Obama Knew He Was Killing Thousands Of Jobs With Drilling Ban – Went Ahead With It Anyway

Loading

Two months ago Federal Judge Martin Feldman threw out the Obama ban on deep-water drilling citing the huge effects this ban will have on the regions economy:

The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium.

~~~

The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.

~~~

An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in the country.

A new report today from the Wall Street Journal not only backs up Feldman’s claim of a destroyed economy, but also describes how Obama knew….absolutely KNEW….that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost and they still went ahead with the ban anyway:

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

Critics of the moratorium, including Gulf Coast political figures and oil-industry leaders, have said it is crippling the region’s economy, and some have called on the administration to make public its economic analysis. A federal judge who in June threw out an earlier six-month moratorium faulted the administration for playing down the economic effects.

After his action, administration officials considered alternatives and weighed the economic costs, the newly released documents show. The Justice Department filed them in a New Orleans court this week, in response to the latest round of litigation over the moratorium.

Spanning more than 27,000 pages, they provide an unusually detailed look at the debate about how to respond to legal and political opposition to the moratorium.

They show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in “lost direct employment” affecting approximately 9,450 workers and “lost jobs from indirect and induced effects” affecting about 13,797 more. The July 10 memo cited an analysis by Mr. Bromwich’s agency that assumed direct employment on affected rigs would “resume normally once the rigs resume operations.”

Knowing Obama as we do now he probably figured these 23,000 people would be better off getting unemployment checks. What better way to get them hooked on federal freebies while gaining some Democrat votes right?

Yeah, I’m being deliberately sarcastic, but you get my point. The oil leak was bad, but nowhere bad enough to ruin a regional economy like they did.

We can’t be shocked after he killed thousands of auto dealership jobs:

Everything you need to know about the nightmare of government-controlled businesses can be found in a damning new inspector general’s report on Dealergate. The independent review of how and why the Obama administration forced Chrysler and General Motors to oversee mass closures of car dealerships across the country reveals grisly incompetence, fatal bureaucratic hubris and Big Labor cronyism. No wonder you won’t hear much about the report’s in-depth details in the so-called mainstream media.

Under the guise of “saving” the American auto industry through a bipartisan, taxpayer-funded bailout now topping $80 billion, President Obama’s know-nothing bureaucrats pushed the car companies to eliminate thousands of jobs — with unjustified haste using dubious economic models.

Obama ordered the bailout recipients to “prove” their long-term viability by submitting restructuring plans. But White House and Treasury Department “experts” rejected the auto manufacturers’ proposals, citing the too-slow pace of their plans to reduce their dealership networks over a period of five years. Once the auto companies modified those plans to meet government-backed timelines, the money flowed.

But Neil Barofsky, the federal watchdog overseeing the bank-auto-insurance-all-purpose bailout fund, found that the White House auto industry task force and the Treasury Department “Auto Team” had no basis for ordering the expedited car dealership closure schedules. They relied on a single consulting firm’s internal report recommending that the U.S. companies adopt foreign auto industry models to increase profits — a recommendation hotly disputed by auto experts who questioned whether foreign practices could be applied to domestic American dealership networks.

Team Obama’s government auto mechanics also ignored the economic impact of rushing those closures. According to Barofsky, they discounted counter-testimony from industry officials that “closing dealerships in an environment already disrupted by the recession could result in an even greater crisis in sales.”

What did the Inspector General find?

(A)t a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact.

Michelle found a quote from the TARP IG report (PDF) that details Obama’s thinking on all this. From the drilling moratorium, to the auto dealership closures, to pretty much every Socialist decision made by him:

…no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury’s response; indeed, when asked explicitly whether the Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’

Along the way this President has had to demonize one piece of the puzzle to get his way.

Immigration – Arizona
Banking – Business
Auto Industry – Toyota
Cap & Trade – Oil Leak

And it’s worked. He got his way.

Isn’t working out too well for him in the long run tho.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Remember all of this in November. No One who supported any of these policies gets reelected to any office local, state or federal. No One who supported any of these policies gets elected into any open seat, local, state or federal. No One. Come November, We The People draw a line in the sand…

The famine in the Ukraine killed so many people, but the Bolsheviks were only interested in their ideology. I see no difference as to what this administration is doing, afterall what are 23,000 jobs or people to them? Nothing…that’s Marxist economics from Harvard!

