[Harry Rex Vonner]

Nice charts, TheRealVille, but you must be dizzy from spinning. But, I'll bet Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton like your figures. Now, tell us how the deficit has ballooned under your boy. How about the number of people actually working? What about food stamp recipients? How about those who have quit looking for a job thus not being counted in the "employment" figures? And, of the new signees for obamacare, how many of them are getting free coverage or subsidies? How is your boy dealing with foreign leaders? How are his girlie jeans and has anyone taught him to throw a baseball like a male? The questions are endless, but everyone but you and Huffington Post will understand.

[TheRealVille]

Nice charts, TheRealVille, but you must be dizzy from spinning. But, I'll bet Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton like your figures. Now, tell us how the deficit has ballooned under your boy. How about the number of people actually working? What about food stamp recipients? How about those who have quit looking for a job thus not being counted in the "employment" figures? And, of the new signees for obamacare, how many of them are getting free coverage or subsidies? How is your boy dealing with foreign leaders? How are his girlie jeans and has anyone taught him to throw a baseball like a male? The questions are endless, but everyone but you and Huffington Post will understand.

:biglmao: The deficit has been cut in half under Obama's watch. That one statement shows you don't really have a clue, and doesn't warrant a response on the rest of your bogus figures. The deficit for 2014 is 483 billion. The deficit in 2009 was 1.4 trillion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollende...-big-time/

[TheRealThing]

:biglmao: The deficit has been cut in half under Obama's watch. That one statement shows you don't really have a clue, and doesn't warrant a response on the rest of your bogus figures. The deficit for 2014 is 483 billion. The deficit in 2009 was 1.4 trillion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollende...-big-time/

If one didn't know better, he might think you had the first clue what you're talking about. Just because you have a good investment councilor doesn't mean you understand what drives the economy. Your hero (Obama) is bumbling around doing what HE thinks is right, to his and our detriment. Refinancing one's loan every darn time a payment comes due will never make a dent in paying it off. The balance will only grow. It will give him cover until he can get out of Dodge though. I mean, he blows off the advice of the best Generals in the world where it comes to national defense, why would he listen to economists, right?

During the Reagan years America suffered from the ravages of inflation. Art Laffer's financial understanding, whether by good fortune or timely application based on a comparative analysis between Keynesian theory and Supply Side theory, was exactly what the doctor ordered. America climbed out of the ditch and boom times prevailed owing to demand. But, there is a monster of a different stripe which stalks the global economy and it's name is deflation, which, is a vacuum of demand.

Growth brought us out of the Carter era blues. But in an economic environment where the government, which has the authority to control every aspect of industry FTR, is actively clamping down on the drivers of said industrial growth, we find ourselves in trouble whether we try to apply the reasoning of KE or SSE. It is in the mixing of liberal ideological yearnings with economics that we guarantee failure IMHO.

If we try to spend ourselves out of trouble as suggested by the Keynesians, we must be very careful that that spending does not to exceed our ability to recoup what we spend through the growth we're trying to develop. In other words, if we spend a trillion dollars stimulating the economy which through taxes and fees only nets the federal government a half trillion dollar return, we just flushed 500 billion dollars. On the other hand, if we insist tax cuts are the only way to go even when demand is down because of a deflationary spiral, the government is again giving money away that will in no case be coming back to the treasury. Even John Maynard Keynes himself was committed to a balanced budget as the only means to avoid the ultimate collapse of our economic system.

The evil twins of economic destruction are ignoring our 20 trillion dollar debt, and trying to reinvent society in the eye of the rabid liberal. For example, one huge driver of the economy is in military expenditure. Liberals hate the military on ideological grounds so now that they are in power, they're defunding everything from research and development to maintaining a viable level of equipment and personnel. The result is vast layoffs and depressed manufacturing in the aircraft and military hardware arena. More than one military strategist currently believes that America would be hard pressed to mount a legitimate defense. Another huge driver to the economy is in the field of energy. Liberals hate all forms of fossil fuels (forget the fact that we cannot survive without them) and so they are attempting with some success to regulate them out of existence. This has a direct affect on a myriad of industry. Most men like to hunt, fish, camp, drive 4wheelers on trail rides, or something along those lines. If the liberal is successful in his quest to eliminate the use of fossil fuels the boating industry will eventually fail. So will the recreational vehicle industry. So too will the high dollar pick ups and SUV's necessary to tow all this stuff around while still doubling as the family truckster. So will trailer manufacturing and all the suppliers who build everything from trailer hitches to tires. Of course, the spin offs to all this are too many to name.

