How Many Jobs Equal a Living Wage?

In recent surveys the number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck has increased to 61% from 43% just last year. Of course, seeing as this is an economic recession small depression that comes as no surprise to many. However, it wasn't the numbers that shocked me. It was some of the more callous and otherwise ill informed opinions on one website that caught my attention, and is worthy of my ire tonight.

According to some popular and over simplified opinions as of late, if you can't make ends meet you are either living above your means, or simply not working enough jobs.

How many jobs are enough to make ends meet?

Now, don't misunderstand me, there are people who live above their means. Many American families do. In fact there are two types of people who live above their means. Those who do so buy making wildly expensive purchases and pursue non functional items on credit just so they can have them, and those whose "means" can barely afford basic living expenses such as housing, food, clothing, and medical care.

In a former post I quoted that 91.5 million Americans are living at, below or just above the national poverty threshold. That would be approximately 1/3 of our population, or just over 30%. So of that 61% nearly half of the people are "living above their means" because their "means" do not comprise of living wages.

The other half were living within their means, but have suffered job loses or pay-cuts, meaning that they are no longer living within their means. Of course of that 61% I'm sure that some have hit hard times for other reasons such as identity theft and medical catastrophes.

But first, let's talk about employment. Underemployment, over employment, or no employment. The idea that if one who cannot afford to live should just "pick up another job" sounds logical, but generally isn't. Particularly not for those who are already employed full time. Let's look at some hard numbers:

There are 168 hours in the week. Of that, one needs 56 hours per week to sleep (8 hours a day, 7 days a week). A "full time" job is usually between 40-60 hours per week. Typically 40 for hourly wage workers unless they are allowed overtime, and 60 for salaried workers. Let's look at the average salaried worker - 60 hours per week (or 8.5 hours per day 7 days per week), plus 56 hours a week to sleep is 116 hours of 168 already consumed. That leaves 7.5 hours in a day to do something other than work or sleep.

Now, if you figure 2 hours in the AM to groom yourself, eat breakfast and wake up for work, and an hour at night to eat dinner you have 4.5 hours left in the day to work your second job. Any job, part time or otherwise has an average shift of 4 hours minimum. So if you work a part time second job at 4 hours per day (28 hours per week 7 days a week) you have exactly one half hour to commute each day from your home, to you first job, from your first job to your second job, and then home again at night. If you only work 50 hours per week you would have a commute time of 1.8 hours, and at only 40 hours per week, you'd get about 3 hours of commute time.

Let's recap: for the average American working 60 hours per week you would have to wake up at 6AM, work and commute until 9PM, then have dinner, and pass out at 10PM in order to work 1 full time job, and one part time job.

And those numbers are spread out over a full 7 days.

Assuming that anyone thinks that's reasonable, you have to ask, is it even possible? If you are childless, and happen to live within minutes of both of your employers, and never have a need to go grocery shopping, to the bank or do your laundry, sure.

Then again, many people do work 2 jobs. How do they do it? Well, those who do are usually hourly wage employees who are not allowed overtime pay (more than 40 hours per week) and often work one or two part time jobs that are less than 20 hours per week in order to make up the difference. For all of their work, however, they are often paid very little and wind up working an 80 hour work week and still can't make ends meet.

Which brings up another point about "just get another job". Not only are humans not machines with finite amounts of energy and time - jobs are also finite, as are the funds paying for said jobs. There aren't enough jobs for everyone to have one job, how does anyone expect people to have more than one and not cause a shortage elsewhere?

Something, at some point, will have to be cut. Be it jobs or salaries - if everyone tries to work multiple jobs we will perpetuate the already defunct employment system even further. For example:

If a company has $100 per hour allotted for employee pay it can hire two people at $50 per hour, four people at $25 per hour, eight people at $12.50 per hour, 16 people at $6.25 per hour, 32 people at $3.12 per hour, and now we're into serious poverty wages. So let's say there are two companies with 10 job openings each, (20 jobs) and 25 people who need employment. Based on the $100 per hour allotment, the company's initial offer is $10 per hour.

Already we see five people who will be unemployed, unless they up their job openings by five. By doing so, they will have to cut salaries accordingly, to $8 per hour. Now five people state that they can't live on $8 per hour, and ask for additional employment from the other company. In order to accommodate the additional five jobs, the company has had to cut everyone's salary to $6.67 per hour. Which means that more employees will have to get more jobs, at even lesser payrates. You see what I mean? It's a self perpetuating cycle.

