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.

(USA Today)   Baby Boomer Jonah Goldberg complains that the Greatest Generation is coddled and selfish, and the cost of providing their unsustainable entitlements will bankrupt their descendants   (usatoday.com) divider line 337
    More: Ironic, Jonah Goldberg, ageism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Civilian Conservation Corps, entitlements, G.I. Bill, legacy costs, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

8915 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 10:45:42 AM  

Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?


That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.


What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)
 
2013-03-11 10:45:44 AM  

vernonFL: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.


What credit? You get credit for being a victim, first of the bad economic policies of the 1920s, and then Hitler? I mean, sympathy, sure, but it's not like people volunteered to grow up in the Depression and live through WWII.

That said, I want the Boomers to keep their entitlements, because I'm just a couple years younger than them, and I want the same crap. If we have to adjust payroll taxes a bit to pay for it (and it would only take a bit, as in '82), then let's do it. Raise it to 8 percent from 7.5 if you have to, get rid of the rich people's exemption, and boom! Solvent forever. It's been running a surplus since '84, and it's projected to break even through 2037, so I don't see what all the panic is about. By 2037, global warming will have caused massive crop failures, leading to global economic collapse.
 
2013-03-11 10:47:14 AM  

dready zim: GoldSpider: Girion47: yes

[images2.dailykos.com image 550x290]

I don't think that graph says what you think it says.

If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.


you sure pickled him.
 
2013-03-11 10:47:15 AM  
Jonah Who?
 
2013-03-11 10:47:18 AM  
If you have a third party look after your future and they have a chance to make THEIR future better by making yours worse, chances are, that is what they will do.

Remember, your money is in the pot for, lets say, 30 years. In that time, whoever you like to vote for, the guys you do not like will get to control YOUR money and future for roughly half of that time.

Think about that.

It`s not a dem/rep thing it`s a rich assholes and you thing.
 
2013-03-11 10:48:25 AM  

cosmiquemuffin: And one more thing.  How did today's GOP become the party of saying that these guys:[media.npr.org image 850x658]
Are leeches on society, not to mention these folks -- EMT, firefighters, police, teachers:
[www.totalmortgage.com image 258x258][www.slate.com image 568x346]

WTF???



The answer is the same for any of this type of question and simple: Fox News.
 
2013-03-11 10:49:41 AM  

Sgt Otter: Sybarite: Boomers end around '64. Born in 1969, Goldberg is firmly Generation X.

Jesus, really?  He ages about as badly as Andrew Breitbart did.



Not quickly enough!  Did I do it correctly?
 
2013-03-11 10:50:19 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.



That's okay, your post above has little to do with your original question.
 
2013-03-11 10:50:51 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Those unfamiliar with Johan Goldberg can read more here


Why?
 
2013-03-11 10:51:35 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.


And yet it has a great deal to do with why they don`t have the money in the first place to spend or not, a major reason for needing credit.

GoldSpider: dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)


Just like the spending habits of the average person is nothing to do with whether the people at the top are taking all the wealth. That`s the meaning of the graph. That`s the joke.jpg
 
2013-03-11 10:54:07 AM  

Parthenogenetic: There is no contractual right to receive Social Security benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Now get back to work, citizen.


That's not the issue. Social Security is fully solvent for the future as benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund. Goldberg is discussing that set of accounts owned by the Trusts of which Social Security participants are the beneficiaries. Republicans do not want to settle those accounts by increasing taxes.

In other words, the GOP wants the Federal Government to renege on the SS Trust Fund. In that capacity, we might need to use Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Because Congress and the Executive branch can't get it together to honor those accounts.
 
2013-03-11 10:54:27 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)


I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.
 
2013-03-11 10:54:52 AM  

Jesda: Please, post more Dem/Rep cliches.


Jonah Goldberg IS a Republican cliche.
 
2013-03-11 10:56:01 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)


Maybe you should listen to the advice of someone who seems to have better reasoning than yourself right now.

"Bemoaning the plight of millionaires under the yoke of historically low tax rates, and appealing to 19th century morality makes for a losing campaign strategy "

because that is what you are doing
 
2013-03-11 10:56:17 AM  

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


Or the CEO laying off 10,000 Americans?
 
2013-03-11 10:56:41 AM  

homelessdude: Jonah Who?


A Chinese man and his Jewish friend are walking along one day when the Jewish man suddenly slugs the Chinese man in the mouth.

"What was that for?" the Chinese man asks.

"That was for Pearl Harbor!"

"Pearl Harbor? That was the Japanese. I'm Chinese."

"Chinese, Japanese, what's the difference?"

They continue walking in silence, then the Chinese man punches the Jew in the face.

"What's that all about?" the Jew asks.

"That was for the Titanic!"

"The Titanic? That was an iceberg."

"Iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference?"

