Book of the Month

Ann Romney: 'You (little) People' can Just Shut-Up

by NCD 7/19/2012 - 1:01 pm

Ann Romney on how magnanimous the Mittster is, McCain got to see 20 years, but Ann says 'you people' already have all you need to know about the Romney's tax returns:

 

“He’s a very generous person,” she told ABC’s Robin Roberts of Mitt Romney. “We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary in the four years.”

“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” she said.

 

video at TPM. Few would understand what Mitt called the "hundreds or thousands of pages" which comprise his tax returns for the years he refuses to release, so maybe Ann is right. Who would know you could deduct $77,000 for a dancing horse, as they did on their 2010 return?? It garnered only a $50 buck tax credit, but it preserved a precious tax loss deduction for future returns. Perfectly legal.........and 'all you need to know'....

Read the full article at http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/ann-romney-tax-returns.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Shame on the Romneys for taking advantage of perfectly legal tax strategies for losses taken on investments.  Now if they had simply filed false tax returns like Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner or Tom "Semi-lobbyist" Daschle, the Obama campaign would be cool with it.  Nothing like a Secretary of the Treasury who doesn't pay his own taxes.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 1:22 pm
Hey, get outta the camera, we're tryin to have a class war here. how do spell awristokrat?
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 7/19/2012 - 1:50 pm (re: dijamo)

First, how do you know they were all perfectly legal?

Second, the reason those other failings came to light was...they came to light. As I recall, Daschle was thrown out and Geithner paid his back taxes.

Maybe you can become spokesperson for Mitt 'n Ann. Might have to give up your real, perfectly legal name, though.

 

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 2:06 pm (re: dijamo)

I am referring to the loss on the dressage horse NCD linked to.  Perfectly legal.  Not declaring income.  Not legal!  But Obama thinks it's no biggie and appoints asshat Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury even though he didn't pay his own freaking taxes.  Um, okay...

Unless you've found something illegal in the returns Romney's released already, you (and the Obama campaign) are playing a game of insinuations with no foundation.  And as I said when the Obama campaign pulled this slimy attack on Hillary, no presidential candidate in their right mind would cheat on or falsify taxes.  Now if what you are lookign for is not evidence of wrongdoing, but opportunities for opposition research and false attacks (you know like the verifiably false "reporting" that has been issued about Bain 1999 -2002 or like the FBAR "reporting from HuffPo), I can't imaging why the Romney campaign might be less than willing to turn them over.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 2:43 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

If no presidential candidate in his right mind would cheat on or falsify taxes, then it should be no problem to release them. They all have and they've all taken their knocks, such as they were. A who's who of Republican allies are telling him to do it.

I believe Geithner owed 30K and said it was an oversight and paid his taxes. That happens, right? Hey, maybe Mitt had an oversight or two and will be in Obama's debt for giving him the chance to discover the oversight and correct it.

A win for everyone...

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 2:52 pm (re: dijamo)

Nope dijamo. If its all legal, why aren't they releasing them.  Like they did privately with the John McCain campaign in 2008, after which McCain picked Sarah Palin as more qualified to be VP. McCain is among the privileged few who got to see Romney's thousands of pages of tax secrets.

Oh and neither Timmy nor Mrs. John Kerry are running for President.

BYW, Ann lauding Mitt for giving 10% to the Mormon Church is phony BS, you cannot be an officer of the Mormon Church without tithing the 10%. It's a minimum requirement.

by NCD 7/19/2012 - 2:07 pm (re: dijamo)

Thanks for posting this. And particularly for your comment about tithing---that's generous when it's essentially an entry fee? And what about the possibility that there were no taxes paid, but the church got theirs?

But the calculation is interesting isn't it. First, the Newtonian jab at the media---always plays well with the base, even though it is a slap in the face to everyone. i.e., shore up the base, take your chances on overwhelming negative ads against O. Will the Republicans and conservative pundits back off the tax return discussion if the race stays as close as it is? 

by Oxy Mora 7/19/2012 - 2:17 pm (re: NCD)

Another fact is young Americans have been putting their lives at risk since Bush and the GOP started their two wars as a slimy and bloody Rovian strategy to win the 2004 re-election for 'War President GWB'.