Ideological madness rules at present, therefore we are closing electrical generating stations as if the greatest evil on the planet was the use of coal. We are thumbing our nose at the Keystone XL Pipeline as if it's intended use was to transport nuclear waste instead of crude. We have more contempt for JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America than we have for Raul Castro or Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Cops are bad while looters and arsonists are supposedly part and parcel to the American way.

So as long as we are utopia building to suit the "Imaginers," Supply Siders and Keynesians alike will find every effort an exercise in futility. But as to Stan Collender, even if the deficit goes to zero (which it won't) but, we are still in debt to the tune of 20 trillion by the end of the Obama era, we'll still be in a great deal of economic distress. The government still spends more than it's taking in. After the Obama era is mercifully over, the national debt will have doubled from 10 trillion in 2009 to 20 trillion in 2016. You can't say he's making things better when he himself said George W was unpatriotic for running up "4 Trillion by his lonesome," when Obama is hanging 10 trillion on us by his lonesome. You can call it deficit spending or you can call it debt, it's still the same government spending our money, projected or real.

[TheRealVille]

^Study up on spending under Obama, compared to recent years.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/eco...ing-obama/

[TheRealThing]

^Study up on spending under Obama, compared to recent years.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/eco...ing-obama/

Let me get this straight. In comparing my post to both of your posts, your advice to me is to study?

Now, if the national debt had been lowered to any degree over the past 6 plus years, that would be something to celebrate. But, to say that the deficit is shrinking at record levels is disingenuous at best. We're not better off for two reasons. First, while the White House was ballyhooing about the deficit, it was at the same time signing over 620 billion in tax hikes. And secondly in reality, it was only his own trillion dollar plus deficits that allowed Mr Obama to be able to claim a shrinking deficit in the first place. Here's a year by year deficit spending breakdown to demonstrate what I'm saying:
BUSH---FY 2002 158 billion/ FY 2003 378 billion/ FY 2004 413 billion/ FY 2005 318 billion/ (9/11 spending) FY 2006 248 billion/ FY 2007 161 billion/ FY 2008 458 billion/ FY 2009 1.16 trillion (bailouts)

OBAMA--- FY 2010 1.546 trillion / FY 2011 1.299 trillion/ FY 2012 1.087 trillion/ FY 2013 680 billion/ FY 2014 649 billion/ FY 2015 564 billion/ FY 2016 531 billion/ FY 2017 458 billion

Plus the fact that the CBO is predicting trillion dollar deficits after next year because federal spending for things like the backloading of the costs for ObamaCare, will grow faster than the economy.

[TheRealVille]

^Dumbass lying redneck at his best.

[TheRealThing]

Skipped any attempt at rebuttal and went straight to the insult huh? nicker:

[TheRealVille]

^No need to rebut you, and your conservative sites(that you are even ashamed to post a link to), you've already proven you are not a formable foe, just like your partner got shot down in the "ballooning deficit" comment.

[TheRealVille]

If one didn't know better, he might think you had the first clue what you're talking about. Just because you have a good investment councilor doesn't mean you understand what drives the economy. Your hero (Obama) is bumbling around doing what HE thinks is right, to his and our detriment. Refinancing one's loan every darn time a payment comes due will never make a dent in paying it off. The balance will only grow. It will give him cover until he can get out of Dodge though. I mean, he blows off the advice of the best Generals in the world where it comes to national defense, why would he listen to economists, right?

During the Reagan years America suffered from the ravages of inflation. Art Laffer's financial understanding, whether by good fortune or timely application based on a comparative analysis between Keynesian theory and Supply Side theory, was exactly what the doctor ordered. America climbed out of the ditch and boom times prevailed owing to demand. But, there is a monster of a different stripe which stalks the global economy and it's name is deflation, which, is a vacuum of demand.