A population that is in misery and poverty is much more likely to fall for Obama’s guise of Marxism and Wealth Redistribution. Most Americans only want to work and raise a family and pay their bills. This doesn’t make good Socialist fodder, but take away a man’s pride and convince him that other people have stolen his livelihood and you just might have a Marxist Recruit. You just might have someone that will swallow the Obama swill and accept the yoke of Socialist slavery.

In his book ‘Witness’ (if memory serves me and sometimes it doesn’t…) Whitaker Chambers noted that when the ‘Great Depression’ hit, the communist party was expecting the American workers to revolt and help them usher in a socialist government; they were dismayed and perplexed when it did not happen. I believe it didn’t happen because we have long had a strong independent streak and strong work ethic and dare I say it, pride in doing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. I hoping there is enough of that ‘right stuff’ still in us to resist the temptations of the statists.

Hey people, OB WANTS to shut down everything just as a good socialist should. Then when America is flat on its back, he can pick up the pieces and create his socialist country with ALL the power being in the Government.

I hope he doesnot accomplish his goal.

jensad

“Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.”

How many jobs outside the oil industry will the the spill eventually cost? What might be the economic consequences of another similar accident?

What should the Obama administration have done at that point, with an uncontrolled disaster unfolding, and having little reason to trust either the industry or what was beginning to look like a rubber-stamp regulatory agency?

@Greg

Oh, I don’t know, maybe looked at the THOUSANDS of wells that have been drilled? The ones that DID NOT LEAK?

Maybe taken some time to find out what actualy went wrong, before you blew off all the statistics that said drilling was reasonably safe?

Or, maybe, found out what REALLY went wrong, before throwing the Gulf Economy further off the cliff?

You know… made a considered rational decision, instead of flying off the handle, and using this as an excuse for their Ludite Energy Policies?

Well Greg…. Obama should have reined in his “regulatory agencies”, he is after all the President… had them do their job and do it correctly. Greg, did you forget that Obama is in charge and ultimately responsible for their performance, or is their continued incompetence somehow “Bush’s fault”.

He should then have listened to the panel he established that recommended AGAINST the moratorium.

And IF… IF another spill occurred, then what better time for it to happen, while all the response crews were still in place handling the BP spill, although the odds of another major spill were statistically EXTREMELY small.

Obama’s moratorium was/is reckless and irresponsible. Another example of:

OBAMA INCOMPETENCE

There are a multitude of countries drilling in the Gulf. Pelosi has them scared to death.

People talk like he’s done destroying jobs, he’s just getting started. He wont be happy until half the people are jobless, which would make them turn to him for their daily bread.

The Good Book tells us (make that reminds us) when a unjust king rules, the people are in distress, but when a just king reigns the people rejoice. Oh for a just king or Queen in 2012.

“What better way to get them hooked on federal freebies while gaining some Democrat votes right?
Yeah, I’m being deliberately sarcastic, but you get my point.”

I’m not being sarcastic each time I say that the King-in-Chief wants to turn the USA into a Muslim country. I’ll send you a poster that I will be displaying at the 9-12 DC rally. I like to make my posters funny, but after I finished it and looked at the two pictures I put at the bottom, I almost cried, because I know that is what Obama wants for this country.

Obama has to bring the country down before he can take it over. That is what his objective is. He does not want to create one civilian job.

Concerning dealergage, one blog (I don’t know which one) reported that the dealerships that donated to Obama stayed in business. Those who didn’t, didn’t.

Do We the People need any more proof this is a Manchurian presidency. Does it get any louder than this, this pretender-n-theif has set out along with his advisors ( the commies/progressives/statis/marxist) and his funder (soros) to destroy this Nation from within. I believe this is up there with the term TREASON and SEDITION, aiding and abetting our enemies and a deliberate attempt to punish the States that did not vote to put his skinng lieing ass to the top. I do wonder how that investment with the Southern American country which recieved the 2-billion dollars of our money is going? some one needs to ask soros how that is working out because, of course that skinny liar muslim, claiming to be a christian would never acknowledge his part in the illegal activities, now would he?
And someone please explain to me how it is that a Federal Judge slapped this down and it’s still in effect, isn’t it known that his energy czar lied to the Congress about his involvement and they do what to him? anyone?

Obama has an agenda and he’s not going to allow the needs of America to stop him.

