So in between battling the younglings (which their room was a disaster) and a marathon (even more challenging with a pause every 3-4 minutes) session on Resident Evil 4, I managed to catch President Obama giving us his first prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House.
Luckily, the kids don't really pay attention as I came up with all kinds of puerile obscenities to fling at the President, "stupid, insipid man-twat" being my favorite. Essentially, he had news conference to justify Porkulus, which is due to pass the Senate as three RINOs turned and joined in passing this infamous next government spending scheme.
I'm just a little pissed, so I'm going to let'r rip and blast this iniquitous fuck for making America an asshat nation.
Naturally, he claims there is no pork and no make-work 4 million new (or saved) jobs. It started in the $800 billion range. He was talking $800 billion tonight. So what have they cut? And does this sound like FDR make work to you? "...jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees..."
He also brought up FDR, which means he either reads my blog (and ignores common sense) or he knows exactly what he is doing (New Deal v2.0) has been done before and will have the same non-effect on solving the problem while expanding government and making us "feel good" about living in destitution.
Also, he had to get in the usual "last eight years" line, forgetting the last two were Democrat years (he was there) and the Democrats had the filibuster in the Senate as well. But he got his "it's Bush's fault on" as usual. We were left with a trillion dollar deficit. So he's going to add another trillion.
Oh, and we have to do this right now, because otherwise the sky will fall and we will spiral into eternal depression. Never mind the debt. Never mind how much more government expands. Last time I heard that was the Dastardly Bastrdly Bailout.
And finally, let me leave you with the warning he gave us, in the form of the Obama method of pulling the country back from the abyss:
"But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs."
Considering government has been doing this for 80 years....
I need a drink.
48 comments:
Patrick, I have heard a lot of criticism of this plan from the right side bloggers and commentators.
I have yet to hear many alternative plans.
Perhaps that is the way of Washington, but the blogosphere can be different.
Why don't you put up your ideas, from a conservative standpoint, of what should be done to right our ship.
But start from a blank slate instead of retooling what is currently being proposed.
Since I know no GOP politician will be doing this, at least we will be able to see what the grass roots wants.
Luckily, the kids don't really pay attention as I came up with all kinds of puerile obscenities to fling at the President, "stupid, insipid man-twat" being my favorite. Essentially, he had news conference to justify Porkulus, which is due to pass the Senate as three RINOs turned and joined in passing this infamous next government spending scheme.
Speaking of puerile,"porkulus" is Rush Limbaugh's name for the stimulus package. LOL! And listening to Limbaugh's opinion on an economic stimulus package would be like listening to Polly the Parrot's opinion on the Higgs-Boson theory. It's a real comedy.
Squawk! Squawk! Porkulus! Squawk! Porkulus! Squawk! Quark! Quark!
Also, one shouldn't take seriously a denigration of "pork" from certain people of porky porcine porkument. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.
"stupid, insipid man-twat"
man-twat? WTF? Poor Patrick. He's completely jumped the shark.
LOL!
President Obama's popularity and the American people's support of him is REALLY getting to you.
Prozac is good for this condition, I've heard.
Squawk! Squawk!
LOL!
PS. Patrick, you may need to internalize this bit of reality instead of trying to come up with creative slurs against President Obama in order to soothe your very troubled conservative brow:
When it comes to Obama’s stimulus plan, everyone has an interest in pretending the Congressional Republicans matter.--Peter Beinart
"The mainstream media pretends Republicans matter because they want drama, and they know that the only real drama in the stimulus fight is whether it passes with bipartisan support or not. They also like the idea of seeing Barack Obama stumble. They’ve grown tired of the Obama-as-messiah narrative, and are eager for the next act, in which the hero stumbles and shows he’s human after all. Failing in his efforts at bipartisanship would be such a stumble.