Yet, Romney and Ann will not risk their financial privacy in order to run for the highest office in the land, and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. What a difference!

I've also found it peculiar that NOT ONE of Romney's five military age sons has ever been in the Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force or National Guard. There are two Princes from Britain who have served, even in war zones in Afghanistan as chopper pilots.

The Romney's, with five sons, in a normal, even a wealthy family, at least one would break out of the rich Momma's boy mold and want the challenge, adventure, and have the patriotism, to join one of the services for at least a two year hitch. They are a very odd, very money driven family.

by NCD 7/19/2012 - 4:16 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

On top of the tithing, they've given 6 million to charity in the last two years.  

The Obama campaign did the same thing to Hillary Clinton WHAT'S IN HER TAXES, and then very quickly had to STFU once they were released because there was nothing illegal there.  But Hillary let the Obama campaign keep screaming about them for months.  And then ask the other candidate for their assistance in your attack by giving them more ammo to flat out lie about (like they've been doing about Romney's Bain record 1999 -2002).

This just shows how pathetic and desperate Obama's campaign is, seeking any means of attack rather than focusing on actual issues.  When you don't have a positive message, attack.  But the funny thing is Mitt Romney's moved into positive favorability territory, while Obama's in negative favorability now.  So coincidental that this timing converges with the unfounded, untruthful, personal attacks on Romney's Bain record and taxes.  This strategy seems to be working out great!  Keep the slimy unfounded insinuations like "I bet there were years he paid no taxes!" coming.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 2:25 pm (re: NCD)

It seems you're stuck in remorse and anger over Hillary's loss. All your talk waaay back about coming together as Democrats was just so much blah, blah, because if you can't come together during the tough times, you just ain't ever going to come together.

Anyway, Hillary's popularity is higher than anyone's. And she owes her position to the man you love to hate. So if you were less tangled up in blue, you'd be...cheering.

The fact is, a candidate needs to release his taxes. End of story. Whether people lie about it is immaterial. As we saw with the birthers, your opponents don't need the documents to lie about you, and sometimes, as you yourself say, the documents quiet the din. Which should be good news for your man Mitt.

As far as I can see, there is no lying about the Bain 1999-2002 record--unless you're simply a shill for Mitt. It's hard to lie about Mitt, because he's held all positions and steered toward every point in the compass. So everything one says about him is BOTH a lie and the truth.

But if the "lying" is helping your man's popularity, Dij, again you should be happy. And yet you seem unhappy. All the time.

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 2:54 pm (re: dijamo)

If you'll notice my comment is not about Hillary.  It's about the Obama campaign's slimy tactics.  And I said back in 2008 I would give my vote away to an untested candidate who ran on a good PR/marketing campaign with few specifics on strategy and with much less liberal policy proposals than I supported, but in the next election he'd have to earn my vote.  He hasn't.  Not by a long shot.  And the few things he was specific and emphatic about like restoring the rule of law, we can fight the war on terrorism without violating the constitution and our values as a nation - he has flat out failed on.  So.  No I am not happy that the Democrats have a shitty moderate Republican running for reelection.  But it is what it is.

And form what I can tell is as far as you can see is the DNC / OFA talking points, so not surprising that you don't see any lies even when they've been exposed.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 3:21 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

Actually, what I noticed--perhaps for the first time--is that your comments are driven by your feelings for Hillary and her loss.

If they're proven lies, bring it. Would love to see. And would love to see the same hefty sampling of returns other candidates have readily given up.

I don't really get your stance on Obama's hawkish-ness ("rule of law," the Constitution, etc.) inasmuch as both your candidates, Hillary and Mitt, are easily as hawkish, if not more so, than Obama.

Would they have their kill lists? We don't know, but I'm betting they would...

