General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDFA: Obama's budget is "disgusting."
text of email from Democracy for America's Jim Dean: (bold added by me for emphasis)
------------
Gary --
President Obama's budget has left me absolutely disgusted.
It's much worse than just cutting Social Security -- he uses those savings to pay for a huge increase in Pentagon spending, undoing the vast majority of recent cuts.
President Obama is selling out the Democratic legacy in exchange for wasteful, unnecessary military spending -- and it's on us to organize to stop him.
Democracy for America is calling on Democrats in Congress to reject this absurd deal. Sign your name to join us.
Protecting the elderly, defending working families-- these are Democratic values. Sacrificing the middle class's future in exchange for Pentagon Pork isn't just wrong: It's a betrayal of a century of progressive leadership.
We deserve better. We deserve leadership. The President owes us both.
Tell President Obama: Real Democrats don't trade Social Security for Pentagon pork.
http://act.democracyforamerica.com/go/2736?t=2&akid=3150.1441405.VUGm_1
Thanks for all you do,
- Jim
Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America
forestpath
(3,102 posts)progressoid
(49,961 posts)garybeck
(9,940 posts)who the heck this guy is.
villager
(26,001 posts)...the whole series of masks this administration cloaks itself in -- in terms of obscuring its real intentions from its supporters -- is even more disturbing...
garybeck
(9,940 posts)remember when bush got re-elected? he used it as an excuse to do whatever the heck he wanted (go harder right), saying he has "capital".
Obama gets re-elected and he turns harder towards the center...
villager
(26,001 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,168 posts)He is already ruling from the right. He is now going into extreme right territory.
Its almost as if he gets off on it. Has a chuckle about how far he can step on GOP toes and claim issues that they have been advocating for years.
Baffling to watch Barack's slow burn since his first campaign language...to his first year.....and every year since with extending Bush tax cuts...appointing foxes to guard the henhouses of finance...now offering up SS on the alter....
Sigh...it was a beautiful couple of heady months there at the end of 2008..anticipating the progressive CHANGE that he would be fighting for once inaugurated.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...the key to discovering who they really are is to look to see if their mouths are moving.
- If so, you're looking at a LIAR.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)advisors, cabinet choices...
BHO has been revealing his true self through his cabal of Wall Streeters, DLCers and other corporate types since 2009.
His statement about Reagan being a transformational POTUS says it all
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But policy-wise I'm about ready to stick a fork in this whole administration.
whathehell
(29,050 posts)Is this going to be called "CT Woo?"
kentuck
(111,069 posts)than the people? After all, he captured bin Laden. He wants part of his legacy to be as a strong CinC. He can't be that and cut the defense budget.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Sad. Really, really sad.
cilla4progress
(24,723 posts)Washing my hands of it.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It's disgusting. He actually thinks he is a "transformative" leader like Lincoln, FDR, and his idol Ronald Reagan rather than the puppet he really is. He's been working on his image since Day One:
At three private annual gatherings during his first years in office, he asked pointed questions: How did Ronald Reagan engineer his 1984 re-election despite a poor economy? Where did the Tea Party fit in the tradition of American protest movements? Theodore Roosevelt bypassed Congress to launch progressive programs; could Mr. Obama do the same?
The president was coolly eyeing American history in order to carve his own grand place in it, the guests said in interviews later. It was almost as if he was writing his own history book about himself, said David M. Kennedy, a professor at Stanford University. Becoming the 44th president of the United States, or even the first African-American to hold the post, had never been enough for Barack Obama. Just two years after arriving in the Senate, he spoke unabashedly of becoming one of the greatest presidents, a transformative figure like Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt who would heal the countrys divisions, address its most critical problems and turn Americans in a hopeful new direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/us/politics/now-a-chance-to-catch-up-to-his-epochal-vision.html?ref=todayspaper
As if any of those presidents gave a shit about how they looked to historians long after they died. Obama's real legacy is not going to be pretty, let me tell you. Don't ever kid yourself he is not working on burnishing his image despite his many setbacks and failures.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"President Obama's budget has left me absolutely disgusted. "
...is DFA dismissing the entire budget instead of simply opposing chained CPI? I mean, there are a lot of excellent proposals in the budget and these need to debated. The budget doesn't stand a chance, but the proposals that would have significant positive impact should become part of the debate.
