Occupation: Art gallery director and freelance writer
ABOUT ME:
I live in downtown Fort Myers but grew up in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area. After I sold real estate for 6 years I became a director at an art gallery, which gives me the opportunity ... See full Bio
Bert and Lizzs' discussion about government agencies being a waste of tax-payer money made me think of a new game.
If you could get rid of one or two government agencies that you thought were a waste of money, which one, or ones would it be? To be fair, you can ADD government agencies too.
I have to think about that last one but it seems like art programs should be funded by the private sector. I work in the art world, and trust me, the people that live in that world are some of the wealthiest on the planet.
I found a government agency called "Botanic Garden". I think we can do away with them. I don't see why our taxpayer dollars should go to funding the discovery of new weeds.
C'mon Kids
October 22nd - 8:06 pm
I threw out a real contentious candidate for an agency to be disbanded.
Let's play!
fromafriend
Tanya
October 22nd - 9:05 am
I'll let Flandamier have his last words so he alone may continue to bask in his.......person.
Apologies for not staying with the game.
OK, so now let's get back to the game!
October 22nd - 5:52 am
I have an agency to eliminate; "The National Endowment for the Arts"
1) I do not want "Big Brother" choosing MY art.
2) Government is inefficient, only a portion of the money goes to Artists, the rest goes to bureaucrats.
3)The Robert Mapplethorpe controversy is the first time I was sure that this agency should be eliminated, I know that his work is important, and the people who enjoy it should support it, NOT ME!
4)If the IRS did not take so much from my family (along with all the other various taxes and fees) to support this agency, I would be free to support the types of Art that I enjoy more often (I for one enjoy Blue Grass music, popular around here).
5)The art forms that define our nation's creativity were developed in the absence of this agency and new forms develop in spite of it, this is just another intrusion of bloated Government into an area that is none of it's business.
6) Our nation is borrowing money against our children's future to spread it around to the artists it sees fit. This is effectively eliminating the opportunities that my children will have to directly support the art forms they will want to encourage when they are of age. They will be too busy paying for the ones that the Government is supporting today!
Flandamier
The Game
October 22nd - 2:51 am
Tanya - I apologize for interrupting your game, but I have a hard time not responding to personal attacks. So let me respond to one more and Ill leave it at that.
Friend and Asyouwere - I have to say that you have a way with words. You can take what my grandfather said "about sitting and spinning" regarding how I feel about the Muslim world hating us and say that this is my common sense and logic. Nicely done. Now instead of calling me ignorant, racist, bigot or some other name, why not ask why I feel that way?
I do need to correct you on something though Friend. The Jews and Palestinians did live together, but it wasn't peacefully. The Jews were oppressed while the Muslims were in control. Both sides claim it as their homeland and both sides are right. They both have a line that leads all the way back to Abraham.
Unless both sides can agree to a two state agreement, then nothing will ever be solved. America backs Israel because without it, Israel would fall. America gives aid to the Palestinians because the people need it. Call it two faced if you like, but I see America as a buffer between two sides that can't seem to agree.
Again I apologize if this has got off track. On with the game.
To a freind
October 21st - 5:12 pm
What chance do a couple hundred million US citizens, who do not prefer Palestinians or Israelis, have against the mighty AIPAC office down on K-street?
http://www.aipac.org/
fromafriend
hate us?
October 21st - 5:04 pm
I don't mind Muslims and Jews coexisting is Palestine peacefully as they once did. I don't like to recognize Israel because it IS Palestine. It really bothers me the way it happened and the results of an otherwise peaceful coexistence. UN made a bad deal and the Palestinians got the short end of the stick now forced to live as second class citizens in poverty and refugee camps. Jews get their land because it was written by their God.
Palestinians are deprived to enter the land their forefathers lived in. Oppression gives rise to anger and vulnerability. There are those who prey on these young men and women who see only a life and/or future of oppression. In such conditions those evil doers AKA terrorists will recruit these minds and convince them of God's will for them to kill and die for God.
God is I'm sure very sadden how all people have used his name in vain.
