Where in the world is Keynesian economics working?

For over two-and-one-half-years, Obama’s Keynesian experiment of flooding the economy with taxpayer dollars has failed, yet the president continues to peddle the idea that the only way to improve the economy is to spend more taxpayer’s dollars.

The president has spent $800B in a failed attempt to increase jobs and stimulate the economy. All he has managed thus far is an increase in unemployment of over 9% for 26 of the last 28 months, with no net increase in jobs created in August.

An Associated Press article in today’s Rockford Register Star is one of the best explanations of this economic philosophy and those who espouse it.


After months of talk that Europe can only be saved by slashing its spending, a growing chorus of voices is calling for a new tack, encouraging governments to instead stimulate growth – even if that means spending money.

Many of the countries that are bailing out weaker European countries are insisting that austerity measures be made in those countries before the stronger economies will lend more.


But those measures have drawn fierce criticism that they risk driving the recovery into reverse and heap more pain onto those who can least afford it.

Instead, the U.S. and others have a different answer: It’s growth, stupid.

The Keynesian philosophy of spending your way out of debt has now been given the misnomer “strengthen economic growth” by Obama, Geithner and other Keynesians.


The argument put forth by Geithner and others is that the best deficit-reducer is growth: When the economy is humming, it offsets spending and drives down both the size and the proportion of deficits. Rather than trying to scrimp their way back to prosperity, world economies need to “spend money to make money.”

The debate is mostly about Europe, but Paul Krugman, a Keynesian economist and columnist for the New York Times, suggests that the U.S. is falling into the same trap: worrying about its debt limit while failing to create any new jobs.


“The deficits we’re running right now – deficits we should be running, because deficit spending helps support a depressed economy – are no threat at all,” Krugman wrote in a column earlier this month. “And by obsessing over a nonexistent threat, Washington has been making the real problem – mass unemployment, which is eating away at the foundations of our nation – much worse.”

After observing the economic failures occurring in Spain, Ireland, England, Italy, Greece, and even here in the U.S. with the failure to increase growth, despite an extra $800B being pumped into the economy, one pertinent question is apparent – where in the world has Keynesian economics ever worked to grow and sustain an economy for the long term, with so much evidence that proves exactly the opposite?



  1. Elsewhere in the article you cite, Germany is referenced as the primary advocate for austerity. Is it a coincidence that Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, and they just happen to be the most fiscally responsible? Germany has done better than the rest of the continent because it has done exactly the opposite of what the Keynesians suggest. For the Germans, the threat of massive inflation is real, and it has led to severe consequences in their history. Krugman’s insane ravings that inflation is “no threat at all” are of course nonsense. Anyone who has been to a grocery store or gas pump recently can attest otherwise.
    A testament from another country (Sweden) that decided balancing it’s budget was the right way to go:


    It really doesn’t matter how much evidence one offers -the Keynesians are simply not interested in reality. The people at the top will be OK as they can protect their assets from inflation. The elitists of the left could really care less about anyone else.

  2. “the Keynesians are simply not interested in reality”

    That phrase says it all. Our government can’t keep on deficit-spending without consequences catching up to us. Yet, the Liberal Left says “Spend BILLIONS more!” They attempted “quanitative easing” twice, but even the printing of billions of additional unbacked dollars doesn’t make a dent in the debt. What such actions HAVE done, is to devalue the dollar, which is nothing more than a back-door tax on all of us.

    And yet, the Obama administration continues to add more and more job-strangling rules and regulations through executive orders, and by bureaucratic fiat, further depressing the economy. And, I haven’t even mentioned the trillions in unfunded mandates and “entitlements” yet to come. This can only be described as making a “perfect storm” of fiscal disaster. Cloward-Piven couldn’t have scripted it better.

  3. The problem with Keynesian economics is that it is MISAPPLIED!
    Government spending on infrastructure and other areas do have stimulative effects.
    However, no stimulus program can have the desired effect until AFTER we have reached the bottom of the current economic troubles.
    Any action (whether it is stimulus, bailout, or TARP) taken before that point ONLY POSTPONES THE INEVITABLE, prolonging the misery.
    As long as we insist on ‘free trade’ and ‘free markets’ that bottom will not be reached until we achieve parity with the ’emerging economies’. To do this will require repealing all of our environmental protection laws and all of our health and safety laws, as well as all of our labor laws.