President Obama's agenda will not be advanced by the current Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022694813
In fact, the President's proposal on drug prices is better than the one recently introduced in the Senate.
Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043
Bill Introduced to Begin Rollback of High Medicare Drug Prices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)elleng
(130,825 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)garybeck
(9,940 posts)so it's not just the chained CPI
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)better, agreed?
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/back-to-work-budget/
$4.4 trillion in deficit reduction
Were in a jobs crisis that isnt going away. Millions of hard-working American families are falling behind, and the richest 1 percent is taking home a bigger chunk of our nations gains every year. Americans face a choice: we can either cut Medicare benefits to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or we can close these tax loopholes to invest in jobs. We choose investment. The Back to Work Budget invests in Americas future because the best way to reduce our long-term deficit is to put America back to work. In the first year alone, we create nearly 7 million American jobs and increase GDP by 5.7%. We reduce unemployment to near 5% in three years with a jobs plan that includes repairing our nations roads and bridges, and putting the teachers, cops and firefighters who have borne the brunt of our economic downturn back to work. We reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion by closing tax loopholes and asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. We repeal the arbitrary sequester and the Budget Control Act that are damaging the economy, and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, which provide high quality, low-cost medical coverage to millions of Americans when they need it most. This is what the country voted for in November. Its time we side with Americas middle class and invest in their future.
The Economic Policy Institute Policy Center provided technical assistance in developing, scoring, modeling, and analyzing the Back to Work budget. EPIs analysis can be seen here: The Back to Work budget: Analysis of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget for fiscal year 2014
Job Creation
Infrastructure substantially increases infrastructure investment to the level the American Society of Civil Engineers says is necessary to close our infrastructure needs gap
Education funds school modernizations and rehiring laid-off teachers
Aid to States closes the recession-caused gap in state budgets for two years, allowing the rehiring of cops, firefighters, and other public employees
Making Work Pay boosts consumer demand by reinstating an expanded tax credit for three years
Emergency Unemployment Compensation allows beneficiaries to claim up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in high-unemployment states for two years
Public Works Job Programs and Aid to Distressed Communities includes job programs such as a Park Improvement Corps, Student Jobs Corps, and Child Care Corps
Fair Individual Tax
Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K
Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)
Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages
Fair Corporate Tax
Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas
Enacts a financial transactions tax
Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment
Defense
Returns Pentagon spending to 2006 levels, focusing on modern security needs
Health Care
No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security
Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing fraud
Environment
Prices carbon pollution with a rebate to hold low income households harmless
Eliminates corporate tax subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies GETTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK
The Back to Work Budget creates nearly 7 million jobs in its first
libdude
(136 posts)The only issue I have is the Defense Budget being returned to 2006 level. I am thinking pre-2000 level. This military- industrial-
congressional complex is long overdue for a serious and substantial reduction. Cut back on the 100 plus countries that have military bases, combine the services Army/Air Force and Navy/ Marines, which are part of the Navy to begin with. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General and an Admiral.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"To those of us not on Obama's payroll, the budget expenditures on defense look positively evil"
...some people "not on Obama's payroll" are complete and unadulterated assholes. I mean, the assholery is beyond comprehension.
In Obamas Budget, Poverty Initiatives Face an Uphill Battle
http://billmoyers.com/2013/04/14/in-the-obama-budget-poverty-initiatives-face-an-uphill-battle/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There are Obama fans and then there are Obama adulators. And then there are those who always have a seemingly professional, predictable response to any criticism or doubt expressed about Obama.
Oh, well. To each his own.
I like many things about Obama, especially the fact that he at least calls himself a Democrat and seems to be a wonderful person. I especially like Michelle Obama. But Barack Obama should stand up to Republicans with more strength and determination.
His cuts to Social Security are unacceptable. As are some of his other policies, especially his stances on charter schools, whistleblowers, free speech and surveillance.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)quite inventive, and made me ROFL!
But really, it would be nice if the think tanks got infected with We the People's virus!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You know your losing an argument when you use terms like "assholery", although it's quite inventive, and made me ROFL! "
...more progressive than anyone else in the whole world, you win arguments by implying that other people are "paid," right?
My point stands.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)they supplicate themselves in front of the rod of money and power is that Progressives represent the majority of Americans, NOT the Koch brothers.
