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.

(Guardian)   15% of Americans live in poverty, which is why America needs more tax cuts for the wealthy   (theguardian.com) divider line 140
    More: Obvious, Americans, tax cuts, war on poverty, poverty  
•       •       •

1033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 3:23 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-05 07:35:51 PM

Mrbogey: We've spent an incredible amount that dwarfs the collective wealth of most of the rest of the world and we still have poverty. Perhaps we need to define poverty more along the lines of standard of living and not a differential basis. To live at 1965 levels of poverty you'd need to make very little money.


Sometimes you say shiat that makes me think you're really a) very smart and b) not at all conservative.

The amount of money a person earns is pretty irrelevant in absolute terms. A person who makes, say, $75,000 can be very well off if they're single, live in Bozeman, have no extra debt burden, and is in reasonable health...or they could be lower-class if they live in Orange County CA, have three kids, one of whom is special-needs, a student loan, and two cars. But for statistical purposes (i.e. gross income), they're essentially the same.
 
2013-10-05 07:57:41 PM

whidbey: llortcM_yllort: whidbey: super_grass: This is a place for butting heads. Don't pretend it's anything else.

Actually, more often than not the FPT is a place where more often than not I can say with certainty that conservatives are spiteful hateful usually ignorant (not to mention socially outdated) people. Sorry if that makes you mad or something.

To be fair, liberals on Fark are more likely than not to be spiteful, hateful, and ignorant.

Bullshiat. And if our tone comes off as more than a bit uncivil, it's because we're sick of the footdragging conservative mindset being the constantly unchallengeable paradigm in our society.

You just want to defend backward thinking, and project it onto enlightened people. Yeah I went there.


And you just proved his point beautifully. Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.
 
2013-10-05 08:06:52 PM

TerminalEchoes: whidbey: llortcM_yllort: whidbey: super_grass: This is a place for butting heads. Don't pretend it's anything else.

Actually, more often than not the FPT is a place where more often than not I can say with certainty that conservatives are spiteful hateful usually ignorant (not to mention socially outdated) people. Sorry if that makes you mad or something.

To be fair, liberals on Fark are more likely than not to be spiteful, hateful, and ignorant.

Bullshiat. And if our tone comes off as more than a bit uncivil, it's because we're sick of the footdragging conservative mindset being the constantly unchallengeable paradigm in our society.

You just want to defend backward thinking, and project it onto enlightened people. Yeah I went there.

And you just proved his point beautifully. Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.


Like the inquisition or crusades, but with more unfounded self-rightousness.
 
2013-10-05 08:07:39 PM

TerminalEchoes: Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.


That's the worst "No, U!" post I've seen all day.

You've never actually met a liberal, have you?
 
2013-10-05 08:08:46 PM

quatchi: That's the worst "No, U!" post I've seen all day.


Then clearly you haven't met the farklibs.
 
2013-10-05 08:15:44 PM

super_grass: And you just proved his point beautifully. Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.


Conservative projection. Like clockwork.
 
2013-10-05 08:21:31 PM

Mugato: super_grass: And you just proved his point beautifully. Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.

Conservative projection. Like clockwork.


"You are being hateful for pointing out our hatefulness."

Project your weakness on your enemy, works all the time, none of the time.
 
2013-10-05 09:56:32 PM
Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.
 
2013-10-05 09:56:42 PM
What tax cuts for the rich? We have higher taxes on the rich (though lower for everyone else) than we've had in 20-30years.

Is there some alternate universe where taxes on the rich are lower now?

You guys are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
 
2013-10-05 09:59:44 PM
 
2013-10-05 10:02:34 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: What tax cuts for the rich? We have higher taxes on the rich (though lower for everyone else) than we've had in 20-30years.

Is there some alternate universe where taxes on the rich are lower now?

You guys are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.



I assume you're trolling. You should take classes to get better at it.
 
2013-10-05 10:07:06 PM

quatchi: TerminalEchoes: Liberals are without a doubt the most closed-minded, immature, arrogant, illogical, and hateful people on the planet.

That's the worst "No, U!" post I've seen all day.

You've never actually met a liberal, have you?


From his Fark Profile: Bio: Believe it or not, there is absolutely nothing even remotely interesting about me.

I find it 110% believable.
 
2013-10-05 10:37:18 PM

Mrbogey: Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]


Where did you get that graph? Can you post the link?
 
