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.

(Townhall)   Nearly 76% of Americans in the recovering economy are now living paycheck to paycheck   (townhall.com) divider line 149
    More: Ironic, Americans, Greg McBride, David Limbaugh, unexpected events  
•       •       •

1358 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:06 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 09:29:34 AM
Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.
 
2013-06-25 09:31:51 AM

Diogenes: Funny what happens when you keep concentrating wealth at the top of the ladder and cut the bottom rungs off.


Nonsense. By cutting off the bottom rungs, you just create more incentives for people to stay higher up.
 
2013-06-25 09:32:44 AM
I bet they have refrigerators though, so quit bellyaching.
 
2013-06-25 09:35:34 AM

BunkoSquad: I bet they have refrigerators though, so quit bellyaching.


76% doesn't just include the people on food stamps and poor folks.  I sure plenty of these people with no savings are driving new cars, have big screen TVs, and take nice vacations.
 
2013-06-25 09:41:32 AM

EvilEgg: have big screen TVs


You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?
 
2013-06-25 09:44:21 AM
WHAR JERB CREATORZ WHAR
 
2013-06-25 09:44:25 AM
The economy isn't getting better and the unemployment numbers we keep seeing are far from accurate. According to 76 percent of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck....Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen Report shows the majority want the government to cut spending in order to spur economic growth.

I'd ask that Townhall connect those dots for us, but:

1)  Cut spending is their answer to everything, including, "What would you like for breakfast?"

2)  I don't care for Jackson Pollock's work.
 
2013-06-25 09:44:47 AM

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


It just takes to long to write 65" OLED TV.  Okay actually it doesn't, but still, There are big screen TVs and then there are big screen TVs.
 
2013-06-25 09:47:04 AM
I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame
 
2013-06-25 09:51:56 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history
 
2013-06-25 09:57:01 AM
I bought a gun so I can live mugging to mugging.
 
2013-06-25 09:58:03 AM
something something bootstraps
 
2013-06-25 09:58:37 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


Given how intrinsically linked government is nowadays in regards to the concentration of wealth in the highest echelons, it was kind of inevitable.  We can't even have a discussion about a proper "distribution" of wealth because of the herp derp about wealth redistributors, tax cuts, gubmint spending etc.  You've been guilty on this very subject a number of times as well so I'm not really sure your comment is well-founded.

I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country.  My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years.  So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.

The free market isn't going to correct to concentrate more wealth at the lowest levels, I mean that's obvious; that's what the government is supposed to help with.  To take care of the people.  Hence partisan political bickering and hackery.  But, there's a huge contingent that is way more interested in the fight than the solution, on both sides of the fence, because the fight allows them to distract us little people into a country-wide sporting event, while the owners of the teams lap up all the excess.

*shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.
 
2013-06-25 09:59:40 AM
Just yesterday I got a corporate email blast - "We beat expectations once again!  Earnings at all time high!"  Then went to a team meeting where we were told we can't buy new equipment, travel for classes, hire new staff (despite measurable increases in workload), or expect raises.  It's been like this since 2000 (we did an astounding job at weathering the recession - earnings never dipped).  And all along we're told, "Consider yourself lucky you have a job."

This is not a whine, it's a fact.  And I am certainly not alone in this experience.

While I like the idea of a tax holiday for consumers or a decrease on federal taxes for fuel, I seriously doubt Townhall would suggest such specific and direct reliefs.  Look at their 'concluding' paragraph.  Cut government spending = reduce corporate and business taxes, to free them to generate wealth.  Except they're not.  How much longer are we expected to buy this lie?  How much more wealth must be concentrated at the top before it trickles down?  Is there some threshold?  Is it like bursting a dam?

I'm not taking issue you with you, Stealth Hippopotamus.  It's Townhall and the same tired subtext (which is admittedly less obvious this time).  Blame government, and blame the middle class for not being able to consistently do more with less while being denied the means to advance up the ladder of opportunity.
 
2013-06-25 09:59:44 AM
All that wealth will trickle down some day.  I just know it.
 
2013-06-25 10:04:10 AM

cman: What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history


Oh I understand the correlation between the two subjects. However most (not all) Business Tab threads don't go full derp. Its been a place where we could have a somewhat reasonable debate without having to hear from the hacks about how one party wants to starve people and bomb brown people for oil. This thread took a bee line to the sub basement.

This is a real problem that the federal government could do something about. But instead of that discussion we get treated to a rehash of a discussion about a admittedly poorly executed "how do we define poor in the richest country in the world" discussion.
 