 

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 4:03 pm (re: dijamo)

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/im-retroactively-retiring-decade-ago-14269

Lies:  Mitt Romney during the Massachusetts Ballot Commission used his employment at Bain to establish residency.  Wrong. Lies.  He released the findings of the ballot commission and it proved the opposite.

 

Lies:  Bain exec said Romney was in charge of the business from 1999 - 2002.  False, this exec was talking about Romney's part-time leave of absence during a Senate run in 1994.  Lots of people have part time senate runs.  Not lots of people are CEOs of two organizations simultaneously.  Not a single person with knowledge of the facts has come forward to say Romney was working for Bain 1999 -2002. 

But of course, pointing this out is irrelevant because we know operate under guilty until proven innocent.  The new thing is "asking" whether Romney paid any taxes at all.  Might as well ask when he stopped beating his wife.  The motto of the Obama campaign is throw shit and see what sticks.  There will be no discussion of the issues because Obama knows his record is crap.  So a personal attack campaign is his strategy, though it seems to impacting the President's favorability more than Romney's at this point.

 

 

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 4:15 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

Thanks for the link.

I didn't read every word (but will!) but it strikes me that, at best, you fought to a draw, not some overwhelming evidence of ObamaLies.

As to your last comment, it's not at all unusual for wealthy people (and corporations) to reduce their tax liability to zero. So it isn't at all like asking whether someone is still beating his wife.

As far as discussing "the issues," which issues has Romney brought up or proposed a solution to? The only issue that matters is the economy, and all Romney has really said is, "Trust me, I'm a financial heavyweight." And "Obama is not an American."

He's invited scrutiny of his Bain years as his calling card for the presidency.

And all he's proposed that I can see is cut taxes and regulations.

Personally, I think Obama has done a far amount he could easily run on. And should. Most economists agree that the stimulus pulled the economy back from the brink. And since you're interested in facts, I know you know, the economy has in fact improved.

But if you think Obama's fault lies in his not having done a big enough stimulus... or written off home mortgages...your support for Romney is even more mystifying. These are the opposite of what he appears to be proposing.

 

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 4:43 pm (re: dijamo)

dijamo is still spreading the nonsense on the Massachusetts Ballot Commission, which dijamo said at this link that "his testimony to the Mass Ballot Commission showed he retired from Bain in 1999".

I read the 40+ page report, to repeat from a previous post at the same link:

The Mass. Ballot Commission mission was solely to determine his home/domicile in his run for Governor. The information on his Bain activities was incidental, and was purely derived from statements of 'the respondent', Romney, who was never questioned under oath.

The Commission only sought hard corroboration of facts relating to his domicile, such as membership in country clubs, churches, voter/car registration and such.

Peter, frankly, it's a waste of time responding to Obama haters like dijamo, dijamo game is to simply regurgitate all the talking points from the Limbaugh/Fox News/Rovian echo chamber.

by NCD 7/19/2012 - 5:39 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

"Well that hurts my feelings, but I'll try to go on."

 

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/19/2012 - 6:53 pm (re: NCD)

And you might want to check with the campaign, but their message is Mitt is not as aggressive as Obama on the war on terror.  The Obama head on a pike ad, what would Mitt have done, etc.  He's quite proud to be running as Chief Executioner.  Might gain him votes elsewhere (I doubt it)  but that's certainly how he lost mine or at least pushed me towards actually voting for Romney. 

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 4:18 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

Unlike you, perhaps, I don't "check with the campaign" to decide what Mitt's position on the GWOT is or isn't. I try to listen to what he says.

Why you're voting for a guy who is portraying himself as MORE hawkish on Iran and who has criticized Obama for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan too early (last I heard) is mystifying to me...

...especially as you claim to be a dove or dove-ish. Maybe you're counting on Mitt being a liar. Or you think the Fightin' Dems will arrive in time to save the day.

But I admit, figuring out what Mitt stands for is challenging. Whatever one says is either right or wrong...and often both at the same time. Politifact is burning brain cells trying to figure it out.

On a personal and sincere note, I've become very fond of you. So I promised myself I wouldn't argue with you anymore...and then promptly broke my promise.