/before I'm accused of being anti-semitic, I got this old joke from a Jewish humor site, where all the contributors are Jewish.
 
2013-03-11 10:57:21 AM  

poot_rootbeer: Girion47: Even require me to withhold 12% of my paycheck(and require the company to give that other 6%) and put it in a retirement fund that I can direct.

Do you think your investments will grow enough in value that you'll be able to retire on them?

Do you think everybody's will?

If you answered yes to the first question and no to the second, then how does your proposal make sense as the 'safety net' that Social Security was designed to provide?


Except that social security payments weren't mean to provide retirement income. They were meant to be 'supplemental' income.
 
2013-03-11 10:57:30 AM  

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


I posted it to show more how average wages have stayed relatively flat while top wages have sky-rocketed.   There's a disparity that needs to be addressed.
 
2013-03-11 10:57:49 AM  

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


That money rightly belongs to the heroic, hard working CEO.
 
2013-03-11 10:58:03 AM  

JackieRabbit: before I'm accused of being anti-semitic, I got this old joke from a Jewish humor site, where all the contributors are Jewish.


It's a fine line between "self-loathing" and "anti-Semitic."
 
2013-03-11 10:58:11 AM  

Delay: That's not the issue. Social Security is fully solvent for the future as benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund. Goldberg is discussing that set of accounts owned by the Trusts of which Social Security participants are the beneficiaries. Republicans do not want to settle those accounts by increasing taxes.


And as a gen xer I say to heck with that.   You mean I am going to have to pay the same high rate into SS as the Boomers did for only a small part of their careers but I have to pay higher taxes so that they can recieve their benefits to 100% while even after all this I get 70% of the promisory.... NO.
 
2013-03-11 11:00:11 AM  
Somebody needs a good beating.
 
2013-03-11 11:00:57 AM  

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


So then, if the CEO is actually managing 1/30th of the people, why is HE entitled to 30x the compensation for the same amount of productivity of the business as a whole?
 
2013-03-11 11:03:43 AM  

EyeballKid: JackieRabbit: before I'm accused of being anti-semitic, I got this old joke from a Jewish humor site, where all the contributors are Jewish.

It's a fine line between "satire" and "anti-Semitic."


FTFRepublican
 
2013-03-11 11:03:49 AM  

Lord_Baull: That's okay, your post above has little to do with your original question.


Neither did the answer I got...  so vote Republican I suppose.

dready zim: And yet it has a great deal to do with why they don`t have the money in the first place to spend or not, a major reason for needing credit.


This is just speculation on my part, but I don't think it's mostly poor people running up credit card debt.

Saiga410: I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap. Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.


What entitles managers to the increased compensation then?
 
2013-03-11 11:03:51 AM  

GoldSpider: Girion47: yes

[images2.dailykos.com image 550x290]

I don't think that graph says what you think it says.



That the very welathiest few have been eating everyone else's lunch for decades now? That we're all working harder (productivity gains) and seeing less and less money every year (nearly flat income growth line + inflation and cost of living increases = everyone representaed by that line has been getting poorer and poorer)? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what that graph says.

That's what's been happening, and IMHO it's a major contributor to many or all of our economic problems. Without the wealth they once had, the middle class no longer has the cash needed to start businesses as much, cannot spend as much and therefore cannot provide the economic activity we need need to bolster the economy and lift it out of the doldrums it's in and cannot save as much as they need to retire. Living a life of ever shrinking means also encourages people to get themselves deeper and deeper in to debt.

Meanwhile, the few members of the club who have been eating all our lunches just amass ever larger piles of damaging dynastic wealth because they've been waging class war quitely for decades. They finally figured out at some point that they could pool their vast resources and buy our very government out from under us, and that's what's happened.

Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing... and they don't do it for the good of the country either. It's a system designed to keep our government under the thumb of the new robber baron scumbags of our century.
 
2013-03-11 11:05:26 AM  
I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II.

"But I'm going to do it anyway."
 
2013-03-11 11:05:55 AM  

dready zim: Maybe you should listen to the advice of someone who seems to have better reasoning than yourself right now.

"Bemoaning the plight of millionaires under the yoke of historically low tax rates, and appealing to 19th century morality makes for a losing campaign strategy "

because that is what you are doing


Yes, the rich (and the policies that support them) are to blame for enough of our fiscal/economic problems.  People's willingness to adjust to their own financial circumstances is not one of them.
 
2013-03-11 11:06:04 AM  
Fark you.  I got mine.
 
2013-03-11 11:06:19 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: That's okay, your post above has little to do with your original question.

Neither did the answer I got...  so vote Republican I suppose.



Yes! thank you! Geez, finally someone gets it.
 
2013-03-11 11:06:56 AM  

Saiga410: And as a gen xer I say to heck with that. You mean I am going to have to pay the same high rate into SS as the Boomers did for only a small part of their careers but I have to pay higher taxes so that they can recieve their benefits to 100% while even after all this I get 70% of the promisory.... NO.


