Obama and the Economy

cawacko

Well-known member
Posters like Dungheap questioned Larry Kudrow who has economic libertarian leanings when Kudrow claimed Obama's proposals negatively targeted businesses and investors. Here's an article from the AP echoing similar sentimemnts. There's still a long time to go before the full effects of Obama's policies are felt be they positive or negative. But I think its clear there is definitely some concern from the business community and the capital markets over his initial proposals.


Analysis: Obama recovery plans sowing some unease
By TOM RAUM – 10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Although the administration likes to say it "inherited" the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama's still-young watch.

Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

More than 4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007 — roughly half in the past three months.

Stocks have tumbled to levels not seen since 1997. They are down more than 50 percent from their 2007 highs and 20 percent since Obama's inauguration.

The president's suggestion that it was a good time for investors with "a long-term perspective" to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed.

Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market. But the dynamics are different now.

A higher percentage of people have more direct exposure to stocks — including through 401(k) and other retirement plans — than ever.

So a tumbling stock market is adding to the national angst as households see the value of their investments and homes plunge as job losses keep rising.

Some once mighty companies such as General Motors and Citigroup are little more than penny stocks.

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

Makers of heavy road-building and other construction equipment have taken a hit, partly because of expectations of fewer public works jobs here and globally than first anticipated.

"We've got a lot of scared investors and business people. I think the uncertainty is a real killer here," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the libertarian Cato Institute.

Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for "bold action and big ideas" with deeds.

In particular, they point to bumpy efforts to fix the financial system under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of "catastrophe" if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner's public performance has been halting and he's been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.

Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Charities have strongly protested, saying times already are tough enough for them. The administration suggests it might back off that one.

Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Republicans assert that Obama's proposals, including the "cap and trade" fees on polluters to combat global warming, would raise taxes during a recession that could touch everyone. "Herbert Hoover tried it, and we all know where that led," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

The administration argues its tax increases for the households earning over $250,000 a year and fees on carbon polluters contained in its budget won't kick in until 2011-2012, when it forecasts the economy will have fully recovered.

But even those assumptions are challenged as too rosy by many private forecasters and some Democratic lawmakers.

Many deficit hawks also worry that the trillions of federal dollars being doled out by the administration, Congress and the Federal Reserve could sow the seeds of inflation down the road, whether the measures succeed in taming the recession or not. The money includes Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and the $837 billion stimulus package he signed last month.

Polls show that Obama's personal approval ratings, generally holding in the high 60s, remain greater than support for his specific policies.

"He still has a fair amount of political capital, so the public is willing to cut him some slack and go along with him for a while," said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But the public will have to get some sense that the kinds of things he's proposing are going to work, or are showing some signs that they are working."

Allan Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics, a Boston-area consulting firm, said the complexity and enormity of the crisis make it hard to solve.

"There's no way to get it all right, regardless of which president is making policy," Sinai said. "The problem is the sickness got too far. The actions taken, medicine applied, were mainly the wrong actions. So it's just worse, and it gets harder to deal with. At this stage, there is no easy answer, no easy way out. It's a question of how we fumble through."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzxMIm4EJQJddvV_ZHPkN1pw8nJwD96P7RC80
 
Posters like Dungheap questioned Larry Kudrow who has economic libertarian leanings when Kudrow claimed Obama's proposals negatively targeted businesses and investors. Here's an article from the AP echoing similar sentimemnts. There's still a long time to go before the full effects of Obama's policies are felt be they positive or negative. But I think its clear there is definitely some concern from the business community and the capital markets over his initial proposals.


Analysis: Obama recovery plans sowing some unease
By TOM RAUM – 10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Although the administration likes to say it "inherited" the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama's still-young watch.

Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

More than 4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007 — roughly half in the past three months.

Stocks have tumbled to levels not seen since 1997. They are down more than 50 percent from their 2007 highs and 20 percent since Obama's inauguration.

The president's suggestion that it was a good time for investors with "a long-term perspective" to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed.

Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market. But the dynamics are different now.

A higher percentage of people have more direct exposure to stocks — including through 401(k) and other retirement plans — than ever.

So a tumbling stock market is adding to the national angst as households see the value of their investments and homes plunge as job losses keep rising.

Some once mighty companies such as General Motors and Citigroup are little more than penny stocks.

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

Makers of heavy road-building and other construction equipment have taken a hit, partly because of expectations of fewer public works jobs here and globally than first anticipated.

"We've got a lot of scared investors and business people. I think the uncertainty is a real killer here," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the libertarian Cato Institute.

Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for "bold action and big ideas" with deeds.