Of course the alternative is to keep the wages at $10 per hour, and simply give the jobs to those who qualify regardless if they already hold one or more jobs. By doing that you've upped the unemployment rate substantially.

In other words, for every second and third job a person takes, someone, somewhere loses the opportunity to work or gets a pay cut.

And furthermore, who thinks working 16 hour days just to make ends meet is even reasonable, anyway?

How about this: How about we re-engineer the system so that one job pays each employee enough to live reasonably, all while cutting the average cost of living instead of treating hard working individuals like wage-slaves with boundless energy and unlimited time to do a company's bidding for pitiful pay?

How can we do this? Well for one, we need to stop being greedy. Companies do not need to make or retain a profit. A company is not a person. It is an inanimate object, an idea, a building. Any profit above and beyond the cost of operation (including a specific amount of "cushion" money) should go directly back to the people who actually make a company a company - the employees. That also means that the big boys at the top will have to take a pay cut. While they make their $40 mill a year, their employees are living hand to mouth, working just as many hours if not more, and are working harder for less. Not to mention that a company can run perfectly fine without an overpaid CEO. It cannot function without all of the "underlings" that actually do the work.

And I challenge any CEO, and their cronies to fire all of their employees on a Friday and still have a company on the following Monday.

Not gonna happen.

But back to my original point - which is the ideology that if you can't live comfortably on the paycheck from one job, you should just get another one and keep working until all you do is work is unreasonable, unrealistic, and illogical.

Furthermore, yes we can cut back. We can all cut back. But you can only cut back so much before you start cutting necessities, and start negatively affecting the economy as a whole.

Now I'm stating this as an Anarchist looking at people who wish to live in a capitalist economy. But if everyone simply stopped buying all of the "extras", then millions more people would lose their jobs, because those "extras" create funds that create jobs that people need to buy food, shelter, and clothing.

So while I would love to see the demise of many a corporation due to the outright boycott of their products and services, I dread to see the actual financial repercussions of such an act. Regardless of how I personally feel about our economic system it is the reality I live in. And it relies, entirely, on the purchasing of all of those little unnecessary items that everyone proposes we cut out to better "live within our means".

For example, cable TV was brought up. It's not necessary, that's true. It's a frivolous cost that millions of Americans pay every month. If the 61% of the citizens living paycheck to paycheck suddenly canceled their cable, that would mean that the cable companies would lose 183 million customers, all at once. They would then go out of business. If the cable companies go out of business, who will TV stars work for? Actresses, actors, producers, writers? The millions of people who work as crew members for each TV show and commercial? They will be out of work, entirely.

And that's just one industry. Imagine if it were cable companies, gyms, cell phone providers, dealerships, gas stations, toy stores, clothing stores, malls!

It's an unfeasible idea bantered by unrealistic capitalists who have been spoon fed the ideology that humans are bred to work for companies, and should do nothing else but work. And anyone who doesn't subscribe to that, or anyone who can't do that are somehow "less than" those who enjoy being wage slaves.

I see it the other way around. I see that people who feel that their only worth is wrapped entirely around their work or bank accounts actually have very little to offer besides their bodies for the purpose of rendering a service for a fee.

Otherwise known as prostitutes.

And how pimps corporations love a brothel full of low wage prostitutes at their disposal.

My Experience at a Town Hall Meeting...

Last night I had the opportunity to go to one of the infamous town hall meetings that have been happening all over the country. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to speak or ask any questions, as the room was packed and my raised hand was overlooked the entire night. So my apologies to Antics, Agit, Liberty, and Missy for not being able to ask your awesome questions. I did however submit them in writing directly to my Congressional Representative. We'll see if I get a response. I also taped most of the meeting, but my battery ran out and I was unable to tape the best part of the night - the last half hour. As soon as I can figure out how to get the video from my camera to the computer, I will post it up.

Now, on to the meeting. Suffice it to say that I had a raging migraine by the end of the night. When all was said and done, I wanted a stiff drink, what a lousy time to quit drinking! I'd first like to address the level of intelligence in the room. And I am not exaggerating when I relay what I witnessed, not even an iota....

First and foremost - upon being allowed entrance into the auditorium, everyone was asked to put their signs away. Either outside or in their car, the volunteers didn't care, so long as no signs were brought in. Fair enough, right? Well, the entire row of people behind me in the auditorium spent probably a good 15 minutes struggling to understand why they were not allowed to bring their signs in, when all these people had "signs on their shirts". Meaning...stickers. I had finally had enough, and didn't mean to be rude or to interrupt them, but I finally turned around to explain to them the difference between a sign and a sticker, and further explained why signs were not allowed in the auditorium.