Heading back to the wagon...now!

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 4:56 pm (re: dijamo)

Has Dij actually SAID that she is voting for Romney, or are you only deducing that because she hates Obama?

I have a hard time believing that a liberal would vote for Romney no matter what. Stay home, vote 3rd party, maybe. But until I hear/see it in her own words, I won't believe it.

by stillidealistic 7/19/2012 - 7:08 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

I cannot tell a lie.

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 8:09 pm (re: stillidealistic)

I think she noted what Romney had done in office was more humane and effective than what Obama'd done in office, or something to that effect.

But people seem to think putting scare quotes around Romney's name makes him bad.

Did he do a good job at Bain? Check. Did he do a good job of the Olympics? Check. Did he do a good job as Governor? On the whole, check.

Did some of his outcomes at Bain reflect the worst of predatory capitalism, dumping the obligations of gutted companies with raped pensions on the government/taxpayer/unfunded? Yes.

However, how Romney governed came after his years at Bain.

The only thing I really don't like about Romney's past aside from the gut-and-run cases is his affiliation with the GOP with the postures and flip-flopping that requires to inspire that base.

This can be seen in the nutty Ryan-inspired budget that raises taxes for those under $50K, and cuts taxes by 25% for those over $1 million. 

But Democrats can't seem to focus on his ridiculous budget and predatory capitalism - they're obsessed with his being rich or that he like all other companies heavily used offshoring as a tactic in the 90's. (which kinda didn't lose jobs, if I recall employment stats for year 2000 - it was Bush's neglect of the economy and workers that did that)

I do like that as governor he took to the bully-pit to push initiatives directly with the public, rather than sitting powerless with the legislature - I've been miffed that this Pres doesn't do the same.

So, I imagine Dijamo is doing much the same - just adding up reality logically, and figuring out where to get the most bang for her voting buck. If you believe campaign ads and pronouncements and political spin, you might think her crazy. If you compare the actual background & performance of 2 candidates, you might reach a different conclusion than just following party affiliation and the concomitant marketing buzz.

Oh, and I'm glad Romney seems stiff and boring - after they trashed Al Gore, and my disappointment with the last 2 charismatic presidents, I've decided those are the most important traits. (sorry, Bill - a less drama-creating kinda boring and corny Hillary version would have been better)

BTW, as what I think a bigger problem than offshoring, which is large companies not paying their share into the pot - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-collins/the-business-case-against_b_652832.html

by PeraclesPlease 7/19/2012 - 8:27 pm (re: stillidealistic)

Then vote for him.

Better yet, work for him to give him a chance of winning.

He could use a progressive or two singing his praises.

I think she noted what Romney had done in office was more humane and effective than what Obama'd done in office, or something to that effect.

Of course, she'd also have to have remarked that the health care plan that she thinks was inspired by the devil was, well, inspired by her man.

by Peter Schwartz 7/19/2012 - 8:38 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Please look then at the first comment of Doc. Cleveland's blog, where she explicitly says she is the only progressive at DAG voting for Romney.

by tmccarthy0 7/19/2012 - 8:39 pm (re: stillidealistic)

Thanks for he link.  Yup, I'm voting for the other moderate Republican: Romney.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 10:45 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I agree with you in the sense that if they don't have specific knowledge( and how could they?) of the "paid no taxes" charge, it would be incredibly stupid of them to use the charge.

by Oxy Mora 7/19/2012 - 2:52 pm (re: dijamo)

Here's a link for all the tax release nonsense from earlier campaigns.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/16/democratic-national-committee/dnc-says-presidential-candidates-usually-release-t/

Hillary of course had released her taxes every year as a Senator, and joint returns as First Lady.

But it was Bill's income taxes that everyone was creaming over - which they released a month after Obama - horrors, on April 15. Quite a bit of speculation about all the slimy illegal things to find - it was almost like a do-over for Whitewater or Rose Law Firm records - what an anti-climax.

by PeraclesPlease 7/19/2012 - 3:58 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

And if the President has a candidate for Secretary of Treasury that's demonstrated he won't pay his own taxes and appoints him anyway knowing that, it just shows this entire issue is political gamesmanship.

by dijamo 7/19/2012 - 2:29 pm (re: NCD)

No, its doesn't show that at all. I see 4 possibilities.

