|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 12 2014 10:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit. TIL policies have no trailing effects so when u get out of office everything is the other guy's fault now If its assumed the banks need 400 billion dollars in bailouts every 4 years, Obama does deserve heaps of credit for ending that practice.
|
On February 12 2014 11:15 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit. I agree there were reasons for the 1.4T dollar deficit in 2009 (of which 200B you can put on Obama) but pretending that 1.2T of that is not on the former president and just using the previous years numbers and ignore his true final budget in order to make it seem like the trend was different then it was is just dishonest. As you did point out there were a lot of reasons that caused the deficit to spike for that year (I would also include falling tax revenue in there) but most of those issues continued on and have of course been declining thus leading to a falling deficit. Final point EVERY politician democrat or republican will take credit for every good thing that happens and place blame to someone else for every bad thing so when you tell me that grandstanding is a one party thing I find it a little strange. Both parties do it; Obama has recently taken it up a notch. He deserves credit for freeing 2.5 million Americans from depending on a job for health insurance (they're no longer trapped in a job, rejoice). State of the Union speech (did you hear it?) he's talking left and right about how good everything is and how good everything will be once he takes on new executive powers. It's not like I went through the Bush years happy with his humility, but I hadn't seen Obama's aggrandizement on main stage yet. We even had Pelosi saying how freeing it was to quit your job to pursue writing poetry, now that you aren't job locked into healthcare. These claims are part of a pattern and it's to a new degree.
"... and nobody's madder than I am that everything I promised to do is turning out so badly! I'm responsible, the buck starts with me, and I'm going to figure out who is responsible for screwing it up. Don't you worry, America" ... ad nauseum.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2014 11:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 10:23 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit. TIL policies have no trailing effects so when u get out of office everything is the other guy's fault now If its assumed the banks need 400 billion dollars in bailouts every 4 years, Obama does deserve heaps of credit for ending that practice. wat.
not that you can blame presidents that much for the foibles of fenance, but bush with the housing bubble and subsequent burst properly contextualized would have a pretty hideous record deficit wise.
this obama deficit omagad meme is just a piece of campaign propaganda. not sure why you are still parroting it now
|
On February 12 2014 11:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 11:26 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 10:23 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit. TIL policies have no trailing effects so when u get out of office everything is the other guy's fault now If its assumed the banks need 400 billion dollars in bailouts every 4 years, Obama does deserve heaps of credit for ending that practice. wat. not that you can blame presidents that much for the foibles of fenance, but bush with the housing bubble and subsequent burst properly contextualized would have a pretty hideous record deficit wise. this obama deficit omagad meme is just a piece of campaign propaganda. not sure why you are still parroting it now When he's put up as some kind of fiscal white knight by himself and allies in the media, it bears repeating how little credit he deserves about fixing the deficit. I've just outlined my case over the past three posts, so go re-read them because I won't repeat them here. He is in the process of destroying any good fiscal outlook in the next 10 years with obamacare, and not even close to addressing the growth in interest of the debt. You want to compare to Bush? Labor participation rate right now hasn't been seen once since the Carter years.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you are talking about obamacare decreasing labor participation, this is not something i reject. however, in terms of economic impact this is not necessarily a bad thing right now as our problem is not because of a shortness in labor supply.
reducing the deficit can be done through tax reform, which has 0% likelihood when it comes to increasing capital gains,
increasing inflation somewhat, in a way that acts as a tax on nonproductive wealth rather than income, also most probably not going to happen. these are the big creative things from a policy perspective, but they not politically realistic given the congress among other things.
so we have to wait for a recovery and that will be happening slowly.
|
|
|
Yeah, freepers will eat that shit up.
|
On February 12 2014 11:32 Danglars wrote:
He deserves credit for freeing 2.5 million Americans from depending on a job for health insurance (they're no longer trapped in a job, rejoice).
Isn't unemployment at a five year low now in the US? You could at least wait with your horror stories until unemployment actually goes up again. "Oh no healthcare, now all the poor bastards are going to stay at home writing poetry!!"
|
On February 12 2014 12:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 11:36 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2014 11:26 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 10:23 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit. TIL policies have no trailing effects so when u get out of office everything is the other guy's fault now If its assumed the banks need 400 billion dollars in bailouts every 4 years, Obama does deserve heaps of credit for ending that practice. wat. not that you can blame presidents that much for the foibles of fenance, but bush with the housing bubble and subsequent burst properly contextualized would have a pretty hideous record deficit wise. this obama deficit omagad meme is just a piece of campaign propaganda. not sure why you are still parroting it now When he's put up as some kind of fiscal white knight by himself and allies in the media, it bears repeating how little credit he deserves about fixing the deficit.
