An Open Letter to the President
54Mr. President:
It is a sad day in the history of this United States when the Commander-in-Chief holds hostage the benefit and disability checks of the brave men and women who served honorably in the service of their country, expecting certain promises given to be honored by that country. It appalls me to see this happen in my lifetime.
I, sir, am a 100% service connected disabled veteran. I have not received a cost of living raise in two years, while members of congress certainly received theirs, and as you continued to go on vacation spree after vacation spree. Then, I'm subjected to your assessment that my cost of living raises have been too high. You went so far as to say I was on a "steak and wine" budget.
Sir, I challenge you to live on a VA disability check while providing the housing needs of an individual with neuropathy, and Fibromyalgia. It cannot be done in this economy, and the cost of living in my area is lower than most.
You are politicizing the Veterans and Social Security entitlements to keep from answering honestly to the American people who are tired of your administrations runaway spending, while many of us starve. At this very moment, my wife and I are being evicted from our home and I will be on the street unable to stay alive due to my disability.
I am tired of hearing you blame the GOP for your lack of resolve to lower spending. It will not be Congress's fault if the country defaults. It will be the fault of you and other Democrats that expect to cram "business as usual" down the throats of the people.
Hear the voices, Mr. President. The people are tired of this. We cannot afford more taxes of any kind: gas, income, sales, you name it. The only thing that will turn this economy around is if the people and the world see an end to your pettiness and a resolve to slash non-essential programs, such as NPR, Planned Parenthood, and other albatrosses around the necks of the taxpayers.
As to income levels, I've not seen you nor Congress suggest a pay-cut to your own salaries. Wouldn't that be a great place to start if you truly believe that weALL need to share in the "pain?"
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
The Tea Party wing of the Republican House of Representatives are the ones holding this country hostage along with all of those checks. The President is bending over backwards to compromise. The GOP will not even consider eliminating corporate tax breaks. They are the ones blackmailing our country Sir, not the President.
I'm sorry, HS, but the figures refuse to back your statement. both the Rasmussen and Pew polling data reflect that the American people are behind the house Republicans. The House leadership has offered concessions to the President and the Dems, but as Boehner has said, "The President just doesn't know how to take 'yes' for an answer." The administration wants to continue its history of "throw money at it and see if it works" philosophy, which is not the wish of the people. As another commentator put it, "Americans do not want to be governed from the right, left, or center. They want to govern themselves through their elected officials. Please try to come up with more substance than the old "blame it on the Tea Party" line. It insults your intelligence to do so.
H:
Always nice to see a voice of reason here.
But why not blame the 'Tea Partiers' who seems to be dead set on having America default--perhaps because they see it as the only way to get the state the want. . .
More Kool-Aid Kids?
So, let's see if I understand this correctly. The Tea Partiers refuse to vote for a debt limit increase if it includes any increases in taxes for the wealthy, who do not pay taxes on money paid in wages because it is tax deductible, and want all the debt reduction to come from payments to entitlements, from which you derive your income and the President is trying to preserve. It is, therefore, the President's fault for not keeping social security and military pay going because it could be funded by cutting out a few programs which amount to nothing compared to the cost of entitlements, and which would increase unemployment, thereby creating greater need for entitlements, so that the wealthy can continue to write off the cost of a personal helicopter and not pay taxes on money they aren't using to employ people.
It would sound logical to me, except I took math in school.
The tax rate for social security is 2% of the first $106,800 earned. A person who makes $1,000,000 per year has his or her tax obligation maxed out about February 4th. A person making $7,000,000 per year maxes out about January 6th. Because of tax breaks, they will likely pay a lower income tax rate than their secretaries.
Do you really think cutting out the $100,000,000 NPR gets, and creating the consequential entitlements, would be more effective at preserving your entitlement than would cutting tax breaks for the wealthy? Do you really think paying a higher rate for borrowing will cut the cost of repaying the debt?
Those people, the Tea Partiers, are aiming at you. They see you as the problem.
Tom: The problem is that folks like W. Joe can't see that'.
What do you expect when the folks banking the 'Tea Party' have the ability to convince people that folks like the Koch's care about them as anything else but tools.
Beyond that, TPC, they toss around the term "socialism" as if it is necessarily evil. Do they not consider the advantages of public libraries, the Veterans Administration, public transportation, sewer systems, or even sidewalks? Do they really think things like police and fire departments, or the military, would be better if they weren't socialized?