In particular, they point to bumpy efforts to fix the financial system under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of "catastrophe" if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner's public performance has been halting and he's been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.

Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Charities have strongly protested, saying times already are tough enough for them. The administration suggests it might back off that one.

Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Republicans assert that Obama's proposals, including the "cap and trade" fees on polluters to combat global warming, would raise taxes during a recession that could touch everyone. "Herbert Hoover tried it, and we all know where that led," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

The administration argues its tax increases for the households earning over $250,000 a year and fees on carbon polluters contained in its budget won't kick in until 2011-2012, when it forecasts the economy will have fully recovered.

But even those assumptions are challenged as too rosy by many private forecasters and some Democratic lawmakers.

Many deficit hawks also worry that the trillions of federal dollars being doled out by the administration, Congress and the Federal Reserve could sow the seeds of inflation down the road, whether the measures succeed in taming the recession or not. The money includes Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and the $837 billion stimulus package he signed last month.

Polls show that Obama's personal approval ratings, generally holding in the high 60s, remain greater than support for his specific policies.

"He still has a fair amount of political capital, so the public is willing to cut him some slack and go along with him for a while," said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But the public will have to get some sense that the kinds of things he's proposing are going to work, or are showing some signs that they are working."

Allan Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics, a Boston-area consulting firm, said the complexity and enormity of the crisis make it hard to solve.

"There's no way to get it all right, regardless of which president is making policy," Sinai said. "The problem is the sickness got too far. The actions taken, medicine applied, were mainly the wrong actions. So it's just worse, and it gets harder to deal with. At this stage, there is no easy answer, no easy way out. It's a question of how we fumble through."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzxMIm4EJQJddvV_ZHPkN1pw8nJwD96P7RC80

1) Larry Kudlow is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. he's a corporatist Republican hack.

2) That's not an article, it's an opinion piece ("analysis" as the AP calls them) and it's a pretty bad one. In fact, it's really bad.
 
1) Larry Kudlow is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. he's a corporatist Republican hack.

2) That's not an article, it's an opinion piece ("analysis" as the AP calls them) and it's a pretty bad one. In fact, it's really bad.

What do you disagree with in the article?
 
What do you disagree with in the article?


Do you want me to go paragraph by paragraph?

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

First, I don't know that the economic outlook is more troubled now than it was even in January. Yes, the economy is in a worse position, but I don't know about the economic outlook. And expecting a deep recession to turn around on a dime within a month and a half of Obama being in office and before any stimulus money is doled out is fucking stupid.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Which economists and lawmakers? Let's see who turns up in the article on this one. And what are other lawmakers and economists saying? And let's see just what "some economits" are quoted as saying below. I can't fucking stand the "some economists" horseshit. Tell me who they are and what they are saying and why.

Although the administration likes to say it "inherited" the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama's still-young watch.

This is fucking priceless here. Do you know why Obama says he inherited the recession and the trillion dollar deficits? Because it is factually correct. That being the case, what the fuck is up with putting inherited in quotes? And again, it's been a month and a fucking half and economy was swirling the drain before Obama took office. He's not a fucking miracle worker.

Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

I don't even know what this means, particularly where the author has for the previous however many paragraphs told us why Obama is responsible for everything.

More than 4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007 — roughly half in the past three months.

So the author is aware that Obama inherited the recession. Funny that he seemed to forget about 50 words ago.

Stocks have tumbled to levels not seen since 1997. They are down more than 50 percent from their 2007 highs and 20 percent since Obama's inauguration.

OK.

The president's suggestion that it was a good time for investors with "a long-term perspective" to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed.

This is just plain stupid. It attempts to create a link of causation where none exists.

Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market. But the dynamics are different now.

Is that even true? Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market?

A higher percentage of people have more direct exposure to stocks — including through 401(k) and other retirement plans — than ever.

OK. Is Obama responsible for this too?

So a tumbling stock market is adding to the national angst as households see the value of their investments and homes plunge as job losses keep rising.

So I guess it is a pretty good idea for the President to talk about the stock market. It seems pretty important.

Some once mighty companies such as General Motors and Citigroup are little more than penny stocks.

Where is this article going. I was promised that I was going to hear about "some economists and lawmakers" and what they claimed about Obama destroying private enterprise yet all I get is this nonsense.

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

Now we're getting somewhere, but unfortunately it is nowhere good. Claiming to know why health care stocks are down and pinning the blame on "fears of new government restrictions and mandates" is a fucking joke. Seriously. The author has not a single source to back up this assertion. he made it up whole cloth. He doensn't even attempt to attribute it to "some economists" that I'm still waiting to hear from. Same with student loan providers. Same with energy. This paragraph is a total joke.