But it’s all much ado about nothing. In policy terms, to be sure, Republican critiques of the stimulus are important: We’re engaged in an extraordinary experiment in whether Keynesian economics works, and whether it works more effectively through spending or tax cuts. But politically, the critiques are irrelevant. The Obama stimulus will pass. For a while, the economy will almost certainly remain bad. If by 2011 and 2012, it starts to markedly recover—as the American economy did in 1983 and 1984—Obama will get the credit, no matter how many Republicans voted with him. Blue states and districts will grow bluer, and many of the Republicans who represent them will lose, or else retire before they can. (See Gregg, Judd). Republicans in safe conservative states and districts will keep their jobs, and watch Obama’s triumph in brooding insignificance."
http://tinyurl.com/d9l333
Actually I think Patrick encapsulates the GOP/conservative economic plan perfectly. It consists of covering ones ears and shouting 'Marxist', 'socialism', 'pork', 'cut taxes' & 'illegal immigrants'
Repeat as needed.
We're being tough on you today Patrick. Hang in there.
Patrick, it's tough love.
Everyone needs a bit of it now and again.
I feel like I am part of a gang of three.
Hey Arthur, off topic, but where in Mexico are you?
I'd love to meet you if our paths cross.
"reads my blog (and ignores common sense)"
Uh. Your blog does not come out sounding the best in that sentence!
Actually, I think Barack Obama and the democrats should have done absolutely NOTHING on ANYTHING since taking over the reins of power.
Had they done that then we could have watched what the economy and the world would have done based upon how George Bush left everything his last day in office.
Of course all the conservatives that are now harping about what we need to do is nothing would begin harping do something!
Common sense is that Republicans got very comfortable being the minority party and have never adjusted...
Dave-
I'm actually in Seattle but travel to Mexico a couple or three times a year.
Cheers!
My plan as a conservative would be to let bad businesses fail, and cut our taxes so that we can decided how we want to stimulate the economy dealing with good businesses.
How about this? Cut out all the pork; all of the new permanent spending programs; all of the little stealth policy changes like repealing welfare reform and nationalizing health care.
Put money back in the people's pockets with temporary tax cuts. Extend unemployment benefits. Make one-time grants to food shelves.
That's all. Just things that have an immediate stimulative effect. Is that so hard to understand?
Dave: I'm getting on a plan shortly. Until then, check out my last post at Conservative Convictions for a preview.
Shaw: Actually, it brings joy to my heart to see you laughing at me ripping Obama in the most obscene manner possible. As I said, I was just going to wing it.
As for the man-twat comment, it was the funniest obscenity I came up with.
But there's also justifiable anger there. Especially when Obama LIED about there being no "earmarks". What he left out was pork that was not attached to any specific person. Refute the lie and I'll drop it completely.
Arthur: As I have yet to unleash a full plan, you'll note my hands are not over my ears and there is an intake of breath. Be afraid.
Dave and Shaw: Ganging up on me doesn't work. Just makes me cuter.
Dmarks: Crap. That's what I get for writing it at 1AM.
Tao: Yeah, it's all Bush's fault. Even those years (the last two) where the Democrats were throwing shit out. You're getting worse than the liberals.
Beth, Gordon: Good ideas. May have to add them to my stimulus plan, which I will produce before Porkulus is signed into infamy.
I spared myself the agony and didn't bother watching it. I was at karate and kickboxing and there was no way I was going to set it up to record on the DVR.
And to be honest, the person I'm most irritated with right now is Arlen Specter. He and one of the other liberal RINOs had it within their power to keep this monstrosity from passing. I will be venting on that for tomorrow's post.
That's all. Just things that have an immediate stimulative effect. Is that so hard to understand?
We are a country with almost countless numbers of serious problems, ask the governors who actually deal with these issues--not Rush Limbaugh. You've just proposed a "one-size-fits-all" solution to immensely complex problems.
The only thing conservatives have offered for solutions for America's fiscal problems over the last 30 years is tax cuts, tax cuts, and increases in military spending.
"There are only three things a conservative mentions when he/she speaks about America's fiscal problems: a noun, a verb, and a tax cut."
And they have done nothing to solve these issues. We have HUGE infrastructure problems, problems with our food safety, poor mileage for our American made cars, dirty water, crumbling schools and veterans'hospitals, 2 wars (one of which was a war of choice, not one that was fought to defend the US from imminent attack), that have cost this country trillions of dollars--where's your outrage on THAT porkulus?)
And you think cutting taxes and putting canned food in food banks will solve our prolems?
We live in the 21st Global Community Century--not some agrarian 19th century Norman Rockwell Eden.
There are NO simple solutions to the mess we're in.