The rich don't even want the poor digging in their garbage to see if they can find a leftover cracker tossed after a cavier and wine party. After all, it isn't their garbage to dig in!
Tom:
That and they have NO problem with the Government giving them subsidies and tax breaks.
Looks like we have another common-sense voice in this little 'Tea Party'.
I'm wondering if W. Joe B's disability is brain-related or Texas-related.
Tom & Wiz:
I let you two carry on so all could see that the foundation of your position is strictly sarcastic, ad homenum attacks against me personally, with little relevance to the article. Both of you apparently failed to notice that the word "socialist" was not there, nor did I come out in support of the Tea Party, which, by the way, I do not. I simply said facts were a better report than the tired old attack on the Tea Party.
Now, back to relevant conversation...do you think you can do that, or are all of your weapons personal attacks...these aren't the only programs needing to be cut, nor do I think the revenue raised from cutting tax breaks on corporate jest (which seems to be the mantra of the administration)will produce enough, either. I simply said it's wrong to reduce the benefits promised to those who are still in the process of "giving all" for the country to a bargaining chip to be held over our heads. Yes, I am still in the process because the disease I have (courtesy of the Korean peninsula)is predicted to kill me in 12 more years. That probably doesn't bother you, though, based on your sarcasm and (loosely used term coming)wit. This is not an entitlement. It was a promise given me at the time of my enlistment. I assume had you been born 100 years earlier, you would have applauded the breaking of treaties with the Indians.
Well Joe, I was indeed snide and sarcastic and as a fellow Veteran (Viet Nam) I have lots of empathy for your plight. Nevertheless, your bias and illogical argumentation still makes me question your thinking and attitude.
Why should I hold back my opinions when you make such outrageous and ridiculous leaps in yours.
The Republicans are the very party that represents the corporate welfare you rail against.They are responsible for the multitude of problems Vets have today because (like the Democrats in my war) Bush and his arrogant administration started a "conflict" that has destroyed thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and by putting it all on a credit card that has vanquished us all with a mountain of debt.
It's the Republicans who want you to suck it up, not me or the Democrats. Wake up man!
W. Joe, whether you want to call it a promise, or some other term, it is an entitlement. You are entitled to the money.
You are challenging a man who says he will pay more in taxes so you don't have to go without your stipend. He is battling against people who are threatening to take it away from you, and they are doing it so people who have to live on $20,000,000 per year don't have to help the government keep its promise to you.
Your open letter is aimed at the wrong person. It should be aimed at the Tea Partiers in particular, and the GOP in general.
The write off on eight $35,000,000 private jets would raise as much revenue as completely defunding NPR. Completely defunding NPR would enable the government to pay 100,000 people $1,000 for one month. There are more than 100,000 people promised more than $1,000 per month in the form of social security and veteran retirement benefits.
Obama proposed a $4,000,000,000,000 reduction in deficit spending over ten years, but it included elimination of some tax breaks. The House is going to propose $950,000,000,000 over ten years, and it will all be on the backs of people like you and, eventually, me. Hopefully, you realize four trillion is more than nine hundred fifty billion. Obama is willing to pay more taxes to accomplish that. The Koch brothers and Boehner aren't willing to pay more.
The poor Koch brothers are probably pissed off that they have to live on a mere $1,000,000,000 per year, and they don't care about your $20,000 or $30,000 promise you are entitled to receive if they have to pitch in on it!
Tom:
You think W. Joe listens to voices that state what you said in your last sentence/paragraph. Or do think he relies on the media and news mouthpieces of the Koch's, etc.
Actually, Crash, I research news sites from both sides of the table...I don't listen to any of the right wing radio programs, nor do I watch Beck.
Yes, Obama and others say they should pay more in, but I don't hear about any of them rushing to write a check to help "starve off the wolves." And yes, Tom, I can count past ten.
The Republicans (not the Tea Party) are attempting to rein in the bloated size of government. Yes, I may sound like all the others that say "don't touch mine" but in our war, Wiz (for which I volunteered, not drafted) we were given a promise that if we were wounded or became chronically ill because of our service, that a grateful country would see to our needs. I cannot work, and after working for myself in construction for the past 30+ years, I have no retirement. I believed in that country then and believe in it now. We, Wiz, are the ones that guaranteed the rights to have this discussion today.