    This will return us to the days of poison spewing factories, child labor, and toxic products (remember the big brown cloud over Beijing during their Olympics, the lead painted toys and children’s accessories and the tainted milk that came out of China a couple of years ago, the clothing factory fire in Bangladesh [so much like the one in New York during the 1920’s])

  4. I have always thought roads and bridges are about the least effective way to stimulate. Minimal quantites of jobs are created because the burden rate is high (union salary, benefits, pension) and most the money goes to raw materials. But the worst part is the road/bridges create no return on investment (unless it is a toll road). We need to create jobs to produce/sell American products abroad to reduce the trade deficit. We need to bring money TO America. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to borrow $1T from China and pass out the money to people that will in turn buy products from China (big screens, Wal-martians) . Pretty stupid to think that will grow the US economy.

  5. Steve Noll

    Oh boy. Ted. Keynesian economics is all around you yet you fail to see it (or you selectively ignore what deosn’t support your politics). As I am reading your post, I’m also reading all the ways Winnebago County is spending the dumping fees fund on economic development to create jobs!! And if that’s not ironic enough, you propose to dip into dumping fee resserves to pay for County road construction because that will “create jobs.” And by building parks, the County will attract new events to the area and increase the economic wealth of the region. This is Keynesian economics 101 right here in Winnebago County. The 1% sales tax that you supported was based on the same premise, that government spending of tax dollars to rebuild roads would create jobs. The new Morgan Street bridge paid for by the State and by the City of Rockford will create 400 jobs according to them. The county gave money to the park district, to create jobs at the Nicholas Conservatory. If none of this spending happened, if budgets were reduced and programs eliminated at the City and County level, would that be good for the local economy? Would unemployment rise? Should the City and the County continue to lobby State and Federal governements through grant applications to recieve funding for local law enforcement, housing, road and bridge work, and a whole stew of other initiatives in the name of job creation and retention? If so, than Keynes is your guy whether you like it or not.

    • Ted Biondo

      Steve, your comparison of the problems I posted on a worldwide basis to local infrastructure is a comparison of apples to oranges.

      The local infrastructure that you mention provide only temporary jobs for the local economy – you have to keep up the spending to keep up the jobs. But, if you will note Steve, the city keeps going deeper into debt, from a couple of million a few years back to $6M more this year, and despite the cuts they and the county have made, the deficits keep increasing despite the temporary expenditures by government entities – it doesn’t work.

      We need to change the paradigm to help small businesses, so that these business can succeed because they provide 80% of the permanent jobs. We need to get government the hell out of the way and make the business climate conducive to provide permanent jobs. That is what the feds need to do, too!

      Plus the local governments have to balance their budgets from year to year and not with the financial tricks the feds use – printing money, having the Fed reserve buy up the country’s own debt and other accounting tricks. Show me where the socialist countries I mentioned, that are close to bankruptcy with their spending for decades, are winning the battle against bankruptcy with overspending their treasuries. If your Keynesain theories worked, surely in countries where the entire government agrees with this economic socialistic theory, it would have been proved out. However, they are all going bankrupt and the people are turning to anarchy to receive what they now consider their entitlement.

      I also see that you Keynesians are following your leader Paul Krugman’s philosophy that the wars are the cause of the problem, not the decades of government overspending – it’s all George Bush’s fault. He even hates the 911 ceremony hafter the attack on us by other fanatics.


  6. I think your article is borderline intellectually dishonest. The fact that unemployment is nationally at 9% can be looked at from two perspectives, both of which are negative but only one you can fault the President for. The view you liken to “blaming Barack” runs counter to what most economists have said about QE and the other stimulus programs, that being that 9% unemployment is better than the 20% unemployment that likely would have happened without the programs. The arm-chair “tea party – slash spending – cut taxes” group literally has no support in academia or in former gop treasury officials.