We're not "more progressive than anyone else", we are representative of how the majority of Americans think. It's the other side that is more conservative than the majority.
The fact is that rule by what the majority wants will be better for all in the long term. That is what America is all about. Rule by the people, who, as a collective, are smarter and make better choices than the truly brilliant people that make up the think tanks.
Why is this? I think it's motivations. Average people are motivated by the desire to get along and make sure their fellow humans are doing well, whereas many of the elite thinkers (certainly not all) are motivated by their own insatiable desire for power, money, and control - they don't have a control mechanism for their alpha-ness. Hence their decision making processes are skewed and leading us down a path to living in a third world country in a third rate world. IMHO.
Along with the polling data on the The American Majority Projects polling page, here is some info from recent polls:
Infrastructure investment:
Democracy Corps, November 2012:
52 percent agree that we should invest now in infrastructure, education and technology, and re-hiring teachers and firefighters to get people back to work to make our country stronger in the long-term.
Washington Post/ABC News, September 2012:
52 percent agreed that spending money on projects like roads, bridges and technology development was a better way for the government to create jobs than tax cuts.
YouGov, Dec 2012:
43 percent said President Obamas plan for $50 billion in immediate new infrastructure spending was a good idea;A only 28 percent said it was a bad idea.
NBC, Feb 2011:
71% percent of all respondents support Obamas plan to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail and $30 billion on a national infrastructure bank.
Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation, August 2012:
63 percent believe that additional spending on roads, bridges, and other public works projects would help, not hurt, the economy.
Clarus Research Group, conducted for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, December 2012:
77% percent believe the infrastructure in their state and throughout America is in serious need of rebuilding and modernizing, and 68% percent agree we need to make investments to build up our infrastructure to compete with foreign countries that are doing so.
Modernizing infrastructure is seen as both a safety and economic issue by 90% of voters nationwide.
A solid majority (61%) say the best way to pay for infrastructure improvements is to use a combination of
funding sources such as some additional tax revenues, user fees and private investment.
84% of voters believe that If the United States can afford to spend billions of dollars rebuilding the
infrastructure in foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, we can afford to do the same here at home.
68% of voters nationwide say that the United States needs to make investments to build up our infrastructure
to compete with foreign countries that are doing so.
Carbon tax, oil companies, alternatives:
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, November, 2011:
90 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (30%), high (35%), or medium (25%) priority for the president and Congress, including 82 percent of registered Republicans, 91 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.
65 percent of Americans support a revenue neutral carbon tax that would help create jobs and decrease pollution, including majorities of registered Republicans (51%), Independents (69%), and Democrats (77%).
Likewise, 60 percent of Americans support a $10 per ton carbon tax if the revenue were used to reduce federal income taxes, even when told this would slightly increase the cost of many things you buy, including food, clothing, and electricity. This policy is supported by 48 percent of registered Republicans, 50 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Democrats.
49 percent of Americans support a revenue neutral carbon tax if the revenue was instead returned to each American family equally as an annual check. Only 44 percent support this policy if the revenues were instead used to pay down the national debt.
69 percent of Americans oppose federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including 67 percent of registered Republicans, 80 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Democrats.
54 percent of Americans oppose subsidies to the ethanol industry to make fuel from corn, including 56 percent of registered Republicans, 65 percent of Independents, and 49 percent of Democrats.
85 percent of Americans (including 76% of registered Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (54%), or has no effect (31%). Only 15 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs.
Taxes:
Hart Research, February 2013:
66% say that the richest 2% should pay more in taxes. 64% say large corporations should pay more in taxes.
Only 28% of voters believe that the fiscal cliff bill passed on New Years Day raised taxes on the rich enough, while more than twice as many (59%) say that we still need to do more.
66% say close loopholes and limit deductions for wealthy individuals to reduce the budget deficit and make public investments. 23% want to reduce tax rates.
TIPP/Investors Business Daily Poll, April, 2012:
51% say tax capital gains same rate as income vs 35% say keep current low rate.
Rasmussen (!), November 2012:
57 % of voters say they agree with the presidents proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. 35% oppose that move.
Quinnipiac University, December 2012:
65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year, 31 percent oppose.
Voters said a no-taxes pledge isnt a good idea, 85-10 percent.
Also
Voters overwhelmingly oppose cutting Medicaid spending, 70-25 percent.