No, Lyndon's war was not the right war. Maybe this one isn't, either. But we were attacked on our own soil this time. Obama has had every chance to pull everyone out, but as he himself said, there's more to being President than meets the eye. I would rather see us confront terrorists there than here.
But, back to the subject....we have to get debt under control, and if some career bureaucrats lose their cushy, do nothing jobs, then maybe they'll better understand what the rest of us go through. Of course they won't feel quite the sting...they'll be offered early retirement and they're on the Thrift Plan, not SS.
I think W. Joe is a concerned person, or he would not have taken the time to write a hub addressing the problem as he sees it. I also think he is a bit misdirected in his criticism, though. It is likely that he didn't realize that his disability payment is an entitlement (as he cites it is a promise in his reply), so he may not realize that he is looked at as part of the problem by those who toss the term around as if it is a curse word.
To that end, he likely is influenced by the mouthpieces of the Koch brothers. It makes some sense to tighten a household budget if money runs short. However, it makes no sense to cut the food budget such that the children can't eat so that Daddy can buy a new toy for himself justifying it that the children don't earn their keep but Daddy deserves the toy because he earns money. At some point, Daddy needs to be told he can have his toy, but he needs to feed his children. If he can't do both, then he needs to feed his children.
W. Joe earned his retirement through his sacrifice that enabled the Koch brothers to keep earning money. They owe him more than a thank you card from ten years ago, and tossing him in the garbage because they see him as a drain on their income today.
If he sides with them thinking its only other people who earned their retirements that are the problem, then he will unwittingly cause his own problem, which is what they are counting on.
W. Joe, I started my reply before yours appeared.
The Republicans who want to rein in spending are the same people who started the wars there, who increased the deficit through unfunded tax breaks for the wealthy, and whose stimulus idea was to send each of us a couple hundred bucks (unfunded, of course) so we could kick start the budget.
They are the ones who say increasing taxes on the wealthy will decrease their ability to hire people. Do they know wages paid are tax deductible?
The fact of the matter is we either have a duty to give people that which we promised them, or the fact that we don't have the money overrides the duty to pay them.
What is this obsession with the Koch brothers? Is that really how you define the Tea Party? You are way off-track there. And yet, neither (Koch/Tea) was a topic of the article.
They are through implication, Hank. If I write something about pets scratching furniture, it's mere diversion if I later say I didn't mention cats.
Joe, you have no pension because you weren't in a union.
The government isn't functioning properly because the GOP has sold out to the profiteers who want to privatize and deregulate it.
Now they are going to go after your Social Security, even though you've earned it with every paycheck contribution you've already made.
I can tell from your response that you have swallowed the right's propaganda. Sadly, you have been duped and misinformed. I know you are sincere and your resentment and bitterness must offer a modicum of comfort and solace, but it is also keeping you from accepting the facts and moving on.
Sorry, I don't mean to be unkind and I know it's hard, but I think you need to hear the truth.
Tom,
OK, through your analogy I see that you truly believe that the underlying theme of the article is "The Koch brothers are the masters of the Tea Partiers and trying to destroy this nation by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, preventing hiring of workers, falsely starting wars in foreign lands. and all at the expense of cutting out the poor".
Wow, I am so glad you cleared that up for me. Because I would have never read between the lines like you so cleverly have.
Hank:
Likley because that underlying theme of Tom's comment(s) is(are) close to the truth.
The truth that folks in Ohio and Wisconsin woke up to and are doing something about!
Well, Wiz, I could easily turn that around and say you've been duped by the left-wing propaganda. In the news the last few days we've been told that Boehner is pushing a compromise that is even a hard sell to the Republicans, yet all we here from Washington is "Veto." As I said earlier, "O" doesn't know how to take "yes" for an answer.
And...do you not realize that the real sticking point of the negotiation is Obama's demand that the debt ceiling issue extend into 2013 so he won't have to face it again and jog peoples memories as to how stubborn and unyielding he's been just months before the election.
By the way, is the union you wanted me in the same ones that demand the dues of the working class so the leaders can live in style and drive limos? The same one that has the government crying "foul" for the just because Boeing doesn't vote to unionize? There will be no freedom for the working class nor true free enterprise with today's unions. They are not the unions that first represented the worker at the beginning.