The issue is real and politicians are playing games with it.

The issue is not real but politicians are playing games with it anyway.

The issue is real and politicians are not playing games with it.

The issue is not real and politicians aren't playing games with it.

You seem to think that if politicians play games with an issue its entirely not real. If that were the case there would be no real issues since politicians play games with all of them.

I think that both the Romney tax return issue and the appointment of a tax avoider to Secretary of Treasury issue are both real in spite of the political gamesmanship both sides play with both issues. One can decide the importance of each of these very real issues based on political alliances, the political gamesmanship, or a serious analysis of the issues.

Which path are you following?

by ocean-kat 7/20/2012 - 1:14 pm (re: dijamo)

McCain released only two years of returns (and no detail at all of Cindy McCain's records) and there was no uproar then. Why is this an issue now?  Because the Obama campaign's only knock against Romney is he's richer than you are.  I (and most Americans) know that already. I think ultimately Romney's going to release them and they are going to be meaningless.  That doesn't mean that I don't think the Obama campaign's look-at-the-shiny-penny strategy is any less transparently political or pathetic.

by dijamo 7/20/2012 - 2:08 pm (re: ocean-kat)

Why is this an issue now and not then is discussion about the political gamesmanship and I'm not very interested in that type of analysis though I have my theories as to the reasons each time they play those games. I could guess why they didn't make an issue about McCain's returns but I don't think that's germane.

I respect you when you call out the spin. For example Aman's quote of a Bain executive about Romney's involvement as CEO that left the impression it referred to 99 to 01 when it actually referred to his 94 senate run. Good call. But now you're not calling out political gamesmanship, you're engaging in it.

If Obama or Hillary in 08 didn't release several years of their tax returns I'd be doing what George Will and other republicans are doing now, though for different reasons. Calling for the release of the tax returns because the people have the right to know. Calling for a spouse's returns is a bit more problematic and I'd be much less inclined to support that.

All political gamesmanship aside, don't you think the people have a right to know, to see several years of a candidates tax returns?

Its especially important this year because its not  about Romney being richer than me. Its about how he got that rich and what he did to get there. Ignoring the hype there's enough information about out sourcing and off shoring at Bain pre 99 and  tax strategies to give me significant reasons to pause and want more information. I've already given a brief explanation why I don't care if they are perfectly legal in a previous post.

 

by ocean-kat 7/20/2012 - 3:04 pm (re: dijamo)

Shame on the Romneys for taking advantage of perfectly legal tax strategies for losses taken on investments.

It seems to me the rich use circular reasoning about those perfectly legal tax strategies. They use their power to manipulate the tax codes in ways I think unfair. When people complain about them using those provisions to drastically reduce their tax liabilities they point out its perfectly legal.

So yes, Shame on the Romneys for taking advantage of perfectly legal tax strategies. My father worked all his life as a union man for the Bethlehem Steel and likely always paid more than 13.9% Much as I dislike Obama Romney will never get my vote.

by ocean-kat 7/19/2012 - 10:28 pm (re: dijamo)

I watched the clip.  They haven't even released one 'full' year of tax returns yet.

I did think it was insulting and demeaning to the American public and might hurt her favorability a little bit.

However if the goal was to lull their base after so many republicans called on them to release their tax returns... it probalby helped.

by synchronicity 7/19/2012 - 5:44 pm

Wow it is time to buckle up already and Labor Day still ain't just around the corner.  I get that Obama is a hypocrite, I get that he was full of baloney back in 2008 and he's not the dude who is going to change the way things are done in Washington.  I get it, and then some.  But this notion that it's shocking, just shocking that the Democrats are playing politics is beyond my comprehension.  This is the way it's done--the Democrats have found a vulnerability and they're pounding on it.  And they're doing it and ducking the dismal economic conditions of our brothers and sisters when the rules are that the buck stops with the president and he deserves to be slammed on things that are his fault and on things that aren't his fault.