2013-06-25 10:13:19 AM
How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?
 
2013-06-25 10:18:21 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame


Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:36 AM
What was the number before the recession?
 
2013-06-25 10:19:13 AM
Elandriel:I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country.  My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years.  So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.

You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:38 AM

Elandriel: *shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.


I dont troll. You maybe talking about me getting troll but when someone brings up the subject it is normally an accusation. Believe it or not there are people out there that disagree with other people and don't do it for the lulz.

That being said my main problem with "wealth distribution" is we are relying on the federal government to do two things: 1) be highly efficient with the collection and distribution of the funds (as close to 1 dollar out for every dollar in) 2) to distribute the funds fairly and without political basis or agenda. You really think they can do that? Or are they trying to gain power and influence with our dollars? If I am "guilty" of anything it's not trusting people in large groups.

That's why I favor tax holidays and tax cuts. The only way to be efficient and non basis is to never send the money to Washington in the first place. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" for years now and I think it's time to demand an exist strategy!
 
2013-06-25 10:20:52 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.


Dammit. Business tab I meant.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:41 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.

Dammit. Business tab I meant.


Now that you've corrected that, you can point out where the political derp is in that statement.
 
2013-06-25 10:25:50 AM
I wasn't aware that "living paycheck to paycheck" meant having less than six months' worth of expenses in the bank.  Unless you get paid twice per year.  It's bad to not have a fallback plan like that, but it's not as bad as the headline makes it sound.

Also, the article claims it's measured by money in a savings account.  You know where I try to avoid parking money?  In "savings" accounts that bear virtually no interest.  I invest excess money aggressively, because selling investments in the event of a crisis isn't especially hard.  Internet, push some buttons, I'll have cash in a couple days.  There's very little I can't pay for by credit card, so by the time the surprise bill comes, the investment money would be in hand.

Also, is this a sign of the economy, or a sign that Americans are particularly stupid about saving money?  The Census tracks household saving rates, and America's has been low (2.7% in 2008, not much different from 2000-2007), while several countries in Europe with crappier economies were much higher (Italy 8.6%, Spain 6.1%).
 
2013-06-25 10:30:09 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

Funny how you puke up a wheelbarrow full of political derp in the same paragraph in which you go on to lament political derp polluting the politics thread.

Dammit. Business tab I meant.

Now that you've corrected that, you can point out where the political derp is in that statement.


Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?

If I responded that I believe that the gas tax is in fact too low, and that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles is a higher gas tax, would tat be political? Or if I argued that the middle class shouldn't get a tax cut, would that be political?
 
2013-06-25 10:30:36 AM
www.nefe.org
 
2013-06-25 10:32:38 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Elandriel: *shrug* I dunno what you expect, you've been involved in enough trolls and derps and nonsensical circular failure-logic that you know politics is the current great divide in America and is going to crop up in every conversation no matter how banal or unimportant.

I dont troll. You maybe talking about me getting troll but when someone brings up the subject it is normally an accusation. Believe it or not there are people out there that disagree with other people and don't do it for the lulz.

That being said my main problem with "wealth distribution" is we are relying on the federal government to do two things: 1) be highly efficient with the collection and distribution of the funds (as close to 1 dollar out for every dollar in) 2) to distribute the funds fairly and without political basis or agenda. You really think they can do that? Or are they trying to gain power and influence with our dollars? If I am "guilty" of anything it's not trusting people in large groups.

That's why I favor tax holidays and tax cuts. The only way to be efficient and non basis is to never send the money to Washington in the first place. We have been fighting the "War on Poverty" for years now and I think it's time to demand an exist strategy!


You might not consider it trolling, and maybe it's not; what I should say is you have a reputation around here for making a Custer's Last Stand on logically unstable positions that don't benefit from established fact or evidence, and then breathlessly insist you're right in the face of overwhelming reinforced objection.  But, I don't really take issue with what you've said in this thread except for actively making the thread more political than it already was.

That said, I would like an exit strategy from the war on poverty, but first I would like if we could stop taking friendly fire.  If there is to be a war on poverty, then it needs to be against the causes of poverty, and not the people suffering it.  And no, we certainly can't trust the government to do it right -- if I were to wager a guess, I would say it's because the rich are the government, they fund it, they choose the candidates, they propose the policies, they support the excess, they stack the deck.  So no, of course we can't trust the government in its current form, because it exists to protect the status quo and/or shift even more wealth upward.  Nothing the government does actually helps prosperity grow because that affects the top-heavy balance of power.  If we could separate money from politics, maybe we'd have a chance, but the funny part of that is the politicians who would make the laws separating money from politics benefit from money in politics.