So much for common sense with logic: "They can sit and spin."
America financially supporting Israel is a sign of them supporting the oppression to the Palestinians.
America financially supporting other Arab nations is a sign of America's two-faced foreign policy.
America financially screwing the American people with recent bailouts and other policies is a sign of oppression for its people. NOTHING like what the Palestinians suffer, although I'm sure there are people who live very poorly but at least they have a bright future...or is that diminishing too as America becomes more and more of a socialist nation? America will collapse. Who will come to bail you out? Israel? I think not.
Time Out!
October 21st - 4:41 pm
ASYOUWERE and FLAND, I'm putting you both in time out!
asyouwere
being a mean human being
October 21st - 9:22 am
asyouwere
poo poo head
October 21st - 9:21 am
That's funny. You are funny and make me laugh. Keeping polishing. It's all over the race column. I think someone pointed out that you were stereotyping but you were in my opinion. As you say you're maybe ignorant, I think you might be right.
You tried to make a point on another post, some time back, asking someone who told a personal story about immigration how does it feel to take some other persons job away. I thought that was inappropriate, since the person was now an adult. You were just mean a human being being.
I've considered most if not all your postings/source and you are pretty straightforward on your opinions which give rise to responses which aren't always received as you wish or think...positively.
Back to the Game now Kids
October 21st - 6:50 am
I have an agency to eliminate; "The National Endowment for the Arts"
1) I do not want "Big Brother" choosing MY art.
2) Government is inefficient, only a portion of the money goes to Artists, the rest goes to bureaucrats.
3)The Robert Mapplethorpe controversy is the first time I was sure that this agency should be eliminated, I know that his work is important, and the people who enjoy it should support it, NOT ME!
4)If the IRS did not take so much from my family (along with all the other various taxes and fees) to support this agency, I would be free to support the types of Art that I enjoy more often (I for one enjoy Blue Grass music, popular around here).
5)The art forms that define our nation's creativity were developed in the absence of this agency and new forms develop in spite of it, this is just another intrusion of bloated Government into an area that is none of it's business.
6) Our nation is borrowing money against our children's future to spread it around to the artists it sees fit. This is effectively eliminating the opportunities that my children will have to directly support the art forms they will want to encourage when they are of age. They will be too busy paying for the ones that the Government is supporting today!
Flandamier
October 21st - 4:36 am
Asyouwere - Common sense is exactly what I try to convey. Maybe you can't comprehend it, but I am a human being too. I have common sense but it is also has some logic behind it. Something you should try some time. You don't have to agree with me, but I would like to know why. Defend your position instead of calling people names. What's next? Am I a "poo poo head" too?
I will ask it again. Will you please point out where I am a racist and try to "polish it up"?
If you don't want to answer, I can completely understand. I'll just consider the source and move on.
CARL
October 20th - 9:25 am
I left you a response about language on the last post:)
asyouwere
Flandamier
October 20th - 8:55 am
3 college diplomas and graduated cum laude does not equal "common sense."
It's ignorant to think that college can teach common sense.
Many Countries have the right to exist
October 20th - 6:19 am
Our country better mind to it's own existence and stop running around the world with our maxed-out credit card messing in the business of others. If the government does not change policies soon they will undermine any remaining faith in our currency, leaving the situation in a "bit of a mess".
Flandamier
October 20th - 3:41 am
asyouwere - Ignorant? Racist? Me? Huh? Let me just say that there is not a single racist bone in my body. As far as being ignorant, I'll probably be the first to admit I am not an expert in every field, but I am a thinker. I have 3 college diplomas and graduated cum laude in all 3. Ignorant? Maybe. Dumb? I think not.
However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, would you please point to the example of which you are referring to?
Carl - I would like to correct you on a couple of things. First, the Jews have always lived there even though it was Arab controlled.
Second, the Holocaust, the killing of approximately 6 million European Jews by the Nazis, had a major impact on the situation in the area known as Palestine. During World War II Britain, which had been granted a mandate over Palestine by the United Nations, forbade entry into Palestine for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution. You see, back then, Jews were not very welcomed anywhere.
