wealthiest Americans will ultimately do better by supporting government services that improve the lives of the middle class.
LastThroes,
Sorry you couldn't list the critical problems Obama faced when he entered office. It was a simple question based on your own claim. Left to either defend or shut-up you so far have decided to shut-up. LOL
The republican letter writer fools no one here.
YOUR GREEDY REPUBLICAN PARTY DESTROYED OUR
ECONOMY AND MIDDLE CLASS.
Your horrible republican party sent our good
paying jobs to COMMUNIST CHINA.
Your horrible republican party lied us into a
war with Iraq.
You have no room to talk, PERIOD!
And Carmine, the debt ceiling WILL BE RAISED to
pay the bills you republicans created.
You fool no one, either.
You're still living in la-la land.
teamster,
It was President Clinton that expanded NAFTA, and also sponsored China for full member status with the WTO which automatically carried "most favored partner" trading status with it.
As for lowering salaries among the tech sector, take a look at Bill Gates. He wants an unlimited number of H1B work visas. I won't bother explaining the bad side of that, look it up.
How do you feel about Steve Jobs setting up his primary manufacturing in China? Is he a Republican?
Yes, Republicans have their faults, to be sure, but Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to sending jobs overseas.
Motorsports,
Everything you say is true and I don't deny it. My concern is this. Spending is out of control. It was under former President Bush and Congresses during that time and it still is today under President Obama and the present Congresses.
You and others don't want to hear Republicans sounding the alarm on spending now. Fine. I get that!
But what we have today is two major parties, neither of which is willing to implement a rational combination of tax increases and spending reductions over time to address our fiscal issues.
It's like we Americans are inside a burning house and because the person telling us it's time to get out is a hypocrite, we are going to stay in the burning house and die.
Please explain to me how that makes any sense?
Michael
Teamster what do you think about Dems like Gates and the auto industry sending the high paying union jobs to the lowly paid chinese, and this all happened because Bill Clinton opened the door for them. Kind of ironic your Dem heroes through you all under the bus. But then again they proved that your high paid salaries was a waste of money since they could get the same result with the serf wages they pay the chinese. Maybe thats why you have anger issues when it comes to the republicans.
Foolish to think this is about Republicans versus Democrats. As long as you participate in that "discussion" you are perpetuating Congress / Presidential politics as they are now. We must insist that ALL politicians do things with the best interest of AMERICAN taxpayers--not for immigrants, not for dependents who pay few taxes, not for special interests. The American taxpayer should be the majority of the population with goals and concerns to support themselves and to insist that others do the same--foreign and domestic.
Who is "LasThroes?" Personally, I do not read "untrusted" comments. If someone hides behind anonymity, they are not to be given any credibility and are unworthy of joining the conversation. To me, they are cowards and I don't understand why the LV Sun bothers to allow them to comment. They don't allow it on their editorial pages. Why here?
Mr. Fink do you think that when voting for someone running for office you should make it known who we voted for? I'd say if its good enough for voting its good enough for this newspaper unless of course they are writing an article.
I for one don't trust many posters on here with my personnel information so I believe anonimity is best.
boftx and chuck.......
Richard M. Nixon opened up the door to
COMMUNIST CHINA.
And we all know what a republican crook he was.
More jobs were sent to COMMUNIST CHINA under
George W. Bush than any other president.
And these dirt-bag republicans are anti-union.
YES, greedy republicans caused the most damage to
our economy, PERIOD!
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
Yeh Teamster it must suck to know some under educated chinese making a dollar a day could replace the job you do.