gov workers pay explodes-what recession

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
<!--clickabilityRefresh=15m--><!--startclickprintinclude-->For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
By Dennis Cauchon
USA TODAY
The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months ? and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time ? in pay and hiring ? during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.
"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.
USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.
Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:
?Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended ? and Congress approved ? across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes ? called steps ? that average 1.5% per year.
?New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.
?Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
+++++++++++++++++++++
and-----

It's A Good Time To Work For Uncle Sam

image4998537x.jpg
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)​



President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week.

At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge.

Executive branch employment ? 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department ? is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.

There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.

Meanwhile, according to Forbes' layoff tracker, there have been 558,087 layoffs since November 2008 at large public companies; even local school districts aren't immune. That's just a sliver of the total unemployed, which government data estimate to be 8.6 percent of the workforce, or an alternate method of reckoning that counts discouraged workers puts at 20 percent.

Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)

A 39-page "dimensions" document accompanying the White House's 1,380-page appendix offers justifications for each new hire. Homeland Security says its new employees will "increase border security." The Agency for International Development wants to improve "the management and stewardship of foreign assistance programs." The Smithsonian Institution wants "additional security guards." And so on.

The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and along those lines yet another fortune 500 co tells Gumby and Dems to shove it--

005_emerson_electric.jpg
On November 11, David N. Farr, Chairman, CEO and President of Emerson Electric Co., announced at the Baird 2009 Industrial Conference in Chicago that President Obama has succeeded in chasing his multi-billion dollar industry right out of the U.S.A. Why? Onerous regulation, high taxes, and the over $1 trillion Obama debt should be reason enough for any business to consider shutting down U.S. facilities and seeking greener pastures overseas says Farr.
The federal government is ?doing everything in [its] manpower [and] capability to destroy U.S. manufacturing,? says David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson Electric Co., in a presentation at the Baird 2009 Industrial Conference in Chicago Ill., on Nov. 11. In comments reported by Bloomberg, Farr added that companies will continue adding jobs in China and India because they are ?places where people want the products and where the governments welcome you to actually do something. I am not going to hire anybody in the United States. I?m moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs.?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


<!--endclickprintinclude-->
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
OK let?s see, ?Bush recommended ? and Congress approved ? across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975.?

Additionally, ?Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.?

On top of this, ?Executive branch employment ? 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department ? is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.?


But of course, it?s all Obama?s fault. :shrug:

I don't think that Dogs even read the article that he posted part of.
 

Hard Times

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2005
809
0
0
The Judge

The Judge

Hard to believe anything you read and sometimes it's hard to believe what you see.
Every post that DTB makes is anti-Obama,anti-liberal and anti- da base.
So how in this world did he post this shit , has he posted something without reading it or did he read it and not understand.
DTB has no credibility because every post is slanted , takes one side and to hell with everyone else.
I will admit that lately I tend to agree with some of the things he is posting.
You see I'm anti government.... period !!
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
OK let?s see, ?Bush recommended ? and Congress approved ? across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975.?

Additionally, ?Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.?

On top of this, ?Executive branch employment ? 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department ? is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.?


But of course, it?s all Obama?s fault. :shrug:

I don't think that Dogs even read the article that he posted part of.

I read it -your looking at 2 entirely diff scenerios- there was 10% unemploment and a recession--DUH

or you sure your reading it--I quess those cenvcus workers are the 1,700 that had their pay increased above $170,000
Would appear to me your the one with selective vision.


Give us your best shot at what above is incorrect
or more importantly--since your contributing-

kindly give us the political/ character traits of Gumby you feel you most closely indentify with--I'm curious-thank you in advance :)
:0corn
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wayne, you are being ridiculous on this. I'm surprised you posted it - but not surprised on how you tried to spin it - which is complete bullshit. The Judge rightfully pointed out what I was about to - a huge part of the growth occured and was sponsored under the Bush administration. Much of it was noted in the defense and homeland security departments, and as it was pointed out in the story most of the high salaried individuals are highly trained professionals - that if they were in the private sector you would be singing the praises about how they should be left alone and should be looked up to. The timing of this story is perfect for a smokescreen, it includes all the temporary workers hired every four years to do the census work. Let me guess, 4 years before this, and 4 years before that (and on and on) government hiring went way up, right? What a joke...

