The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

Klinker

Oct 18, 2018 at 11:44am

GL2 said:
We might remember the "qualities" of a few past conservative voices here and appreciate the give-and-take offered by mtierney. 16,000 posts and counting. The thread serves.

I'm not sure if I would describe her "contributions" here as "give and take". That said, she does stick around even if she insists on wearing a blind fold and sticking her fingers in her ears.

The willful ignorance and tacit approval lobby is well served.

lord_pabulum

Oct 18, 2018 at 12:16pm

Klinker said:

GL2 said:
We might remember the "qualities" of a few past conservative voices here and appreciate the give-and-take offered by mtierney. 16,000 posts and counting. The thread serves.
I'm not sure if I would describe her "contributions" here as "give and take". That said, she does stick around even if she insists on wearing a blind fold and sticking her fingers in her ears.
The willful ignorance and tacit approval lobby is well served.

You understand that this thread is based on someone's opinion similar to an op-ed piece?

DaveSchmidt

Oct 18, 2018 at 12:58pm

Klinker said:

You understand that this is an op ed piece and not an editorial?

It’s neither. But, written by a member of the editorial board and placed in print where the editorial normally goes, it’s probably closer to the latter than it is to an opposite-page ed.

mtierney

Oct 18, 2018 at 1:31pm

DaveSchmidt said:

Klinker said:

You understand that this is an op ed piece and not an editorial?
It’s neither. But, written by a member of the editorial board and placed in print where the editorial normally goes, it’s probably closer to the latter than it is to an opposite-page ed.

Bingo! But I thought it was “opinion” — commentary in the Times is rarely opposite.

LOST

Oct 18, 2018 at 3:55pm

tjohn said:

What's your point. My take on the editorial, and a lot of people would agree with me, is that HRC needs to head to the home for failed politicians and submit to the judgement of history.

Mitt Romney is headed to the Senate.

Some of us, perhaps including mtierney, remember:

"This is my last press conference. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That was 1962.

tjohn

Oct 18, 2018 at 4:39pm

LOST said:

tjohn said:

What's your point. My take on the editorial, and a lot of people would agree with me, is that HRC needs to head to the home for failed politicians and submit to the judgement of history.
Mitt Romney is headed to the Senate.
Some of us, perhaps including mtierney, remember:
"This is my last press conference. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That was 1962.

If HRC makes a political return, I expect to see a lot of Phoenix birds in tears because that would put to shame their regeneration abilities.

LOST

Oct 18, 2018 at 5:33pm

tjohn said:

If HRC makes a political return, I expect to see a lot of Phoenix birds in tears because that would put to shame their regeneration abilities.

Donald Trump is President of the United States. Anything is possible.

GL2

Oct 19, 2018 at 3:51pm

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:

GL2 said:
We might remember the "qualities" of a few past conservative voices here and appreciate the give-and-take offered by mtierney. 16,000 posts and counting. The thread serves.
I'm not sure if I would describe her "contributions" here as "give and take". That said, she does stick around even if she insists on wearing a blind fold and sticking her fingers in her ears.
The willful ignorance and tacit approval lobby is well served.
You understand that this thread is based on someone's opinion similar to an op-ed piece?

I’m goin’ with “a form of talk therapy.”

mtierney

Oct 19, 2018 at 5:30pm

LOST said:

tjohn said:

What's your point. My take on the editorial, and a lot of people would agree with me, is that HRC needs to head to the home for failed politicians and submit to the judgement of history.
Mitt Romney is headed to the Senate.
Some of us, perhaps including mtierney, remember:
"This is my last press conference. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That was 1962.

In 1962, there was no internet, no telephone in every pocket, no 24/7 cable news, twitter, Facebook, and a lot of other stuff. He, amazingly, managed private life afterwards.Nixon would not have survived today’s reality.

