If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   (news.investors.com) divider line 427
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 12:56:35 PM

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


What individual cut will solve the deficit problem entirely on it's own?
 
2012-11-27 12:57:25 PM

mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head

You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.


Dr Dreidel 2016!
 
2012-11-27 12:58:19 PM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: The financial prudence of the borrowing depends entirely on what it is spent on.

Should you borrow to finance destruction, like booze or hookers or war? No. You get zero return on these; they are pure loss from a financial perspective, because the gains are either nonexistent or short-term. Except for the companies that supply booze, hookers, and war, of course.

Should you borrow to finance construction, like education and infrastructure? Yes. These will increase your earning power over the long run, allowing you to pay back your debt. It's "spend money to make money".

Are you somehow under the impression that no entity ever borrows to finance growth?

So it then must be asked, what is the US spending the vast majority of its borrowed money on? The answers would be: Military (I'd argue very little gain, although there could be some technological arguments. Still not a good use of money). Interest on the debt (absolutely no gain). Medicare/Medicaid (Very little gain. The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)

I would agree that education and necessary infrastructure are good uses of borrowed money. I would argue, compared to the above items, the amount of money spent on those programs is insignificant.


Remind me again which political party says we should spend less on the military, and more on education, infrastructure, and social programs, and which political party says we should spend more on the military, and less on education, infrastructure, and social programs.
 
2012-11-27 12:59:11 PM

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


Heh, conflating personal wealth and personal taxes to what only identifies as an argument for "raising taxes", just to show it's no where near enough. That's cute, ridiculously over-simplified, but still cute.
 
2012-11-27 01:00:49 PM

MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.
 
2012-11-27 01:00:54 PM
hasty ambush

Which is why that is one part of one plan. (I assume you mean the "income over $1m taxed at X%, no deductions" rule?)

There are other parts of that plan to both raise revenue (by cutting those deductions the GOP seems to think can raise $20 trillion in a year or somesuch) and cut spending, and there are other plans that don't create new Buffet-level tax brackets which still raise rates (like by letting the Bush rates on the top two brackets revert to 1990s levels).

Also, that is possibly the dumbest strawman in a season full of them. Not one person has said that taking the 400 richest Americans' wealth is the solution, nor has anyone advanced that plan. Nor has anyone said that letting the newer rates expire will fix the problem in a year. The idea is to RAISE MORE REVENUE - by closing/capping deductions, raising rates/fees and a whole bunch of things - while also CUTTING SPENDING - hopefully, by not increasing budgets by the same amounts that they planned to (even cutting some programs entirely or combining them).

Attrition is also a way to shrink government (shrink expenditures, surely), and IIRC Obama's better at that than anyone but Clinton.
 
2012-11-27 01:04:09 PM

mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.


I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.
 
2012-11-27 01:04:30 PM

Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: jigger: Says 5 people in black dresses.

What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?

// I can go on, but I'm almost out of famous cases I can recall off the top of my head

You just named 8 more than Palin. You named 8.

Technically 7. The question put to Gvnr Palin was "Other than Roe/Wade..."

// so I'm 7x as smart as Palin?
// *burns diplomas*
// *cries*
// *slashes wrists*


I think they may have falsely assumed she even knew what Roe V. Wade was.
 
2012-11-27 01:06:05 PM
It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes they know what they are getting for their constituents in spending cuts. Raising taxes on the rich is a talking point that does so very little to solve the problems which are the result of overspending. Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen and which solves 98% of the problems before committing to raising the taxes which only solve 2% of the problem.
 
2012-11-27 01:06:41 PM

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).


You might be on to something. Hookers who are retired, elderly, and on welfare will be relatively cheap.
 
2012-11-27 01:07:29 PM

Anti_illuminati: mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.



Oh I know, but I have heard entirely too much of "lets kill old people and starve kids" and I snapped.

Actually, I'm usually pretty rational.

But still, fark him.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:07 PM

Tyee: It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes they know what they are getting for their constituents in spending cuts. Raising taxes on the rich is a talking point that does so very little to solve the problems which are the result of overspending. Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen and which solves 98% of the problems before committing to raising the taxes which only solve 2% of the problem.


Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:27 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yeah, f*ck the elderly. You should run for office on that platform.

75% of welfare recipients, if you're referring to TANF, are children. So f*ck them too I guess, and vote for me or something.


Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.