But so what?  Romney should release his taxes because it's a political quagmire for him.  And he should focus on the economy and whether he should or not, he will focus on all of the other stuff that will be oh so friggin' unfair.  

And if some progressives want to elect him and his crew because Obama is a douchebag, then so be it.

So who are the good guys around here?  Am I missing something?  

 

by bslev 7/19/2012 - 11:25 pm

Romney should release his tax returns because its the right thing to do. The people have the right to know. Poll seem to suggest its not a political quagmire for him which just blows me away. We'll see if that holds true.

Whether the dems are hypocrites to push this issue given their own members tax failings, whether its all political games, whether they are lying about what might be in the tax returns wrong as that may be doesn't change the basic reason. The people have the right to know.

by ocean-kat 7/19/2012 - 11:59 pm (re: bslev)

Whether it's the right thing to do or not, it's an unwritten rule: all presidential nominees release their tax returns. Years of them. Did Romney enter the Republican race thinking, "If I'm nominated, I'll refuse to discuss my taxes?" If so, he's an idiot -- and demonstrably unfit to run the country. End of story.

by acanuck 7/20/2012 - 3:22 am (re: ocean-kat)

Yes.

by Articleman 7/20/2012 - 11:48 am (re: acanuck)

That sums it up pretty well.

by Another Trope 7/20/2012 - 12:39 pm (re: acanuck)

Ocean-Kat,

Nice to see you again.  I totally agree with you that the people have the right to know.

But I also believe that this isn't about whether Romney is a good guy in person or more or less honest than Obama.  I believe they are both politicians, and I believe that the demand for Romney to release his taxes on the one hand and the shock that he is being asked to release his taxes on the other is just politics and nothing more.

And I don't believe that the two political parties that are driving this campaign give a hoot about what the rights of the people are in the midst of a presidential campaign.  

This is politics, pure and simple, and nothing more.  And if Romney doesn't release his taxes, he's an idiot, pure and simple.   And as much as I've been pushing for the re-election of President Obama (and while you were gone I almost started a riot around these parts for questioning how progressives could possibly do otherwise), I don't believe for a second that the demand for Romney to release his taxes is motivated by anything other than politics.  It's all about defining Romney before the Republicans begin to outspend the Democrats 2 to 1 once Romney is formally nominated. 

 

 

by bslev 7/20/2012 - 7:19 am (re: ocean-kat)

It may be politics, but Krugman thinks Romney's reaction on the issue is very enlightening:

Fitzgerald again, about the very rich: “They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”

O.K., let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, and probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules.

But Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release.

by NCD 7/20/2012 - 11:01 am (re: bslev)

I totally agree with you NCD, and I certainly don't mean to defend Romney the person.  I think there is quite a bit of stuff in Romney's tax returns that he doesn't want the voters to see.  And I also believe that sending out Ann to defend their family is just that much nonsense.  

by bslev 7/20/2012 - 11:07 am (re: NCD)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: $4,781,000
2. Brigham Young University: $525,000
3. The United Way: $177,000
4. Right to Play: $111,500
5. The George W. Bush Library: $100,000
6. Operation Kids: $85,000
7. Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS: $75,000
8. Harvard Business School: $70,000
9. City Year: $65,000
10. Deseret International: $50,000
Weber State University: $50,000

by Peter Schwartz 7/20/2012 - 9:45 am

Obamas election strategy?

How do you keep the ignorant electorate in suspense?

Neither capitalist candidate, has a solution.

They're winging it, until the next crisis comes along and it distracts a stupid electorate.

An electorate that doesn't know, what side of the class war they should be on.   

BTW..... With this new famine crisis on the horizon, will the capitalists, screw the American public to make a buck?

Have we stopped exporting American grain, or are we compelled by law to cut our own throats, so a capitalist doesn't suffer?

by Resistance 7/20/2012 - 2:55 pm

Latest Comments

more