 |
Have you heard anything about Obama sponsored legislation that would take .7% of our gnp and use it to fight world poverty? The account I read says it could come to vote in the Senate very soon. I guess he is not satisfied with the 300 billion or so that we now send abroad. We can't afford him in the Senate, much less in the White House!
I'm always amazed at how much ignorance people absorb when they listen to Limbaugh and a few other windbags of talk radio. Do yourself a favor, don't buy into Rush's show openers with the pop-rock music and soundbites because it sound's "patriotic." He's simply entertainment and a paid commentator hoping his audience will do little to no research on anything he says as his staff screens calls to cut off anybody that he knows has the upper hand on his shenanigans. What we can't afford is another Bush type Republican wannabe in office making the US appear to be the stench of the world, that we already are. Vote Obama! :cool:
Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty | U.S. Senator Barack Obama
"“Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day,” said Senator Obama. “We can – and must – make it a priority of our foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.”
“Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century,” Senator Hagel said. “This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world.”
"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates.""
UN Millennium Project © 2005 | Pressroom
What is the 0.7 commitment, and where did it come from?
"The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion —or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.
Official Development Assistance in 2004
(source: OECD/DAC 2004)
(*) Indicates countries that have NOT set a timetable for 0.7%.
Country
Aid as % of
GNI Country
Aid as % of
GNI
Australia (*)
0.25
Japan (*)
0.19
Austria
0.24
Luxembourg
0.85
Belgium
0.41
Netherlands
0.74
Canada (*)
0.26
New Zealand (*)
0.23
Denmark
0.84
Norway
0.87
Finland
0.35
Portugal
0.63
France
0.42
Spain
0.26
Germany
0.28
Sweden
0.77
Greece
0.23
Switzerland (*)
0.37
Ireland
0.39
United Kingdom
0.36
Italy
0.15
United States (*)
0.16
Five European countries already devote 0.7% or more of their gross national income to aid. In a historic declaration on 24 May 2005, the European Union announced plans and timetables to reach 0.7 before 2015, which means that 16 of the 22 OECD DAC countries (the EU-15 plus Norway) are on track to meet the commitments they made in Monterrey. The six remaining countries – Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and the United States – have not set out timetables to reach 0.7. If the wealthy nations do now what they have already promised to do, the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved in even the poorest regions."
An $845 Billion earmark... Do you know that this was rushed through Biden's Foreign Relations Committee without so much as a single hearing and no recorded vote(only a voice vote) ?They are rushing it through the Senate so Obama can get a legislative victory on a bill that he is the key sponsor of ;something he has not been able to do to date .By the time this is through the MSM will spin Obama as being the next Bono.
Here are the facts : The U.S makes up only 6% of the world population yet we pay 27% of the worlds peace keeping budget. We pay 22% of the U.N.'s total budget which is, as much as France, Russia, China, Germany, Canada and Italy combined! We donate 60% of the worlds food aid and 40% of the worlds disaster relief aid.In short the U.S. already gives more aid to the world than all other nations on earth combined!
The Millennium Project is a massive marxist transfer of wealth from free countries to countries run by despots and administered by the buffoons at the UN . I for one am not prepared to favor a bill that imposes a global tax on the US or dictates the level of foreign aid we send out and to whom. Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the Millennium Project has written that the only way to raise that kind of money is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Let's not talk GDP ; this bill commits the US to add $65 billion a year to it's foreign aid ;with the UN deciding where it is to be spent .
Also included in the Millennium project are requirements to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol , and a hand full of other conventions Does Obama plan to introduce separate legislations to compel us to ratify those treaties or is it all inclusive in his bill which mandates compliance with the Millennium goals ?
Yes, but since we don't also exceed every other nation in "per capita" aid we're just a bunch of miserly, self-absorbed cheapskates.Quote:
In short the U.S. already gives more aid to the world than all other nations on earth combined!
The Heritage Foundation notes "Since the end of World War II, the United States has provided more foreign aid to the world than any other country, yet recipients are just as poor now as they were then. Even worse, foreign aid has fostered corruption and irresponsible policymaking."
Some recipients are even worse off now than before our handouts.
"Zambia, for example, has received $1.3 billion (in constant dollars) in U.S. development assistance for four decades, but its real GDP per capita has fallen from $528 in 1960 to $366 in 2004. Haiti’s lot is even worse. Despite U.S development assistant of more than $3.5 billion (in constant dollars) over the past 40 years, Haiti’s real GDP per capita has dropped by almost half, from $788 to $437."