Patrick, I’ve read your posts (at CC and here) and various comments littering the blogosphere. My critique: All invective and no content. Object-oriented gender epithets for self-amusement do not indicate a grasp of the subject or raise the level of discourse. If you want to have a discussion, please be analytical and specific.
Right now, federal deficit spending (sovereign debt) is the only rationale left, a fact poorly understood by the public and an object of derision by so-called fiscal conservatives.
A nation is a sovereign entity whose books do not balance in quite the same way as a corporation or individual. A former mentor of mine used to say that countries with a liquidity crisis, or crises in confidence, never truly go bankrupt due to the nature of sovereignty. These are the lessons learned from the Third World Debt crises of the early 1980s. Today, those same third world debtors (Latin American countries) have recovered to the extent that they are in far better financial shape than the U.S. at this moment.
Sometimes, a country needs to increase public debt to stave off disaster ... like now for instance. You ignored my graph and ignored my accompanying comment: When FDR reduced stimulus spending in 1937, it triggered the recession of 1938. Next time, pay attention.
Sometimes monetary policy can serve as an effective stimulus. However, with FED interests rates effectively at zero, there is no amount of FED tinkering that can fix this crisis. That is why massive spending is the only viable option left ... meanwhile the Republican noise machine is “playing chicken" with our financial future.
"... meanwhile the Republican noise machine is “playing chicken" with our financial future"
Is it the objectors who have endangered our financial future, or those who have loaded the "stimulus" with costly poison-pills such as free government health care for rich adults, more money for official government art production, and other examples of waste?
Shaw said: "2 wars (one of which was a war of choice"
All wars are "wars of choice", really. We can always choose to sit back and welcome more attacks, or we can fight back to stop the aggression.
dmarks typed:
'All wars are "wars of choice", really. We can always choose to sit back and welcome more attacks, or we can fight back to stop the aggression.'
Iraq attacked us when exactly?
Come on.
8pus: Then you've selectively missed the content.
Actually, I took in the graph and realized that the reaction would be natural if government is keeping the economy on life support and then takes it away.
However, though enough government spending may pull us out of this, the cost might be the loss of too much freedom. In that case, it's only delaying the demise of the country as a place of freedom.
We're at the point where spending appears to be the only viable option because the government has never really returned to a hands off position. We were so intent on keeping the good times going that we kept tinkering and imbalancing the whole damned thing. In this, both parties are guilty. And to get out of it and still be a free market, we have to change directions radically. And it will hurt.
So don't assume I'm not paying attention.
Psychologically, the government doing something to solve the problem is comforting. But if we keep having the government "do something" then at some point, there will be no difference between the market and the government.
More to come.
Arthur:
1) Saddam ordered numerous and serious violations of a cease-fire, aside from his military aggression detailed below.
2) He also ordered hundreds of attacks on US military peacekeeping patrols. The peacekeeping patrols were allowed under the cease-fire. The firing and targetting them was not.
-----
9/11 taught us that it was foolish to shrug off ongoing aggression from terrorists. Sometimes you have to fight back.
Iraq did not attack the US.
Period.
No WMDs.
No Al-Qaeda.
The occasional pot shot at an inspection flight notwithstanding Iraq was in no condition to attack anyone, anywhere.
What 9/11 taught some people was how to manipulate fear to further their own political goals.
Remember the Maine!
Arthur, your Periods need a big old asterisk after them. "Iraq did not attack the US. Period." *
*= They attacked Americans many times.
"No WMDs."*
Hundreds of older WMD older warheads were found. According to the requirements of the cease fire, these were supposed to have all been accounted for. In fact, Saddam said there were none.
"No Al Queda" *
Saddam's positive ties with Al Queda have long since been proven. As have Saddam's role as a major terrorist leader, host, funding source, and kingpin.
What isn't true is the idea that Saddam caused 9/11. So many claim that Bush said this, when he never did.
"What 9/11 taught some people was how to manipulate fear to further their own political goals."
That's a fair description of the anti-Bush industry and those like Murtha who knowingly slandered US troops and endeavored to undermine them in Congress.
Dmarks-
You are one of a very few clinging to the disproved story that there were WMDs in Iraq poised for immediate use and that Al-Qaeda was in any way active in Iraq prior to the invasion.