2013-10-05 10:40:16 PM

Mrbogey: timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?


Is there any way to interpret the "point" of this post other than reading it as saying all foreign media is dishonest? Maybe someone could translate this for me not-bath salt-smoking ass as I don't understand otherwise.
 
2013-10-05 10:42:06 PM

Infernalist: Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.


A 15% poverty rate is not much different from other developed nations, but your assertion that the poor in other countries have it worse than in the US is not correct. At least not when compared to other developed countries almost all of which have more comprehensive programs in place to assist the poor.
 
2013-10-05 10:52:16 PM

SevenizGud: Well, the losers already pay 0%, so how would you cut their taxes? Reduce the tax rate to -40%?


That is a fantastic idea. To pay for this we should increase capital gains tax to 1.5x income tax and add in a transaction tax of 0.01% per share sold/purchased and we might just start to be able to stop this ship from sinking. I would also be a fan of a tax on all movements of large sums of money to institutions outside of the USA and a 75% generational wealth transfer tax (on estates >$5,000,000).
 
2013-10-05 11:03:03 PM

Linux_Yes: PC LOAD LETTER: What Republicans want poor people to be like:

[gdb.voanews.com image 850x566]


More for them
less for everyone else.

and the so called 'free enterprise market' in America is all but gone.  its a controlled market now.


That's true in a way. Capitalism has been replaced with corporate capitalism. It's much more difficult for small players to compete now. And the corporations have enough money to able to pervert the course of democracy by buying allegiance from corrupt politicians.

I'm really surprised that their are so many ordinary people who defend and support this system. It's not the way
 
2013-10-05 11:11:13 PM

kg2095: Linux_Yes: PC LOAD LETTER: What Republicans want poor people to be like:

[gdb.voanews.com image 850x566]


More for them
less for everyone else.

and the so called 'free enterprise market' in America is all but gone.  its a controlled market now.

That's true in a way. Capitalism has been replaced with corporate capitalism. It's much more difficult for small players to compete now. And the corporations have enough money to able to pervert the course of democracy by buying allegiance from corrupt politicians.

I'm really surprised that their are so many ordinary people who defend and support this system. It's not the way


Cut myself off and can't remember what I was going to say after 'way'.
 
2013-10-05 11:25:26 PM

kg2095: Mrbogey: Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]

Where did you get that graph? Can you post the link?


I believe it comes from Dan Mitchell.
 
2013-10-05 11:40:13 PM
Do any of you Americans understand artificial scarcity? Does it impact your understanding of the econometrics of today's society?
 
2013-10-05 11:48:04 PM
You were all born behind the curve. You don't know what do to with today. Right?
 
2013-10-05 11:51:26 PM

Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.


Have you seen how fat most Americans are? A metric ton is, like, four of us.
 
2013-10-06 12:17:11 AM

BMulligan: Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.

Have you seen how fat most Americans are? A metric ton is, like, four of us.


The great thing about you guys is you argue about things your brain can understand, but you ignore the actual economics.

http://i.imgur.com/JzdIanr.png

You people literally have no understanding of that graph. SO you biatch about welfare mothers. You're the perfect humans for the people that use you.
 
2013-10-06 01:45:58 AM
What pocket ninja did was beautiful, and I just cant let a troll like that go unanswered, because of its beauty.  Lets just use REAL numbers based on the 2011 census.

So 10 guys.
2 make 10,000
2 make 20,000
2 make 38,000
2 make 62,000
2 make 101,000
and 2 make 186,000

We tax everything above 50K at a 50% rate.

And then we re-distribute it to EVERYONE.  Even the rich guys, just in case they have something bad happen.


Now its 24,800 for the bottom 2
34,800 for the next two
52,800 for the next 2
70,800 for the next two
And finally....132,800 for the richest folks

Voila poverty resolved.  Plus...no more need for welfare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance.

AND everyone benefits, even the rich guys now have a guarentee that they will never be in abject poverty, PLUS the economy does even better as people on the bottom spend that money.....

Now...but you say..those people wont be running companies or blah blah.

So...yes taxes went up, but even after that....lets say those 10 folks have 1 million dollars of total wealth.  (the million is a made up number)

1 guy owns 731,000 of it
1 guy has 120,000
the next 2 jointly own 109,000 of it
the next 2 jointly own 40K

And the remaining 5?  They own $400 each

Also based on real percentages.  Yeah.