But hey, what's new about the left fighting to expand failed government programs?
These kind of taxes always confuse me. Why do all these geniuses keep imposing and raising taxes on commodities or activities they're trying to eliminate?Quote:
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the Millennium Project has written that the only way to raise that kind of money is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Yeah you would think that if the goal is revenue raising they would encourage carbon emissions.
I'd be willing to bet that if you added private donations then our per capita donation numbers would significantly rise .
also consider trade .The US imports some $660 billion in goods from developing countries annually . Trade means jobs and jobs help reduce poverty. Getting back to private donations ;the Hudson Institute, placed the value of total U.S. private assistance in 2004 at approximately $24.2 billion.
Yep, I've pointed this out before...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Here's the linkQuote:
Washington — The United States is the single largest donor of foreign economic aid, but, unlike many other developed nations, Americans prefer to donate their money through the private sector, according to a new report published by a Washington research organization.
Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005 (the most current data available), $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, says the annual Index of Global Philanthropy.
The index was issued May 24 by the Center for Global Prosperity at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based nonpartisan research organization.
“It isn't like in the 1950s when the Marshall Plan and government flows dominated our economic engagement with the developing world,” said Carol A. Adelman, the director of the Center for Global Prosperity. She spoke May 24 at the launching of the report.
For example, U.S. foundations gave more -- in money, time, goods and expertise -- than 11 of the 22 developed-country governments each gave in 2005, and U.S. private voluntary organizations totaled more than the governments of Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France each.
Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Is Ringling Brothers circus missing a couple of clowns? You guys got to be kidding me. We agreed to help out back in 2000. Would you really damn a man for wanting to help out with poverty, despite these earmarks which by the way has many taxation's included?? And another thing that's not about taking our guns away here in the US, it's about a push to reduce rebels in third world countries. This spenditure is minuscule by comparison of the trillions to be spent on Dubya's wars.
National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home
Iraq, Afghanistan could cost $2.4 trillion - Oct. 24, 2007
Yup like I said . We pay a big price for being the cop of the world. Which country would you prefer to take over that job? My biggest objection to the bill is that it gives the spending priorities to the UN . Tell me what program they have administered that wasn't a complete fraud ,scam ,or waste .
Geeze ;libs are all alike . The 2 Dem candidates belly ache about poverty while they both spend a quarter billion dollars on a campaign that will yield no results. Typical liberal spending plan if you ask me.
The libs want to be judged for their intentions, not the results of their 'pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by' schemes. And it is so pathetically funny to hear libs cry about the deficit and national debt, when this is their baby, the New Deal and the Great Society. Barf, barf, barf! In fact, the sorry state of education in America is the result of teachers crawling in bed with politicians; the same happened with medical care years ago, and the results of that fiasco are all around us, and becoming more acute.
I've got news for Republicans we are not the police of the world. We don't do such a good job taking care of our own backyard and certainly not anyone else's. The libs "good intentions" as compared to the "self-anointed" Republican world police force is far less expensive. McCain also speaks on poverty issues, but that wouldn't be belly aching huh? If the DNC doesn't disenfranchise one of the candidate's supporters, the money used during the campaigns will have been well spent to see the Pubs evicted from the White House come November.
Bobby ;you may wish it weren't so but our retreat from the role would create a void to be filled by people of bad intention. Which Navy do you think has the capacity to protect the free flow of goods ?Which nations Navy was able to rapidly deploy to give immediate aid during the 2004 Tsunami ? I am sure we are prepared to respond now when that fool running Myanmar gets his head out of his a** .
Is there a value and cost in those types of activities when we factor in how much aid we give to people in need ?
I mean, look at it: we can't afford cradle to grave security for the folks in the U.S.; how in the world can we afford 'security' for the rest of the world? Oballary has an answer for that? Oh yeah, spend more money, more programs, more security.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Tom and George,
Spending the money on aid for Katrina at home was a duty and responsibility to our own people, and as for as deploying international aid for the Tsunami in 2004 that was a wonderful act of compassion. So to answer your question "yes" it always has depended on the activity. Involving ourselves as if we are going to raise the American flag someday in Iraq and make it the fifty-first state of the US, was an act of ignorance and head first stubbornness. We can't continue to afford throwing money at useless wars that will send us to the grave broke as well. Dubya early on scapegoated the social security system to favor 401k's "investment plans" that can and has also lost money, but that's another subject that we can discuss if someone cares to start another thread.
Iraq expenditures are not the issue here. It is not either /or ;it is to me a matter of sovereignty .I don't mind foreign aid . What I object to is madates dictated to us from a pseudo-international government that I have no say in electing .
