Making too big of a deal ABOUT Obama

[themadscientist]

Just pay your taxes good citizen, it's patriotic.

[yotik]

The only old guy I trust with the White House is Ron Paul. Hell, he's the only one I trust regardless of age.

Enjoy your big spending, folks. Bush was bad, and Obama is seeking to be even worse.

Nah, we'll just sit back and watch the country handed over to China while 3% of the worlds population enjoy the high life. Cmon man get serious. Any businessman knows it takes wealth to make wealth. Its not our fault GOP doesnt know how to spend it. You clearly know nothing about investing. Ive read some great thoughts from you but this one is

[audtatious]

And the Dems know how to build a bigger and bigger budget

[BoostFab]

i heard some said they hope obama would inspires black men to be better father--and having bastard kids all over the places.

[480sx]

And the Dems know how to build a bigger and bigger budget

And the republicans dont? They approved funding a huge amount of military spending. Huge doesnt even really fit here, more like monumental or gigantic, ridiculous enormously massive amount of it. At least with a democratic government(in theory..) that money would have been spent stateside on companies other than Haliburton(just throwing it out there), ect.

The party lines are so blurred, the time for partisan politics is over. Its such garbage, just a distraction from the real issues. Wahh abortion and gay marriage, why the hell are those party defining issues? They are things that our government should have no say in, but yet for a lot of people those two simple things are the only reasons they vote republican again, and again, and again.

Partisan politics is a fvking joke in its current state. A parliamentary system would be much more ideal. Bi-partisan politics were great for this countries birth, but we need to move on. One party should be able to represent at least 65-70 percent of the population. When they cant do that anymore? Replace them.

[Jesda]

Nah, we'll just sit back and watch the country handed over to China while 3% of the worlds population enjoy the high life. Cmon man get serious. Any businessman knows it takes wealth to make wealth. Its not our fault GOP doesnt know how to spend it. You clearly know nothing about investing. Ive read some great thoughts from you but this one is

I have no idea what it is you are talking about. You believe it takes unproductive government spending to create wealth? Government spending, for the MOST part, is an unproductive leech on economic resources.

Guns or butter? Neither, how about corporate and personal welfare! Why be selectively productive when you can be entirely wasteful.

You clearly know nothing about investing or economics.

[audtatious]

And the republicans dont? They approved funding a huge amount of military spending. Huge doesnt even really fit here, more like monumental or gigantic, ridiculous enormously massive amount of it. At least with a democratic government(in theory..) that money would have been spent stateside on companies other than Haliburton(just throwing it out there), ect.

The party lines are so blurred, the time for partisan politics is over. Its such garbage, just a distraction from the real issues. Wahh abortion and gay marriage, why the hell are those party defining issues? They are things that our government should have no say in, but yet for a lot of people those two simple things are the only reasons they vote republican again, and again, and again.

Partisan politics is a fvking joke in its current state. A parliamentary system would be much more ideal. Bi-partisan politics were great for this countries birth, but we need to move on. One party should be able to represent at least 65-70 percent of the population. When they cant do that anymore? Replace them.

You mean the RINO's in office? They suck too. The Dem party has moved further left and the GOP RINO division has as well. Now that reality has slapped them in the face maybe real Republican conservatives will be put in office in their place.

So, you suggest simply giving the whole country over to one viewpoint and that viewpoint is the one of the DEMs? Work your butt off for 20 years and look back at that ridiculous suggestion.

[480sx]

So, you suggest simply giving the whole country over to one viewpoint and that viewpoint is the one of the DEMs?.

Lol as if i support the democratic party or something. Come on dude you have been around long enough to know that im all about the destruction of this whole political institution. Destroy and rebuild. The only way to deal with this overgrown, cumbersome, out of control money hemorrhaging idiotic foreign policy handling corrupt monster of a government we call our own. What we have now would be looked down upon by the framers almost certainly.

Im giving B.O a chance because so many people believe in him, and also, because he is intelligent, and well educated. So far into his presidency(lol) iv seen some good moves out of him. I believe he deserves a fair shot. Thats all im gona say about that.
Modified by 480sx at 9:42 AM 1/24/2009

[Jesda]

Im giving B.O a chance because so many people believe in him, and also, because he is intelligent, and well educated. So far into his presidency(lol) iv seen some good moves out of him. I believe he deserves a fair shot. Thats all im gona say about that.