Exactly - it's bullshiat.  Boomers paid money into the system.  The system loaned that money to the government.  The government spent that money into the economy, which has created a massive boom over the past thirty years, which the boomers were the primary beneficiaries of.  Now they're retiring, and they are expecting the next generation - saddled with a shiatty economy to start with - to pay for their retirement.
 
2013-03-11 11:07:51 AM  

bizzwire: Except that social security payments weren't mean to provide retirement income. They were meant to be 'supplemental' income.


That's true. Back then, people had retirement plans no matter where they worked. You could also say that Medicaid wasn't meant to be a health insurance policy for those who could work and were working, but get a job at Wal-Mart today and you'll find the applications in the HR office.
 
2013-03-11 11:08:20 AM  

Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.


it`s because the profit made by a company employing a person working goes up much quicker relative to their wages which is NOT FAIR and PEOPLE DON`T LIKE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. I have highlighted the main concepts you fail to grasp. Of course the profit does not go up 30x if 30x more work is done, but wages have not really changed relative to inflation for many years now yet profit for companies has greatly increased many times over.

Has this helped you understand?
 
2013-03-11 11:08:57 AM  

Girion47: When SS was formed, it was meant to provide about 3 years of support, the average lifespan was 68 back then, it's gone up by 6 years since and the retirement age hasn't been adjusted.  Want to fix SS?  Raise the retirement age.


it was also meant to be part of a "tri-pod" with planned retirement benefits and personal savings making up the rest. Then about 20 years ago companies figured out they could improve their bottom line by getting rid of retirement benefits. So now we've got personal savings/IRA's/401k's doing the work of two-parts of the "tri-pod."

Besides that, you could fix in the insolvency by removing the income cap (as I'm sure other people have mentioned).
 
2013-03-11 11:10:19 AM  

Saiga410: And as a gen xer I say to heck with that. You mean I am going to have to pay the same high rate into SS as the Boomers did for only a small part of their careers but I have to pay higher taxes so that they can recieve their benefits to 100% while even after all this I get 70% of the promisory.... NO.


I don't know why people keep saying this. It's false. Since the Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reform act of 1983 took effect the rates were set higher to pay for the expected increased retirees. That's almost thirty years, hardly a small part of the retirees' careers.

Besides, your benefits stay at 100% even after the rates scale back, as long as the outdated salary cap is removed.
 
2013-03-11 11:10:46 AM  
All this can be fixed if we tax Baby Boomers at 90%.
 
2013-03-11 11:11:14 AM  

Pick: Why do you blame people for wanting what was PROMISED them?

I left my previous job, because my current employer made me an offer that included benefits. I accepted the job, because of what was offered.

Our current government made us all sign a contract to pay into Social Security, and gave us all a number. In signing for that card, we signed a contract, that if we payed into that fund, there would be benefits for us, when we retired. The government "borrowed" money from that fund and never payed it back. Now they say it's "broken". It is only broken, because the government broke it themselves when they stole all the money from it.


Protip: They = Us

/simple yet so often unrealized
 
2013-03-11 11:11:16 AM  
I haven't checked the Amazon tags on this guys book lately. Is DoughBob LoadPants still at the top?
 
2013-03-11 11:11:31 AM  

dready zim: it`s because the profit made by a company employing a person working goes up much quicker relative to their wages which is NOT FAIR and PEOPLE DON`T LIKE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. I have highlighted the main concepts you fail to grasp. Of course the profit does not go up 30x if 30x more work is done, but wages have not really changed relative to inflation for many years now yet profit for companies has greatly increased many times over.

Has this helped you understand?


Suppose the work that used to be done by 30 thirty skilled people can now be done by one person (unskilled) pressing a button.  Are you suggesting that the wages for that company should increase?

As technology increases, we will need less workers.  We should respond to that not by demanding wage increases (attempting to fight free market forces) but via wealth redistribution (letting the market working, then fixing the problems it causes).
 
2013-03-11 11:11:33 AM  

rtaylor92: So now we've got personal savings/IRA's/401k's doing the work of two-parts of the "tri-pod."


According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the median household retirement account balance in 2010 for workers between the ages of 55-64 was just $120,000. For people expecting to retire at around age 65, and to live for another 15 years or more, this will provide for only a trivial supplement to Social Security benefits.

And that's for people who actually have a retirement account of some kind. A third of households do not. For these people, their sole retirement income, aside from potential aid from friends and family, comes from Social Security, for which the current average monthly benefit is $1,230.

401Ks are a disaster
 
2013-03-11 11:15:13 AM  
I wasn't aware thar SS was set up to help veterans of WW2. I thought it human decency. You know, the kind that doesn't think the elderly should starve. But if we're looking at drains on society, what value do you provide Mr. Goldberg? Other than providing weak justification for the 'fark you I got mine' crowd.
 