    By the way rule no. 1 when you start out by saying something has failed, you should explain where you get your conclusions from rather than just making blanket statements with no backing. I can see why you left it out because it would be difficult to explain how after the housing bubble burst and the stock market crashed resulted in 2 trillion dollars of paper wealth from the middle class disappearing could have an adverse effect on job creation and the economy. Any rational person looking at the economic devastation that was carved out from those two events can probably see that “recovery” is not in a 2/4/6 year term, government or the private sector can’t rebuild that kind of wealth that was lost in any kind of short term fix spoon fed to the electorate. I realize that’s not an anti/pro government intervention argument, but it seems to be way more rational than the slash and burn politicians promising a vague and non-existent plan to recovery, or stymying the attempts of the only party that’s proposed any kind of solution.

    In sum: How do you get growth from the economy when the driving force of the population lost about 2 trillion dollars in wealth?

    • Ted Biondo

      Welcome to the blog PM. There is no way to verify your claim or the others claims of what might have been without the stimulus. Just like the waste of $800B dollars to create or save jobs can not be measured except that unemployment increased by 2% with the stimulus and there were no net jobs created just last month. A minimum of 200,000 jobs are needed each month just to start decreasing the unemployment.

      I have seen the results of academia running the country. Obama was a graduate of Harvard, right, and was a professor too before he became a community organizer. He was much better at that job and should have continued it instead of bankrupting the country as president – Oh I know it’s still Bush’s fault after almost 3 years into Obama’s presidency with a Democratic congress for the first two years.

      Many academics are just like the psychiatrists testifying at a trial, who look at the evidence and come to entirely different conclusions. Pay them enough and you can find one to tell you whatever you want to hear.

      I started by saying that this economic policy has failed because it has almost bankrupted how many countries. All I asked for was examples where spending more money, has been shown to get one of these countries out of debt with new growth, and not one of you have done so. I can show you where at least 5 countries are failing using keynsian economic theory.

      And PM, the housing bubble was created by government’s interference with Fannie Mae – FNMA and Freddie Mac – FHLMC into receivership with Federal Housing Finance Agency – FHFA. The problem is that the F in all this alphabet soup is “Federal” – that’s the problem with Keynesian economic policy is the government must run it.

  7. Steve, Steve, Steve.

    Grants and infrastructure spending by government are (usually) necessary parts of government, but they are not the primary way to grow the economy. That is done by private business, making products and providing services. Infrastructure spending is like paying your kid to paint the house, and then counting his pay as part of your household income. It comes out of one pocket, and goes in another, for no real gain.
    And those grants that you are talking about have a negative side, as well. If you add a dozen cops with a one-time grant, who pays them next year, after the grant is spent? Either the local taxpayer does, or you lay off those same officers.

    BTW, I dare say that if you did a cost/benefit analysis on the Conservatory, and most of the parks, the ROI wouldn’t be all that good. Government is notoriously inefficient at creating jobs. It is better suited to not losing them, by creating a “business-friendly” environment, that encourages growth.

    • Ted Biondo

      Snuss, great comment about infrastructure and comparing it to painting the house. Even here, the country is borrowing money from itself with one hand and paying it out with the other hand. All it’s doing is putting the country deeper in debt and the results are evident, the same unemployment for almost the entire Obama term – it doesn’t work!

  8. Don R. Gugliuzza

    Had there been full cooperation by both parties, we would be well on the road to recovery. Recovery from what? The tricle down theory of economics that is actually a “gush up” theory.
    When G.W. Bush took over the Presiendcy, there was a significant surplus in the national treasury. Two years later we had an unfunded war in Afghanistan and a huge tax cut. Two years later, another unfunded war, this time in Iraq. And another tax cut. During all of this, Wall Street when on a binge due to reduced regulations from that administration.
    When the “Trickle down economic theory didn’t work, something had to be done. There wasn’t much in the way of choice.
    Now comes the same party who created this economic mess. They want to cut taxes even more so that jobs can be created. Ten years of tax cuts haven’t produced one job. They want to cut spending when most economists, liberal and conservative, agree that this is the worst possible time to do so.
    So, when criticizing the efforts of those who are trying to alleviate the situation, come up with a workable solution. Untill then, try to help instead of creating road blocks.