Romney made a blunder decades earlier of putting his dog’s crate on the roof of his station wagon. He, his wife, 5 kids, and I think in-laws were in his car. It was his Achilles heel. Really, how silly was that? Effective, however. Expect a replay soon.

joanne

Oct 19, 2018 at 8:10pm Edited

Even if certain agreements and trade deals need renegotiation, there are better ways to announce them, rather than so antagonistically, making out that everyone in the entire known universe and beyond is out to get you.... it’s incredibly tedious and energy-sapping to be constantly winding yourself up to full-blown fury all the time

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45894346

I’m imagining the fallout of this measure on every household and small business, for the things that can only be imported or assembled with some imported items, and for personal international mail etc... (until it all settles, in several years, where upon its much more expensive in the other countries so still very unfair all round)

mtierney

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:06pm

Joanne, the US Postal Service is in dire shape here. Stamps are going up to 55 cents soon, while folks choose to send emails instead of greeting cards and that very old custom of writing letters is non-existent. I really miss the exchange of letters. Now we text! POs are closing, mailboxes harder to find. The joke for a long time is that the government should give it up and let the postal service go private.

Your link exposes yet another example of government’s failure to run a business. angry

drummerboy

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:26pm

mtierney said:
Joanne, the US Postal Service is in dire shape here. Stamps are going up to 55 cents soon, while folks choose to send emails instead of greeting cards and that very old custom of writing letters is non-existent. I really miss the exchange of letters. Now we text! POs are closing, mailboxes harder to find. The joke for a long time is that the government should give it up and let the postal service go private.
Your link exposes yet another example of government’s failure to run a business.

gaaa - it doesn't matter what topic you pick, you're full of misinformation. You know nothing about how the postal service operates.

DaveSchmidt

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:38pm

mtierney said:

Stamps are going up to 55 cents soon, while folks choose to send emails instead of greeting cards and that very old custom of writing letters is non-existent.

When you account for inflation, stamps cost the equivalent of 55 cents during the Reagan years.

mtierney

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:49pm

when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, stamps cost 2 cents and 3 cents (depended whether the envelope was sealed or tucked in.) And penny postcards cost a penny! Of course, you could get a malted milk for 15 cents. We will never see those days again, I know.

But, during about three decades or so living in Maplewood, we had mail carriers who were on their routes for so many years, they became familiar faces and first names to parents on the block. You could leave your outgoing mail and they would take it.They also keep a watchful eye if someone’s mail piled up in case there was something wrong at a house.

What I do know is that the postal service is in trouble.

DaveSchmidt

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:53pm Edited

mtierney said:
when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, stamps cost 2 cents and 3 cents (depended whether the envelope was sealed or tucked in.)

When stamps became 3 cents in 1932, they were the equivalent of 56 cents today. The Postal Service must've been in even worse trouble.

drummerboy

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:17pm

mtierney said:
when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, stamps cost 2 cents and 3 cents (depended whether the envelope was sealed or tucked in.) And penny postcards cost a penny! Of course, you could get a malted milk for 15 cents. We will never see those days again, I know.
But, during about three decades or so living in Maplewood, we had mail carriers who were on their routes for so many years, they became familiar faces and first names to parents on the block. You could leave your outgoing mail and they would take it.They also keep a watchful eye if someone’s mail piled up in case there was something wrong at a house.
What I do know is that the postal service is in trouble.

But you have no idea why it's in "trouble". But you think you do.

gerritn

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:29pm

mtierney said:
What I do know is that the postal service is in trouble.

I think you are in trouble

ml1

Oct 20, 2018 at 1:04am

For 55 cents, I can have a letter delivered by the USPS to any address in the United States and it will arrive there in 2 days. How much does it cost to send a letter by Fedex?

The USPS is an absolute bargain.

joanne

Oct 20, 2018 at 2:05am

The article is about international mail services, not domestic.

It’s not about postcards, not even about aerogrammes (they were fun to write and fold, but who even buys them these days??). It’s about international parcel post, bulk mail, shipping containers...

And my post was about the way a statesman introduces a topic for discussion, with politeness and finesse. In case you missed it. Not like a raging bull, foaming and crazed with some deadly virus he can’t help but pass on to all he spits on.

mtierney

Oct 20, 2018 at 8:46am

Joanne said: “The article is about international mail services, not domestic.”

That was obvious. Also obvious, to me, after reading the link was that it was about the United States Postsl Service.