And he deserves criticism for his big spending plans that stink of W.

His education hasn't shaped his philosophical views in favor of smaller government and less oppressive institutions.

And the quantity of people believing in him? Its a logical fallacy to give that any credence at all. George W Bush, your nemesis, was popularly reelected.

[yotik]

I have no idea what it is you are talking about. You believe it takes unproductive government spending to create wealth? Government spending, for the MOST part, is an unproductive leech on economic resources.

Guns or butter? Neither, how about corporate and personal welfare! Why be selectively productive when you can be entirely wasteful.

You clearly know nothing about investing or economics.

I rest my case...

i heard some said they hope obama would inspires black men to be better father--and having bastard kids all over the places.

What is this, 1960? Everyone needs to stop pissing and moaning, get a job, and STFU. Race should be IGNORED in this society. Its a distraction from things that matter.

And let me guess, you believe in communism? Diversity is what makes this country so powerful. It should be embraced.

[Jesda]

I rest my case...

And let me guess, you believe in communism? Diversity is what makes this country so powerful. It should be embraced.

What in the world does communism have to do with anything that we are discussing, at all?

I believe that federal government spending, by and large, is inefficient. That's a FAR cry from communism or socialism or even so-called democratic socialism.

Instead of throwing out shallow catch phrases like "come on man, get serious" try actually engaging in the discussion. Clarify your contention so the rest of us know what it is you're trying to say.

You made a brief comment about investing, then tried to make a statement about government spending by Republicans, as if government spending is some kind of "investment". You're either making entirely unrelated statements or drawing connections that don't exist.

[yotik]

What in the world does communism have to do with anything that we are discussing, at all?

I believe that federal government spending, by and large, is inefficient. That's a FAR cry from communism or socialism or even so-called democratic socialism.

Instead of throwing out shallow catch phrases like "come on man, get serious" try actually engaging in the discussion. Clarify your contention so the rest of us know what it is you're trying to say.

You made a brief comment about investing, then tried to make a statement about government spending by Republicans, as if government spending is some kind of "investment". You're either making entirely unrelated statements or drawing connections that don't exist.

Let me be more clear; my definition of investing is taking a resource (dollars, tools, machinery, people etc) and using that resource to create wealth (money, greater resources etc). If you believe investing is anything but that, you don't understand the fundamentals of investing. I have made over $8600 in a single month so I would say I know how to create wealth.

And lastly, to say that government spending is inefficient is as washed over as me saying "cmon man". The variables and intricacies of government spending cannot be measured as a whole. Thats why we have different sectors and programs. Lets take for example government grants. Fafsa has funded thousands of peoples success stories. The Workforce in Action program has developed ex convicts and minorities into middle class workers where it would not have been available. Our banks being backed by the power of our government have saved many peoples corporations from going under. Government investing in legal representation has helped many people win cases and recoup losses from corrupt business practices. And thats a very narrow area of study.

Granted, our government is far from perfect, but to say something as vague as our "government spending is inefficient" is a shameful insult to the american people. Because the american people make up the governing system. So again:

I rest my case and

[480sx]

And he deserves criticism for his big spending plans that stink of W.

O/C he does. I just said im giving the man a chance and I, like most, an optimistic for his future as POTUS. I hope that his plans for big spending are shot down by some sense of realism that our country is strapped. My biggest fear for his presidency is the issue you bring up. He has promised to much in a time where its not realistic to deliver such promises, i hope he can see this.

Im also concerned with him trying to be 'The One' that he still is in the public eye. He has to get over this image that the media and public have made him into and be his own man. I dont mind him being popular, but if its at the expense of bad policies that will bite us in the *** later on down the line then its going to be a problem.

His education hasn't shaped his philosophical views in favor of smaller government and less oppressive institutions.

And the quantity of people believing in him? Its a logical fallacy to give that any credence at all. George W Bush, your nemesis, was popularly reelected.

Fallacy noted, i knew it was shaky grounds when i posted it.

Point well taken.

[480sx]

Granted, our government is far from perfect, but to say something as vague as our "government spending is inefficient" is a shameful insult to the american people.

Are you saying that our government knows how to spend our tax dollars well? *Cough* 10 trillion dollars in debt *Cough* Not to mention our infrastructure is crumbling, prime example being our bridges and levies. Our countries GDP keeps falling, while our imports consistently rise. The auto industry is failing, and alternative energy isnt being researched or implemented nearly as fast as they should be. Jobs are being outsourced as a commonplace. We are being overtaken in many technological races around the globe.