Sorry both rationales for invasion have long since been discarded and proved false.
Sorry.
But here's the best part. Apologists for this fiasco such as yourself will be pleased to learn we likely are about half way, or less, of our military engagement in that nation.
Our country is heading for doom in the disguise of socialism being wrapped up in an idiotic "stimulus" bill that is killing our freedoms in so many ways, and you are rehashing old arguments about why we are at war in Iraq? What's the point in that?
Shaw, I have refrained from suggesting that you take your posting orders from DKos or ThinkProgress. Do you suppose you could lay off suggesting that I don't have enough intelligence to formulate an argument without Rush's input?
Addressing one of Shaw's contentions: Yes, I would do one-time grants to food shelves. Right now, the way our economy is structured puts enormous stress on folks who are in the lower quintile of income. We already have programs in place to help with a lot of that (Medicaid, food stamps, housing and heat subsidies).
But there are also folks who don't qualify for such programs, and they're hurting. As the economy improves, so will their lot. But in the meantime, extended unemployment payments will help. And cutting their food bills will free up cash for other needs.
If you haven't noticed, food shelves distribute a lot more than just canned goods.
I'm not a fan of food shelves in general. But right now, they're a good and fairly efficient (low overhead) way to help folks in need.
I find it absolutely unbelievable that people, seeing the utter chaos capitalism has taken us to, are STILL convinced of its ultimate superiority to the point that to even suggest that socialising certain points and places and areas of a free market economy would bring down Armageddon.
Hello.
Socialism continues to be the insult and scare tactic of choice in this country despite the mess that capitalism has made.
Why?
It's on a par with people who bash Islam and toss around 'quotes' from the Koran without ever having read it or knowing anything about it except what some preacher's told them in between handling snakes and going on dates with young handsome gay drug addicts.
It's crazy. You see what a mess one system has made and you still insist on clinging to it, regardless of the potential for improvement and success if that system was tweaked even a little bit.
Oh my God, no, not Socialism!
This is like the guy who would rather die of infection than take medication because he saw on TV that one time someone took medication and died of an allergic reaction.
Ridiculous. Ever hear of a risk to benefit ratio? Ian Gillian said it best: when you're drowning, don't clutch no straw.
Using the infection example, socialism is like a bullet to the head.
When you're drowning, you clutch straws, not lead weights.
Why is the prospect of socialism so bad? Because of its terrible track record, and it is terribly dangerous to go down that path of turning over more control to the ruling class. Freedom beats fascism, even left-wing fascism.
This is like the guy who would rather deal with infection than take a dubious medication because he saw on TV that every time people take it, they suffer instantaneous cranial detonation.
dmarks thyped:
'Why is the prospect of socialism so bad? Because of its terrible track record, and it is terribly dangerous to go down that path of turning over more control to the ruling class. Freedom beats fascism, even left-wing fascism.'
No difference between Finland and 1975 Cambodia? Of course there is and it's profoundly dishonest to suggest otherwise. The term 'Socialism' as it's bandied about by far too many is merely a catch-all for anything and everything 'freedom-loving, real Americans' hold dear.
On the other hand if you were to mention how capitalism has lead to empire through military and economic activity to insure cheap labor, raw materials and markets then you wouldn't be far from wrong.
Much of the rest of the world views the United States as just another in a long line of imperial powers ranging from Rome to Great Britain.
And I think they're on to something.
Typo!!
The term 'Socialism' as it's bandied about by far too many is merely a catch-all for anything and everything opposite to what 'freedom-loving, real Americans' hold dear.
The difference betwen Finland and Cambodia is that Cambodia was much more completely socialist (i.e. means of production controled by the government instead of the people). Of course there is a difference, and the difference is amount of socialism.
"On the other hand if you were to mention how capitalism has lead to empire..."
It hasn't, and I am not responsible for incorrect opinions that some in the rest of the world have. Most empires since the invention of socialism have been socialist.
I won't call you stupid Saty, and I must commend that at least you are willing to admit that you are pushing for socialism, unlike Arthur who is trying to not call a spade a spade here. But I feel Saty you are not realizing that true capitalism is not what has been at work here, the government and unions have slowly been tying the hands of capitalists and have been the source of our troubles, not capitalism. Like when the government tells banks to lend money to people who cannot afford houses, that is not capitalism at work. When government tells companies they must pay a minimum wage, that is not capitalism. When unions force companies to give them certain benefits (regardless of profitability) that is not capitalism.