Afraid “politeness and finesse” have been missing from the political scene here and abroad for a very long time.

RealityForAll

Oct 20, 2018 at 8:54am

USPS Press Release states that USPS had a $2.7 billion loss for fiscal year 2017. See https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm =================================================================== WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service reported revenue of $69.6 billion for fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016 - September 30, 2017), a decrease of $1.8 billion compared to the prior year. The lower revenues were driven largely by accelerated declines in First-Class and Marketing Mail volumes. In 2017, mail volumes declined by approximately 5.0 billion pieces, or 3.6 percent, while package volumes grew by 589 million pieces, or 11.4 percent, continuing a multi-year trend of declining mail volumes and increasing package volume. While mail volume declines for the year were somewhat offset by growth in package volume, overall volume has declined by 4.9 billion pieces. The growth in our Shipping and Packages business provided some help to the financial picture of the Postal Service as revenue increased $2.1 billion, or 11.8 percent. However, that growth was offset in our financials by the decline in mail volumes discussed above, as well as a $1.1 billion 2016 noncash change in accounting estimate and the 2016 roll-back of the exigent surcharge mandated by the Postal Regulatory Commission which further reduced revenue by $1.1 billion from what it otherwise would have been. "Our financial situation is serious, though solvable,” said Postmaster General and CEO Megan J. Brennan. “There is a path to profitability and long-term financial stability. We are taking actions to control costs and compete effectively for revenues in addition to legislative and regulatory reform. We continue to optimize our network, enhance our products and services, and invest to better serve the American public." Brennan stressed that the path forward for a financially stable future must also include urgent actions needed outside of the Postal Service's control. They include advancement and passage of the postal reform provisions contained in H.R. 756 in the 115th Congress and the adoption by the Postal Regulatory Commission of a new pricing system as part of its 10-year pricing review, enabling the Postal Service to generate sufficient revenues to cover our costs. Operating expenses for the year were $72.2 billion, a decrease of $4.7 billion, or 6.1 percent, compared to the prior year, although this net reduction was largely attributable to changes in actuarially determined expenses outside of management's control. Expenses for retiree health benefits and workers compensation declined by $4.8 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively, but were partially offset by $2.4 billion in higher expenses for the amortization of unfunded retirement benefits, the result of statutory mandates effective for 2017 and changes in Office of Personnel Management actuarial assumptions. Expenses for compensation and benefits and transportation also added $667 million and $246 million, respectively, to 2017 operating expenses. The Postal Service reported a net loss for the year of $2.7 billion, a decrease in net loss of $2.8 billion compared to 2016. Of this decline in net loss, $2.4 billion was the result of changes in interest rates, outside of management's control, that reduced workers’ compensation expense compared to last year. The controllable loss for the year was $814 million, a change of $1.4 billion, driven by the $775 million decline in operating revenue before the 2016 change in accounting estimate, along with the increases in compensation and benefits and transportation expenses of $667 million and $246 million, respectively. Similar to the last several years, the Postal Service was unable to make any of the payments that were due to the federal government at the end of the fiscal year, which amounted to approximately $6.9 billion in 2017, to pre-fund pension and health benefits for postal retirees. “Making the payments to the federal government in full or in part would have left the Postal Service with insufficient liquidity to ensure that we will be able to cover our current and anticipated operating costs, make necessary capital investments, and absorb any contingencies or changes in the marketplace," said Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Joseph Corbett. "We will continue to prioritize the maintenance of adequate liquidity to ensure the Postal Service is able to perform our primary mission of providing universal service to all Americans." FY 2017 Operating Revenue and Volume by Service Category Compared to Prior Year The following presents revenue and volume by service category for the year ended September 30, 2017, and 2016: Revenue Volume (revenue in $ millions; volume in millions of pieces) 2017 2016 2017 2016 Service Category First-Class Mail $ 25,637 $ 27,508 58,747 61,240 Marketing Mail 16,626 17,622 78,329 80,885 Shipping and Packages 19,481 17,427 5,748 5,159 International 2,723 2,674 1,003 1,005 Periodicals 1,375 1,507 5,301 5,586 Other 3,751 3,630 363 467 Total before change in accounting estimate $ 69,593 $ 70,368 149,491 154,342 Change in accounting estimate $ — $ 1,061 — — Total operating revenue and volume $ 69,593 $ 71,429 149,491 154,342 2016 Change in Accounting Estimate During the third quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Postal Service revised the estimation technique utilized to determine its Deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability for a series of postage stamps. The change resulted from new information regarding customers’ retention and usage habits of Forever Stamps, and enabled the