And, given that laws are now being proposed that attempt to outright ban political participation (such as the "no more 3rd parties" law in Arizona) I doubt very much that we're going to have a snowball's chance of upheaving the existing political apparatus short of actual widescale rebellion.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:16 AM
Obvious tag off to get another payday loan?
 
2013-06-25 10:36:41 AM
   I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.
 
2013-06-25 10:36:41 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?


Well you going overboard on you assessment proved my point about the derp level. So I thank you for that. And I really don't think it's political. Now with your example of trying to change people's buying habits by increase the taxes for no other reason than to effect that behavior, yes I would call that political. With a blanket tax cut on a product that damn near everyone uses (fuel powers truck that deliver product so you dont need a car to benefit.) it removes political interests and benefits people without having to waste money in Washington.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:12 AM
This is misleading. Not having half a freaking year's salary in your savings/checking account isn't "living paycheck to paycheck." For those of us with reasonably good job security, we often judge that it is worth taking our savings and using it to pay down debt early. Any time my checking account gets over $5k, I make a double payment on my mortgage.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:28 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: If I responded that I believe that the gas tax is in fact too low, and that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles is a higher gas tax, would tat be political? Or if I argued that the middle class shouldn't get a tax cut, would that be political?


The Stealth Hippopotamus defines any tax cut he doesn't want as "political".  Anything he wants is "common sense".  He's not an honest person.

And yes, as regressive as the fuel tax is, it's the last tax we should be cutting back on.  Cheap gasoline means more incentives for dirty air and water, and we pay out the nose for these already in terms of excess cases of respiratory illness in polluted areas.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:15 AM

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


Additionally, who's selling CRTs nowadays?
 
2013-06-25 10:42:31 AM
It should be noted that the study the article cites defines living paycheck to paycheck as not having a  liquid six month reserve.  It doesn't take into account things like retirement accounts that would still count as savings but couldn't be accessed easily.  Also, it is important to note that the original article points out that:

Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation.

So this probably says more about the savings habit of Americans than it does about the strength of the economy.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:40 AM
Deflation will fix that in a hurry.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:15 AM
I don't know what the answer is on the one hand we have a party, the Democratic party, that can't muster up the will to do what we know will help the economy and that is stimulus spending in the form of a jobs bill. On the other hand on their watch they have allowed the Federal Reserve to enact over 2 trillion in stimulus spending that went directly to the wealthiest 1% in the form of Quantitative Easing.  That 1% did not do anything with that free money, but stockpile it, they are sitting on mountains of cash and the Democrats refuse to do anything about that. Hell President Obama refuses to do anything at all, he has become a lame duck in the first year of his second term.

Now the Republicans on the other hand areguaranteed to screw the middle class and help the rich only.

So, We The People are damned. I'm wondering if it will get bad enough that we start shooting rich motherfarkers again like we did in the 1900's.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:17 AM

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


The point is more that, if you're really living paycheck to paycheck...maybe you shouldn't be purchasing a HDTV, which is a luxury item (not a necessity). Yes, a decent 40"+ HDTV can be had for around $500 (or less if pick a house brand).

But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:18 AM
76% living paycheck to paycheck?

gee i hope the healthcare mandate doenst impact on top of the problems they have already.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:19 AM
Yay for Townhall... for pointing out the obvious and then blaming the wrong reasons. The reason we are living paycheck to paycheck is because there is no company loyalty anymore to it's employees. When a person who sells a widget at a retail store is told after five years of loyal employment doing commissions based sales, "We're taking away your commissions, but you better sell more widgets, because I can find someone else to take your job *snaps fingers* like that.", staying with that company to keep food on the table, and then see a news report on how their company has made record profits; the employee is not going to think, "Well, if my bosses taxes weren't so high, he could of continued to give me those commissions!"
 
2013-06-25 10:45:44 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe is was a bit extreme in my wheelbarrow comment, but calling for a tax holiday for some and a cut in the gas tax is somewhat political, no?

Well you going overboard on you assessment proved my point about the derp level. So I thank you for that. And I really don't think it's political. Now with your example of trying to change people's buying habits by increase the taxes for no other reason than to effect that behavior, yes I would call that political. With a blanket tax cut on a product that damn near everyone uses (fuel powers truck that deliver product so you dont need a car to benefit.) it removes political interests and benefits people without having to waste money in Washington.


