If we did have a white history month
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-05-08
In Reply to: I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that. - AnnuderMT
we would be called racists.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
I guess you want the old white, wrinkly white guy?
Right wing horsesh*t being shoved out as "truth." Sad.
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
LOL! Yes, black and white =
only. Too bad it's not a black and white, good or bad world. The you're either with us or against us philosophy has not served us well in the world community and here at home your patriotism is questioned simply because you ask questions. But it's our mission to spread democracy. God help us.
sorry if I offended, but I'm white....
I'm a white person saying this.....but worked in ERs for years.....her Shaniqua statement made me say there's plenty of white trash going to ERs too....is all I meant - sorry if I offended you.
duh yourself - Barack IS 50% white... LOL
and some of us love people of color but not voting for him for other reasons,
There are people voting for him strictly because he's part black, and some people voting for hillary because she is female -
these are BAD reasons.........to vote for anybody........
what? said about biden by a white.
where do you get racism out of that?
He is both black AND white.
Not that it matters and your not the only one but people keep referring to Barack as a "black" man without acklowdeging that he is also half white (50/50). His mother was as white as they come. I don't feel we are electing a black man (or a white man). I feel we are electing a capable man.
Is this what the US needs in the White House?
??????
I think NOT.
what does black and white have to do with it?
s
Nothing to do with black or white there....has to do
!
Black and White
People and organizations often try to condense life into a black and white little box. It's way too gray for that.
One thing I discovered as I got older ... just because people or organizations come on strong doesn't mean they know what they are talking about or have good ideas.
I was always shy and figured the people who were forceful were such because the knew their $#it. Sooo not true. :)
What about the white people who went to war to...
abolish slavery? And many thousands died in the effort. That just get erased? Like it never happened?
In the White House, someone who has kept the
nm
Considering what we got in the white house, that's all
xx
White Phosphorus, In Our Name And With Our Tax Dollars
VIDEO |
Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre
A Film by Sigfrido Ranucci
RAINews24
11.08.05
WARNING: This video contains graphic and possibly disturbing footage. |
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K |
we already have a racist in the white house
George Bush does not like black people
how racist was that? No white trash in the ERs
x
black and white thinking
in other words seeing someone as all bad or all good is not an indicator of high intelligence. Beware.
Don't know how you can accuse me of only seeing black and white...
in view of all these posts. You really think calling someone a redneck and Nascar and a religious wacko is appropriate way to talk about issues?
They quote the bill of rights but ignore the one about freedom of religion...they hawk choice but you mention choice of the child and they tear the hide off you in strips...usually telling you to go back to your church, bible-thumper, etc., as if all pro-life people are grounded in religion. THat is simply NOT the truth...there are liberal pro-lifers who believe ALL life is sacred...and not from a liberal point of view, but a moral one.
And you can still post to me that to ME everything is black and white. I am perfectly willing and have been perfectly willing to debate issues. THey just do not tolerate a dissenting opinion, if you debate policies they take it as a personal affront to Obama...what was that you said about total agreement with a platform...?
No, frankly, I don't see it. But there will probably be more posts after yours high-fiving you for lecturing me.
Have a good evening.
I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
Another thank you for your service. White flag is right..
what a nation of wimps we will become under this man. He'll be hiding behind Michelle's skirt.
There are always those people out there, black and white
who just do not understand anything and never will.
White house butler guy.....you can't be serious.
He will be one of Obama's top advisors. You can't be that naive.
As to the Chicago political machine...google it. The Daleys of Chicago...crooked as a dog's hind leg comes to mind...you don't remember the current Mayor daley's dad?
Can't believe you never heard of the Chicago political machine. Obama was part of it, and he is bringing it with him to the White House. Yeah, that concerns me...and last time I looked, I have a right to be concerned.
The White House Butler guy
Ever see One Life to Live. Remember Asa Buchanan's butler, Nigel? Nigel knew more about Asa than his own family. OF COURSE, I understand what a Chief of Staff is. The position still sounds like a great big butler to me...one who sees all and knows all, exercises great discretion and is trusted by his employer.
To begin, I live in a parallel universe from you. I have no reason whatsoever to Google Chicago politial machine. I have seen the term thrown around here and there in paranoid rants and I am also acutely aware of how Chicago politics has been depicted by the right-wingers ever since the 60s...my mom being my prime source on that one (a Goldwater republican). I do not share this world view. When I think of Chicago politics, I think in terms of ideology, but that is a different story from this.
I was simply trying to get you to explain YOUR take on it and also why it is that you find so much fault ALREADY with Rahm Emanuel. He certainly will not be Obama's only advisor. As a matter of fact, Obama is bound to surround himself with many, many advisors from both sides of the aisle who represent a very WIDE variety of viewpoints, all of which he will listen to, consider, draw conclusions, formulate plans and policy initiatives and execute what he feels best. That's my thing. I was simply trying to get you to explain yours.
Maybe you should e-mail the White House and
tell them GP wants to know!
She called me racist and I am white,
husband black and mixed daughter. Go figure!
Bush is out of the White House.
This has nothing to do with Bush. My whole point of this was not to worship Bush here. My whole point was that I was blindsided by our government and I refuse to sit back and not be informed with Obama as president. I want to stay in the know so I can make my own decisions and keep tabs on things. I just think that President Obama has made A LOT of promises already and the man hasn't even been pres for a whole week yet and he has already broken some of his promises. I am going to hold this president and any future president's feet to the fire from now on. I don't care if they are dem, pub, or whatever......
They voted for him because he was half white?
that is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And you speak for the majority? Get real.
Just because they live in the White House....(sm)
doesn't mean they're dead. They have the right to entertain at their residence just like you do. Get over it. I like the idea of having a president with a social life.
parties at the White House
President Kennedy http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/The+Kennedy+White+House+Parties.htm
President Clinton http://mediamatters.org/items/200502190003
President Bush http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/13/letter_ed3__5.php
And I found many, many more hits - just too many to post!
Obama in his white house.
//
Exactly when was the last time a white person s/m
was lynched in this country?
BTW, Sonia Sotomayor's comments on how she, as a Latina woman, might have a different perspective than those that have been the majority for the last 100+ years: That of older white men.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That is not racist; she was simply implying that maybe it's time for a different viewpoint from someone who can more relate to the mixture of races that make up this country in the 21st century.
You all act like he should seclude himself in the White House and never come out --
My goodness, folks, they are entitled to some kind of life! You were not complaining when Bush spent so much time on vacation and that cost us lots of money every time... what's the big deal?
I know for us $25,000 is a lot of money, but in the big picture, that is not a drop in the bucket...
I am sure though if he could go somewhere without all those people going with him that he would be more than happy at this point to do it. I know I would. I do not begrudge him one minute of happiness with his family because the rest of the time everybody in this country is trying to tear him apart.
Are you strapped to the White House gate right now
with a lap top and and an explosive, because you sound like a person capable of doing just such a thing. Scary!
|