What above is incorrect? That's easy. Your take on it is completely incorrect.

:bs:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
The article is about current unemployment vs privite sector vs Gov


Ok so if you'd like to contribute--give us some facts

Report back to us with privite sector jobs lost vs gov in 09.

Then report back with wage increase in privite vs gov.

on the 2% cut O had--I'd would expect he would have to cut it some since he cut social security increase to 0 for 1st time in history.
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/08/24/no-social-security-cost-of-living-adjustment-for-you/

I'd prefered he'd done it for the right reason-
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/28/1128166-bush-shrinks-federal-pay-raises

WASHINGTON ? Federal workers living in more expensive regions of the country will get much smaller pay raises than scheduled under an order from President Bush, who said Wednesday that the proposed raises were unacceptably high.

--and believe you both missed elaborating on this one--When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000--DUH

You think Gumby in bed with the seiu unions got anything to do with it--think their pres being most frequent vistor to white house may come into play and along those lines-

--any comments on another fotune 500 company tell Gumby to go fck himself :)
I told you no one has to put up with it.

No doubt Gumby can Dems can spend all they want until 2010--their prob is paying for it.

we got 2 major probs-the rest makes little diff
Spending--

wapoobamabudget1.jpg



and tax revenues

55ddbd49-a6c7-44cc-9d88-043ffe1f9eba.jpg

Graphic shows change in federal tax receipts from 1980 to


Even the Huffers can see whats coming down--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/tax-revenues-post-biggest_n_250108.html

Tax Revenues Post Biggest Drop Since Depression


WASHINGTON ? The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.
The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.
Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.
The last time the government's revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the Depression.
"Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury Department official in the Reagan administration who is now vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
"This just adds to the problem."
While much of Washington is focused on how to pay for new programs such as overhauling health care ? at a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade ? existing programs are feeling the pinch, too.
Social Security is in danger of running out of money earlier than the government projected just a few month ago. Highway, mass transit and airport projects are at risk because fuel and industry taxes are declining.
The national debt already exceeds $11 trillion. And bills just completed by the House would boost domestic agencies' spending by 11 percent in 2010 and military spending by 4 percent.
For this report, the AP analyzed annual tax receipts dating back to the inception of the federal income tax in 1913. Tax receipts for the 2009 budget year were available through June. They were compared to the same period last year. The budget year runs from October to September, meaning there will be three more months of receipts this year.
Is there a way out of the financial mess?
A key factor is the economy's health. The future of current programs ? not to mention the new ones Obama is proposing ? will depend largely on how fast the economy recovers from the recession, said William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center.
"The numbers for 2009 are striking, head-snapping. But what really matters is what happens next," said Gale, who previously taught economics at UCLA and was an adviser to President George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
"If it's just one year, then it's a remarkable thing, but it's totally manageable. If the economy doesn't recover soon, it doesn't matter what your social, economic and political agenda is. There's not going to be any revenue to pay for it."
A small part of the drop in tax receipts can be attributed to new tax credits for individuals and corporations enacted in February as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. The sheer magnitude of the tax decline, however, points to the deep recession that is reducing incomes, wiping out corporate profits and straining government programs.
Social Security tax receipts are down less than a percentage point from last year, but in May the government had been projecting a slight increase. At the time, the government's best estimate was that Social Security would start to pay out more money than it receives in taxes in 2016, and that the fund would be depleted in 2037 unless changes are enacted.
Some experts think the sour economy has made those numbers outdated.
"You could easily move that number up three or four years, then you're talking about 2013, and that's not very far off," said Kent Smetters, associate professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania.
The government's projections included best- and worst-case scenarios. Under the worst, Social Security would start to pay out more money than it received in taxes in 2013, and the fund would be depleted in 2029.
The fund's trustees are still confident the solvency dates are within the range of the worst-case scenario, said Jason Fichtner, the Social Security Administration's acting deputy commissioner.
"We're not outside our boundaries yet," Fichtner said. "As the recovery comes, we'll see how that plays out."
The recession's toll on Social Security makes it even more urgent for Congress to address the fund's long-term solvency, said Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Senate Aging Committee.
"Over the past year, millions of older Americans have watched their retirement savings crumble, making the guaranteed income of Social Security more important than ever," Kohl said.
President Barack Obama has said he wants to tackle Social Security next year, after he clears an already crowded agenda that includes overhauling health care, addressing climate change and imposing new regulations on financial companies.
Medicare tax receipts are also down less than a percentage point for the year, pretty close to government projections. Medicare started paying out more money than it received last year.
Meanwhile, the recession is taking a toll on fuel and industry excise taxes that pay for highway, mass transit and airport projects. Fuel taxes that support road construction and mass transit projects are on pace to fall for the second straight year. Receipts from taxes on jet fuel and airline tickets are also dropping, meaning Congress will have to borrow more money to fund airport projects and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Last week, Congress voted to spend $7 billion to replenish the highway fund, which would otherwise run out of money in August. Congress spent $8 billion to replenish the fund last year.
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees fuel taxes, is working on a package to make the fund more self-sufficient. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which doesn't back many tax increases, supports increasing the federal gasoline tax, currently 18.4 cents per gallon.
Neal said he hasn't endorsed a specific plan. But, he added, "You can't keep going back to the general fund."
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Quick question - over this same time period - or even since the recession started, whenever that is (funny how you are so excited about throwing that word around now, and argued against it in every instance prior to Obama taking office, or any time Bush was in office, as a matter of fact)...