2013-03-11 11:15:25 AM  

ox45tallboy: Saiga410: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: The answer to your question lies in the question:
Who benefits from average household credit debt?

That has little to do with whether or not people are spending money they don't have.

dready zim: If you think that then your understanding of the graph is dillusional.

What does an income/productivity graph tell us about people's spending habits?

(hint: nothing whatsoever)

I do not understand peoples drooling level of outrage over the productivity to income gap.  Why yes me opperating an excavator does the work of 30+ guys with shovels... but that does not entitle me to 30X minimum wage earnings.  Or a codemonkey replacing/obsoleting the majority of an accounting staff.

So then, if the CEO is actually managing 1/30th of the people, why is HE entitled to 30x the compensation for the same amount of productivity of the business as a whole?


Did you not read the part where he's the C-E-O? That's like being god to Randians and Rethuglicans

/Who is John Galt?
 
2013-03-11 11:15:54 AM  

GoldSpider: What entitles managers to the increased compensation then?


They should not have seen that increase.  The increase should have been given out in greater dividends to shareholders in a public company or directly to the owners in a private company.
 
2013-03-11 11:15:56 AM  

GoldSpider: Yes, the rich (and the policies that support them) are to blame for enough of our fiscal/economic problems. People's willingness to adjust to their own financial circumstances is not one of them.


You're right. Poor people should just buy more money.

Here's an actual quote:

www.mediaite.com
"Don't you love this country? What a home this is, what grounds these are, the pool, the golf course... a Democrat would say no one should live like this...Republicans come here and say everyone should live like this."


See, so many people actually believe that the pie is unlimited in size, and EVERYONE could have a resort home like John Shnatter's. (CEO of Papa John's whose home Romney was at when he made those remarks). But it's physically impossible. There is simply not enough land out there for every single person to have a huge estate like that. And who would work there? Who would mow the yard and clean the house?

Some people really do believe that if people just worked harder then EVERYONE could live as well as they wanted to.
 
2013-03-11 11:16:06 AM  

ox45tallboy: bizzwire: Except that social security payments weren't mean to provide retirement income. They were meant to be 'supplemental' income.

That's true. Back then, people had retirement plans no matter where they worked. You could also say that Medicaid wasn't meant to be a health insurance policy for those who could work and were working, but get a job at Wal-Mart today and you'll find the applications in the HR office.


Kind of weird that the same motivation is behind both the attacks on pensions and SS - you'd think somewhere in there would be "the motivation to not see mass poverty among the 60+ set", but that's...not profitable enough?

They push you into 401(k)s, which they'll tell you are under attack from Democrats (yeah, 'cause any day the Dems'll pass that horror - right after making your 9mm illegal, giving UN the power to unilaterally amend our Constitution, and making it a GTMO-level felony to attach two sticks perpendicularly), but are actually under attack from the very pedestrian "fee'd to death" banker set.

But still, "save your money, people - between the crushing taxes, stagnating wages, and hyper-inflation, you're bound to need it".
 
2013-03-11 11:17:34 AM  
i78.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-11 11:18:15 AM  

GoldSpider: dready zim: Maybe you should listen to the advice of someone who seems to have better reasoning than yourself right now.

"Bemoaning the plight of millionaires under the yoke of historically low tax rates, and appealing to 19th century morality makes for a losing campaign strategy "

because that is what you are doing

Yes, the rich (and the policies that support them) are to blame for enough of our fiscal/economic problems.  People's willingness to adjust to their own financial circumstances is not one of them.


it isn't easy to adjust your circumstances when you have very little maneuver room.  Without a cash buffer small mistakes can completely sink someone who is poor, whereas the rich person doesn't have to worry about making rent, paying to register the car, paying for car insurance, having health insurance without deductibles to cover that unexpected broken limb, having enough vacation time to recover from that broken limb or childcare situation that called them away from work.
 
2013-03-11 11:18:56 AM  

astro716: I haven't checked the Amazon tags on this guys book lately. Is DoughBob LoadPants still at the top?


I think he's been supplanted by Weedlord Bonerhitler. Considering Goldberg's views on marijuana and nazis, I'd say it's appropriate.
 
2013-03-11 11:19:43 AM  

ox45tallboy: Some people really do believe that if people just worked harder then EVERYONE could live as well as they wanted to.


That was among plenty of reasons why I didn't vote for the asshat.
 
2013-03-11 11:21:35 AM  

MattStafford: As technology increases, we will need less workers. We should respond to that not by demanding wage increases (attempting to fight free market forces) but via wealth redistribution (letting the market working, then fixing the problems it causes).


I'm not able to wrap my head around what you're getting at. Can you be more specific as to your proposed course of action? I mean, other than removing minimum wage.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report