Our total military costs are less than 2% of GDP . And they do a lot more good for the world than all our other foreign aid .
I know that the popular counterpoint is for us to take care of our own and retreat to fortress America. Even when that was possible it was a bad and counterproductive idea. It ended up costing us more later . Just as waiting for OBL to whack us was a bad idea that cost us plenty as a result.
Plenty of money was spent for Katrina relief ;and still is being spent... But ,as is typical of big government, it was not administered well .
Giving the money then to a global unaccountable bureaucracy to administer would be an unmitigated disaster ;as the UN performance has proven over and over .It makes even less sense. This Millennium Project is just feel good pablum. I guarantee you'll hear of UN administrators growing rich off it. Just look to the Oil -for Food scam as an example of how the UN typically manages these programs.
BABRAM says: "...aid for Katrina at home was a duty and responsibility to our own people". Wrong; it is compulsory charity, i.e. taxes; pandering; socialism, fascism, whatever you want to call it. W ambushed by the pandering MSM and Dem/fascists. W tried social security reform, but it will take a national disaster like Katrina or 9/11 to get the statists to stop demagoging the issue.
Tom, what a surpise. We disgaree again. You'd think we shouldn't keep to our commitment of aid in helping fight poverty for approximately one-forth the cost of the GDP by comparson of the percentages as opposed to fighting much more expensive uselss war?! No wonder you don't what that to be the subject. OK so let me trun to another dynamic then... what do you mean to imply hat taking care of someone else's business we take care of our backyard? Really?? Any of a dozen idiots could strap on a bomb and walk into WalMart anytime, anywhere. OBL's probably preparing his next video to be stocked on the shelves of BlockBuster soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
OK folks you heard it from George himself. Katrina was not our responsibility to help our fellow Americans. Thank you George. Perfect!
It is amusing, but tragic, that many volunteers from many groups aid Americans in crisis, Katrina and elsewhere, with little or no recognition; but the tragedy has been terribly demagogued here and elsewhere trying to make political points. And the point that is being made is there is not enough government. Blaming W for Katrina is like blaming Hoover for the Depression. Is that before your time? If so, I'm sorry; but Hoover was the whipping boy for too little government in the national economy, just as Bush is the whipping boy for too little government in a national disaster. I ain't buying a ticket to that play.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't help our fellow Americans and that our government abandon it's people? Last time I checked the presidents have power to declare natural disasters, is that a problem for you? I'm not blaming Bush for the hurricane itself and I don't think most of the Libs were either. That's a skewed issue of contention for most Republican vs. a few extreme lefties. However many people, like Tom mentioned earlier (and I agree), see a problem in the efficiency of getting that help in a timely manner and the after effect of civil unrest.
Bobby I'm sure you will 'feel good 'about paying your taxes for poverty relief only to find it syphoned off by the next Kojo Annan in the UN or Robert Mugabe.
ABC News: Will More Foreign Aid End Global Poverty?
EXACTLY!Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Liberalism is all about "feeling good", and has nothing to do with reality or facts.
FDR wanted to feel good when he created the welfare state, now we have generations of people without any self respect, sense of accomplishment, or personal responsibility. They look to the government to take care of their every need and have no ability or desire to take care of themselves. Boy, we've really helped them haven't we!
The re-distribution of wealth is a liberal policy based on socialistic ideals that I strongly disagree with, as well as raising our taxes so we can "help" other countries become dependent upon the US Government for their existence.
Sure, lets put them in the same position we have our own people, you got to be kidding me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
Great insight! Bingo!
Insight? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Great Sarcasm? YES!
I could add to his list:
Lets start giving money to the poor people, without any requirement that they do anything to earn it. This way, they will become totally dependent upon us for their survival.
Lets take money from the rich, who have worked hard and earned every cent they have, so we can create this dependent group of people to keep us in control.
Lets work as hard as we can to disarm the public. This way, even when our true motives are finally known, they will be helpless to defend themselves.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
Man am I lucky! All in one week I've read implications of Obama being damned for wanting to help the impoverished, that our government should abandon it's people during natural disasters, and now FDR is wrong for helping our nation out of a depression and that farms should go bankrupt and trade schools close. Way to go "McCainites!" Wow!