Capitalism works in a free country, socialism cannot by its very nature. And so as we move towards socialism, I cringe, because we lose our freedoms, we lose our motivation to succeed, we lose our own personal identity because we (willingly!) give up our personal responsibility. Now maybe you Saty and Arthur and Toad, you are willing to submit yourselves to the government, but I for one am not. Too many brave men and women have DIED to make and keep this country free, and you are so damn quick to piss that all away. You aren't stupid, but you sure do not appreciate what has made our country great. It is the individual working hard, seeing a need and filling it, so what the hell is wrong with that man profiting from his hard work and risk taking and his ingenuity? According to you, how dare he wish to profit! I mean seriously, how does socialism make any sort of sense, ever? Stop naming countries that have socialistic tendencies, they have never achieved what America in its relatively short history what any other country has, but we are failing now because we are moving away from the principles upon which our country was founded. Has that thought ever crossed your minds?
Forgot to add why else I don't want to have the government in charge of everything, they totally suck at it, if you haven't noticed.
Beth: Thanks for making some excellent points. Socialism is a very regressive movement. It undoes centuries of progress to establish human rights (Magna Carta, etc) by giving power back to the rulers.
The "stupid" thing here is to fight for a system (socialism) that turns over control of our lives to the rulers... because the rulers say we should trust them, and they only act in our best interest etc etc etc.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is an excellent example to bring up of what happens when you embrace socialism. Finland? Most of the economy there is controlled by the people, not the state, so it is mostly capitalist.
Again and again those who push for socialism ask us to ignore the catastrophic examples of what happens when it is embraced, and the fact that most of the worst dictators, and most of the empires of the 20th century have been socialist. It is not surprising: socialism maximizes the worst in greed and rapaciousness.
Beth observed:
'When unions force companies to give them certain benefits (regardless of profitability) that is not capitalism.'
Boy oh boy. Those pesky workers. Always hindering 'capitalism'.
And we all should be grateful.
This is interesting.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/01/19/090119crbo_books_crain?currentPage=2
And they still won't quit.
Picking on companies barely scraping by.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/04/30/us-wal-mart-denies-workers-basic-rights
Oh woe is us.
And dmarks thanks for pointing out the difference between Finland and Cambodia. Oddly enough there are gradations. Liberal doesn't equal 'Marxist'.
Right?
Will none of you even ADMIT that there are socialist or semi-socialist nations today that are NOT repressive dictatorships, are modern and industrialised, have a decent standard of living and are not practicing genocide on their own people?
There are SUCCESSFUL countries, our ALLIES, today that work on AT LEAST a partially socialist system. Can you not admit this? Is it that painful?
It undoes centuries of progress to establish human rights (Magna Carta, etc) by giving power back to the rulers.
And capitalism through history has given power to those with the money at the expense of those who don't.
Look around at the economic disparity in this country.
Let's stop for a moment and think about our founding fathers. Surely they were capitalists, no? And they made their living off slave labour... persons who were considered property and valued at three fifths of a 'real' human being.
Capitalism at work.
Wealth and luxury through the exploitation of others.
There you have it. It's the American way.
"Will none of you even ADMIT that there are socialist or semi-socialist nations today that are NOT repressive dictatorships"
If by socialist you mean mostly socialist, I can't think of a mostly-socialist state state is NOT an oppressive dictatorship. Socialism maximizes "wealth and luxury through the exploitation of others".
The ones that are semi-socialist (as in Western Europe) still have most of the economy in control of the people, despite a slightly stronger state than in the U.S.
Slavery? An oppressive government taking away people's rights. Something that went against the tide of establishing the rights of human beings in opposition to the State (Magna Carta, Constitution, etc). Even some of the founding fathers recognized this, and knew that slavery was a problem that would have to be dealt with. They wrote about it.
Socialism is regressive, and goes against this tide, as it is based on the rights of the state, the rights of the ruling class. Even if at best it is about taking away the power of the people "for their own good".
The Bill of Rights? Wonderful idea, and it goes against the mindset that brings us socialism and other justifications for taking away the people's rights. It's hard to find anything in there about the rights of the state.