  9. does_research

    At least some who are not in the top 2% benefit from Keynesian. And all those jobs that tax cuts are *supposed* to create haven’t materialized. Twenty plus years is a long enough wait.

  10. rockford1952

    There is so much misinformation here, beginning with Ted’s article. Congress controls the budget, so any financial experimentation is Congress’. The recent short-term spending was originally authorized by Congress during a Bush administration, continued under Congress during an Obama administration, and is credited with alleviating unemployment from anywhere to 0.75% to 1.5%. And the new job’s reports actually support the short-term spending model, as new job growth has tapered off as the stimulus dollars have gone away.

    Short-term deficit spending can help in times like these, but long-term deficit spending is dangerous. We’re in a long-term deficit spending problem because we have cut federal taxes over 3o years and committed to various unfunded war efforts and other initiatives, throwing away the budget surplus we had at the end of the Clinton years (which was due to a collaborative effort between a centrist-Democratic President and Congress with mixed party leadership.) But the major events leading up to our current crisis were caused by the lack of financial review and the deregulation in the banking and financial sectors, not deficit spending. Essentially the government’s hands off business regulation policies begun under Clinton and continued under Bush led directly to the national and world wide crisis we are in now.

    Complicating all of this is that we’re not prepared to bounce back quickly, as a country like Germany can, because we don’t focus enough on education and health care. Part of Germany’s industrial success is due to that country’s focus on education and universal health care. And before anyone chimes off on “socialized” medicine, Germany’s model technically isn’t socialized medicine. Residents buy insurance from nonprofit insurance companies and are not required to buy into a plan necessarily. This results in health care coverage for more people, at lower cost, and with no additional cost or management burden to employers (so employers can focus on manufacturing rather than insurance plans.)

    And to creating a “business” friendly environment: small businesses create most of the new jobs here, and polls of small business (along with my own experiences) clearly show government regulation has a smaller impact on small business that does managing benefits and health insurance plans for employees. Small businesses simply can’t offer health care plans at competitive rates. So, if you take that responsibility for health care out of the employer’s hands and make it a employee-nonprofit insurance plan relationship, small business can focus on core business values and compete with big business for employees.

  11. does_research

    And of course we all remember the “deficits don’t matter” mantra. Some of the politicians complaining the loudest bear a lot of the responsibility for the deficit. One could go as far as saying the explosion of cuts and deficit spending that occurred betweein 2001 and 2008 was exactly what those trying to destroy the US wanted.

  12. rockford1952

    Ted your infrastructure comments are way off base. There is a reason why it is called “infrastructure.” Without good roads, bridges, sewers and the like, how can a business setup shop? How can workers get to work? Let’s just go back to mud roads and haul our buckets to the river for water. And if infrastructure and the jobs it eventually leads too are not significant, why have you supported tax increases for such projects, in addition to the county property tax increase you have supported?

    I thought you were about “facts” too. You have not listed any “socialist” countries in economic distress. You may not like some of the social programs in some of these countries, but I haven’t seen you point out any socialist countries per se. Most of the countries you’ve mentioned are republics of one form or another.

    Just throw the terms around and see what sticks, I thought you were better than that Ted.

    • Ted Biondo

      The facts are Rockford 1952 is that these infrastructure jobs are temporary. There isn’t enough money in any budget to continue them forever. Where are the examples of Keynesian policies used in countries that have produced growth out of more spending and debt. Give examples – that was what the post was about? Liberals always change the topic because they can’t prove that their policies ever work.

      BTW Clinton had a surplus because a Republican Congress forced him to change his strategy. Obama doesn’t seem to be that smart. I’m afraid that he really believes that spending, and spending, and spending more and more, and more money is actually going to help pull us out of this recession. The facts of Clinton’s success in the short term was that he also used Social Security surpluses to reduce the deficits in the budget.