Growth brought us out of the Carter era blues. But in an economic environment where the government, which has the authority to control every aspect of industry FTR, is actively clamping down on the drivers of said industrial growth, we find ourselves in trouble whether we try to apply the reasoning of KE or SSE. It is in the mixing of liberal ideological yearnings with economics that we guarantee failure IMHO.

If we try to spend ourselves out of trouble as suggested by the Keynesians, we must be very careful that that spending does not to exceed our ability to recoup what we spend through the growth we're trying to develop. In other words, if we spend a trillion dollars stimulating the economy which through taxes and fees only nets the federal government a half trillion dollar return, we just flushed 500 billion dollars. On the other hand, if we insist tax cuts are the only way to go even when demand is down because of a deflationary spiral, the government is again giving money away that will in no case be coming back to the treasury. Even John Maynard Keynes himself was committed to a balanced budget as the only means to avoid the ultimate collapse of our economic system.

The evil twins of economic destruction are ignoring our 20 trillion dollar debt, and trying to reinvent society in the eye of the rabid liberal. For example, one huge driver of the economy is in military expenditure. Liberals hate the military on ideological grounds so now that they are in power, they're defunding everything from research and development to maintaining a viable level of equipment and personnel. The result is vast layoffs and depressed manufacturing in the aircraft and military hardware arena. More than one military strategist currently believes that America would be hard pressed to mount a legitimate defense. Another huge driver to the economy is in the field of energy. Liberals hate all forms of fossil fuels (forget the fact that we cannot survive without them) and so they are attempting with some success to regulate them out of existence. This has a direct affect on a myriad of industry. Most men like to hunt, fish, camp, drive 4wheelers on trail rides, or something along those lines. If the liberal is successful in his quest to eliminate the use of fossil fuels the boating industry will eventually fail. So will the recreational vehicle industry. So too will the high dollar pick ups and SUV's necessary to tow all this stuff around while still doubling as the family truckster. So will trailer manufacturing and all the suppliers who build everything from trailer hitches to tires. Of course, the spin offs to all this are too many to name.

Ideological madness rules at present, therefore we are closing electrical generating stations as if the greatest evil on the planet was the use of coal. We are thumbing our nose at the Keystone XL Pipeline as if it's intended use was to transport nuclear waste instead of crude. We have more contempt for JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America than we have for Raul Castro or Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Cops are bad while looters and arsonists are supposedly part and parcel to the American way.

So as long as we are utopia building to suit the "Imaginers," Supply Siders and Keynesians alike will find every effort an exercise in futility. But as to Stan Collender, even if the deficit goes to zero (which it won't) but, we are still in debt to the tune of 20 trillion by the end of the Obama era, we'll still be in a great deal of economic distress. The government still spends more than it's taking in. After the Obama era is mercifully over, the national debt will have doubled from 10 trillion in 2009 to 20 trillion in 2016. You can't say he's making things better when he himself said George W was unpatriotic for running up "4 Trillion by his lonesome," when Obama is hanging 10 trillion on us by his lonesome. You can call it deficit spending or you can call it debt, it's still the same government spending our money, projected or real.

The stock market, economy, and my investment guy made me 40k profit last year on my money, in this economy. Looks like it is you that doesn't know what a strong economy is.

[TheRealThing]

The stock market, economy, and my investment guy made me 40k profit last year on my money, in this economy. Looks like it is you that doesn't know what a strong economy is.

Well, if so you can't put it into words. At least I would know better than to surf hard core Obama websites like "The Palm Beach County Democratic Party" and post their political spin as if it were science. But, what's truly hilarious is that you actually think you shot down Harry Rex. In any case, the budget deficits are accurate as posted.

Obama ran mega deficits (a trillion plus) for three years before he cut his own record deficits in half. :hilarious: That deficit cut-in-half number is still way higher than W's. Obama's deficit "numbers" as you like to refer to, swallow up George W's like a python gobbling up a field mouse. I.E. 4 trillion in added debt for Bush, versus 10 trillion in added debt for Obama. And after all, I don't really need to post a link, you know the debt number for Bush came out of Obama's own mouth.

This may come as a shock to you, but the economy is just a tad bit more complex than your own bottom line. But I hope you make a ton because Obama is going to need it to finance his dream.

[Real Badman]

Now, I didn't know we had so many Ben Bernanke's on this website.