Ideology … Imam Obama wants America so dead broke that it will never interfere with Islam again.

If you are sad for the lost of 23,000 jobs, the great Kenyan is going after the military!! He has given orders to cut the military budget. He is enjoying every bid of the decisions he makes! He is not incompetent but a good Marxist and you are not going to get him out of power without violence because that is what they belief…so Americans will have their revolution. That is what these idiots strongly hope for.

“Do We the People need any more proof this is a Manchurian presidency.”

We the People don’t all go in for conspiracy theory.

“Obama has an agenda and he’s not going to allow the needs of America to stop him.”

The far right has an obvious agenda, too, and doesn’t intend to let truth or the needs of mainstream America to get in the way of that.

“Ideology … Imam Obama wants America so dead broke that it will never interfere with Islam again.”

Obama didn’t launch two foreign wars that have resulted in 5,660 American deaths, 32,000 American wounded, and cost over one TRILLION American dollars–which were borrowed from China, and on which our grandchildren will still be paying interest. When future costs are factored in, it’s estimated that the cost to the nation will probably run as high as THREE TRILLION.

“If you are sad for the lost of 23,000 jobs, the great Kenyan is going after the military!!”

The United States spends more each year on defense than the next ten highest-spending nations combined. When all U.S. military-related costs are factored in–inluding current-year costs of past wars, defense-related spending that’s done within the context of other agency budgets, etc–it’s estimated that defense costs actually comprise around 54% of total annual federal expenditures. We’re maintaining this level of spending by borrowing.

The Manchurian, Kenyan, anti-American Imam may actually be one of the most rational U.S. President to have come along in a while. Those totally convinced that the President is an Islamic front for the communist party who was born somewhere in Kenya aren’t necessarily going to agree.

It took Bush 8 years and 2 wars to accumulate the debt that Obama has tripled in less than 18 months.

The left would sleep with the devil if it was anti-right, anti-American. Damn progressive/libtard/socialist idiots.

Obama is Incompetent…

@Greg:

Obama didn’t launch two foreign wars that have resulted in 5,660 American deaths, 32,000 American wounded, and cost over one TRILLION American dollars–which were borrowed from China, and on which our grandchildren will still be paying interest. When future costs are factored in, it’s estimated that the cost to the nation will probably run as high as THREE TRILLION.

Yeah, about that war spending you’re always grousing about:

Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

Photobucket

@Greg

The far right has an agenda, and doesn’t intend to let truth or the needs of mainstream America to get in the way of that.

Most of us here aren’t stupid enough to fall for those kinds of tricks, Greg. You deliberately painted the contest as being one of the far right against Obama, which, by your choice of wording, makes him out to be centrist. Tell me how the majorities against Obamacare, in particular, and Obama himself, in general, are indicative of him being centrist, or moderate.

Obama didn’t launch two foreign wars that have resulted in 5,660 American deaths, 32,000 American wounded, and cost over one TRILLION American dollars–which were borrowed from China, and on which our grandchildren will still be paying interest. When future costs are factored in, it’s estimated that the cost to the nation will probably run as high as THREE TRILLION.

No, Obama merely signed into law the Stimulus, and the Porkulus, and extended even more money in bailouts via TARP that we did not have, “ which were borrowed from China“, and “on which our grandchildren will still be paying interest.

He also, against the will of the people, signed into law a massive healthcare legislation package that is very debatable on not only what it will do for Americans, but also to their pocketbooks. Negative effects have been coming to light since the signing, and I expect, will continue to roll out as different aspects of it commence.

may actually be one of the most rational U.S. President to have come along in a while.

I question your use of rational in that statement. Is it rational to expect the country to adopt more spending, of which their correction will be, and is, higher taxation, in a time of economic uncertainty? Is it rational to talk about ‘shared sacrifice’ when you take vacations costing the taxpayers millions of dollars? Is it rational to institute moratoriums on drilling for oil, in a region hurt by a disaster, in an economy shedding jobs daily, that will increase the rate of those jobs being shed? And hurt the region economically worse than it already is? Is it rational to engage in litigation against a state that has proclaimed it’s independence on protecting it’s own borders from illegal immigration? Is it rational to engage in favoritism in private industry, and claim you are a fan of the free market? Etc., Etc., Etc.

@Donald Bly, #17: “It took Bush 8 years and 2 wars to accumulate the debt that Obama has tripled in less than 18 months.”