Makers of heavy road-building and other construction equipment have taken a hit, partly because of expectations of fewer public works jobs here and globally than first anticipated.

Again, how about a source for this crap.

"We've got a lot of scared investors and business people. I think the uncertainty is a real killer here," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the libertarian Cato Institute.

HOLY SHIT! A SOURCE! And it's from the Cato Institute. And it's a policy guy, not an economist. I wonder what he thinks about Obama. He's not an ideologue or anything.

Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for "bold action and big ideas" with deeds.

In particular, they point to bumpy efforts to fix the financial system under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

OK. Some Democrats. Well, what do they want, something bolder that a $800 trillion stimulus plan? Then why did they cut it down in Congress. A bigger budget proposal? What do they want Geithner to do, nationalize the zombie banks? Nothing at all?

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of "catastrophe" if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner's public performance has been halting and he's been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.

Geithner sucks. I agree.

Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

OK. But who gives a shit and what effect has this had on the economy. And what does this have to do with the recessio? Oh, right. Nothing. SO what the fuck are you talking about it for.

Charities have strongly protested, saying times already are tough enough for them. The administration suggests it might back off that one.

I guess this stuff is just filler. Trying to take up column inches I guess.

Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

Fair enough, but in the end what is the difference on the unemployment rate, which is really what matters. If you save someone from losing their job it has the same effect of creating another job for someone else.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

Oh, yes another Democrat. Is he one of the "some Democrats" mentioned at the outset of the article? I doubt it. He seems to be criticizing the rhetoric, not questioning "whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession." Still waiting for those lawmakers and economists.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

I get it. We've covered that.

Republicans assert that Obama's proposals, including the "cap and trade" fees on polluters to combat global warming, would raise taxes during a recession that could touch everyone. "Herbert Hoover tried it, and we all know where that led," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Seriously? After three paragraphs pf blasting Obama for a squishy "create or save" formulation the author actually reprints this horseshit from John Boehner without noting that it is fucking batshit crazy nonsense. I guess this is one of the lawmakers that is questioning whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession. But if so, we should have been made aware of that long ago since John Boehner is just plain stupid. It would have saved us all a lot of time.

The administration argues its tax increases for the households earning over $250,000 a year and fees on carbon polluters contained in its budget won't kick in until 2011-2012, when it forecasts the economy will have fully recovered.

OK.

But even those assumptions are challenged as too rosy by many private forecasters and some Democratic lawmakers.

Again, who the fuck are you talking about? We're still waiting for the lawmakers and economists you promised us earlier.

Many deficit hawks also worry that the trillions of federal dollars being doled out by the administration, Congress and the Federal Reserve could sow the seeds of inflation down the road, whether the measures succeed in taming the recession or not. The money includes Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and the $837 billion stimulus package he signed last month.

I will choke the shit out of this motherfucker if he doesn't start name dropping.

Polls show that Obama's personal approval ratings, generally holding in the high 60s, remain greater than support for his specific policies.

"He still has a fair amount of political capital, so the public is willing to cut him some slack and go along with him for a while," said pollster Andrew
Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But the public will have to get some sense that the kinds of things he's proposing are going to work, or are showing some signs that they are working."

A pollster? I wanted a deficit hawk. Or an economist. Or a lawmaker. Or a private forecaser. Or a Democratic lawmaker.

Allan Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics, a Boston-area consulting firm, said the complexity and enormity of the crisis make it hard to solve.

"There's no way to get it all right, regardless of which president is making policy," Sinai said. "The problem is the sickness got too far. The actions taken, medicine applied, were mainly the wrong actions. So it's just worse, and it gets harder to deal with. At this stage, there is no easy answer, no easy way out. It's a question of how we fumble through."

So, in the end the answer is that we're fucked no matter what? Jesus Christ, this piece could have been two paragraphs long.
 
Do you want me to go paragraph by paragraph?



First, I don't know that the economic outlook is more troubled now than it was even in January. Yes, the economy is in a worse position, but I don't know about the economic outlook. And expecting a deep recession to turn around on a dime within a month and a half of Obama being in office and before any stimulus money is doled out is fucking stupid.

(We've recently had the head of the Fed and several other prominent economists at some of the big Wall St firms I believe come out and say the recession could go on longer than originally thought. I don't think its a matter ending the recession in a month. It's the long term outlook looks bleaker than before.)

Which economists and lawmakers? Let's see who turns up in the article on this one. And what are other lawmakers and economists saying? And let's see just what "some economits" are quoted as saying below. I can't fucking stand the "some economists" horseshit. Tell me who they are and what they are saying and why.