FDR's initial new deals were great for the country and it was the congress attaching other programs, not the ones needed to help farmers or give our youth a trade, but left alone social security would still be working perfectly today. I'm advocate of the WIC program, but this came later. Other welfare programs are over abused, but that was not FDR.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"With a strong mandate, FDR moved quickly during the first hundred days of his administration to address the problems created by the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress passed a series of landmark bills that created a more active role for the federal government in the economy and in people's lives. During the first hundred days of his administration, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which stabilized the nation's ailing bank and reassured depositors, created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Believing that work programs were better than relief, FDR secured passage of legislation establishing the CCC and the Civil Works Administration (replaced in 1935 by the Works Progress Administration or WPA). He appointed Frances Perkins as secretary of labor, the first woman to become a cabinet member. With strong prodding from Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR appointed more women to federal posts than any president before him and made sure that black Americans were included in federal job programs (although they remained, in most cases, segregated). In 1935, Congress passed the Social Security Act, the most important and enduring piece of New Deal legislation.
On March 12, 1933, shortly after his inauguration, FDR gave the first of his famous “fireside chats.” In these informal, but carefully prepared, radio talks, FDR explained his initiatives in the same language he used in speaking with his rural Hyde Park neighbors. As a result, his listeners felt that he was talking directly to them, understood their problems, and was taking action to address their needs. FDR's ability to connect personally with ordinary people, to communicate his optimism, and project an image of vigorous action was probably as important as all the New Deal legislation combined in helping the nation weather the Great Depression.
Although the depression was far from over, New Deal legislation during FDR's first term in banking, housing, unemployment, work relief, and old age pensions gave people hope and a sense of security they had not enjoyed before. In 1936, FDR won reelection in a landslide even bigger than in 1932, carrying every state except Maine and Vermont.
During his first administration, several key pieces of New Deal Legislation, notably the NRA, had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Frustrated that the aging members of the Court were preventing some of his programs from taking effect, and feeling that his 1936 victory gave him an overwhelming mandate for change, FDR proposed expanding the number of justices on the Court. Many Americans, however, saw the "court packing” plan as an assault on one of the nation's sacred institutions. The plan immediately ran into stiff opposition in Congress and was defeated, handing FDR the most embarrassing political setback of his career.
By 1937, the depression had eased somewhat and FDR sought to balance the budget by cutting government spending. But in the fall and winter of 1937-38, conditions worsened again, partly because of these cuts, and FDR had to seek additional funds to meet the crisis. The depression didn't actually end until the beginning of World War II when the defense economy put the unemployed who were not called to military service back to work."
And if that wasn't Beans, Corn Bread and boiled Hog Belly enough fur ye, chew on this fur a spell.
YouTube - Merle Haggard - America First
YouTube - WELFARE CADILLAC by GUY DRAKE
I will not be diverted from the point that regardless about if you think the promise for the comittment is right or if you argue about the amount ;we should not be delivering our foreign aid through the hopelessly corrupt UN .
Another example of how bad it is has been under-reported in recent days. This one involves the "peace-keeping "force in Congo . The BBC reports :
The BBC has learned that the UN ignored or suppressed evidence that its troops in DR Congo gave arms to militias, and smuggled gold and ivory......
Pakistani peacekeepers in the eastern town of Mongbwalu were involved in the illegal trade in gold with the FNI militia, providing them with weapons to guard the perimeter of the mines.
Indian peacekeepers operating around the town of Goma had direct dealings with the militia responsible for the Rwandan genocide, now living in eastern DR Congo.
The Indians traded gold, bought drugs from the militias and flew a UN helicopter into the Virunga National Park, where they exchanged ammunition for ivory.
BBC NEWS | Africa | UN defends DR Congo investigation
Poachers in Congo have slaughtered 14 elephants in Congo's Virunga National Park since the demands from China for ivory have soared and conservationists believe that UN peacekeepers have played a role in the death of those elephants and the ivory trade business .The ivory trade has been banned since 1989.
Instead of holding their peace-keepers accountable the UN is involved in a coverup;much like they did during the Oil-for Food scandal. Last month the head of the UN mission in Congo, Alan Doss, denied any wrongdoing by peacekeepers.
But corruption charges against the UN have more often proven to be true. Many of these cases have involved sexual abuse by UN workers who exploit the vulnerability of the poor and starving .
U.N. Sexual Abuse Alleged in Congo (washingtonpost.com)
"Sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly prostitution of minors, is widespread and long-standing," says a draft of the internal July report, which has not previously been made public. "Moreover, all of the major contingents appear to be implicated."
Now please note ;all this was happening in only one of the countries where the UN has come to the aid of the people. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The UN has had similar charges in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere .
Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission, including operations in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.