Voters oppose gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age, 51-44 percent.
Jobs:
Gallup, November 2012:
95% say restoring the job market is a top priority.
Public Policy Polling, November 2012:
49 % say President Obamas mandate following his reelection is to focus on jobs. 22% say the presidents mandate involved reducing the debt.
36% said that the president was tasked with striking a compromise with congressional Republicans.
Assist those in need:
Food Action and Research Center, various polls:
The opposition to cutting food stamps crossed party lines: 92 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 63 percent of Republicans say this is the wrong way to reduce spending. this amounts to 72% of all voters who think food stamps are a positive thing for the country
Only nine percent of those polled said they would be more likely to support a candidate who favors cutting funds for the food stamp program; half said they would be less likely.
Opposition to food stamp cuts is even more overwhelming than in polling data FRAC released in November 2010, when 71 percent said it was the wrong way to cut spending.
Voters are broadly concerned about the nations hunger problem: 81 percent say that low-income families and children not being able to afford enough food to eat is a serious problem.
Hart Research for AFL-CIO. November 7, 2012.
88% of respondents favor allowing Medicare to negotiate drug policies.
Other:
Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2013:
61% of Americans are not willing to see any cuts to public education.
Only 21% of Americans favor major reductions in Unemployment insurance
Gallup, December 2010:
66% of Americans supported the extension of unemployment insurance in 2010
What This Means
These polls (and so many others not listed here) are simply overwhelming.
In other words, the CPC Back To Work Budget reflects what voters voted for and what polls show people want. And, much more importantly, the CPC Back To Work Budget reflects what history and economists tell us will fix the economy and boost the standard of living for regular Americans!
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130315/back-to-work-budget-vs-ryanrepublican-budget-which-reflects-polls-and-election-results
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not 'on Obama's payroll'. What was it Alan Simpson called them? 'Greedy old Geezers', how dare they not understand that a man has to 'compromise' and be 'bi-partisan' and 'pragmatic' and he has to show them how bad the Republicans are, or, well, whatever the latest excuse is, I'm sure there are plenty of them being prepared.
Or he is just bluffing, again? Like with Sequestration? Was it you who told us he knew that Republicans would never allow it to happen because he knew they would never accept cuts to the Military budget? Whoever it was, I guess they were WRONG, again!!
I don't know why people feel they must try to defend the indefensible. It certainly is getting harder and harder to even try in this case. It's got to be exhausting. I used to do that, then I realized I was being as deceptive as those I was defending and asked myself 'what are they doing for me or the people I care about'? Nothing? Right, Clinton eg, I ended up nearly losing friends and family members fighting for him, and suffered all kinds of threats from Bush fans trying to defend him.
And then I began to notice that the Bushes and the Clintons were best buddies, they let US fight amongst each other while all along they were 'practically family'. I felt like a fool. The only good thing about it is that my right wing adversaries must have felt the same way.
So now I know never ever to defend any politician on the issues when they are harming the people. They don't care about us personally, and I don't care about them personally, I care about their actions when it comes to the issues. If they are not based on sound Democratic principles, I will never try to defend them.
Be a good Democrat and I will defend them, but otherwise, no, not ever again.
Agony
(2,605 posts)don't defend the indefensible.
Cheers, Sabrina!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Some just lean a little this way and others lean a little that way. Whatever works.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)several years ago. Who knows, but I won't be supporting anyone who voted for the AUMF, never have, or anyone who has a close, 'family' relationship with the Bushes.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Obama is pushing this crap because HE believes in it. It's not playing chess, and it's not bluffing.
What does it take for people to see the obvious about what Obama IS, and that he is a tool for the financial elite in this country to destroy the Democratic Party from within by peddling far right policies completely at odds with traditional Democratic Party principles, hell, with things the vast majority of the American people believe in?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I declare, I didn't expect to see that here at DU, but thanks for posting, ProSense.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)(-$900 million between FY 2013 and FY 2014) while making cuts to programs that help people such as the CPI.
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You didn't respond to the point that the Pentagon's funding has been restored for the most part (-$900 million between FY 2013 and FY 2014) while making cuts to programs that help people such as the CPI."
...thanks for pointing that out. Here it the text from your link.