President Bush didn’t enter office at a point when the economy was already in a nose-dive, unemployment was skyrocketing, and federal tax revenues were about to crash through the floorboards. The enonomy was doing well and we had a federal budget surplus. A rather different set of circumstances.

@Greg:

The enonomy was doing well and we had a federal budget surplus.

Surely you’re not going to try and peddle the disproven Clinton surplus myth here.

We’ve seen, and debunked, that argument before:

From the Wall Street Journal:

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it — and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps — called budget “surpluses.” But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the “surpluses.

Uh oh….this isn’t starting out too well for Mr. ParaLegal2:




View at EasyCaptures.com




View at EasyCaptures.com

Look at the charts above. See the bait & switch shell game going on with the numbers?

Now, let’s see what good ole Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), hardly a “con” or “right wing nut”…although he’s white and you’ll undoubtedly have some issue with that.

Here’s a link to the transcript if you want to follow along.

So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false.

::snip::

Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done.

It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.

Doh!

Things can only get better right?

Right?

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.

From CNN:

Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program’s surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That’s a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Ooofff…..

This is looking worse and worse and worse for the South Side Shyster.

From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion… The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.

The fella who wrote that one was Hans F. Sennholz, Emeritus Professor of Economics at Grove City College, is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute.

I’d say he knows a bit more about economics than you Mr. ParaLegal2.

Let’s continue. From CBS:

With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund’s annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year — nearly a decade ahead of schedule — and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation’s books.

::snip::

The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations.

Let’s see what the esteemed Walter E. Williams the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University has to say about it:

Boiled down to its basics, that’s the budget “surplus” hoax that’s coming from the president and Congress. In 1998, there was approximately $120 billion spent out of revenue earmarked for trust funds like the Social Security, highway and unemployment compensation trust funds. There’s absolutely nothing in those trust funds except Treasury Department IOUs.

That means that when Congress reports there is a $60 billion surplus, we should subtract $120 billion from that so-called surplus. That would leave us with minus $60 billion — a $60 billion deficit for 1998. As such, budget surplus talk is nothing less than a sleight-of-hand accounting hoax perpetrated on the American people.

The budget situation is actually worse. The federal government uses accounting practices that if used by private companies would land the CEO and the board of trustees in jail. Here’s why: Today’s estimated federal government liability is about $20 trillion. These are federal government promises-to-pay such as the public debt, Social Security, railroad retirement, bank deposit and savings and loan insurance, guaranteed student loans, International Monetary Fund and so forth.

When private companies have future promises-to-pay, general accounting practices require that they hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims. How much reserves do you think Congress has set aside to cover federal obligations? If you say zilch, nada, zippo, go to the head of the class. The bottom line is that if Congress followed general accounting practices, instead of a reported surplus, there would be a budget deficit of at least $200 billion.

@ “Deficits With & Without Iraq War” in #18:

A trillion more in debt is a trillion more in debt. Whether you accumulate it over 8 years or add it in just one, it’s the same additional burden that the economy carries forward into the future. All things being equal, we’d be far better off without having to drag along all of those blue bits stacked one upon the other.

@Greg

President Bush didn’t enter office at a point when the economy was already in a nose-dive, unemployment was skyrocketing, and federal tax revenues were about to crash through the floorboards.

Rewriting history? How soon we forget the DotCom tech bubble bursting in March of 2000, and in full deflation mode in 2001. A total loss of around $5 Trillion was noted during the period.

Federal tax revenues? I direct your attention to this chart.

Revenue grew following the tax cut period, after falling dramatically caused by the DotCom bubble burst.

The enonomy was doing well and we had a federal budget surplus. A rather different set of circumstances.

I guess we can forget about the crashing NASDAQ, and rising interest rates at the time, and just claim that since the government had a surplus, of our money, that the economy was doing well.

Leave it to a liberal to rewrite history to prove his points.

@ Aye Chihuahua, #21:

Call it a surplus or call it an accounting gimmick. Did the methodology by which deficits or surpluses are calculated change from the Clinton years to the Bush years? Was the gimmick abandoned? I honestly don’t know the answer, but it seems like another important question if level comparisons are being made.

So far as gimmicks go, I believe we treated the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan as off-budget items until recently. Spending was authorized without considering it part of the regular budget arithmetic.