And I have to agree, Tom. You seem quite obsessed with Koch and the Tea Party, which I already said I do not support. Maybe you didn't read that part. That's why neither was mentioned in my article...not relevant.
By the way...I really love you guys....this has been quite a stirring conversation. Great to have all of you involved. "We learn from interaction with others"
Joe, I just want to say I think your hub is an honest and very appropriate response, and I support all that you have stated.
Great Hub!!
As I said, you've drunk the Kool-Aid, Joe and you don't recognize the illogic and hypocrisy in your argument. You complain about not getting what you're "entitled to"—which is the very same argument that pensioners make after sacrificing for their companies or institutions for decades. You wallow in self-pity and resentment, but don't have any empathy or compassion for the working stiff who is also getting screwed.
I have no pity for your plight or the way you've sucked people into this thread.
Interesting....Self pity? Don't think so. Served my country... terminally ill because of it, think the promise that my country would take care of me shouldn't be taken lightly...little bit different than a third or fourth generation welfare recipient that thinks having babies and collecting a check is a "job"...sounds more like an opinion based on fact, not self pity. Seems to me, though, that your strategy is rude, personal attack. I had hoped you would eventually resort to a different tactic, but seems you cannot.
I have no guilt or remorse in my position or in questioning your obvious bias and projections about welfare recipients.
hypocrisy |hi?päkris?|
noun ( pl. -sies)
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Wizard:
It's a clever way to divide people who should be allies against the real enemy--the top %.01 (or the top %1 of the %1--the Koch's etc).
This country already is divided, TPC. The real enemy is greed, fear, ignorance, intolerance and hatred—these behaviors will bring us all down. It started with the right declaring war on government, with their plan to demonize liberals through the media. It has worked remarkably well. Our country is polarized and the mega-conglomerates are profiting handsomely as they take over through the corruption of our democracy with it's sold-out politicians and media.
Joe doesn't seem to be aware of his own unquestioned assumptions or his false conclusions but I still respect him as human being—I just can't abide the petty-minded resentments that fuel his argument.
I am with Joe on this. First my impression from his article is he is correct--Congress is not leading. If they were then they would accept equal healthcare, pay freezes, and retirement plans that were in line with their constituents.
Also, we need toand HAVE TO believe, with any conscience, to support the war gotten ills of our patriots. I, for one, who was not in the military, has no knowledge of any family member ever being in the military, even though my ancestors have been in the U.S. for over 100 years. I fully understand the need for our military, but I am in no position to ever understand what so many of our men and women have gone through. I thank them. Least not by words alone, but my full support to take care of them like they took care of us. Remember, our counrty called. They fought for us so we could be safe, free, and continue this great experiment that we call the United States of America.
Okay Hank, he didn't mention the Tea Party or the Koch brothers.
He did mention " politicizing the Veterans and Social Security entitlements to keep from answering honestly to the American people who are tired of your administrations runaway spending," which is a Tea Party claim.
He did mention "I am tired of hearing you blame the GOP for your lack of resolve to lower spending," which is a Tea Party claim.
He did mention "It will not be Congress's fault if the country defaults," which is a Tea Party claim.
He did mention "It will be the fault of you and other Democrats that expect to cram "business as usual" down the throats of the people," which is a Tea Party claim.
He did mention "We cannot afford more taxes of any kind: gas, income, sales, you name it," which is a Tea Party claim.
He did mention "The only thing that will turn this economy around is if the people and the world see an end to your pettiness and a resolve to slash non-essential programs, such as NPR, Planned Parenthood, and other albatrosses around the necks of the taxpayers," which is a Tea Party claim.
He also does not see a promise to pay him as an entitlement. He also does not see Obama saying he will pay more taxes along with other high income earners as sharing the pain.
Whether he mentioned the Tea Party, or the Koch brothers who pay to train Tea Party activists, by name is irrelevant. He is using their arguments and, thereby, is associating with them, whether he claims he supports them or not.
So Tom, Can I assume by your comment that you believe we should keep spending without constraints and not attempt to lower the debt or deficit? These may be Tea Party claims, but not theirs alone. this is simply solid fact. We have to take fiscal responsibility sometime. Would you, as a financial expert, advise some one to live beyond their means?