And right on time, you prove my point.  Really, there's no political interest in oil?  You can't think of anything?  That must be why the oil industry spends zero dollars on lobbying and I never, ever read about oil in international news.

Wasting gasoline is the least patriotic thing Americans routinely do.  It fouls our air, hastens climate change, stresses our crumbling infrastructure, and strengthens our geopolitical enemies.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:15 AM
Are there policies we need to change that can alter the original distribution of wealth, rather than redistribution through the tax code?

For example, what if we change corporate law so that artificial companies cannot own shares of other artificial companies unless they form one company? The idea is to slow down the concentration of wealth and allow small businesses to have a greater chance of success.

And if Obama is so damned liberal, why haven't we trust busted the big banks?
 
2013-06-25 10:47:38 AM

KFBR392: But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.


Highspeed internet is probably the most cost-effective "optional" bill you pay.  The TV is not, but lumping the two misses the point.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:50 AM
I don't think we have six months in savings, but we're also trying to pay down debt as quickly as we can right now, so we can put more into savings and investments in the future. F*cking student loans and car payments.
 
2013-06-25 10:55:13 AM

Elandriel: You might not consider it trolling, and maybe it's not; what I should say is you have a reputation around here for making a Custer's Last Stand on logically unstable positions that don't benefit from established fact or evidence, and then breathlessly insist you're right in the face of overwhelming reinforced objection. But, I don't really take issue with what you've said in this thread except for actively making the thread more political than it already was.


I really dont think I could have made it more political. The Boobiess had nothing to do with the article or the topic it was just hackery about another thread that was purely political. You can't make that more political. And how can a call to end something make it more political?
As far as how others see me, they could be wrong. Or they may be just projecting. Either way how others see me is none of my concern.

Elandriel: That said, I would like an exit strategy from the war on poverty, but first I would like if we could stop taking friendly fire. If there is to be a war on poverty, then it needs to be against the causes of poverty, and not the people suffering it. And no, we certainly can't trust the government to do it right -- if I were to wager a guess, I would say it's because the rich are the government, they fund it, they choose the candidates, they propose the policies, they support the excess, they stack the deck. So no, of course we can't trust the government in its current form, because it exists to protect the status quo and/or shift even more wealth upward. Nothing the government does actually helps prosperity grow because that affects the top-heavy balance of power. If we could separate money from politics, maybe we'd have a chance, but the funny part of that is the politicians who would make the laws separating money from politics benefit from money in politics.


You accuse me of making a circular argument? We need the government to spread the wealth around but we can't trust the government to spread to wealth around because it is made up of rich dudes. So do you agree with me that the only fair and equatable way of getting money into the people's pocket is tax cuts and tax breaks? Or do you see a third way?

See! This is the debate I wanted! And the debate that should happen under the business tab!

Woot!!
 
2013-06-25 10:56:50 AM
A working class hero is something to be.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:25 AM
The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:57 AM

llortcM_yllort: It should be noted that the study the article cites defines living paycheck to paycheck as not having a  liquid six month reserve.  It doesn't take into account things like retirement accounts that would still count as savings but couldn't be accessed easily.  Also, it is important to note that the original article points out that:

Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation.

So this probably says more about the savings habit of Americans than it does about the strength of the economy.


It actually says more about interest rates than it does about anything else.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:40 AM

Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.


Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:12 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes,


...you're right.  That time was when the government extended all the tax cuts on the rich.

/We can't call it a double-dip recession when most people haven't started recovering from the first.
 
2013-06-25 11:06:40 AM

chimp_ninja: And right on time, you prove my point. Really, there's no political interest in oil? You can't think of anything? That must be why the oil industry spends zero dollars on lobbying and I never, ever read about oil in international news.

Wasting gasoline is the least patriotic thing Americans routinely do. It fouls our air, hastens climate change, stresses our crumbling infrastructure, and strengthens our geopolitical enemies.


No political interests on the pump side. That's just between the federal government and the end user. And you admitted it's the most regressive tax! That's what we are trying to do is get money into the hands of the lower incomes! Fuel is also a cost of goods sold of every single thing you buy! And that was just half of the ideas I listed. So did you like the other one?

Ok you don't like my idea, what's yours?


Oh and by the way. You accuse me of being dishonest. Do you have any proof or are you just slandering me for giggles? And please provide me an example where I used the term "common sense". It's really strange you picked that term. I really find it annoying and grating when people use that term and I try not to use it myself. I file it under the same heading as using "everyone knows".
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report