How much did the Fortune 500 CEO's earnings go up? How much did the upper 1% of wage earners go up?

Get back to me when you can... this may take some creative Googling... :0corn

And, also interesting that you're now talking so much about how many more people the government is employing, and how much more money they are making, when you always maintain that the government doesn't create any jobs in our society.

You mention the 18 months of the recession. Clearly, the recession AS YOU SAY must have started with the Bush administration and it's policies. Of course it had to start before that - a recession just doesn't happen immediately, there's a trend of economic performance leading DOWN to recession status.

How many of these transportation people had salaries close to $170,000 before they were measured here recently? How many got to that level before Obama had any role in anything? Do you have those numbers? Certainly Bush's higher raise structure played a big role in that, especially considering Obama proposed a lower percentage raise structure (the lowest since 1975, right?). How much were they making before 18 months ago? How much last year? Was it a big difference? Do you know? Is this where I type - DUH?

You keep wanting us to look at the transportation jobs. How about this section from your post:

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

Are you advocating that we cut the Defense Department? Are those people making too much money? How many of them saw their salaries increase to $150K or more in 2008? Why do we need so many defense department employees? Do you think the wars enacted by the Bush administration have anything to do with that? Or do you think it's Obama's fault that our defense department is so well funded in the years prior to him having anything to do with the budget? Or the Homeland Security department? Did Obama create that? How many homeland security specific jobs were created at high salaries before Obama took office?

How much of the increase in federal payroll is due to the 102,000 temporary census workers, that were not counted at the start of Bush's recession? Think that has any bearing on the tote-board? That won't be a part of the tote-board next year? That's a pretty big number, when you multiply it by a normal salary, eh?

You didn't focus on this part, either, Wayne:

If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees.

How much of that is Obama's fault? Probably not that much, if measuring time or the departments measured is a basis in thought.

And this?

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

Read that again: Federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs. Interesting, you are holding up these people and their average, and compare them to every possible job in the private sector. The true comparison here, is that government employees, in comparative jobs, make 26% less than private workers. I can see why you wouldn't want to highlight that one...

This is worth looking at again:

Then-president Bush recommended ? and Congress approved ? across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975.

So, the only measurement of wages, and who is responsible for them, is Bush recommended salary figures. Obama has merely proposed future salaries, at a rate less than Bush, the lowest % increase since 1975. And these salaries are somehow Obama's responsiblity?

Hey, let's look at this one again:

Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

Let's see, this is Obama's fault, how? New "merit" raise system and across the board increases for the defense department, started in January 2008 and were larger than expected. Can you say, Bush's fault? Can you? Try it, you could get used to it... and I see Congress voted to end the new scale? Progress, right? I guess you'd think this was commendable, since this subject bothers you so much.

I'll finish with this, from your postings:

Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.