[BaileyS]

Thank you for sharing this information with us. It was a great help to me. I'm sure many people feel the same way. Speaking of, a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center discovered that everyday households will see main tax hikes in the arriving year, should previously introduced tax breaks expire without renewal. It warned what of would be the result of lawmakers neglecting to deal with the so-called "fiscal cliff."

[TheRealThing]

Good post and good article BaileyS. If you will recall, back in 1996 Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton in an attempt to take back the White House for the Republicans. Clinton won but, there was one thing about that campaign that has always stood out to me. (Other than the typical round of personal attacks)

One of Dole's major planks was to advance a 15% across the board tax reduction. He even spoke of getting rid of the IRS and going to a flat tax which according to him, would have saved the taxpayer billions. At the time, a flat tax sounded reasonable. In light of today's scandals such as the abuse of power, paying billions in tax payer dollars to scam artists, both inside and outside the US, and the fact they are always clamoring for more funding while excusing the many failures of duty, a world with no IRS and a flat tax seems even more reasonable.

I believe the open ended optimism lawmakers seem to rely on when they're selling one of these unmanageable expenses like funding ObamaCare for example, would be eliminated in a flat tax system of government funding. There would be a hard debt ceiling instead of one that is more of a 'suggestion' they can just blow through every year. And it would be much harder to pick winners and losers based on politics because they couldn't use tax breaks to reward people.

[TheRealThing]

Here are some folks who generally agree with my point of view. Since money is now theoretical, many believe the US has 'stretched the envelope,' where it comes to finances, and are calling for an audit of the fed. Should anyone be interested in reading the article cited below they will see that among other things, Harry Reid has blocked landslide votes in the house consisting of all Republicans and over half of the Dems to go forward with an audit, not once but twice in 2012 and 2014.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/it...-289784321

EXCERPT---
"Supporters of the audit point to the central bank’s wild schemes amid the economic crisis to create trillions of dollars out of thin air and bail out mega-banks, cronies, foreign corporations, and even banks owned by hostile foreign powers. Critics of the Federal Reserve’s cloak of secrecy also cite its blatant and well-documented manipulation of markets, its distortion of interest rates leading to widespread malinvestment, its outlandish expansion of the currency supply, the steady erosion of the value of the U.S. dollar, the enabling of exploding government deficits, and much more."

[tvtimeout]

Skipped any attempt at rebuttal and went straight to the insult huh? nicker:

You do that all the time! What is the difference? :lame:

[tvtimeout]

Thank you for sharing this information with us. It was a great help to me. I'm sure many people feel the same way. Speaking of, a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center discovered that everyday households will see main tax hikes in the arriving year, should previously introduced tax breaks expire without renewal. It warned what of would be the result of lawmakers neglecting to deal with the so-called "fiscal cliff."

Dont worry the house is now in great control... bet that corporate tax breaks continue and individual tax rates increase... sounds about right... all hail the money!!!

[TheRealThing]

You do that all the time! What is the difference? :lame:

nicker::thanks:

[RunItUpTheGut]

^Dumbass lying redneck at his best.

Youre signature make me want to believe that the democrats are the ones who liberals should be mad at. All those big companies and stocks making so much money while the middle class continues to see absolutely no change. Over 6 years, and still nothing.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/5-...s-explode/

[TheRealThing]

^^ One can say anything once he has freed himself from the fetters of basic math, the concise economic record of the United States of America, and the replete and detailed economic lessons of his own nation's history. When Obama leaves office the taxpayer will be left with a bill for least 20 Trillion dollars. So, quoting cooked unemployment numbers and the left's story, rather than the truth is not that much of an achievement, much less would that make any semblance of a convincing argument.

Department stores run sales all the time. They offer to take off as much as 75% from the advertised price if the purchase is placed on the store's revolving charge account. The rationale is this. If the customer allows that card balance to roll over for a while, the store will recoup it's original MSRP plus a hefty profit owing to interest. So that coat your wife got for 25% winds up costing far more by the time it's over. The same principles apply to the national economy. The US could never manage to pay back 20 Trillion (or more) in a timely fashion. Rather, it's much convenient to rave on about the fictitious unemployment trends and the Dow Jones Average that everybody knows has been propped up by quantitative easing.

But, by way of timely digression, on his own run up to the White House Mr Obama's main economic talking point was that of trashing George W as being "unpatriotic" for having the temerity to stick the taxpayer with an extra 4 Trillion dollars of national debt. Said 4 Trillion, was added by George W, "all by his lonesome," according to Obama's own words. Liberals were jumping up and down about that back in 2007-08 but, now that Obama is going to add a minimum of 10 Trillion to the national debt "all by his lonesome," the connection of those two dots are never mentioned. Any body else find it odd that more people aren't displeased with Obama's economic legacy, which by the time of his merciful departure will have more than tripled the unpatriotic bench mark established by George W?

The author of your article tries to connect some unlikely dots in the usual stereotypical fashion so overused by the liberal crowd. The initial thrust is to write from the perspective that there is some sort of universally accepted view that conservatives are basically idiots. Therefore the cartoonish artwork and superficial discussion points.

The five points are laughable at best.

5) No Real Scandals. :hilarious: Nobody whose brain cells actually fire once in a while, doubts the Dems commitment to 'circle the wagons ' in the face of withering evidentiary assault. In an effort to avoid yet another rehash of the facts, let's just stick with what we know along the lines cause and effect. If nothing else, the epic nature of the Republican sweep of 2014 proves the voter has indeed awakened to the blatantly obvious. No longer can a mushroom like Nancy Pelosi prevail in presenting the liberal viewpoint as the viable option. The elective tidal wave has swept all that "fog of controversy" away.

4) Better Employment Numbers. Total baloney. If we used the same formula (U6) to calculate the unemployment numbers employed under both Reagan & Bush, we would be north of 11%. Which is better than the 14.7% of last August, but still devastating.

3) Inflation Remains Under Control. Wes starts this point off by using another false premise, citing the inflation rate handed to him (Reagan) by Jimmy Carter (though not mentioning it) which was admittedly stratospheric. While at the same time dodging the completely cleaned up mess that Clinton inherited from Reagan. It was Reagan that steered the US economic ship of state back into charted waters. I will admit freely that at least Clinton was smart enough to recognize success when confronted by it.

2) Obama is Better with the Budget. HUH? One more time; the national debt will be greater than 20 Trillion by November of 2016.

1) It's the Economy, Stupid. Obviously hoping that the predictably shallow attention span of his readers will have kicked in by this time, Wes has saved his most absurdly untenable point for last. And of all people to quote, he chose John Adams who along with his two best friends, Washington and Jefferson, was known to be a committed fiscal conservative. At any rate, as any reputable economist knows, one cannot lay claim to solvency while he owes far more than he has.

One thing I did notice though RV. You and Wes Williams certainly share the same view about what constitutes facts. :biggrin:

[tvtimeout]

Youre signature make me want to believe that the democrats are the ones who liberals should be mad at. All those big companies and stocks making so much money while the middle class continues to see absolutely no change. Over 6 years, and still nothing.

Dont forget the eight years before that! So the last 14 have been like poo!!!!

[Hoot Gibson]

The economy has finally begun to improve because of plummeting oil prices. Remember when candidate Obama proclaimed that we could not drill our way to prosperity? Now, he is claiming credit for lower oil prices and increased production.

The increases in oil and gas production have both come from wells drilled on private property. Production from federal leases has declined thanks to Obama and the Democrat.

Have you noticed the reaction of Democrats to the lower fuel prices and slight improvements to our economy? Tax increases. There is now renewed talk of a carbon tax because we can now "afford it."

The only law that Obama seems to follow is Murphy's law. If things can go wrong, they will go wrong. Obama will see to that.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
He should be called out on that total BS.
People have said for years if we could lower oil prices the economy would start to boom, while at the same time people like Obama said it would have no effect. Bull! I can already see a major difference in how companies are operating equipment.

Then, poor ole CNN has started posting these sad stories about all these roughnecks in ND and Texas losing there jobs because oil is so cheap. Sorry if I don't give a shit as the same people didn't care when coal started getting scrapped.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Dont forget the eight years before that! So the last 14 have been like poo!!!!

I don't know what good looks like tv.

Im still waiting on this change...

[TheRealThing]

The economy has finally begun to improve because of plummeting oil prices. Remember when candidate Obama proclaimed that we could not drill our way to prosperity? Now, he is claiming credit for lower oil prices and increased production.

The increases in oil and gas production have both come from wells drilled on private property. Production from federal leases has declined thanks to Obama and the Democrat.

Have you noticed the reaction of Democrats to the lower fuel prices and slight improvements to our economy? Tax increases. There is now renewed talk of a carbon tax because we can now "afford it."

The only law that Obama seems to follow is Murphy's law. If things can go wrong, they will go wrong. Obama will see to that.

Just heard Chris Wallace asking White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough if the President realized that he lost he midterms. Which of course was dodged, but, he also asked how this administration can lay claim to the credit for the oil industry boom, when it's ranks are rife with enemies to the cause. You're not going to pin one of these guys down that's for sure. Wallace, who I believe gives this administration every opportunity to explain away the unexplainable in the first place, pushed hard to speak over McDonough's best efforts to drive past the question with talking points. The point was that government lands are producing far less oil while it is actually the privately owned lands that have gotten the US past it's economic doldrums. McDonough was not about to acknowledge the point at any level, LOL.

[TheRealThing]

^
He should be called out on that total BS.
People have said for years if we could lower oil prices the economy would start to boom, while at the same time people like Obama said it would have no effect. Bull! I can already see a major difference in how companies are operating equipment.

Then, poor ole CNN has started posting these sad stories about all these roughnecks in ND and Texas losing there jobs because oil is so cheap. Sorry if I don't give a shit as the same people didn't care when coal started getting scrapped.

You're right and it's happened before. From 1973 through 1979 American's dealt with rising gasoline prices, and shortages made world headlines. Although the media were not willing to stretch the truth to the level they are now. So, Republicans did not get the blame. Instead we questioned the wisdom of cutting back on oil exploration and refining. Politicians encouraged oil expansion and even funded projects like coal liquefaction, from which gasoline could be refined.

When gasoline became affordable and available again, that heralded the economic boom times presided over by Ronald Reagan. Fear was replaced by optimism and free enterprise did the rest. But, you're right. Whenever liberals are shown to be wrong which is every time, they always snatch victory out of the jaws of embarrassment. Administration liberals have been working overtime trying to eliminate the use of fossil fuels via onerous regulation, affecting coal and gasoline consumption in particular. But now that the fracking industry has saved the economy, they're claiming they did it. In fact, Keynesian Economics according to it's creator, will not work at all if a nation has to go into debt by borrowing money to employ them. His explicit advice was, in no case other than emergencies such as war, should government spend more than it takes in. In the same mold, global warming has been shown to be a hoax, so what did they do? Merely claim that colder than normal winters are part of global warming, not that there is any model which demonstrates that to go by.

Thinking about the number of things this administration has been wrong about is mind numbing. They've got this idea that there is such a thing as 20th century thinking. In other words, nearly every idea prior to the year 2000 is supposedly a passé relic harbored by stupid Republicans. From foreign policy which features asking Russians to push an imaginary reset button, to laughing at Mitt Romney for suggesting that Russia was America's greatest Geopolitical foe, to ObamaCare to downsizing the oil industry, they get it wrong every time.

[tvtimeout]

President's budget gives 1 billion dollars to our areas affected by coal! Two questions, has any president ever put that much money in our area, even going back for things like inflation? Second question would you tell Rogers and Mitch to vote for this money.

100 million dollars given to southeast kentucky by promise zones last year according to Kentucky Highlands. How much money did your county get and what did they spend it on?

[SKINNYPIG]

President's budget gives 1 billion dollars to our areas affected by coal! Two questions, has any president ever put that much money in our area, even going back for things like inflation? Second question would you tell Rogers and Mitch to vote for this money.

100 million dollars given to southeast kentucky by promise zones last year according to Kentucky Highlands. How much money did your county get and what did they spend it on?

95% of it will be shot up a hog's rump, as always. Ouch!

[tvtimeout]

I agree! Hal Rogers this building Hal Rogers Water Park Hal Rogers Road. SAD SAD SAD, no the economy is not improving. People are leaving for the north higher wage jobs! I can not blame them!

[tvtimeout]

It is a shame our state has only 4 million people in yet... Pittsburg is bigger than our entire state! What in the world!