Third, as a result of this inhumanity, the creation of the state of Israel in 1947 was done by a vote of the United Nations not by the United States. Yes the United States voted in favor of the creation of this state, but we didn't do it alone. Some say that the reason these nations voted to create the state of Israel was so they wouldn't get flooded with refugees, because as I said previously the Jews weren't really welcomed anywhere.
In regards to the Indians and Americans. Up until 1776 there were no Americans as we didn't have a country til then. Now if you are referring from that time forward, then let me set up a little background for you. Some tribes sided with the British during the Revolutionary War which, as you know, were defeated. Given the time frame, a side that lost a war, usually lost control of their land. Now that we have that in perspective, the American government after the war made deals with the Indians in exchange for lands. Some Indians were ok with that and others were not. Those that were not happy about it, are the ones you can read about in the American/Indian Wars.
Bert - If you agree that it has a right to exist, then don't you think we have a little responsibility to make sure it does? With that being said, we need to put pressure on the other countries that voted to create Israel, to pony up the cash so as to alleviate some of that burden from the U.S.
asyouwere
Flandamier
October 19th - 2:41 pm
I swear, sometimes you sound really ignorant, full of hate, narrow-minded, and a even racist. Then when someone points it out, you try to polish it up. Whatever.
Carl Teglund
...
October 19th - 11:35 am
Don't you think that is a gross simplification, Flad? I mean there's more to it. They also consider our culture and our way of life a threat to THEIR culture and way of life. That is probably the first reason there is. Second, you guys have been supporting quite destructive regimes throughout history down there (Saddam, e.g.) and the creation of Israel, whether you like the state of Israel of today or not, WAS and IS a total disregard of the Arab society. You basically decided that there is going to be a country there, and screw those guys who happen to live there right now. Don't you think that the Arabs and the Indians have some sort of right to be pretty pissed at you?
Now with that said it is also important to denote that the Indians were completely incapable of creating even a slight reminisce of a civilization and the Arab civilization halted and became stagnant around 500-400 years ago ... of course it cannot excuse the mass-murder of million of Indians by the Americans 200-100 years ago, or the complete run-over of the Arabs today, but it's the way of life. And who said life was going to be fair?
Early bird gets the worm ...
Circle of Life ... development can't go backwards ...
So we recognize......
October 19th - 7:26 am
Can't we recognize without supplying military intelligence and hardware? How about we recognize with a big sign instead of sending off our largest application of foreign aid with no strings attached year after year. I have no problem recognizing Israels right to exist, but it should not be an endless drain on our own limited resources.
Flandamier
October 19th - 5:47 am
The Muslim world hates us because we recognize Israel's right to exist in the world. Honestly, I could care less if they hate us for that. In the words of my grandfather while holding up his middle finger, "They can sit and spin."
Just a little mixed up Carl
October 18th - 8:49 pm
The Israel / USA relationship is one of the US paying tribute, not receiving any benefit. We pay over and over for our unnatural alliance. The Muslim world despises and mistrusts us, the Europeans see us as weak and dependent, and our politicians throw over the people of the USA time and again for the benefit of Israel. Please detail the benefits of this alliance to the people of the USA.
Carl Teglund
hmm
October 18th - 6:34 pm
Is it only me or has this page turned into some libertarian fanzine for supporters of Dr. Ron Paul? *lol*
Sounds strange that your imperial colonies *lol* are not paying any taxes back to the Empire.
Well, let me give you all a little hint on why they don't pay taxes - military & security reasons. They want to keep their colonies so they can continue to use them as satellite posts to protect the frontiers so to speak. And if they wouldn't have these benefits for these "states", then the bigger the risk for that they would break free. These colonies all still serve a purpose for the US military to keep a closer eye on US of A's backyard - a.k.a. as the continent with the cocaine, the hot ladies, the funny hats, and all the not-so-funny civil wars - a.k.a. South America.