So, explain to me how our government is spending our money efficiently?

How is criticizing our government a shameful insult to the American people?

Because the american people make up the governing system.

This isnt a direct democracy.. So.. No, they dont.

I rest my case and

Your case shouldnt really need much rest.

[Jesda]

Granted, our government is far from perfect, but to say something as vague as our "government spending is inefficient" is a shameful insult to the american people. Because the american people make up the governing system. So again:

I rest my case and

That's a foolish statement. How on earth can you interpret an acknowledgment of government inefficiency as being an INSULT to American taxpayers? Are you blindly loyal to the federal government? Are you unable to express dissent without being unpatriotic?

Your "case", which you have rested, is based on the notion that questioning the function of the federal government is anti-American, that by criticizing the way the government "invests" taxpayer dollars, one insults the American public.

By dissenting, you are supposed to counter the status quo with information, theories, and ideas. It is completely ridiculous of you to consider it insulting.

Cuba?

[yotik]

Are you saying that our government knows how to spend our tax dollars well? *Cough* 10 trillion dollars in debt *Cough* Not to mention our infrastructure is crumbling, prime example being our bridges and levies. Our countries GDP keeps falling, while our imports consistently rise. The auto industry is failing, and alternative energy isnt being researched or implemented nearly as fast as they should be. Jobs are being outsourced as a commonplace. We are being overtaken in many technological races around the globe.

So, explain to me how our government is spending our money efficiently?

See thats why the spirit behind enron keeps flourishing. We gotta stop blaming the government for these companies. I see where youre coming from, but none of anything you said in your reply is a direct result of government spending. To back what Jesda said you would have to base your argument on government spending, not corporate folly.

That's a foolish statement. How on earth can you interpret an acknowledgment of government inefficiency as being an INSULT to American taxpayers? Are you blindly loyal to the federal government? Are you unable to express dissent without being unpatriotic?

Your "case", which you have rested, is based on the notion that questioning the function of the federal government is anti-American, that by criticizing the way the government "invests" taxpayer dollars, one insults the American public.

By dissenting, you are supposed to counter the status quo with information, theories, and ideas. It is completely ridiculous of you to consider it insulting.

Cuba?

Well spoken but we are not speaking the same language. Im not here to argue with you my guy. Show some facts PROVEN facts that American government investments on the whole shot are unfounded. I would love to see you at one of our meets with the Chamber of Commerce talking like this. OMG you wouldnt last the first 5minutes!

Its been fun guys but case closed. Stay blessed...

[C-Kwik]

Let me be more clear; my definition of investing is taking a resource (dollars, tools, machinery, people etc) and using that resource to create wealth (money, greater resources etc). If you believe investing is anything but that, you don't understand the fundamentals of investing. I have made over $8600 in a single month so I would say I know how to create wealth.

Investments are one thing. Poor investments or bad investment chjoices are another. You seem to be negelcting that fact. Sure, we can go back to supply-side economics and everybody will seemingly flourish for a while. That is until the national debt catches up to it.

And lastly, to say that government spending is inefficient is as washed over as me saying "cmon man". The variables and intricacies of government spending cannot be measured as a whole. Thats why we have different sectors and programs. Lets take for example government grants. Fafsa has funded thousands of peoples success stories. The Workforce in Action program has developed ex convicts and minorities into middle class workers where it would not have been available. Our banks being backed by the power of our government have saved many peoples corporations from going under. Government investing in legal representation has helped many people win cases and recoup losses from corrupt business practices. And thats a very narrow area of study.

Indeed there are many variables. But so far you have not made any points to substantiate how these "investments" are well spent. By that I mean that the returns from these "investments" are efficient. The fact is, you can throw a ton of money at a program and surely, it can have good results. But implementation can be such that the same amount can achive lesser or greater results. We should be striving for a greater ROI. Not just more spending.

Granted, our government is far from perfect, but to say something as vague as our "government spending is inefficient" is a shameful insult to the american people. Because the american people make up the governing system. So again:

How was that statement vague? It was broad perhaps, but the message was clear. And if your contention is that the statement is incorrect, then PROVE it wrong.