Postal Service to update its estimate of usage and “breakage” (representing stamps that will never be used for mailing due to loss, damage or stamp collection). As a result of this change in estimate, the Postal Service recorded a decrease in its Deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability as of June 30, 2016, which caused an increase in revenue and decrease in net loss of $1.1 billion for the year ended September 30, 2016. This change in accounting estimate resulted in a non-cash adjustment that does not impact the Postal Service's available cash or access to cash and does not affect its controllable loss. Selected FY 2017 Results of Operations This news release references operating revenue before the change in accounting estimate and operating revenue before the temporary exigent surcharge, which are not calculated and presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The following table reconciles these non-GAAP operating revenue calculations with GAAP net loss for the year ended September 30, 2017, and 2016: (results in $ millions) 2017 2016 Operating revenue Operating revenue before temporary exigent surcharge and change in accounting estimate $ 69,593 $ 69,232 Temporary exigent surcharge1 — 1,136 Operating revenue before change in accounting estimate $ 69,593 $ 70,368 Change in accounting estimate2 — 1,061 Total operating revenue $ 69,593 $ 71,429 Other revenue 43 69 Total revenue $ 69,636 $ 71,498 Total operating expenses $ 72,210 $ 76,899 Interest and investment income (expense), net (168) (190) Total expenses $ 72,378 $ 77,089 Net loss $ (2,742 ) $ (5,591 ) 1 The temporary exigent surcharge expired on April 10, 2016. 2 This change in accounting estimate relates solely to changes in estimates of stamp usage and breakage for Forever Stamps sold from 2011 through June 30, 2016, reflected as a decrease in the Deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability as of June 30, 2016. Controllable (Loss) Income This news release references controllable (loss) income, which is not calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP. Controllable income (loss) is a non-GAAP financial measure defined as net income (loss) adjusted for items outside of management’s control and non-recurring items. These adjustments include workers’ compensation expenses caused by actuarial revaluation and discount rate changes, PSRHBF prefunding expenses, the amortization of PSRHBF, CSRS and FERS unfunded liabilities, and the change in accounting estimate. The following table reconciles the Postal Service's GAAP net loss to controllable (loss) income and illustrates the loss from ongoing business activities without the impact of non-controllable and non-recurring items for the years ended September 30, 2017, and 2016: (in $ millions) 2017 2016 Net loss $ (2,742 ) $ (5,591 ) PSRHBF supplemental unfunded liability expense1 955 — PSRHBF prefunding fixed amount2 — 5,800 Change in workers’ compensation liability resulting from fluctuations in discount rates (1,362) 1,026 Other change in workers’ compensation liability3 (850) 188 Change in accounting estimate4 — (1,061) CSRS supplemental unfunded liability expense5 1,741 — FERS supplemental unfunded liability expense6 917 248 Change in normal cost of retiree health benefits due to revised actuarial assumptions7 527 — Controllable (loss) income $ (814) $ 610 1 Expense for the annual payment due by September 30, 2017, on the unfunded liability as calculated by OPM. 2 Expense for the annual prefunding payments to the PSRHBF due on September 30, 2016, and 2015, upon which the Postal Service defaulted. 3 Net amounts include changes in assumptions, as well as the valuation of new claims and revaluation of existing claims, less current year claim payments. 4 This change in accounting estimate relates solely to changes in estimates of stamp usage and breakage for Forever Stamps sold from 2011 through June 30, 2016, reflected as a decrease in the Deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability as of June 30, 2016. 5 Expense for the annual payment due September 30, 2017, calculated by OPM, to amortize the unfunded CSRS retirement obligation as of September 30, 2016, the date of the most recent available information. Payments are to be made in equal installments through 2043. 6 Expense for the annual payment due September 30, 2017, calculated by OPM, to amortize the unfunded FERS retirement obligation as of September 30, 2016, the date of the most recent available information. Payments are to be made in equal installments through 2046. 7 Represents the annual portion of the normal cost payment due September 30, 2017, attributable to revised actuarial assumptions and discount rate changes. The total normal cost payment amount, calculated by OPM, is $3.3 billion. Complete financial results are available in the Form 10-K, available (after 9 am ET) at http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/welcome.htm. Financial Briefing Postmaster General and CEO Megan J. Brennan and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Joseph Corbett will host a telephone/Web conference call to discuss the financial results in more detail. The call will begin at 10:00 am ET on November 14, 2017, and is open to news media and all other interested parties. How to Participate: US/Canada Attendee Dial-in: 844-340-4622 Conference ID: 2597149 Attendee Direct URL: https://usps.webex.com/usps/onstage/g.php?MTID=e155a3970e3c030d38ac7aa046745d576 If you cannot join using the direct link above, please use the alternate logins below: Alternate URL: https://usps.webex.com Event Number: 993 038 707 The briefing will also be available on live audio webcast (listen only) at: http://about.usps.com/news/electronic-press-kits/cfo/welcome.htm. The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. # # #