We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:37 PM

mcwehrle: Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.


Be nice. He may be of the generation that sucked from the Boomer tax teat their entire lives and dread weaning off. All the government benefits they've enjoyed to date really came from Santa, don't wreck the illusion.
 
2012-11-27 01:11:11 PM
When we tried to avert this disaster the first time, Obama offered $2.50 in cuts for ever $1 in revenue. The GOP said no.



Now they can sleep in the bed they made.

fark em.
 
2012-11-27 01:11:41 PM

mrshowrules: I think they may have falsely assumed she even knew what Roe V. Wade was.


she knew it had something to do with water.
 
2012-11-27 01:12:06 PM

Tyee: Tell everyone where the spending cuts happen


We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.
 
2012-11-27 01:12:53 PM

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yeah, f*ck the elderly. You should run for office on that platform.

75% of welfare recipients, if you're referring to TANF, are children. So f*ck them too I guess, and vote for me or something.

Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.

We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.


Yeah, fark the poor. Let them starve. Those kids should have choosen to be born to richer parents, damn kids.
 
2012-11-27 01:13:01 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.


This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.
 
2012-11-27 01:14:18 PM

Zasteva: All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.


Unfortunately, that action is going to throw us into recession no matter what. I'm in favor of pain now as opposed to more pain later.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:21 PM

MattStafford: Because what will get me elected is what is best for our country. Wait, no, that isn't right.


I believe taking care of children, of which one in five live in poverty, is the best thing for our country. I also believe that platform would be popular and help in getting me elected. I guess what you think is right, isn't.


Funny, that is

MattStafford: We spend, what, 20 billion a year on TANF? You still have a long farking way to go to convince me we are spending our money wisely.


I don't have f*ck all to do with convincing you of anything.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:43 PM

odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.


It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:53 PM

MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.



This will get some bites.
 
2012-11-27 01:15:59 PM

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?
 
2012-11-27 01:16:44 PM

Anti_illuminati: I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!


Three people responded me the exact same way in a row. I wanted to address all of them, but didn't want to quote them all to know.
 
2012-11-27 01:17:02 PM

MattStafford: Zasteva: All he said was that taking action that throws us back into recession will make it worse (it will), not that we shouldn't take action. We just need to take action in a way that doesn't throw us back into recession. And yes, that action should be taken as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, that action is going to throw us into recession no matter what.


You must have a GED in Economiz, your intellect is dizzying.


/goddamnit I am still biting
 
2012-11-27 01:17:14 PM

Tyee: It certainly seems fair that before anyone breaks their solemn oath and pledge to raise taxes


lolwut?

Republicans are retarded.
 
2012-11-27 01:18:01 PM

MattStafford: odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.

It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.


The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?
 
2012-11-27 01:18:54 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: For starters, stop conflating individual spending and government spending. It's a poor analogy and it's only going to cause confusion as the conversation progresses. Stick with government spending, the f*cking topic at hand.


The argument was, if government has access to nearly unlimited amounts of funds at extremely low rates, should they spend them. My argument is, just like an individual's financial situation, it is only a good idea to borrow those funds if they are being spent on something productive. If there is something wrong with that analogy, please let me know. Just saying it is a bad analogy isn't an argument.
 
2012-11-27 01:19:14 PM

MattStafford: my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy


grammy & grammpy don't spend money, play with stocks, or purchase gifts for the kiddies? Hell, some people think they are a source to borrow money from.

are you a fisherman?
 
2012-11-27 01:20:08 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Ron Paul lost. Go till the soil in Galt's Gulch, we'll check back in with you in a couple years.


Hey wait! He's making arguments I don't know how to respond to. Better reach into my ad hominem bag and call him a dumb Ron Paul supporter. Ah, another successful debate.
 
2012-11-27 01:20:10 PM

neenerist: mcwehrle: Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

Be nice. He may be of the generation that sucked from the Boomer tax teat their entire lives and dread weaning off. All the government benefits they've enjoyed to date really came from Santa, don't wreck the illusion.


meh, he's a fark you I got mine, so fark you and yours you can all starve and/or die of terrible illnesses because it doesn't affect ME ME ME ME.

I have no tolerance for crap like him.

But since he's on ignore now, my day just got so much better!!!
 
2012-11-27 01:20:40 PM

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


Also, Democrats never signed a pledge saying they would never cut spending no matter what, which is what 90% of the questions are about.
 
2012-11-27 01:22:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.


I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?
 
2012-11-27 01:22:03 PM

Zasteva: Good, then lets stop spending on the booze (unproductive military) and raise taxes on highly excess income (above $250,000 year) to pay for the hookers (retired elderly, welfare). Oh, and pay our bills (interest on the debt).

Which is pretty much what the Dems want to do, and what the GOP is resisting.


Yes, that is what they pay lip service to. Then you come to this thread, and find that everyone is biatching about raising taxes and lowering spending.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:08 PM

MattStafford: Anti_illuminati: I really appreciate you coming in here and summarizing everyone's argument. I had no idea what I, or everyone else, was arguing about. Thanks!

Three people responded me the exact same way in a row. I wanted to address all of them, but didn't want to quote them all to know.


So you just summarized their arguments for them? Interdasting.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:18 PM

MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.


Promote the general welfare.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.


What the f*ck country do you think we live in? The government is not a business. Take your Randian bullsh*t elsewhere, it will never, ever happen here.
 
2012-11-27 01:23:51 PM

Tyee: Mrtraveler01: Well we already know 1/3 of it (Defense) is off limits. So that leaves us with little to work with.

I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?


They offered spending cuts, the only reason the Republicans don't like it is because it's attached with tax increases.

They just want to cut spending on the programs they don't like.
 
2012-11-27 01:24:53 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.


Not nearly enough, what is the plan after you get tax raise and it doesn't do any good? We already know taxing the rich won't get us close to where we need to be, what is the plan?
 
2012-11-27 01:25:14 PM

Tyee: I agree, what is the democrat's plan, Obama's plan for spending cuts that will solve 98% of the problem? Give the republicans than and they better come through on the tax raises that will cover the 2%. The democrats just got elected to solve the problem, what is their plan other than the 2% they are asking the republicans to solve?


Link
 
2012-11-27 01:25:53 PM

SunsetLament: As we all know (because the credit agencies said at the time), the credit rating would have been downgraded either way because it had nothing to do with whether or not the debt ceiling was actually raised and had everything to do with the financial community believing that federal congressional gridlock (as desired by the US population - see two weeks ago) will never result in entitlement reform.


It was only one credit agency, and it was one facing investigation by the feds for some shady practices.
 
2012-11-27 01:27:21 PM

Tyee: Not nearly enough


It's not nothing either. Which is the point. You asked where are the spending cuts, we should show those first before we even consider tax increases.

We have, and I did. So now it's the other side's turn to pony up on taxes.
 
2012-11-27 01:28:35 PM

Tyee: Dusk-You-n-Me: We've already made $1.5T in cuts. So we're good. Time for tax increases.

Not nearly enough, what is the plan after you get tax raise and it doesn't do any good? We already know taxing the rich won't get us close to where we need to be, what is the plan?


Do both again; more spending cuts and more tax increases.

Is this too terribly difficult to understand?
 
2012-11-27 01:29:05 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tyee: Not nearly enough

It's not nothing either. Which is the point. You asked where are the spending cuts, we should show those first before we even consider tax increases.

We have, and I did. So now it's the other side's turn to pony up on taxes.


Yes, but if we don't privatize Medicare and repeal Obamacare as well, then it doesn't count.
 
2012-11-27 01:33:40 PM

mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.


Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.
 
2012-11-27 01:33:52 PM

MisterRonbo: It was only one credit agency, and it was one facing investigation by the feds for some shady practices.


However, they raise a valid point: if a significant part of the governing body is seriously willing to default on their debts if they don't get their way, that's not an organization that deserves to have its debt held in the highest possible regard. There's no fear that the US can not pay its debt, just that it will not. They made a better decision there than they did when they were rating bundled mortgage products.
 
2012-11-27 01:34:45 PM
Because the Dems are already asking for spending cuts, subtardmitter.
 
2012-11-27 01:35:05 PM
How's the trollin' this fine afternoon?
 
2012-11-27 01:36:27 PM

MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.


What benefit is there to having the elderly get sick, starve, and die? 

That will just mean more medical costs the taxpayer will foot the bill for because the elderly won't be able to afford any medical treatment.

So if you want to waste more taxpayer money by making elderly people wait until they get really sick for medical treatment, who am I to stop you.
 
2012-11-27 01:36:34 PM

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report