(Isn't this a familiar technique used my most writers? "Some economists say this..." etc. without actually naming them)

This is fucking priceless here. Do you know why Obama says he inherited the recession and the trillion dollar deficits? Because it is factually correct. That being the case, what the fuck is up with putting inherited in quotes? And again, it's been a month and a fucking half and economy was swirling the drain before Obama took office. He's not a fucking miracle worker.



I don't even know what this means, particularly where the author has for the previous however many paragraphs told us why Obama is responsible for everything.

(When the author brings up that some people have questioned his proposals I think its legit. Businesses and investors have legitimate concerns.)


So the author is aware that Obama inherited the recession. Funny that he seemed to forget about 50 words ago.



OK.



This is just plain stupid. It attempts to create a link of causation where none exists.



Is that even true? Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market?



OK. Is Obama responsible for this too?



So I guess it is a pretty good idea for the President to talk about the stock market. It seems pretty important.



Where is this article going. I was promised that I was going to hear about "some economists and lawmakers" and what they claimed about Obama destroying private enterprise yet all I get is this nonsense.



Now we're getting somewhere, but unfortunately it is nowhere good. Claiming to know why health care stocks are down and pinning the blame on "fears of new government restrictions and mandates" is a fucking joke. Seriously. The author has not a single source to back up this assertion. he made it up whole cloth. He doensn't even attempt to attribute it to "some economists" that I'm still waiting to hear from. Same with student loan providers. Same with energy. This paragraph is a total joke.



Again, how about a source for this crap.



HOLY SHIT! A SOURCE! And it's from the Cato Institute. And it's a policy guy, not an economist. I wonder what he thinks about Obama. He's not an ideologue or anything.

(They referenced Cato as a libertarian think tank which it is. I have no problem with that. If they left out the libertarian part then I have would issue.)



OK. Some Democrats. Well, what do they want, something bolder that a $800 trillion stimulus plan? Then why did they cut it down in Congress. A bigger budget proposal? What do they want Geithner to do, nationalize the zombie banks? Nothing at all?



Geithner sucks. I agree.



OK. But who gives a shit and what effect has this had on the economy. And what does this have to do with the recessio? Oh, right. Nothing. SO what the fuck are you talking about it for.

(Because its about questioning his policies going forward which the author mentioned at the beggining. This is an example.)

I guess this stuff is just filler. Trying to take up column inches I guess.



Fair enough, but in the end what is the difference on the unemployment rate, which is really what matters. If you save someone from losing their job it has the same effect of creating another job for someone else.

(I get the point how do you quantify it? Thus the "no lose" situation where obstensibly you can claim to have 'saved' any nunber of jobs.)



Oh, yes another Democrat. Is he one of the "some Democrats" mentioned at the outset of the article? I doubt it. He seems to be criticizing the rhetoric, not questioning "whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession." Still waiting for those lawmakers and economists.



I get it. We've covered that.



Seriously? After three paragraphs pf blasting Obama for a squishy "create or save" formulation the author actually reprints this horseshit from John Boehner without noting that it is fucking batshit crazy nonsense. I guess this is one of the lawmakers that is questioning whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession. But if so, we should have been made aware of that long ago since John Boehner is just plain stupid. It would have saved us all a lot of time.



OK.



Again, who the fuck are you talking about? We're still waiting for the lawmakers and economists you promised us earlier.



I will choke the shit out of this motherfucker if he doesn't start name dropping.



A pollster? I wanted a deficit hawk. Or an economist. Or a lawmaker. Or a private forecaser. Or a Democratic lawmaker.



So, in the end the answer is that we're fucked no matter what? Jesus Christ, this piece could have been two paragraphs long.

1
 
Kudlow is as republican as an economist can be. Shit he was Reagan's economic advisor. He loves 2 things. Tax cuts and Jesus, in that order.
 
Dungheap, the people who run the market do plan way ahead, and if they see decent policies they will go in. It's because Obama supports the wrong policies that the market is tanking.
 
Do you want me to go paragraph by paragraph?



First, I don't know that the economic outlook is more troubled now than it was even in January. Yes, the economy is in a worse position, but I don't know about the economic outlook. And expecting a deep recession to turn around on a dime within a month and a half of Obama being in office and before any stimulus money is doled out is fucking stupid.


Maybe this was being predicted back in January but here's an article from today on the economic outlook. I don't remember it being predicted this bad but I could obviously be wrong on that.



Recession will likely be longest in postwar era
Observers see more complicated situation than 1981-82 downturn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29582828
 
Back
Top