I rest my case and

I really don't think this phrase means what you think it means. Saying you rest your case is court speak for "There is nothing more that I am adding to my side of the case." It has been used dramatically in movies and TV to but it still means nothing more than just that. You haven't put forth any kind of a solid argument to warrant the use of the phrase in such a dramatic fashion. If you are simply using it to say you have nothing else to add, then, I'd say you have lost the argument by a long shot.

But the reality is that I think you are trying to end the argument by making a dramatic statement. But for that to work, you need to actually make solid point and leave nothing left to be argued. That statement means very little from this dramatic standpoint unless you have left absolutely no holes in the argument.

See thats why the spirit behind enron keeps flourishing. We gotta stop blaming the government for these companies. I see where youre coming from, but none of anything you said in your reply is a direct result of government spending. To back what Jesda said you would have to base your argument on government spending, not corporate folly.

The government has infused themselves a great deal in our economy. The Federal Reserve has the ability to change the money supply simply by changing the interest rates. Government spending can also change our money supply and influence the value of the dollar not only by how much they spend, but by how they spend it. Its a complicated beast.

Well spoken but we are not speaking the same language. Im not here to argue with you my guy. Show some facts PROVEN facts that American government investments on the whole shot are unfounded. I would love to see you at one of our meets with the Chamber of Commerce talking like this. OMG you wouldnt last the first 5minutes!

What does the chamber of commerce for you or even across the nation have to do with this argument? Chambers of Commerces influences do not go that far beyond the interests of their local businesses. Not to mention they aren't even part of the government. They are nothing more than another political interest group.

Its been fun guys but case closed. Stay blessed...

Case is far from closed. As complicated an issue as government spending is, neither, I, nor anyone else in this forum possess the broad and detailed knowledge required to be the absolute end all of this discussion. I'd argue that noone in the world can be that either. Drop the arrogance. The intent of this forum is so we have a place where we can ENGAGE in political discussions. Not to try and say a few quirky comments and then try to imply you ended the thread to imply as if you are more politically knowledgable than the rest of us. It makes it rather hard to take you seriously in fact...

[Jesda]

Well spoken but we are not speaking the same language. Im not here to argue with you my guy. Show some facts PROVEN facts that American government investments on the whole shot are unfounded. I would love to see you at one of our meets with the Chamber of Commerce talking like this. OMG you wouldnt last the first 5minutes!

???

If you aren't here to debate and argue, what are you here for? The free snacks?

[JimmyMethod]

Steve jobs was a dropout of college. I only searched for two other rediculiously successful people's educational background.

Further to C-Wik's and audacious's point, if you want to pick the .0001% of people who, without a college degree made it in a particular industry (business or tech), go ahead, but for every Bill Gates, there's a hundred Stephen M. Ross's, and Larry Page's, and Warren Buffet's, and Michael Bloomberg's, and Phil Knight's, i.e. people who got degrees and made use of them to great effect.

What about all the artists and musicians who never saw any kind of college education and are now rocking the world?

Your comment was moronic Jimmy. Some of the greatest thinkers and minds come from people who break the mold.

When it comes to promoting world peace and sitting around and singing kumbaya, sure, I could go to Bono, but right now, we're talking about complex issues of governance. (or, in the example above, business)These things require comprehensive knowledge that 'Joe the Plumber' is, frankly, too stupid to fully grasp. That's WHY we have higher education. It's not just to throw $100-200k away.

It's so we can grasp the concepts that are above the average lever-puller and button-pusher.
Modified by JimmyMethod at 5:46 PM 1/26/2009

[480sx]

but right now, we're talking about complex issues of governance. (or, in the example above, business)

Prior to this you said.

In all reality, 99.5% of those without at least a bachelors really contribute nothing substantial to our modern society.

So while we may be talking complex issues of governance, you are making idiotic broad generalizations about society.

Further to C-Wik's and audacious's point, if you want to pick the .0001% of people who, without a college degree made it in a particular industry (business or tech), go ahead, but for every Bill Gates, there's a hundred Stephen M. Ross's, and Larry Page's, and Warren Buffet's, and Michael Bloomberg's, and Phil Knight's, i.e. people who got degrees and made use of them to great effect.

You really need to do some fact checking. Because your laughable percentages arnt even close to reality.

First, 15.5% of Americans have at least a Bachlors degree. (census bureau '05) So that means, out of 84.5 percent of America, 99.5 percent of those people are as you basically say, useless to society. With the US population estimated to be about 305,700,000 people, that means that out of the 258,316,500 people without college degrees, 257,024,917.5 of them contribute nothing to society.