I guess they consider some tax benefits a pretty cheap bargain considering their gains. The same goes with Israel, which serves as an American colonial outpost in the Middle East, and Iceland, which served as an American colonial outpost between the old and the new world during the cold war (ended 2006). I don't know much about Asia, but I guess that South Korea serves as an equal role over there ...
//tegis.wordpress.com
robotsworld
October 18th - 5:14 pm
"It's a bit extreme to eliminate a dept. that is supposed to oversee our education system."
It's quite extreme to fund and enlarge a dept. that is "SUPPOSED TO" improve our education system and fails.
"oversight" or "regulation" can come from the State and community/parents.
TAXES
October 18th - 4:07 pm
I agree about the taxes as well. My mother is from PR, but those folks should be paying federal taxes just like the rest of us!
Flandamier
October 18th - 2:54 pm
Bert - First I don't like the system how it is now. But I think it's a bit extreme to eliminate a department that is supposed to oversee our education system.
I understand where you are coming from now. You are saying that the money that supposed to go for education is being eaten up by employees of the Department of Education. Ok so how about reducing the size of it instead of eliminating it? I believe that there is need for some "oversight" or "regulation" when it comes to our education system but it should be kept at a mininmum.
You make a great point about Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, etc. I could never figure out why they don't pay taxes yet receive tax payer benefits. Definately unfair in my opinion.
robotsworld
Bert
October 18th - 9:29 am
I concur 100%. Your point is the point Ron Paul has made over and over.
After everyone in DC is "serviced" with pay and benefits, what's left over? Not much, I bet. As you say, they "never actually addressing the problems at all"?
You missed my point,
October 18th - 6:00 am
We do not get full value returned from Washington DC. We send in a whole pig, only half a pig comes out. If that.
The inefficiency involved with sending money to a place like DC lies in the greatly reduced value that comes back out to the states, bureaucracy costs money. I will make the example that the taxpayer watch dog group makes;
"If all the money that the Government spends on programs for the poor were simply divided directly among the people below the poverty line there would be sufficient to raise everyone over the line".
Where does all the money go? Thousands of government employees make up the huge agencies that all get good pay and benefits, and occupy large facilities. Many Government Agency Employees spend their time doing studies and justifications for ever increasing funding, never actually addressing the problems at all.
Too much Government is the problem, not the solution, ask Dr. Paul.
The US department of Ed also provides services to:
* American Samoa
* Guam
* Northern Mariana Islands
* Puerto Rico
* Virgin Islands
none of which pay federal tax.
We all send tax money to DC and then they spend more per capita on the children in Israel than the Children in the USA.
Flandemier I would suggest that if you like the way this system works, good for you.
I want out and let them reduce my Federal Burden so I can keep my money here where it is easier to keep track of.
Flandamier
October 18th - 4:48 am
Bert - You are making my point. Your federal tax dollars are going to states that don't have as high an income level. What more beneficial could it be then to send your tax dollars to Texas (using TX as an example) or any other state where the next Ron Paul might grow up and become? Why should a child in Texas not have equal education then those in your state?
We all pay federal taxes whether we like it or not. What I object to is the federal government telling the states how to spend it and on what. The states know more than the federal government does and the communities know more than the states. Government in general, however doesn't seem to understand that.
"Federal" Money
October 17th - 9:09 pm
Flandamier, I know where the "Federal" money comes from, ME!
When I have to pay federal taxes and then wait for the Fed Dept of Ed to send money back here to the State of Maine Dept of Ed, and then they send it to MSAD 57 (our school district) I am guessing we would be lucky if we are getting back about fifty cents on the dollar compared to if we just funded directly here at the local level.Big state and federal bureaucracies use up a lot of cash.
Where does the Federal Government get the money that they send to you in Texas?
robotsworld
Targeting
October 17th - 5:49 pm
Federal funding "alone" would be nice (I like limited gov't as well) but Federal funding doesn't guarantee better education it only guarantees more control, rules, regulation and not necessarily equal distribution.
Most of the public schools with better programs and teachers are in the most affluent neighborhoods, it's the opposite in the poorer neighborhoods. So much for "targeting" where they can do the most good.