      But, the Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year. Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the “Social Security surplus” makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was an annual surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. But the national debt continued to be present.

  13. Steve Noll

    Thank you Don and rockford1952. As for Europe, they threw Keynes out wiht the bath water and went down austerity road. They regret it and are turning back some austerity programs. It was a huge blunder they may not ever recover from. The European Union is a case in point of why you can’t cut budgets during a recession. You add to unemployment, you deteriorate your manufacturing base by ending demand for government services and goods and you create panic. Panic is the big one because the western world still relys on the consumer to spend his/her income at will. If he wills to save it out of fear that the world is comming to an end, the recession gets worse as demand falls further. The uncertainty is not about regulation of corporations, its about fear among consumers. The American Jobs Act is an effort to kick start the economy. It is not a long term change in policy. It gets paid for by increasing GDP sooner rather than later.

  14. rockford1952

    Ted, now you are just playing dumb or are truly ignoring history. Examples where spending more money has been shown to get a country out of debt: deficit war spending during the The War of 1812, The Civil War, World War 1, and World War 2 all led to economic growth. I don’t particularly recommend the “war” model, but there you go, your examples. The trick is to spend the money without killing thousands if not millions of people.

    Regarding the housing bubble, get your facts straight. The government deregulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: 1) letting banks set their own loan guidelines which 2) unknowingly encouraged banks to only loan the money so they could sell the loans as investments. Unfortunately the loans were made to people who could have never honored the debt.

    The deregulation of the housing and financial markets, based on the false promise of certain fabricated financial instruments, caused the current situation we are in. We gambled, we panicked, we lost, taking down many of the world players.

  15. rockford1952

    Infrastructure jobs are “temporary”? Where do you live? Pave the road, supply water and they will come. You’re looking just at the construction work. I’m looking at the resulting business that comes to the region. If Winnebago County had no: roads, highways, drinking water, or electrical power (we give utilities the right of way) would we have any significant job growth here? No.

  16. rockford1952

    Ted, where we you when Winnebago County borrowed money in the mid-2000’s to build roads already on its road building schedule, but to build them a head of schedule, before the scheduled tax dollars and grants were to come in? That was a jobs program. Not sure if you were on the board then, but you are a pretty vocal guy, I would have thought you’d have an opinion on that.

  17. Ted says: “There is no way to verify your claim or the others claims of what might have been without the stimulus.”

    However, you can see what the CBO said about Obama’s stimulous in Feb. 2009, and how their prediction of the result was almost exactly on target. We can assume their prediction had no stimulus been passed is at least equally accurate.

    ” President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

    CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

    CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said

    CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

    CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

    The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

    CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

    Read the rest at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

    They were a bit too optomistic in their short-term forecast, but were otherwise accurate.

  18. shawnnews

    You can answer your own question by typing the query “Keynesian success” in a search engine. This is the second entry that came up.
    This German magazine claims Keynesian policies are to credit for Germany’s success rather than austerity.

  19. Here is another take on Keynesian economics:

    After several years of Keynesian budget deficits and artificially low interest rates, Keynesian policy periods will always involve economic crises caused by those policies. The austerity recession that as a practical matter becomes inevitable whenever the Fed allows interest rates to rise to market levels – as inevitably it must – will always act as a deterrent to monetary austerity. The “medium term” becomes a constantly receding horizon – the end of the rainbow. By the time you get there, there is no there there any more

    Read the rest at: http://www.futurecasts.com/Lies,%20damn%20lies%20and%20projections.htm

  20. does_research

    Oh Ted, you’ve been drinking all too much of the kool-aid. When you can stop regurgitating talking points, you might be able to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

  21. I hate to rain on your parade shawnnews, but the amount of spending increases the Germans enacted were very small compared to their overall economy. Their budget deficit topped out at 3.3% of GDP in 2009:


    And now it is moving back toward their target of 2.5%:


    To put those numbers in perspective our deficit is over 10% of GDP. If we ran a deficit of 3.3% of GDP, our deficit would be $495 billion. In other words, about a trillion dollars less than what we are running now. Are you advocating cutting our budget deficit by $1 trillion? I didn’t think so.