The FY 2014 Base Budget provides $526.6 billion, a reduction of $0.9 billion from the FY 2013 annualized continuing resolution level of $527.5 billion, and is consistent with Administration-wide efforts to make tough program choices within current funding constraints. This budget adjusts programs that develop and procure military equipment, re-sizes ground forces, slows the growth of compensation and benefit programs, continues to make better use of Defense resources by reducing lower priority programs, and makes more disciplined use of defense dollars.
The defense budget has gone down every year since 2012, a total of about $4 billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/defense.pdf) since then.
Again, thanks for pointing that out, which makes this point from the OP a lie.
"It's much worse than just cutting Social Security -- he uses those savings to pay for a huge increase in Pentagon spending, undoing the vast majority of recent cuts."
The defense budget, including war spending, has gone done drastically since the President took office. The drop is even more drastic if the sequestration is left in place
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/12/1861201/pentagon-cut-spending/
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Defending the indefensible for free.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The Pentagon sure is hurting!
FY 2013 $527.5 billion
FY 2014 $526.6 billion
-$900 million difference.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"clearly part of the disgust is the increased defense spending"
...nonsense: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022775261
Phlem
(6,323 posts)gotta get paid. He's working on his retirement plans and there's a whole lot of hand shaking left to do. What do you expect from a moderate Republican?
-p
whathehell
(29,050 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Reverse Robin hood. Let's steal vast amounts from the lower classes so we can feed the rich.
Disgusted doesn't quite meet the mark of how our family feels.
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)Things are bad for many of us, me included. I do not want the pentagon to reap more dollars to build bombs, planes, guns and whatever to try and keep their version of peace elsewhere.
Take care of those of us --AMERICANS- at peace and alive, those who need help to eat a square meal a day--to educate our kids, to pay our bills.
I'm sick of hearing about the military budget, especially when I hear that my neighbor, a great family is going to lose their house. The cost of that house??? One bomb.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Those bases aren't all over the world because we're doing the host nations some huge favor. And our troops aren't running all over the middle east to liberate them or bring them democracy. The global multinations use our military, our taxpayer's money, and our parent's children to provide cheap and "reliable" access to natural resources to the multinationals, wherever on the planet those resources happen to be.
We're very close to losing our house too. And the administration's position is basically to allow that to happen, then to work with Pete Peterson's Blackstone Group to sell off millions of foreclosed homes at special bargain prices (not available to individual home buyers) so they can make untold fortunes renting those homes to Americans who, before the collapse, were happy to be home owners.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Who elected this guy anyway!?!?
- Oh yeah....
[center][/center]
shark
(5 posts)Here we go again, caving to repugs.
WTF are you democrats doing. Grow a pair and do whats best for the American people. Screw the fat cats.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)I am returning it, without a donation, and told them to get back to me when they again become the party concerned with taking care of the elderly and children. I taped two pennies to the form.
I added a postscript. I said thanks for taking care of the Congress and their lobbyist 'sponsors' by making sure that those that fly will not feel the pinch of the sequester. My Title I kids who will not be served, thank them.
(Now to be fair, I understand that this latest skirting of the sequester to benefit a few was 'bipartisan'-now a phrase for CYA in DC).
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Passive disdain they can live with, it's the outspoken that worry them.
progressoid
(49,961 posts)I answered their questionnaire honestly and bluntly and haven't heard from them since.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)that would be perfect
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)for the approval of other serious people.
Evidently, the will of the party, and with SS, the will of the nation, is not to be taken seriously.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)..I just can't imagine why they haven't sent it yet...
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)so I don't think he's been "bought" -- I'm just not getting WHY.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)His second term is starting out disastrously. WTF, maybe these proposals represent the real Obama. I hope there are some real Democrats left in Congress who will stand up to Obama and the GOP.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)been trying to convey this idea for a while. Seems like a hard pill to swallow.
-p
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Carolina
(6,960 posts)His budget plan is not moderate. He is hurting the most vulnerable even more. Quite frankly, he's radical.
Old school true moderates Ike Eisenhower, Chuck Percy, John Lindsay, Jacob Javits would not do this to the poor or elderly.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)It's great money for those who have no qualms about profiting from death, DU and drone strikes. Heck of a lot more lucrative than providing care to our neediest.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)going independent.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)my disability check that you are trying to cut. And you say you got my back??
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Do I need the sarcasm tag?