Then, your newest statistic basically says this. Out of the 258,300,000 people without a degree, only 25,832 people IN THE WHOLE US make it in their career, field, whatever.

[JimmyMethod]

So while we may be talking complex issues of governance, you are making idiotic broad generalizations about society.

...Because I'm telling you that in order for someone to not be a blue-collar worker, you need a college degree? That's not a broad generalization. That's a fact.

Quote »You really need to do some fact checking. Because your laughable percentages arnt even close to reality.

First, 15.5% of Americans have at least a Bachlors degree. (census bureau '05) So that means, out of 84.5 percent of America, 99.5 percent of those people are as you basically say, useless to society. With the US population estimated to be about 305,700,000 people, that means that out of the 258,316,500 people without college degrees, 257,024,917.5 of them contribute nothing to society.

Then, your newest statistic basically says this. Out of the 258,300,000 people without a degree, only 25,832 people IN THE WHOLE US make it in their career, field, whatever. [/quote]I'm sorry. I didn't know you didn't understand hyperbole.

As for the 99.5%, aggregate, yes, they make an impact, because they purchase things and serve as manual labor (which could easily be replaced by any other Joe Schmuck).

As individuals, their contribution is less than negligible.

As for 'my newest statistic', you're right, I was way off, it's MUCH smaller than that. There's no way that 25 thousand people without college degrees are making significant positive impacts on our national economic well-being. The number is probably closer to about 50-100.

[480sx]

...Because I'm telling you that in order for someone to not be a blue-collar worker, you need a college degree? That's not a broad generalization. That's a fact.

First off, thats not what you said. Second, thats not true at all, again, your just wrong.

As for the 99.5%, aggregate, yes, they make an impact, because they purchase things and serve as manual labor (which could easily be replaced by any other Joe Schmuck).

You really seem to have no experience with the real world.

While some blue color jobs might be easily replaceable, there are way more than a few that arnt. There are quite a few that take years of experience and unmeasurable amounts of skill, knowledge, and intelligence to do them correctly. Without these peoples contributions we wouldnt be very far as a society.

As for 'my newest statistic', you're right, I was way off, it's MUCH smaller than that. There's no way that 25 thousand people without college degrees are making significant positive impacts on our national economic well-being. The number is probably closer to about 50-100.

Maybe you and people like you should find and island somewhere and see what kind of society/economy you put together and how well it functions.

Idiot.

[JimmyMethod]

First off, thats not what you said. Second, thats not true at all, again, your just wrong.

Would you prefer me to use the terms Lower, Working, and Lower-Middle Class? Does that make you feel better?

Quote »While some blue color jobs might be easily replaceable, there are way more than a few that arnt. There are quite a few that take years of experience and unmeasurable amounts of skill, knowledge, and intelligence to do them correctly. Without these peoples contributions we wouldnt be very far as a society.[/quote]While any job allows for a worker to get better/faster/more efficient at it, look at the largest employers of these workers: McDonald's and Wal-Mart (both with ~1.5 million employees globally).

Now, how much do you think a manager of McDonald's (your average working/lower-middle class person) contributes to our society in terms of innovation, economic growth, etc. as a society?

I'm gonna go with a big ol' goose egg.

[audtatious]

...Because I'm telling you that in order for someone to not be a blue-collar worker, you need a college degree? That's not a broad generalization. That's a fact.

Well, that's taking it a bit to the n'th degree. It is entirely possible to get a white collar job without a degree, it takes hard work. As an example, buddy of mine is on his way back from Iraq after he joined the reserves at 38 to support his country. At first they would not let him in because he did not have a GED so he had to take it first (from what I hear they hung his score on the wall because he got a 98% or something similar on the test). What does he do as a career? He's an IT Architect for IBM in Boulder. In a way I have a white collar job and do not technically have a college degree as I only went to a 1-year VoTech to learn Cobol programming and have a diploma from it.

BUT, you are on the right track. You get more opportunities when starting out in life by having an education.

While some blue color jobs might be easily replaceable, there are way more than a few that arnt. There are quite a few that take years of experience and unmeasurable amounts of skill, knowledge, and intelligence to do them correctly. Without these peoples contributions we wouldnt be very far as a society.