@Greg: #24 and others
Greg
Did you forget that while all of these things you are complaining about happened under a democratic controlled Congress? Everything that was done had to be approved by democrats.

I’m looking at this stuff from neutral mode because I don’t belong to any party, so I don’t have to be loyal to any of them. I vote for the person or the issue.

George Bush didn’t “…launch two foreign wars that have resulted in 5,660 American deaths” If you would have been around when Pearl Harbor was attacked, would you have said we need to go after the ones who did this or just hope they don’t do it again? When the World Trade Center came down, did you say we should go after the ones who did this or just hope they don’t do it again?

The way Bill Clinton had a balanced budget is he cut back on the military and our intelligence gathering agencies. The military didn’t get pay raises for several years. My son was one of them. A lot of them qualified for Food Stamps. Some personnel oversees were housed in buildings that had been condemned.

The Navy was cut back drastically. For example, the refueling tankers were reduced to half. The other branches were cut drastically too. The intelligence gathering agencies were cut back so much we had to start calling in agents from around the world. We had two in Iraq at the time, but they were among the ones called back. We had to rely on other country’s intelligence, which wasn’t always correct.

rational |ˈra sh ənl; ˈra sh nəl|
adjective
based on or in accordance with reason or logic : I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation.
• (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically : Andrea’s upset—she’s not being very rational.
See note at sensible .
• endowed with the capacity to reason : man is a rational being.

Name one “rational” thing Obama has done according to the above definition.

Go to http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546 and pick any of the links and find out about your King-in-Chief. Keep in mind that he hasn’t denied any of them, and neither has the propaganda media.

Aye Chihuahua
Take it easy on him with all the charts and stuff all at once. He was probably public school schooled, then one of the liberal colleges. He probably isn’t used to trying to absorb all that info at once. Small doses.

To add to johngalt’s chart, after you have absorbed the above info, every time taxes were cut, the economy went up.

Every time taxes were increased, the economy went down. You obviously haven’t lived through as many ups and downs as some of us have. It is ALWAYS the same.

One more chart you need to look at is at http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/03/jobs_gained_or_lost_republican_vs_democr.html and it explains itself.

That is all I intend to say on this subject. I am applying the wrestling with a pig in the mud philosophy here.

Excuse me moonbat: Do I need to go back on line and find all of those quotes from every liberal hack from Bubba and other demwits telling the world that Iraq had WMD’s and more. Let’s not forget who gave the Koreans the nuclear technology and a autographed basketball by MJ

Who cares? What phonies you all are claiming to care so much about jobs when far more are being lost by the Republicans killing of the stimulus funds. More than ten times as many Americans will lose their jobs on September 30th when the stimulus funding runs out.

But why let reality get in the way of your diatribes?

@Me:

Here’s a bit of reality for you. Republicans couldn’t stop the Stimulus fiasco from going through over a year and a half ago and can’t stop any Stimulus funding now.

Guess who had boasted Stimulus funding would be…..targeted……timely, and……temporary? Well, that would be Obama. This from Senator Kyl way back on Febuary 10, 2009:

One of the first items on President Barack Obama’s agenda was, in his words, a “targeted, timely, and temporary” economic stimulus bill.

Congressional Democrats instead used this mandate to create a trillion-dollar spending bill filled with earmarks, pet projects, and spending that will do little to stimulate the economy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/targeted_timely_and_temporary.html

How prophetic. Little was done to stimulate the economy outside of funneling huge chunks of change to “targeted” pet industries.

What money sent to cities and states, well, that’s where the “timely” comes in. Large portions of it is being sat on……not being spent:

Big chunk of economic stimulus yet to be spent by state, local governments

As Americans puzzle over why the economic stimulus package enacted more than a year ago has failed to restore vigorous job growth, one explanation has emerged from new reports: A lot of the money is not yet out the door.
~~~~

Administration officials say the stimulus remains on schedule, with 70 percent expected to be spent by Sept. 30. And some economists note that the sluggish economy will still need a boost until 2012, the deadline for spending most stimulus cash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081306058.html

September 30? what are you talking about?

You can’t pin any of it on the Republicans, Obama and his Dem Congress set it all up and blasted it through, incompetents all……”temporary”…..pfft!

LIBERALS MOONBATS PROGRESSIVES HAVE AS MUCH USE A TAMPON HAS BEING USED TWICE