  22. Oh, shock! Does this mean Ted you don’t want to hear what the otherside has to say when it doesn’t follow your vision?

    Shawnnews only pointed out it was a combination of gov. spending and austerity that helped turned it around in Germany. It wasn’t just one or the other, but both, and you can’t allow that concept to have any merit?

    The people in this nation are speaking very loudly they expect compromise between the sides. When we see it done in Germany, and it’s been successful on some level, you try to knock it down. Perhaps it’s time for you to rethink your column. I’m not suggesting you become a liberal etc., but that real Conservatives are able to use what works and place it into the mix.

  23. Carol, in case you haven’t noticed, “real conservatives”, and most other Americans, have had more than enough of your Leftist spending, with no appreciable result. It is time for the “austerity’ part to be implimented, along with some incentives for businesses.

    On another subject, the “Weiner seat” went to a Republican! Watch Obama & Co. try to spin that!

  24. Gosh, SNuss, I thought when I spent some money at Bergner’s today it was right to shop local. It’s the GoodWill Sale and I took several bags of good used clothing. They took my money and never said “Leftist” spending was bad. OK, I’ll go back to the shopping networks for my purchases and won’t upset you any further.

    Now I want you to know you are welcome to come spend your “right Wing Conservative Dollars” in our Village anytime. We will never tell you your money isn’t welcome or that we don’t like your spending according to your political standing with any Party.

    As for the seat lost to a Republican.
    Congratulations on the win. When someone leaves office in disgrace that’s always sad for everyone. It’s not a shock Republicans won the seat nor is it upsetting. I don’t see why anyone would want to “spin” this win or why you would think of that idea.

    • Ted Biondo

      Carol on the NY election I will say one word – Israel. The jewish vote is finally seein that Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of Israel. 1922 was the last Republican to win an election in this district. No need to minimize the election either and say it was only do to another womanizing representative or that the election wasn’t an important measure of the degree that Barack’s popularity is waning.

  25. Ted, I didn’t minimize the election, just called it as I saw it. The last guy made a total jerk of himself so voters gave his previous opponent the nod to do the job.

    I’ve heard the old song about this President isn’t a friend of Isreal. A good friend tells you the truth which is you need to make peace and it will cost you more then what you’d like to pay for it. Should our President keep lying that the status quo serves both nations well?

    I also note, when people wish to make a point about this President and Isreal, they often reference his middle name. Anything doing with the middle east gets the same reference. Let’s keep in mind, he didn’t pop out of the womb and name himself. Make your points with his actions and not his middle name or you have no points to make.

    Former President Clinton, said it well, when he posted that sign on his wall during his first campaign for the job: “it’s the eonomy stupid.” This has never been a short recession where it ends with people going back to work as usual. It’s one where business has tons of cash, but won’t invest back into their product in this country. The middle class can’t bail us out because our middle class is broke and fewer then ever before.

    The nation isn’t suddenly not liking this President, but they are not liking themselves and how they got here. The White HOuse always gets the blame for making everything OK within 6 months so people can go back to their own bad spending ways of living on credit without having to make real changes in their lives. When you foolishly talk about “entitlements” and refer to those getting gov checks, that not it at all.

    Entitlement, is thinking because you have a job and a creditcard you can afford anything you want in this life. You don’t need to save or live within your means. The gov didn’t invent that attitude, they just followed what consumers were doing as a role model.

    What you see, sir, is only the beginning of major changes in this nation that won’t stop for the next 6 or 7 years. You think it’s about Liberals and Conservatives, but it’s all about how America will be living in the future, not how the government will be operating. The government is only a small portion of what will change.Yes, it will get more cost effective and we will make that investment to get it that way.

    The next election isn’t a problem solver because the White HOuse isn’t the answer. It will only tread water until Americans as a whole have completed changing themselves. – Carol foster ps. sorry this post was so long and I’ve said enough for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *