Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Comments
750,921 - 750,940 of 1,081,925 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

Since: May 11

Fayetteville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812215
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Really Dave, Whose going to pay the bill?
Since when did Republicans care?

Unfunded tax cuts
unfunded wars
unfunded expansion to medicare in Part D
unfunded earmarks.

Their solution? More unfunded tax cuts.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812218
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the evil Democrats say no to cutting help for those in need while the Republicans say no to increases taxes on the wealthy.
Now that suns it up.
Republicans would trample the needy to give money to rich people.
Democrats say the wealthy an afford it & don't take it out on poor people.
Hey Dave where does that money come from to help the needy? Not from poor people. The government has to take it from someone before they can give it to someone. Why not cut out the middle man and let the wealthy get to keep and invest that money creating more jobs so the poor people can earn a paycheck and improve their own lot in life? Or are you one of those loony libtards that think the rich keep all their money in a vault in the basement? No need to answer I know the answer.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812220
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when did Republicans care?
Unfunded tax cuts
unfunded wars
unfunded expansion to medicare in Part D
unfunded earmarks.
Their solution? More unfunded tax cuts.
Davey Boy, you never explained what an 'unfunded tax cut' was? Is that another of your oximorons??
Mike R

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812221
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Starbucks, Target, Home Depot, UPS, Whole Foods, Costco, Lands End:
all provide healthcare benefits to parttime workers who work 20 hours.
The government is subsidizing your precious Walleyworld! You are paying their employees healthcare!
And, you call me nuts.
$420,000 per store.
Those employers will have to shift to the one size fits all expensive government plan.

If you are uninsured because you can’t afford it, help may be on the way. But if you are one of the 250 million Americans with coverage, there are big problems ahead.

If you get your health insurance through a job, you might lose it as of Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the new “employer mandate” kicks in, requiring employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide the government-designed health plan or pay a fine. The government plan is so expensive, it adds $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee. That’s incidental if you're hiring neurosurgeons but a hefty increase for hiring busboys and sales clerks.

Currently, employers in retail and fast-food industries pay less than half that to cover their workers.To avoid thecostly mandate,some employers will push workers into part-time status. Other employers will opt for the fine. Either way, workers lose their on-the-job coverage.

Worse, they risk losing their jobs. Even the fine adds 98 cents an hour to the cost of labor, enough to make some employers cut back on their workforce.

As many as a third of employers are considering canceling coverage, according to McKinsey & Co. management consultants. But that doesn’t mean you’ll be uninsured; you won’t have that choice.

When you file your taxes, you will have to show proof that you are enrolled in the one-size-fits-all plan approved by the federal government. It’s mandatory, starting Jan. 1, 2014, or the IRS will withhold your refund. If you’ve been going without insurance, or your employer drops coverage, your options will be enrolling in Medicaid (if you’re eligible) or buying a government-approved health plan on your state health exchange.

What’s an insurance exchange? It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV. People with household incomes up to $92,200 will be eligible for a subsidy.
TSM

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812222
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, TSM, the perpetual moron, thinks the Republicans should continue to vote NOT to help us recover.
The stimulus bill took Bush's 700,000 a month job losses to job gains.
I have news, if the Republicans try that crap again, they will be blamed & then lose even more seats in 2014.
RealDave I thought your arguments has been that Republicans didn’t care about America!! My solution or suggestion was that Republicans should do the Right thing and just get out of the Way let the Liberal agenda move forth…do you not agree?
TSM

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812223
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong as usual -
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ca...
I should have been more specific!! There was no house member that voted for the stimulus you’re correct on the senate side three rhino republicans voted with Democrats!!
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812224
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.

I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articl...
Mike R

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812225
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
I was actually thinking of giving joke gifts.
The Real Romney
http://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Real-Romney/171...
Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.

Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.

Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.

The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.

Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.

Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?

What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?

Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?

I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.

My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812226
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Effects of Income Tax Changes on Growth & Employment

The empirical relationship between tax cuts for the top 10% percent and job creation is negligible in magnitude, statistically insignificant, and much weaker than that of equivalently sized tax cuts for the bottom 90%.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812227
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Republicans Censor What They Can’t Refute

The appropriate response for Republicans critical of the Congressional Research Service report’s findings would have been to convene a conference, at which I am sure the author would have gladly participated, or to get the House Ways and Means Committee, which is under Republican control, to call a hearing.

Getting the report withdrawn smacks of censorship. Andrew Rosenthal, editor of The New York Times’s editorial page, commented,“Congressional Republicans seem to think that the C.R.S. should function like Pravda.” Pravda was, of course, the official organ of the Soviet Communist Party.

The irony is that the Republican effort to quash the report has led to it getting vastly more attention than if they had simply ignored it. Censorship has a funny way of doing that.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812229
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Those employers will have to shift to the one size fits all expensive government plan.
If you are uninsured because you can’t afford it, help may be on the way. But if you are one of the 250 million Americans with coverage, there are big problems ahead.
If you get your health insurance through a job, you might lose it as of Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the new “employer mandate” kicks in, requiring employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide the government-designed health plan or pay a fine. The government plan is so expensive, it adds $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee. That’s incidental if you're hiring neurosurgeons but a hefty increase for hiring busboys and sales clerks.
Currently, employers in retail and fast-food industries pay less than half that to cover their workers.To avoid thecostly mandate,some employers will push workers into part-time status. Other employers will opt for the fine. Either way, workers lose their on-the-job coverage.
Worse, they risk losing their jobs. Even the fine adds 98 cents an hour to the cost of labor, enough to make some employers cut back on their workforce.
As many as a third of employers are considering canceling coverage, according to McKinsey & Co. management consultants. But that doesn’t mean you’ll be uninsured; you won’t have that choice.
When you file your taxes, you will have to show proof that you are enrolled in the one-size-fits-all plan approved by the federal government. It’s mandatory, starting Jan. 1, 2014, or the IRS will withhold your refund. If you’ve been going without insurance, or your employer drops coverage, your options will be enrolling in Medicaid (if you’re eligible) or buying a government-approved health plan on your state health exchange.
What’s an insurance exchange? It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV. People with household incomes up to $92,200 will be eligible for a subsidy.
Don't confuse them with facts. They don't care about unintended consequences. That just like that feel good glow and be damn who they hurt to get it.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812230
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, they did not vote Republican.
That's not what the sign said duhmmy. Can't you lemming herd pack bootalicking types read anything with out getting all twisted and distorted?

Dis iz coal country duhmmy, if that gives you a better clue.
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812231
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dane Thorsen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesterday the demonic Harry Reid says NO CUTS to the massive extention grade Entitlements so dear to the hard left. Game Over. Obama takes us another step closer to assuring a complete fiscal collapse and all out civil war.
What an exciting time for the Orwellian Left in their march to decimate our children's future hopes and dreams!!
Obama's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff:

Let the Bush tax cuts that apply to income over $200,000 expire. The top two tax rates - currently 33% and 35%- would increase next year to 36% and 39.6%.

Investment tax rates on the rich would increase to 20% for capital gains and to one's top income tax rate for dividends. Both are currently taxed at 15%.

This would amount to $1 trillion over a decade...(government spending amounts to that much in a year.)

Limiting the value of deductions and exclusions that high-income households enjoy...(proposed by Republicans and makes the most sense).

Calling for taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds those managers would pay more than double the rate they currently pay.

Impose millionaire minimum tax: "Buffett Rule". Those making more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in taxes...
(Buffett has done an about face recently - wants only "minimal" tax increases on the wealthy)...A bill from Senate Democrats modeled on the Buffett Rule was estimated to raise $47 billion over 10 years...(government spends $47 billion in two days).

Enact business tax proposals: A host of smaller tax changes.