Empowering, motivating, personal responsibility, involvement, these are words that come to mind when education is at State level, it would include parents and administration/districts, and Ron Paul's bills.
Flandamier
Interesting
October 17th - 3:41 pm
That sounds all well and good but how do you argue different income levels state by state? I mean lets look at New York and California compared to Alabama and Utah. Im sure that New York and California could fully fund their schools because of the average income in those states being higher. They can afford better equipment and better teachers would be drawn to higher wages.
Would that not mean that those people in Utah and Alabama who couldn't afford to keep good teachers and afford better equipment be less able to offer as good an education as those in other states?
Anyone that knows me, knows that I am all about less government. However, in the case of Education, I think the government has a responsibility to it's youth to ensure that every state has the funds to give it's students the best education possible. The problem is that when the government gives out cash, it's usually attached with strings.
They want to decide how the money is spent or you simply just don't get any. The Federal Government (as usual) doesn't trust people to do the right thing with that money. Kind of ironic, don't you think?
robotsworld
Isn't he a gem!!
October 17th - 2:25 pm
I responded to your email. For some reason there's a slow connection.
ROBOTS
October 17th - 12:49 pm
Although I don't have children of my own, I completely agree with you. One thing I like about Ron Paul's ACT is how he had the foresight to add the adjustment for inflation. That's smart.
robotsworld
As a parent...
October 16th - 5:03 pm
I supported Ron Paul's view:
The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.
Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.
That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 9 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program. Even when support for postsecondary education is added in, ED's contribution, including loans and other aid made available as a result of ED's student financial aid programs, is only about 12 percent of the total spending for all levels of education. ED's $68.6 billion appropriation, by the way, is less than 2.3 percent of the Federal Government's $3 trillion budget in fiscal year 2008.
Although 12 percent may not sound like much, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
"where they can do the most good." How does anyone in DC know what is the most good for a kid in Butte, Montana. Only the good people of Butte, Montana know what is best for their kids. DC has one of the worse records in Education, so if they can't get it together in their own region, how can you expect to be better in any other state. Filling in the gaps, I already mentioned how we do that as a community. CRITICAL NATIONAL NEEDS ARISE. It's here, it's called AUTISM.
I couldn't put my kid in a public school because even if her IEP (Individual Educational Plan) mandates that she receive speech therapy, they couldn't guarantee she'd receive it at all.
So, where is this 12 percent going? If it's not making any difference (my mother works in the NYC and sees the bullcrap), why even have it exist anymore.
Flandamier
October 16th - 12:52 pm
Isn't most of congress made up of lawyers?
I'm just sayin. :P
Bert and Robot - So you think the schools should receive no federal money and that all the money should come from the states? By eliminating the Dept. of Education on a Federal level, that is exactly what would be happening no?
I like the ideaa of getting rid of the IRS. This is something that Mike Huckabee ran on in his bid for his parties nomination.
hmmm...Obama is a lawyer
October 16th - 11:30 am
I'm just sayin!
School Rule
October 16th - 10:23 am
The Fed Dept of Ed makes a rule and drops a little cheese to the states.
The States want the cheese and so sign on for the rule.
The States pass the rule to the local school district, with a little cheese, the district is DYING for the cheese, and tries to implement the rule.
All the remaining funding has to be made up at the local level.
My wife is a RN in the local school district, she comes home some times fuming about the screwy rules that keep things moving slowly and poorly.
I aggravate the situation by saying " that's what you get when Lawyers run the education system".
ROBOTS
October 16th - 10:12 am
That's crazy! No wonder it's hard to find good teachers. That's like me going to work and my boss saying that I have to supply the paper for the printer, or pay the utility bills in order to have the power on to do my job.
Your situation must be even more difficult.
So, pardon my ignorance, but, I don't have children, am I correct in assuming that our school system is currently run by the federal government and that is why it is such a mess?
My sister and mother-in-law are school teachers but I've never asked them that particular question:(
robotsworld
My mother
October 16th - 10:02 am
works for the Dept. of Ed. And first hand...she says on so many levels it's a HOT MESS.