It is possible but it's not the norm. Look at the ghetto and all they want to do is become a sports star, rap star, etc. School is hard work and they drop out just like the others do. What percentage of them will become some form of a star? VERY small. What happens to the rest? That was my main point in contention with what you were originally saying. These people would not put forth the effort to get the most basic of all educations and it is doubtful the huge majority would waste their time doing what needs to be done to move into higher paying jobs. Of course, the liberal viewpoint is that society has led to their downfall.

Anyway, if you can prove me wrong on a percentage perspective then that would be good information to know. Determine the number of people in the US who are making greater than middle class pay and do not have a HS education, then compare that to the cumulative number of dropouts over the last 40+ years. I fully expect to see a minute percentage and you expect to see a higher representation. Do the work and prove me wrong.

[JimmyMethod]

Well, that's taking it a bit to the n'th degree. It is entirely possible to get a white collar job without a degree, it takes hard work. As an example, buddy of mine is on his way back from Iraq after he joined the reserves at 38 to support his country. At first they would not let him in because he did not have a GED so he had to take it first (from what I hear they hung his score on the wall because he got a 98% or something similar on the test). What does he do as a career? He's an IT Architect for IBM in Boulder

I consider military service damn close to a college degree in terms of learning skills to be a productive member of society when you're done. Especially if you go into a technical field.

[480sx]

Would you prefer me to use the terms Lower, Working, and Lower-Middle Class?

Sure, we can play that game. Lets say that you had said that originally.

...Because I'm telling you that in order for someone to not be a lower, working, lower-middle class worker, you need a college degree? That's not a broad generalization. That's a fact.

Oh damn, your still wrong. Plenty of secretaries, professional assistants, ect that dont have college educations make bank, and contribute accordingly.

While any job allows for a worker to get better/faster/more efficient at it, look at the largest employers of these workers: McDonald's and Wal-Mart (both with ~1.5 million employees globally).

Now, how much do you think a manager of McDonald's (your average working/lower-middle class person) contributes to our society in terms of innovation, economic growth, etc. as a society?

They dont do much working at McD's. However, you are taking that individual and saying that they are only a McD's manager. How do you know that those people arnt secretly super heros, or webstars? Surely a lowly WalMart employee by day can contribute to society in great ways when not at work. They can invent things, create things, save lives, stop crime, and can help society in a myriad of different ways.

College is a luxury bud. Not all the inventors and great thinkers/minds have the luxury of furthering their education past HS.

[audtatious]

I consider military service damn close to a college degree in terms of learning skills to be a productive member of society when you're done. Especially if you go into a technical field.

I do agree with you. In his case, he joined up in 2004 and has been in IT since the early 90's. He's providing technical assistance and not learning OTJ in the Army

[yotik]

As complicated an issue as government spending is, neither, I, nor anyone else in this forum possess the broad and detailed knowledge required to be the absolute end all of this discussion. I'd argue that noone in the world can be that either.

Exactly, you just negated your entire post. See, the thing is I never tried to pick a fight like youre doing . I simply corrected our fellow Nicoan, Jesda. Have some patience, go back and read the original post that I replied to on this topic. You will see that I have already proven, proven again, proven a 3rd time and then rested my argument there.What was my argument? Simply that I believe it is unfounded to say our government, on the whole shot, is inefficient at investing . Why? Because of what you said in the above quote.Theres nothing more I need to supply unless someone can prove that government investing is by and far inefficient. You would need to crunch so much data, you would die of sleep depravation so cut with the attacking.

Let me guess youre gonna crunch some data now? Ill look for you in the obituary!

Thats a joke guys.

Drop the arrogance.

Excuse me that was just mean. Whats wrong with having a viewpoint?Quit with the judgemental ego. Stop the prejudice, you cant judge a person by their myspace page!

Chambers of Commerces influences do not go that far beyond the interests of their local businesses. Not to mention they aren't even part of the government. They are nothing more than another political interest group.

yeah thats true, but they do work closely with the government for their interests (local economic growth etc) and they usually share a strong network of business owners, angel investors etc. Im sure you know where Im headed with that. But nonetheless I know what you mean.


Modified by yotik at 9:47 PM 1/26/2009

[480sx]

You didnt correct anyone you just showed yourself to be quite unaware of the reality that is government spending.

Research ---> Pork

[audtatious]

Pork should be in my belly, NOT in any form of economic bill.