Wiz,I have no problem with you questioning my position, nor your having belief in your own. I have a problem with anyone who resorts to rude, venomous personal attacks in any thread, not just this one. It makes one appear juvenile and whiny. There is plenty of intelligent discussion, as others have shown, without resorting to this type of personal insult. I, for one, have not treated you in the manner you have treated me.
Absolutely I think we should attempt to lower the debt, but not through political games.
One percent of the population today earns twenty three percent of the income. You are arguing that those one percenters should not pay more in taxes. I don't. Some of those one percenters are earning big bonuses by saving companies large amounts of money doing things like cutting workers' benefits. Others are earning it getting golden parachutes after draining corporate assets. Others are getting it taking huge write offs for personal investments that do little for the economy. Still others are earning huge amounts getting government contracts for things like prisons and war services.
We need to face the facts that (a) trickle down economics doesn't work, and (b) that it is not human nature to starve to death simply because food is unaffordable.
How about we consider raising taxes consiberably, then giving a better than $1 write off for $1 spent on employment? That would, without imposing a tariff, increase the cost of imported products and reduce the cost of domestic products. It would also enable us to not tax companies that employ people to pay unemployed people, and shift that burden more to companies that don't employ people while giving companies incentives to employ people.
How about we help people stay in their homes rather than give money to banks who lose money after kicking people out of their homes? Either way, the bank does not suffer a loss, but only in the former way do we also not throw people into the market of renting from those who just took their houses and were reimbursed for the "loss" they suffered.
These are just a couple of ideas.
Tea Partiers like to use the analogy of a family facing a budget crisis. There is only so much money. It is a better analogy to look at it as father keeps earning more money, but does not put any of those increased earnings into the family budget. Dad is playing with his new Lear jet, while mom is trying to figure out if it is best to feed the kids on alternating days or just not feed some so others can be somewhat healthy.
What you don't seem to be considering is that the people who poisoned you are still making huge money poisoning the young men and women who are today defending our country. The same people who were reimbursed yesterday for the losses on the homes they tossed people out of then are still in line to get reimbursed their loss for throwing you out of your home tomorrow.
Marie Antoinette may have said something different if she knew that those she said should "eat cake" were going to make it so she couldn't say anything at all.
The solution needs to be balanced. They need to keep your payments coming even if the Koch brothers have to adjust their lifestyle from living on $1,000,000,000 per year to living on only $850,000,000 per year.
OK Tom, Catch me up on where I missed it... I can't find any reference to tax breaks in my article, though I, wrote it and have re-read it numerous times during this thread. Neither did I state in my comments that tax breaks should not be on the table for cuts, just that they, by themselves, didn't add up to the revenues needed w/o spending cuts. Yet you, and others, seem to keep coming back to that attack over and over. May I ask where you read that in my language? I've attempted to stay on target with your responses, not read things into them that are not there. But, if this is all you have, then by all means harp on it...
As to your suggestions, I was totally against the bail-outs, which were pressured by the Democrats in control to cover for the fact that they caused the downfall of Fannie and Freddie by forcing them to make dangerous loans. I was against it because there was no accountability written into it, nor any guarantees that the money would be used properly. Little if any of the mortgage aid the Administration promised ever came to pass. So your idea to help people keep their homes is great, but how to make it work is the question...
While I'm at it, let me clear something up. Just because I may have some...SOME...ideals in common with the Tea Party doesn't make me a full blown idiot. Malkin and Palin scare me. They're both fanatics and their religion is destruction of the Democrat. I do not, by any means, vote a straight party ticket, though I am a registered Republican. That just allows me to vote in the primary. I rather consider myself a conservative, but that again is being turned into a dirty word. I'd rather not be considered either a Republican or a Democrat, but a "best--one-for-the-job/ocrat." I support neither radical wing of either party, but the radical right-wing extremists are not my associates. I've never been to a Tea Party rally and have no plans to go. Sean Hanity is nothing but an instigator, and both he and Ann Coulter need to shut up. You catch my drift.
W.
Folks like Tom, Wizard and I are simply going by what you say.