And those bottom 5 people?  No matter how hard they work, how smart they are they probably will never move beyond maybe making it into owning 20K.  This is why people play the lottery.  They will never have the capital income to make it out of poverty.  It takes money to make money.
 
2013-10-06 01:55:55 AM
Gah lots of math errors.

bottom 4 not 5, and I missed taxing the 101K folks, so theyre incomes wouldgo down as well,and the underlying number would actually go up.  sigh.  tired.

Post tax:
2 make 26,500
2 make 36,500
2 make 54,500
2 make 72,000
2 make 67,000
and 2 make 134,000
 
2013-10-06 01:59:59 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.



Jesus.  I'd move there if they'd take me and my children.  (and seriously at my income levels Id be the one getting gouged tax wise hard, but I would know my children would be safe and have opportunities.)
 
2013-10-06 02:03:37 AM

jgbrowning: negat



you mean the EITC is a bad thing ?
 
2013-10-06 02:09:02 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.


I'd wager Switzerland-- if there is an actually useful metric for it-- has a *much* higher quantitative productivity per worker metric than the USA.   While I'm no GOP voter, presuming 'merka and its citizens deserve high quality life given their output (and/or intelligence-- as it has to correlate) is ... well... a losing proposition.
 
2013-10-06 02:23:33 AM

Leader O'Cola: Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.

I'd wager Switzerland-- if there is an actually useful metric for it-- has a *much* higher quantitative productivity per worker metric than the USA.   While I'm no GOP voter, presuming 'merka and its citizens deserve high quality life given their output (and/or intelligence-- as it has to correlate) is ... well... a losing proposition.


How much do you want to wager?

US is 63.27 compared to switzerlands 49.46

Only two countries outdo us, Luxemborg at 74.951, and at Norway 74.88.  The myth of lazy Americans is exactly that, a myth.
 
2013-10-06 02:59:37 AM
Mrbogey: Immediate response: No one challenges the conservative paradigm on fark. Nobody

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-06 03:02:39 AM

Mugato: Debeo Summa Credo: What tax cuts for the rich? We have higher taxes on the rich (though lower for everyone else) than we've had in 20-30years.

Is there some alternate universe where taxes on the rich are lower now?

You guys are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

I assume you're trolling. You should take classes to get better at it.


Maybe he's posting from Bizzaro World?
 
2013-10-06 03:25:11 AM

Greywar: Leader O'Cola: Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.

I'd wager Switzerland-- if there is an actually useful metric for it-- has a *much* higher quantitative productivity per worker metric than the USA.   While I'm no GOP voter, presuming 'merka and its citizens deserve high quality life given their output (and/or intelligence-- as it has to correlate) is ... well... a losing proposition.

How much do you want to wager?

US is 63.27 compared to switzerlands 49.46

Only two countries outdo us, Luxemborg at 74.951, and at Norway 74.88.  The myth of lazy Americans is exactly that, a myth.



oh look, it's *that guy* who

1) quotes #'s without a citation
2) quotes #'s that aren't what's asked for
3) is a grade-a shiatclown.


but thanks for wasting my time clicking on the "some douchelord replied to you" email.
 
2013-10-06 05:13:23 AM

Greywar: Gah lots of math errors.

bottom 4 not 5, and I missed taxing the 101K folks, so theyre incomes wouldgo down as well,and the underlying number would actually go up.  sigh.  tired.

Post tax:
2 make 26,500
2 make 36,500
2 make 54,500
2 make 72,000
2 make 67,000
and 2 make 134,000


So? The point is not to make everyone equal (I would hope). It's only to make sure a) one person is living in imperial splendor while b) 10 people are living in grinding poverty wondering where their next meal is coming from.

If that can be accomplished without taxing everyone at 50%, then that's fine. If it can be done without setting the middle tiers at each other's throats, even better. I personally don't begrudge wealthy folks their money, quite frankly. If Warren Buffett wants to have $50 billion dollars to throw around, hey, more power to him. What's irksome to a lot of people isn't the money differential per se, it's the attitude so many wealthy people seem to have that poorer people deserve their squalor and they should be happy with it, and that probably would not change even if we had some kind of wealth redistribution.

Money is easy to even out. Attitudes not so much.
 
2013-10-06 08:46:32 AM

Leader O'Cola: jgbrowning: negat


you mean the EITC is a bad thing ?