...So where are the spending cuts? Increasing taxes across the board seems to be the only Obama plan.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812232
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

10

THE DEBIL wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, HONEY, WE DON'T. SWEDEN DOES, BUT WE DON'T. AS WE SIT HERE TYPIN' THERE ARE AT LEAST 54,000 VETERANS OUT IN THE STREETS SLEEPIN' IN GUTTERS AN' EATIN' OUT OF DUMPSTERS. THERE ARE A MILLION OR MORE HISPANICS SLEEPING IN GUTTERS AND EATING OUT OF DUMPSTERS. THAT'S WHAT "WE" DO. THAT'S WHO "WE" ARE. ARGUE WITH ME, G'HEAD... SEE WHAT HAPPENS...
Yer awfully clueless for claiming to be the Prince of Darkness, Prince of the Power of the air/wind and all in it, Lucifer the beauteous....blah, blah, blah.

I thought you were the one who knows all the dirty secrets in D.C?

You, and your cronies, should know by now that no Mexican goes hungry in America.

Since: May 11

Fayetteville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812234
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.
Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.
Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.
The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.
Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.
Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?
What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?
Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?
I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.
My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
My God, you have to steal the words of others.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau...

Yet another right whiner you regurgitates the garbage written by other right whiners.

What's next Limbaugh? Beck?
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812235
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, fck em, they can get a second, 3rd job, he doesn't care if they never see their kids, they never should have had them in the first place. Doesn't matter if their job was shipped overseas they should have anticipated that.
"....are there no prisons, are there no workhouses? Let them die and decrease the surplus population..."
well since you're going all dark age and commieticish Homer-yew forgot the debtors prisons!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812236
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff:
Let the Bush tax cuts that apply to income over $200,000 expire. The top two tax rates - currently 33% and 35%- would increase next year to 36% and 39.6%.
Investment tax rates on the rich would increase to 20% for capital gains and to one's top income tax rate for dividends. Both are currently taxed at 15%.
This would amount to $1 trillion over a decade...(government spending amounts to that much in a year.)
Limiting the value of deductions and exclusions that high-income households enjoy...(proposed by Republicans and makes the most sense).
Calling for taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds those managers would pay more than double the rate they currently pay.
Impose millionaire minimum tax: "Buffett Rule". Those making more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in taxes...
(Buffett has done an about face recently - wants only "minimal" tax increases on the wealthy)...A bill from Senate Democrats modeled on the Buffett Rule was estimated to raise $47 billion over 10 years...(government spends $47 billion in two days).
Enact business tax proposals: A host of smaller tax changes.
...So where are the spending cuts? Increasing taxes across the board seems to be the only Obama plan.
Hey Carol-

Let's drive the liberal illiterate lunaTics really insane today with some figurative literal "biblical" type links lol....

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27...
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812238
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

10

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the evil Democrats say no to cutting help for those in need while the Republicans say no to increases taxes on the wealthy.
Now that suns it up.
Republicans would trample the needy to give money to rich people.
Democrats say the wealthy an afford it & don't take it out on poor people.
The welfare system and the entitlement programs are broken.

There is more waste and duplication that we can even imagine.

There is more manipulation of the system than liberals want to accept.

Maintaining the status quo while strangling small businesses from hiring at the same time is not the answer.

Reform is an absolute must. Democrats worry more about votes than having the courage to do what they know has to be done.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812239
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.
Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.
Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.
The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.
Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.
Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?
What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?
Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?
I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.
My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
Pretty full of ourselves aren't we?

I could find that same screed on any far right wing loony site in a heartbeat. Nothing new in it in any way, shape, or form. It's also extremely easy to refute most of it. I should know.

And BTW....any idea when Mitt will quit taking shots at the folks who didn't vote for him? IOKIYAR? Or just a sore loser?

Since: May 11

Fayetteville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812240
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
RealDave I thought your arguments has been that Republicans didn’t care about America!! My solution or suggestion was that Republicans should do the Right thing and just get out of the Way let the Liberal agenda move forth…do you not agree?
They should act to help us recover through honest negotiation with the best interest of our country in mind.

If they are unable (like the past 4 years) then yes, they should just let Democrats do it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

112 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Jacques from Ottawa 174,907
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (May '09) 6 min Sgt Prepper 3,154
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 min Rage Poster 48,935
Amy 7-28 6 min Kuuipo 9
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Feb '09) 9 min Sgt Prepper 5,193
Mayor Rahm loses in primary election 17 min official cavalier store 6
Abby 7-28 31 min Kuuipo 10
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 9:22AM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••