No, Crash, you aren't. You're putting words in my mouth that I did NOT say. You assume from your own image of a conservative that I'm a Tea Party, knuckle-dragging idiot and stereotype me according to your view. As I said in the post above yours, I never invoked the Tea Party name...you guys did. I never said I didn't believe taxes should be lowered for the top 1%...I simply said that wasn't enough, but it seemed to be the only rallying cry I've heard from the left. You gentlemen put those words into my mouth and then conceived them to be mine. That seems to have been the whole strategy of the thread rather than discussing what I actually did say. All i've heard is the party line over and over..."Dem good, Tea Party bad...Joe conservative, must be Tea Party."
So, I shouldn't read this statement, "We cannot afford more taxes of any kind: gas, income, sales, you name it," as you being against raising taxes?
You asked me if I thought we should not attempt to lower the debt. I offered a couple of ideas in response to that question. It is diversion to reply back that it wasn't written about when it was in answer to a question in the comments.
I happen to believe some people do need to be bailed out. It's just that it's not the top 1% earners, in my opinion.
Think about this, Joe: if the US defaults on its debts, and interest rates on treasury notes rise, how much extra money will you make from your investment in treasury notes? Do you think rich people will earn some extra money if their cash investments start earning dividends at a higher rate?
I don't know anyone who is overjoyed about the prospect of raising the debt limit from $14.3 trillion to over $16 trillion. I can, however, think of some people who may be overjoyed about the consequences of that not happening - and none of them are the people who need their monthly entitlement checks.
Tom, I totally agree we must raise the debt ceiling, but again, that was not the purpose of the article. I apologize if my remark about new taxes was a bit ambivalent. My target for that remark was those who are already burdened. Yes, I can see how one could infer my meaning to include the top wage earners, but that was not the intent.
Let's look at the recent bill in the Senate that targeted five specific oil companies. Rescinding those breaks would have directly effected the price at the pump when the working American can barely afford to fill his tank now. I simply believe we should be careful of the effect before we begin to remove tax incentives, and yes, as a business owner most of my life, I am aware wages paid are tax deductible.
Oh, you confuse me, Joe. Perhaps it is my own peril coming to manifestation. I don't identify with groups. The consequence is atheists think I'm Christian. Christians think I'm atheist. Republicans think I'm a Democrat. Democrats, until recently, think I'm Republican. However, recently the Republicans have become so stupid that it is difficult for me to adopt any of their logic.
I haven't studied the Democrat's bill. It has almost zero chance of passing in the House, so it is academic futility to know the fine points it contains.
The solution, it seems, is for the Republicans to break ranks with the Tea Partiers, and work out a compromise that increases the debt ceiling, reduces spending, and increases taxes on the super rich. That will, however, almost assure Obama a second term, the denial of which seems to be more important to them than does keeping America's promises to its creditors and entitlees.
It may also result in something America sorely needs: a third party. They need not fret, however, as it may inadvertantly create a fourth party consisting of the super liberal people Obama is pissing off by putting entitlements on the table.
The end is that if you agree that we need to increase the debt limit, decrease spending, and increase taxes on the top earners, we actually agree.
We can then look forward to having the House to decide who will be the next President because none of the three or four party candidates got a majority of the electoral votes, as was fairly common in the good old days!
"Wiz,I have no problem with you questioning my position, nor your having belief in your own. I have a problem with anyone who resorts to rude, venomous personal attacks in any thread, not just this one. It makes one appear juvenile and whiny. There is plenty of intelligent discussion, as others have shown, without resorting to this type of personal insult. I, for one, have not treated you in the manner you have treated me."
Sorry Joe, but you're mistaken; I've been blunt, not rude, and if you reread my posts you'll see that I take issue with the contradictions in your statements and what you "seem" to really believe and how you seem to me. I'm fine with "appearing whiny and juvenile" because I know I can be both—however in this case I'm not—and your accusation is false.
Nevertheless, if you think calling someone's obvious double-standard to be "venomous" then I have to wonder if you are unusually thin-skinned or if what I said was a little too close to home.
![In Answer to Opinion Duck about TARP and the Stimulus, the Debt, and the Deficit (updated 3-5-2011) [47]](http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4727165_50.jpg "In Answer to Opinion Duck about TARP and the Stimulus, the Debt, and the Deficit (updated 3-5-2011) [47]")
ladybluewriter Level 2 Commenter 10 months ago
I think you represented in my own words that I have tried to say. I am on social security and am wondering how to survive. This is just not American values. Standing behind our soldiers and our country should mean something for those that spent years given in , and now when we need it, then we get the threat of no income.