But he deserves credit in increasing the deficit?
|
On February 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 11:32 Danglars wrote:
He deserves credit for freeing 2.5 million Americans from depending on a job for health insurance (they're no longer trapped in a job, rejoice). Isn't unemployment at a five year low now in the US? You could at least wait with your horror stories until unemployment actually goes up again. "Oh no healthcare, now all the poor bastards are going to stay at home writing poetry!!" The CBO predicted about Obamacare would reduce the size of the U.S. labor force by 2.5 million full-time workers. Naturally, the white house responded to this. Jay Carney, the spokesman, claimed that it was a good thing ... that these people would no longer be trapped in a job. I get that you want to explain this away with unemployment, but that's not the word from the white house.
Besides, there have been so many dropping out of the work force no longer looking for jobs, that the participation rate is the lowest its been since the 70s. If we had the average participation rate from the last 30 years, unemployment would stand around 11%--nothing to brag about.
Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic minority leader of the House. If you don't think those that lost jobs might fight new passions in poetry, take it up with her.
|
WINIFREDE, W.Va. (AP) — An unknown amount of coal slurry containing the chemical crude MCHM spilled from a preparation plant into a tributary of the Kanawha River on Tuesday, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection said.
Crude MCHM is the same chemical that spilled from a Freedom Industries storage tank into the Elk River in Charleston on Jan. 9, tainting the water supply of 300,000 residents in nine counties.
The slurry spilled into Fields Creek from the Kanawha Eagle preparation plant near Winifrede sometime between midnight Monday and 5:30 a.m. when a slurry line ruptured. There are not any public water intakes immediately downstream from the plant, Aluise said in a news release.
West Virginia American Water said it does not expect the slurry spill to affect its treatment plant on the Elk River.
"Our employees are working on behalf of our customers with local and state officials to gather additional information. We have been in contact with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, which concurs that they do not anticipate any impact to our plant on the Elk River," West Virginia American Water spokeswoman Laura Jordan said in a statement.
Crews were working to contain the spill Tuesday, Aluise said.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2014 13:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2014 11:32 Danglars wrote:
He deserves credit for freeing 2.5 million Americans from depending on a job for health insurance (they're no longer trapped in a job, rejoice). Isn't unemployment at a five year low now in the US? You could at least wait with your horror stories until unemployment actually goes up again. "Oh no healthcare, now all the poor bastards are going to stay at home writing poetry!!" The CBO predicted about Obamacare would reduce the size of the U.S. labor force by 2.5 million full-time workers. Naturally, the white house responded to this. Jay Carney, the spokesman, claimed that it was a good thing ... that these people would no longer be trapped in a job. I get that you want to explain this away with unemployment, but that's not the word from the white house. Besides, there have been so many dropping out of the work force no longer looking for jobs, that the participation rate is the lowest its been since the 70s. If we had the average participation rate from the last 30 years, unemployment would stand around 11%--nothing to brag about. Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic minority leader of the House. If you don't think those that lost jobs might fight new passions in poetry, take it up with her.
yes, long term unemployed is a problem. guess who's behind recognizing it as a serious issue long before the obamacare thing came up?
hint it's not people who were against the stimulus
|
European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe.
Link
Eat that Europe 
|
On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe
I'm okay with the corn, but please keep the chlorine chickens away 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2014 13:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe I'm okay with the corn, but please keep the chlorine chickens away
fry it yo and it'll be good
for real though it's not that bad.
|
On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe Exporting freedom corn, 'murica! Farmers don't like pests, the ones that ate their current corn type, and the ones that wear suits and tell them which corn they can and cannot grow.
|
On February 12 2014 14:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe Exporting freedom corn, 'murica! Farmers don't like pests, the ones that ate their current corn type, and the ones that wear suits and tell them which corn they can and cannot grow.
like Monsanto?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^lol literally walked into that one.
|
On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe
hmm how does that work, the European Commission is made up of member state delegates so how can it move forward while 2/3rds of the member states say no?
|
On February 12 2014 14:50 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:European Union Moves To Approve U.S. Genetically Modified Corn
Despite efforts by two-thirds of its 28 member states to block the move, the European Union took a large step toward approving a new genetically modified corn Tuesday. It opponents say the corn, a DuPont Pioneer product called TC1507, has harmful qualities. They also predict the decision will prove to be controversial in Europe. LinkEat that Europe hmm how does that work, the European Commission is made up of member state delegates so how can it move forward while 2/3rds of the member states say no?
member states are represented based on their size and Germany(which is a little ridiculous, because roughly 90% of the population are very skeptical about genetically modified food) , Spain, and some smaller countries abstained their votes, so their weren't enough votes to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