I actually had to explain, to a row of full grown adults, that stickers are not signs, and all the signs in the room would obstruct people's ability to see, while stickers on a shirt did not. And they still struggled with the concept.....

Oh Boy.

Throughout the meeting there were people who could not understand the concept of a time limit. Now I don't mean that they were speaking, and ran over - I mean that when we started one of the organizers announced that the meeting could run no longer than 8PM, per school requirements that all people be out of the school building at that time. The boos and outrage and questions of WHY?!?!?! WHY??!?!?!?! cost us about 20 minutes of meeting time. Is the concept that difficult? Really? We also had the "Get your hands off my medicare!" crowd, the "Get out of the country!" in response to immigrants comparing the US health care to their health care crowd, and my favorite of the night....

The "I can't read the bill because it's too long and complicated why can't you just make it simple for us?" crowd.

Really? It's about the length of a Harry Potter book. And yes, the bill uses some big words, and of course legislation isn't exactly geared towards the "See spot run" reading level, but do we honestly need to dumb down bills and legislation because some moron can't be bothered to read it?

I felt like I was in the movie "Idiocracy".

And the later it got, the worse the crowd became. I don't know why most of the people even bothered to go save to make noise and yell obscenities. Every time a question was answered they all yelled "LIAR!!! WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!!!"

Well, we already figured that, didn't we. Why bother asking questions if you already know you won't believe the answer?

Of course we had the "We didn't read the bill but we know that's in it because Fox News said so!" crowd. And our Representative, who is usually quite relaxed and laid back was even getting frustrated. He had to keep saying "But that's not in the bill. It's just not there - it doesn't exist. Honestly, read the bill for yourself!" To which replies were screamed "It's too long to read! We can't read it! It's too haaaaarrrrrddddddd."

Oh Christ.

Our Representative did actually answer the questions asked, to the best of his ability. He had to explain how it would be funded at least three times, and people still didn't get it. "I know you explained it already, but I don't understand how we're going to pay for this...". When he tried to answer questions that required complex answers, because they're complex issues he was accused of dodging. One lady nearly assaulted one of the organizers because she felt that he hadn't answered her question. He did answer her question, she just didn't understand the words coming out of his mouth.

He might as well have been speaking Greek.

Some people had really good questions, others simply made statements, while the majority repeated Fox news rhetoric about death panels and the like.

And by the way, my interpretation of the bill regarding end of life counseling was 100% correct. All it means is that counseling, along with mental health care and addiction rehabilitation are now legitimately covered under health care. Of course the crowd booed, and accused him of trying to kill them off in their old age.

Sigh.

I did however catch a great deal of shit from the row behind me because I refused to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. First, we only had to do it, because some flag pin obsessed person whined that we didn't say it at the beginning of the meeting - second, I don't pledge my allegiance to inanimate objects. Now if we were talking about pledging allegiance to the people of the country - I'd have something to stand for. Alas, I was told I didn't deserve to be here, was an asshole, and "Look there's the future of our country" snide remarks.

Then again, consider the source. They couldn't even figure out the difference between a sign and a sticker, nor why they wouldn't be allowed into the meeting - and complained constantly that the bill was just too hard for them to read...but were 100% certain that everything Fox news said about it was the truth, facts be damned! (And yes, they constantly yelled out 'Fox news said it! Watch Fox News!!").

Upon reaching my car afterward, I found a pamphlet about how Obama was a Socialist dictator. I rolled a cigarette, sucked it down like a whore on a $1,000 cock, and drove home to my blissfully quiet, logical, educated husband.

Credit Clarity, the Newest Misunderstood Legislation

Having been MIA from most online access lately, I was unaware that a new bill is set to pass swiftly into law. The bill regulating the credit industry. In fact, I only just found out today, and had to actually boot up, log in, and google it. Of course, from my conservative informant, what I heard was that new laws were put into place to protect poor people with bad credit, while allowing credit card companies to unfairly take money from the wealthy good credit customers to pay for the poor people's irresponsible incompetence. And it's all the government's fault.

And that would be unfair, if it were true.

The truth of the matter is that the bill forbids credit card companies from arbitrarily changing the terms and conditions of your agreement. That means that they cannot raise your interest rates, lower your credit limits, or otherwise change anything without written warnings, and due cause. The legislation doesn't say it can't raise rates or change terms, only that they can't do it without a good reason (being 2 months delinquent, for example), and they can't spring it on you last minute.