Cuts are being made all the time. Just this year, teachers had to come out of their pockets to buy supplies for their kids. Usually they are given a budget and reimbursed but thanks to Bloomberg (greedy wants another term as Mayor) they cut that also and so the teachers find themselves spending their paychecks on school supplies...CRAZY!!
robotsworld
2 in school
October 16th - 9:58 am
Here in NYC, I'm always hearing from parents the lack of money for materials. One Public School sent a letter to the parents asking them to send in supplies for their child's classrooms. Things like paper towels. I can't remember the other items. The kids are packed in a class like sardines. No gyms, no art classes, no music. No money.
My children have autism. One goes to a private, Dept. of Ed funded school. Although this school has a contract with the Dept. of Ed, the school still has to raise money because there is a large gap between what the Dept. of Ed. gives and what the kids' need.
For example, its costs $50k/year/special needs kid
Dept. of Ed funds $30k/year there's a $20,000 gap
Parents and local communities come together to raise the rest. That's why I prefer it become State level.
Children with special needs you don't only educate them with academics you REHABILITATE and that costs lots of money.
We have to hire a lawyer to get my kids into private schools. Meanwhile, the Public Schools for children with autism is in a VERY sad state. They don't get the funding necessary to appropriately address these kids and help them reach their highest potential. It's a sad sad story. Too long.
My other daughter goes to a Private NON-funded school. It's VERY expensive and we have to hire the lawyer EVERY YEAR to sue the Dept. of Ed. for funding only because they don't have a contract with the Dept. of Ed. She's entitled to an appropriate placement and I don't know how anybody could see the NYC Public School setting for children with autism as appropriate. This is my eldest daughter and she's more effected than my youngest. I would go MAD if I put any of my kids in a Public School program for autism.
And I have to add then even some of the Private schools are VERY questionable as well. Just cause it's private don't make it better than public all the time.
Believe me, if it's typical children who are getting "left behind," you can only imagine the children with special needs.
ROBOTS and BERT
October 16th - 9:03 am
Interesting.
Robots, with 2 in school in NYC, what say you?
Let us ditch the Fed Dept of Education
October 16th - 6:41 am
and all it's unfunded mandates. No more, no child left behind. The constitution puts education as one of the responsibilities of the States, and sure enough here in Maine we have a good sized Dept of Education already. The State dept of eduction here already redistributes the wealth of the state among the school districts and Provides Standardized Testing to boot.
The Fed Dept of Education is a big waste of money, lay them all off and leave the funding for them here at home, we need it.
ROBOTS
October 15th - 7:31 pm
Gotcha, I just confirmed you on FB:)
robotsworld
I meant to write robotsworld
October 15th - 6:07 pm
Tanya
Facebook
October 15th - 6:07 pm
I just requested to be friends. You'll see my daughter's foot.
Yay!
October 15th - 5:38 pm
I found a good one all by myself!
LIZZ
October 15th - 5:00 pm
This website you posted is unbelievable. So much waste! At least half of these government agencies can either be dissolved or absorbed my another agency! OR taken over by private enterprise to run much more efficiently.
I mean, come on, "Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee"? Ugh, I want to barf! (yeah, I know, that term went out with the 80's, but I'm bringing it back!)
ROBOTS
October 15th - 4:37 pm
My producer said he hasn't received an email from you yet....hmm...I wonder if it went into his spam folder. Is there another way we could do this? Are you on Facebook?
robotsworld
IRS
October 15th - 4:33 pm
I want to say Federal Reserve but since they're in bed with IRS and Congress, IRS will have to do. Not to mention the obvious, they're private.
Dept. of Education!!! Bring it back to state/city levels where parents like myself can have more input working with local elected officials and school administration and less federal bureaucracy.
LIZZ
October 15th - 4:21 pm
I just went to that website and I found a header that says,
"Government may owe you money".
I thought to myself,
"Hell, yeah they owe me money! Just look at the $700 billion +++ "rescue plan!"
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions | Copyright © 2007-2008 Purple States LLC