(and Arthurstone, I read the "hrw" piece about Walmart. No one there is stopping anyone from joining any organization they want. That hrw hates is that Walmart is not forcing people to join a union. Makes as much sense to force people to join a union as a requirement for working somewhere as it does to force them to join the Episcopalian Church. Unless it actually has something to do with qualifications to do the job, a company has no business forcing someone to join something like that.)
I never suggested that semi-socialistic statss are all dictatorships, now can you admit that not all business people are evil, selfish bastards who want to screw their employees and customers but just want a fair pay for their hard work?
My final comment on capitalism is this: in a free society, such as ours, we have the right to vote. We vote for governmenmt with ballots. We vote for businesses with our dollars. If we don't agree with what a politician is doing, we vote their ass out. If we don't like what a business is doing, guess what? We don't even need to wait for a term to expire to in effect vote their asses out by not supporting them. This means that yes, bad businesses fail (we don't prop them up, we don't reward bad behavior and we don't give corporate welfare). This means we don't buy their products. What a concept, huh? Problem is, in my opinion, that most Americans are just too damn lazy and prefer to give up their freedoms and just sit on their brains and wait for the savior government to fix the problem.
Come on dmarks Walmart has fought with tooth and nail any employee attempts at organizing for the entire history of the company and continue to do so. It's no accident Sam started his empire down south in the 'right to work' belt.
Meanwhile the Waltons are collectively worth about $90B and taxpayers are on the hook for employee health care, corporate tax breaks etc. etc. which allow this sort of fortune to accumulate.
Arthur, the taxpayers aren't on the hook for any of that. Tax breaks are not a gift. Walmart is not in the least responsible for taxpayer costs of employee health care for those Walmart employees with such poor skills that their work is worth low pay. They are not a welfare agency and aren't obligated to give people unearned benefits and pay, nor should they be.
I don't blame Walmart for wanting to keep union thugs from bullying the workers and stealing money from them. And still, nothing stops any Walmart employee from giving any money they want to the AFL-CIO, etc.
Thanks dmarks.
Tax breaks are a gift dmarks. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. And Walmart enjoys them in spades. It's well-documented.
Whenever I read your comments I thank goodness I don't live in the fly over zone. One reason the rust belt has become what it has (a post industrial relic unlikely to recover...ever) is not that union wages and benefit packages have raised havoc with industry.
And as always your views on labor are fascinating. 'Thuggery' is so weighted to the side of management your remarks (presumably made with a straight face) are hilarious and cannot be taken seriously.
Rather liberal, progressive, visionary people: Gays. Creatives. Democrats. Etc. Have left for big cities and moved to the coast(s). Always have and always will. I can't wait until the day the West Coast (Southern BC to Central California from the Cascades to the coast) breaks away and forms our own republic. Heh. Heh. I can imagine the East Coast doing something similar leaving the republics of Dixie, Sun City, the Once-Great Plains, Jesus Land and Tejas to compete in their race toward third world economies.
Cheers.
Arthurstone: Tax breaks are not a gift. Ever. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise, and to suggest otherwise is to believe that everything we own is a gift from the government. That is such a civically-ignorant position.
When a purse snatcher walks by a would-be victim and chooses not to steal her purse, the snatcher is not giving the woman her purse, in exactly the same way.
Walmart enjoys some gifts from the government. However, the tax breaks account for $0 of these gifts. Your own money is not a gift to you.
"One reason the rust belt has become what it has (a post industrial relic unlikely to recover...ever) is not that union wages and benefit packages have raised havoc with industry."
It is one major reason, but not the only one. The UAW and other unions have encouraged factories to move south, and in some cases overseas.
"'Thuggery' is so weighted to the side of management"
Does this make union thuggery acceptible somehow? It is nothing other than thuggery when unions threaten and bully workers into giving money to unions. Why not let each worker choose?
While it happens, it is not common for companies to force workers to give their hard-earned wages to political organizations that are entirely unrelated to the worker's ability to do the job. Yet, unions commonly do this.
My views on labor take the needs of workers into account. That's something that is at odds with the unions.
"...compete in their race toward third world economies..."
That happens in the Rust Belt, where the unions help chase jobs out.
Post a Comment