The bill also requires credit card companies to mail out your bill 21 days before the due date, and they can't charge you a late fee if the bill was sent on time, processed late. Anyone who has done business with a predatory credit agency knows that the trick du jour is to mail out the bill late enough to make the borrower late on their payment, because it is impossible to make the mail move faster than is physically possible. The other trick is to hold the payments, and process them after the due date or grace period, and then whacking the borrow not only with late fees, but also a rate hike to match. That's called predatory business practices, and should be illegal. Do not punish consumers because the company can't get it's bills out on time, or process the payment in a timely manner. Their incompetence is not our problem.

And yet, we hear howls and screams about how we are protecting the poor, and how the government is costing the rich hard earned money by excessive regulations.

Let's get one thing straight.

The legislation protects everyone who has a line of credit, not just the poor. The legislation does not require the credit card companies to gouge anyone. The government is not putting forth any restrictions that would undermine the success of any viable company. So who then, is raising the rates or otherwise "punishing" the wealthy? The credit card companies. Not the government.

Listen, if a company cannot make a profit legitimately, they have no business being a company. If they cannot survive without using predatory tactics, they are not a successful business. They are hack-jobs. They are failures.

This is White Collar Criminal behavior. If the same people complaining about regulations against predatory business practices saw a working class person selling pot, they'd be the first ones to toss a rock at them, and lecture them about how they need to work harder, about how wrong it is to break the law to make ends meet, about how they are criminals who can't get by and be successful like everyone else. And yet, when the criminal behavior is done by a large corporation, it's not that they aren't a viable business, it's not that they need to work harder, make a better product, or change their tactics...the problem is 'unfair legislation".

At one time in our history the thought of abolishing slave labor, child labor, and indentured servitude was also thought of as an "unfair regulation". The implementation of a minimum wage or wage standard to prevent companies from working people to death for pennies a day was an "unfair regulation".

At what point will people realize that if a company can't successfully operate ethically, and be on the up-and-up then they are nothing more than thugs in suits? When will people realize that the company's number one priority is the profit margin, and if they can legally kill people to make it happen, they will?

Wake up, people. Corporations are not your friends. They do not like you, nor do they care about you. If they can screw you, they will.

And for God's sake, stop blaming poor people for everything. This system is designed in a manner that perpetuates poverty. They can't operate without poor people remaining poor. Think about that.

Letters of Conservative Sour Grapes

I get a lot of forwarded e mails from Conservative groups, websites, media sources, and individuals, but some of these things really take the cake. I'll share one I received today with you, with my rebuttal, of course.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir.

Really? You've tolerated incompetence for eight years straight, but are "fed up" with the new president after three months? Wow, patience abounds!

Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

What happened to "support your democratically elected leader" and "love it or leave it"? So, respectful conduct doesn't represent this country or you personally? Remind me not to mingle with you, because I for one prefer good manners over arrogant self righteousness and violent behaviors.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

Oh, diplomacy, the horror of it!!! Because minding one's manners when in a foreign country, and acting respectful to other world leaders is a heinous thing that takes away rights and lifestyles from Americans!!! Erm...

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world.

It's OK to admit we were wrong, honestly. It's OK to apologize for acting like the global playground bully. In fact, it's in our best interest to do so, if we wish to keep allies.

Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Someone needs a history lesson! The US does not do things altruistically. We did not enter either war for glory or noble attempts to save the oppressed. We entered into those wars when, and only when, the wars affected us and our economy personally, and not a moment before then. When the city around St Peters was burning to the ground, we sent Churchill our "regards and condolences" not our troops and support.

Get a history book, man. We are not God's gift to the world.

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

Just FYI - we're not a Christian country. No where in the constitution, Declaration of Independence, or other government documents did the forefathers of this country declare that this is a Christian nation. The founding fathers were deists, mostly - not Christians, and they certainly didn't push their beliefs on anyone else.

Or did you forget that we came here to get away from theocracies and religious persecution, so that we could freely practice whatever religion we wanted to practice?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans.

Really? Customary diplomatic behaviors of respect to another ruler is an affront to us? No one was complaining when our government and presidents were in bed with these leaders, but showing a little courtesy...that's an affront?

Where are your priorities?

Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

Uhm...Obama has shown the other leaders great respect. you're just mad because it was a "mooslum". How xenophobic.

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?