Nope.
 
2013-10-06 08:53:45 AM

The Name: llortcM_yllort: The Name: llortcM_yllort: The Name: llortcM_yllort: It's another thing entirely to claim that 30% of the country are evil.

Well, "evil" has unnecessary religious and supernatural connotations.  "Well worthy of a good beating and political disenfranchisement" is more like it.

Political disenfranchisement can mean many things.  What do you mean by political disenfranchisement in this instance?

I don't have anything specific in mind, but imagine current voter suppression efforts in red states, except in reverse.

Really?  You'd use the same anti-democratic tactics to silence your opponents that your opponents themselves are doing?  Doesn't that make you a hypocrite and just as bad as them?

You reap what you sow, man.  You reap what you sow.


Let us not forget that reaping what one sows goes both ways and instead work to make the GOP and its agenda irrelevant to policy instead of being motherfarkers who engineer denying basic rights to our fellow Americans Koch-brothers style.
 
2013-10-06 08:56:57 AM

Mrbogey: soze: The War On Poverty has maintained poverty below 15% since implementation, a marked sustained decrease from previous historical poverty levels, even accounting for the many booms and busts we have experienced since implementation. Impressively consistent.

Additionally, the chart is curiously cropped to cut off anything from before the post-War boom. Interesting, no? Is that stupidity or malfeasance? We could determine that if you would cite your sources. Since you won't, I'll do it for you:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/09/13/dramatic-increase-in- po verty-rate-one-small-step-for-obama-one-giant-step-for-the-so-called-w ar-on-poverty/

Well, that's neat. An article in Forbes by a Cato Institute employee. I wonder what it looks like before 1950? WELL GEE I'D LOVE TO LOOK THAT UP BUT THOSE REPUBLICAN farkTARDS SHUT DOWN THE DAMN GOVERNMENT SO THE CENSUS DB IS DOWN.

Since WW2, we haven't had a major war effort that refocused the entire economy or a major depression. We can't know what the poverty rate would have looked like without the programs but typically war and depression drive it up. So I really don't think it staying around the same relatively low point is all that significant of an achievement especially since the rate was falling before it.

We've spent an incredible amount that dwarfs the collective wealth of most of the rest of the world and we still have poverty. Perhaps we need to define poverty more along the lines of standard of living and not a differential basis. To live at 1965 levels of poverty you'd need to make very little money.


You're ignoring that 1965 levels of income dont go as far in 2013 wrt buying food and paying rent than it did in 1965.
 
2013-10-06 10:24:11 AM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.


You just earned a Nobel Prize in economics, sir.
 
2013-10-06 11:17:42 AM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.


Well done! One of your finer works...
 
2013-10-06 10:56:24 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

You just earned an  Ig Nobel Prize in economics, sir.


FTFY
 
2013-10-07 03:09:04 AM

Leader O'Cola: Greywar: Leader O'Cola: Phil Moskowitz: Switzerland is voting on guaranteed minimum income and you jokers can't feed and cloth a metric ton of Americans.

I'd wager Switzerland-- if there is an actually useful metric for it-- has a *much* higher quantitative productivity per worker metric than the USA.   While I'm no GOP voter, presuming 'merka and its citizens deserve high quality life given their output (and/or intelligence-- as it has to correlate) is ... well... a losing proposition.

How much do you want to wager?

US is 63.27 compared to switzerlands 49.46

Only two countries outdo us, Luxemborg at 74.951, and at Norway 74.88.  The myth of lazy Americans is exactly that, a myth.


oh look, it's *that guy* who

1) quotes #'s without a citation
2) quotes #'s that aren't what's asked for
3) is a grade-a shiatclown.


but thanks for wasting my time clicking on the "some douchelord replied to you" email.


Sorry but maybe you could have googled it.  I even gave you the numbers to google.  There are in fact numbers that represent productivity per person, I quoted some for you, I suppose I could spend the time looking them up and linking them for you, but I assumed most people truly curious would google it.

Since you can't be bothered to do it (and instead spend your time calling me a douchelord etc) I will be specific.

Thats from the conference board a business membership and research organization based in New York.  Referenced by wikipedia in their list of countries by GDP (PPP) per hour worked.

Course your response was simply full of insults, I suppose I could reply in kind.  but I shall refrain.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 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