nohero

Oct 20, 2018 at 9:53am

RealityForAll said:
USPS Press Release states that USPS had a $2.7 billion loss for fiscal year 2017. See https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm

Did you read it, and in reading it know the basis for the accounting loss?

gerritn

Oct 21, 2018 at 12:49am

ml1 said:
For 55 cents, I can have a letter delivered by the USPS to any address in the United States and it will arrive there in 2 days. How much does it cost to send a letter by Fedex?
The USPS is an absolute bargain.

It's 50 cents (47 cents on stamps.com). It's your lucky day.

gerritn

Oct 21, 2018 at 12:55am

RealityForAll said:
USPS Press Release states that USPS had a $2.7 billion loss for fiscal year 2017. See https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm ===================================================================

So If I understand it correctly, they lost $2.7 billion on revenue of $69.6 billion which is a loss of 3.9% of revenue). So why don't they just raise their prices by 4% (so a stamp would be 52 cents instead of 50 cents) and they would break even.

Either the market would bear that because there is a demand for their services, or it won't and then they should go out of business. By the way, I would bet you it would be the former.

BG9

Oct 21, 2018 at 6:08am Edited

gerritn said:

RealityForAll said:
USPS Press Release states that USPS had a $2.7 billion loss for fiscal year 2017. See https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm ===================================================================
So If I understand it correctly, they lost $2.7 billion on revenue of $69.6 billion which is a loss of 3.9% of revenue). So why don't they just raise their prices by 4% (so a stamp would be 52 cents instead of 50 cents) and they would break even.
Either the market would bear that because there is a demand for their services, or it won't and then they should go out of business. By the way, I would bet you it would be the former.

They can't. Congress mandates how much they can raise prices.

The Postal Rate Commission is recommending for the elimination of the price cap mandate. However, non-profits and bulk mailers (adverts, etc.) will fight it. While the deficit is blamed on the loss of first class mail volume, the real cost is bulk mailers. Almost all mail volume, as can be seen in our mail boxes, is bulk mail which have ridiculously low delivery rates.

Also, a significant cost, is "last mile" delivery, especially to RFD boxes. The postal service is mandated to deliver to that last mile unlike FedEx and UPS. FedEx and UPS at times hand over their letters to the postal service for that last mile recognizing the lack of profitable. And these are companies that charge for letters 10x what the postal service charges. The postal service is effectively forced to subsidize them.

ps - go to the FedEx or UPS office and insist they deliver your letter for 50 cents. You'll be laughed out of their offices.

RealityForAll

Oct 21, 2018 at 8:27am

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:
USPS Press Release states that USPS had a $2.7 billion loss for fiscal year 2017. See https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm
Did you read it, and in reading it know the basis for the accounting loss?