So, you're headline was regarding federal workers pay "exploding." The average worker's pay, including benefits went up $2,619. That's $50 a week. Not sure that constitutes an explosion. A couple hundred bucks a month? Considering that most of those increases were for higher level professionals, or defense department or homeland security workers? And they key phrase there, "including benefits." Do you think that healthcare costs went down for all of these workers? Or did they go up, which of course added into the value of the raises? Of course those costs were a big part of those increases. But, talk about reforming healthcare and getting those insurance costs to go down for all these federal workers - workers we pay these increases for in taxes, and that's just us attacking insurance companies... :mj07:

Do you have any more links or posts on this subject Wayne? I find them very illuminating. You want us to post our facts on this issue. I think I'm just fine in using yours for the purposes of this discussion...
:0corn
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
kindly give us the political/ character traits of Gumby you feel you most closely indentify with--I'm curious-thank you in advance :)
:0corn
Why did this conversation turn to the question of what are "the political/ character traits of Gumby I feel I most closely indentify with"?

That is completely off topic and frankly, irrelevant to the discussion. It is also a perfect example of precisely why I have chosen NOT to "contribute" or even participate in this fucking sewer of a forum and I thank you for reinforcing my decision. The stench of hatred in here is more than I can stomach.

All I was trying to say in my post is that that several points in the article clearly explain that the reason behind much of the growth in the federal payroll are not Obama's fault which is certainly what you are asking us to believe.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,552
305
83
Victory Lane
Why did this conversation turn to the question of what are "the political/ character traits of Gumby I feel I most closely indentify with"?

That is completely off topic and frankly, irrelevant to the discussion. It is also a perfect example of precisely why I have chosen NOT to "contribute" or even participate in this fucking sewer of a forum and I thank you for reinforcing my decision. The stench of hatred in here is more than I can stomach.

.
.............................................................

thanks DTB

there goes another one

you black gumby rat bastid
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,276
1,493
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
EMERSON

EMERSON

Hey Wayne, I work for Emerson here in Columbus, OH. Farr has been criticizing Obama for months, laying the groundwork for more moves to Mexico. We have slowly been sending component manufacturing and (now in 2010) product line manufacturing to Mexico for years. It seems pretty clear that this is just a political move....moving to Mexico is Obama's fault, yeah, that's it. If we blame it on Obama, we can cover up the fact that we are the ones that keep shipping jobs out of the US.

Our accounting department just moved to the Caribbean, must have been the health care issue. Eat it up all you want boys, I go with my gut and say it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the current administration.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
I can understand that gregg--his followers are certainly loyal--in fact I have neighbor with a Ron Paul for Senate sign in their yard right now.

I believe Ron is certainly a man of character --his problem was he does not come off well in speechs-seems angry all the time.

I know you are not Obama fan--and was just goadiong you a tad--

I do not think this forum is any more rabid against O than GW. It depends on whom the poster disliked the most.

Case in point i went back and saw you had about 200 posts in political forum in 2008 but only about 30 in 2009--which would indicate to me no prob with bush bashing but now its a sewer since O is on receiving end. :)

Not many supporters here anymore- after
the war -gitmo-no pork-no lobbyist-transparency-era of responsiblty-smaller gov-fiscal responsibilty---cons/grifts

Most that supported him have switched from :00hour to :s2:

:)
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,515
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Hey Wayne, I work for Emerson here in Columbus, OH. Farr has been criticizing Obama for months, laying the groundwork for more moves to Mexico. We have slowly been sending component manufacturing and (now in 2010) product line manufacturing to Mexico for years. It seems pretty clear that this is just a political move....moving to Mexico is Obama's fault, yeah, that's it. If we blame it on Obama, we can cover up the fact that we are the ones that keep shipping jobs out of the US.

Our accounting department just moved to the Caribbean, must have been the health care issue. Eat it up all you want boys, I go with my gut and say it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the current administration.

Is your job in jeopardy Garry?

Lots of companies laying ground work for moving. I have noticed in my china news-lots of drug companies out sourcing to china.

Politics aside--Companies will gravitate to profits. Taxes/unions/regulations are corporate killers--we got 2nd highest corporate taxes in world now--this admin and those that follow will have to get tax revenue from somewhere to just pay interest on projected debt--and to go after the voters would be poltical suicide--so I think corps are seeing handwriting on the wall.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,552
305
83
Victory Lane
Case in point i went back and saw you had about 200 posts in political forum in 2008 but only about 30 in 2009--which would indicate to me no prob with bush bashing but now its a sewer since O is on receiving end. :)
.............................................................

black gumby

can you post a chart or maybe a poll so that is
more clearly understood ?

:0corn
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top