"This is a problem in every mission around the world," said Sarah Martin, an expert on the subject at Refugees International who recently conducted investigations into misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia.
Peacekeepers in several Liberian communities routinely engage in sex with girls, according to an internal U.N. letter obtained by The Washington Post. In the town of Gbarnga, peacekeepers were seen patronizing a club called Little Lagos, "where girls as young as 12 years of age are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by U.N. peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities," according to the letter, which a representative of the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) wrote Feb. 8 to the mission's second-ranking official.
The letter also stated that community leaders in the town of Robertsport have accused Namibian peacekeepers there of "using administrative building premises and the surrounding bush to undertake sex acts with girls between the age of 12-17."
U.N. Faces More Accusations of Sexual Misconduct (washingtonpost.com)
In Haiti, the BBC's Mike Williams spoke to a street girl as young as 11 who had reported sexual abuse by peacekeepers outside the gates of the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince.
A 14-year-old described her abduction and rape inside a UN naval base in the country two years ago.
Despite detailed medical and circumstantial evidence, the allegation was dismissed by the UN for lack of evidence - and the alleged attacker returned to his home country.
In May this year, another BBC investigation discovered systematic abuse in Liberia, involving food being given out to teenage refugees in return for sex.
BBC NEWS | Americas | UN troops face child abuse claims
This is your UN funding at work!! The sad part is that these are the least damaging of the UN failures. The worse of them enable dictators like Saddam Hussein and enrich the pockets of the General Secretary and his family and friends. The worse of them end up in the genocides in Rhwanda and the Sudan.
Screw the UN . I will oppose even an additional dollar of funding to an organization I think should be dismantled .
I agree. It has nothing to do with what Bobby said, "Would you really damn a man for wanting to help out with poverty?" Of course we do, but I for one don't see the sense in not only just throwing more money at every problem, but trusting it in the hands of inefficient, ineffective and corrupt governments and organizations. Sure seems like a no-brainer to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wow! "Alleged sex abuse, poachers, and child abuse claims" is the Republicans newest excuse for backing out of commitment to help the impoverished worldwide. Like that's never happened in the US. What a great week!
Bobby, so you don't mind trusting sexual abusers, poachers, and child abusers with impoverished children?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Doesn't seem to bother McCainites in the US, perhaps we can hang our hat on Iraq being the model 100 years from now. Yeah! Let the children starve in the Congo. Why care?
Years of aid giving to Mugabe's Zimbabwe has only resulted in increased poverty and starvation. It is an endless sieve unless the government where the aid is going to is willing to let it go to the people. But you can wash your hands of that reality by opening your wallet to give more to enable the scam .
Then cut your nose off spite your face. I do think our government should keep it obligations for all the good actions, in which by the way GW Bush actually agrees, in helping the impoverished worldwide as opposed to a few incidents in select countries. I doubt you stopped donating to the Catholic church because of small percentage of child molesting priests.
There exists a HUGE difference between "donating" and being "stolen" from.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
When I donate, I decide how much and who to give it to.
When the government takes my money, it is legalized theft, period.
Such drama lately - in spite of what you've already been told to the contrary. Of course we care, just as said before. If the aid already given doesn't reach the people, what makes you think it will if we just give more? In Iraq we at least have boots on the ground actively assisting the Iraqis. We're ready to do so in Myanmar, the US Navy is poised to help but the military junta there is too paranoid to even allow air drops, let alone boots on the ground with supplies, equipment and manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
I'm all for assistance, but let's find something more effective than what we have now. For example, I support World Vision regularly - 86% of their revenue goes to programs - food, education, agricultural training, crops, medical care, etc. They get outstanding marks for accountability, the aid gets to the people that need the help. Makes more sense than feeding a corrupt, inefficient body that can't keep its own people from abusing the ones they are sent to help.
More and more, I am convinced that "liberalism" is a contagious form of insanity!
Well put! Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
So let's reiterate: liberals don't really care about the results, and instead want to be rewarded by their intentions. And then the pols get into the public, in the press, and thump their chests about all the aid they've given... blah, blah, blah; just wasted tax dollars, enriching fellow world travelers and grandstanders. You remember the feds handing out debit cards! Yow! Aren't we goooooooooooood!! (Stealing from Ann to pay Allison).Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Red herring and excuses. None of our personal charities represent the government's commitments internationally and besides what you declared is used as write off to non-profit organizations. In the last last seven and half years of recent US history, we have all survived the most insane decisions in recent US history and I'm sure the liberals are no worse the challenge.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 PM. |