So uh, we're still supposed to hate the Germans, is that what you're saying? Are you aware that WWII ended, and that Germans are not, in fact NAZIs?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

No, I think the confused and mud puddled historian would be you, sir.

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

I see that you are not outraged at the Auto industries and insurance industries and the bank industries who have crippled this nation. Or did you forget to get mad at them? I also notice that you are not complaining about still having a job. You can thank the bailouts for that.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?
I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Pssst Feingold - a Democrat - is already all over that, like, last month. See? On Ending Automatic Taxpayer-Funded Bonuses Wednesday, March 18, 2009 As Prepared for Delivery

"Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss taxpayer-funded bonuses. These bonuses are paid every year, often without any public discussion or a recorded vote by those with the authority to approve or stop them. The people giving themselves these bonuses have made sure that they get them regardless of their performance.

"Mr. President, I am referring to the annual bonuses given to Members of Congress.

"There is some good news to report on this issue today. Thanks to the leadership of Majority Leader Harry Reid, we took an important step yesterday. Senator Reid moved legislation through the Senate that will end those annual stealth bonuses. I have introduced legislation similar to Senator Reid's for the past six Congresses, and am delighted that, because of Senator Reid's leadership, this proposal has finally passed the Senate.

It helps when you know what you're talking about.

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

And again...I see no outrage about AIG and other Corporate bonuses to CEO's and employees of "Too big to fail" companies, only Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Who, by the way, were privatized and made into share holder owned companies in 1968.

Oh, and, yes, there was outrage and action taken to prevent those bonuses as well. See:
CNN.com

On Tuesday, two key senators announced a plan to impose a hefty tax on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or in which the United States has at least a 50 percent equity interest -- including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG.

"Millions of Americans are losing their jobs. Millions. And to some degree they're losing their jobs because of actions taken by some of these firms," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and Senate Finance Committee chairman.

and:
UPI.com

The House of Representatives passed one version of a bonus-tax bill Thursday, while the Senate will take up another version next week. Both versions name Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. -- Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) -- directly, the Post reported.

and:
Financial Time.com

President Barack Obama on Thursday offered broad support for legislative efforts to claw back bonuses at bailed out financial institutions after the House of Representatives voted to impose a punitive tax on such payments.

In a statement, the White House said Mr Obama looked forward to receiving final legislation that would “serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated”.

What morons like this guy doesn't understand is that, just like the AIG retention bonuses, there are legalities to be dealt with. These are private companies who allocated this money last year, there are contracts to be upheld or battled in court. Not only that, but I love the flaming hypocrisy of the conservatives who are screaming that the government is interfering with free market businesses, but when a company does something they don't like, the government can't interfere enough.

Honestly, you can't have it both ways. You either want a free market economy (where these companies will dole out bonuses deserved or otherwise) or you want government regulation. What's it gonna be?

Oh, and about that $210 million:
USAToday

In addition, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at Freddie since late last year. The SEC issued subpoenas for certain Freddie Mac documents in January and February, the company said in recent securities filings.

Freddie's top leadership has changed repeatedly since fall. The government ousted Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron in September and his replacement, David Moffett, resigned last month. John Koskinen, a board member, was named interim CEO.

and:
New York Times

Last month, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, demanded that the companies rescind $4.4 million in retention bonuses paid to Fannie’s four top executives last year. Such bonuses are often offered to keep executives from leaving a company.

“I’m skeptical that these people have job offers to go elsewhere,” Mr. Frank said in an interview. “And in this economy, I don’t think it would be hard to find talented replacements for anyone who leaves.”

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.

You are brain-dead. You don't know history, understand economics, and believe all the propaganda Fox news and Hannity throw your way. The rest of the country, however, seems to be perfectly pleased with the way Obama is handling most things.

I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.

Respectful behavior, peaceful resolutions, returning rights to states, upholding equality under the law, and trying to fix the mess that Bush left us offends your sensibilities?

Wow.

What kind of sensibilities do you have?

I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

I'm sorry, why weren't you working tirelessly to stop Bush from spending two terms destroying this country? Oh, right, because you liked him, but not this "Mooslum Christian, Socialist, peaceful, respectful black guy" Nope, he's offensive.

Sincerely,

Every real American

God I am so very glad that only 20% of the country identifies with this mindset.

P.S. I rarely ask that emails be 'passed around'.............PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST.......it's past time for all Americans to wake up!

God Forbid this man gets a second term in office!!!!

God forbid that you should have the right to vote, but the president you hate so much will ensure that you can speak freely, and vote your conscious, anyway.