And, in FY2016 the USPS lost $2.8 billion overall. I am attaching an excerpt from FY2016 and FY2017 financials which shows a loss from operations for FY2017, FY2016, FY2015 and FY2014 of $2.6 billion, $5.4billion, $4.9 billion and $5.3 billion. Absent the 2017 adjustment for workmen's comp liabilities (due to fluctuating interest rates), the USPS would have lost about $6.0 billion from operations in FY2017 (this assumes that FY2017 had the same charge for workmen's comp as FY2016, namely $2.6 billion rather than a FY2017 credit of about $0.8 billion).

The losses from operations are consistently bad and support the conclusion that the USPS currently has an untenable/unsustainable business model.

See attachments.

drummerboy

Oct 21, 2018 at 8:35am

gaaa - the PO "loses money" because they are forced (by Congress - 2006) to pre-fund retirement benefits in a way required by NO OTHER business. It's right there in your pics.

If not for that clearly political attempt to destroy it, it would probably be profitable.

RealityForAll

Oct 21, 2018 at 8:57am Edited

drummerboy said:
gaaa - the PO "loses money" because they are forced (by Congress - 2006) to pre-fund retirement benefits in a way required by NO OTHER business. It's right there in your pics.
If not for that clearly political attempt to destroy it, it would probably be profitable.

The pay-as-you-go* method for funding USPS retirement benefits prevents/ameliorates creation of unfunded liabilities for USPS pensions and healthcare of USPS retirees. My memory is that you have advocated the pay-as-you-go method for funding NJ government pensions. Please let me know if my memory serves me correctly.

*- historically social security has largely been a transfer payment. When SS was created, the idea was that workers and their employers would make employment tax payments that would be used to fund payments to the elderly and disabled at that point in time. In 1986 or thereabouts, the SS employment tax rate was increased markedly. Thereby, creating a surplus of SS receipts which lasted until about 2011. Thus, SS had a bit of a pay-as-you-go component from 1986 to 2011 (about 25 years). Since 2011, SS has had negative cash flow (the combination of money transferred to beneficiaries plus operating expenses exceeds cash-flow coming in).

gerritn

Oct 21, 2018 at 9:34am

RealityForAll said:

drummerboy said:
gaaa - the PO "loses money" because they are forced (by Congress - 2006) to pre-fund retirement benefits in a way required by NO OTHER business. It's right there in your pics.
If not for that clearly political attempt to destroy it, it would probably be profitable.
The pay-as-you-go* method for funding USPS retirement benefits prevents/ameliorates creation of unfunded liabilities for USPS pensions and healthcare of USPS retirees. My memory is that you have advocated the pay-as-you-go method for funding NJ government pensions. Please let me know if my memory serves me correctly.

*- historically social security has largely been a transfer payment. When SS was created, the idea was that workers and their employers would make employment tax payments that would be used to fund payments to the elderly and disabled at that point in time. In 1986 or thereabouts, the SS employment tax rate was increased markedly. Thereby, creating a surplus of SS receipts which lasted until about 2011. Thus, SS had a bit of a pay-as-you-go component from 1986 to 2011 (about 25 years). Since 2011, SS has had negative cash flow (the combination of money transferred to beneficiaries plus operating expenses exceeds cash-flow coming in).

This sounds like a problem made up by Congress (read GOP). They want government to fail and to shrink, so they put constraints on it that make it fail, instead of treating it like a normal business. Raising their prices by 4% on average will solve this problem. I can send a letter to Denver for 50 cents with USPO. I just tried FedEx, couldn't find anything below $28. This is a made up problem. Like immigration.

LOST

Oct 21, 2018 at 10:31am

mtierney said:

Romney made a blunder decades earlier of putting his dog’s crate on the roof of his station wagon. He, his wife, 5 kids, and I think in-laws were in his car. It was his Achilles heel. Really, how silly was that? Effective, however. Expect a replay soon.

Now I know you are "pulling our legs". That had nothing to do with Obama beating Romney. Not one person voted either way because of that. Just silly.

Main Discussions

Soapbox: All Politics Category

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Start a new discussion

Rentals

2nd floor Apt to share

2 Bd | 1Full Ba
$1,200

View all Rentals

Advertise here!