Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obamer's job billFollow

#77 Sep 14 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:

Why do you suppose that is? Don't you think that being rich and being greedy, they wouldn't just sit on so much money? Wouldn't they want to use it to make more money for themselves? So why aren't they?


They are. They just aren't doing it in the USA.


Yes. Because they believe that they can make more money that way. So shouldn't we try to change that instead of trying to punish people for reacting rationally to the economic situation around them? Surely you can see that the whole "tax the rich because they aren't creating jobs" is not a viable solution?

Quote:
Quote:
It's because rich people invest their money in places where their investments are more likely to be lucrative. So isn't the obvious solution to make the USA a more lucrative place to invest?


Hard to make money when people are to afraid to spend it, because 1. They aren't sure if they will have a job tomorrow, and 2. because the fragile economy could sh*t the bed at any time in the foreseeable future.


Sure. But most of the reason the economy is so fragile is because of overspending by the government. Our debt is far worse than it would have been without that spending. That debt is driving fears of tax increases in the business world. And that fear is driving jobs from the US.

Quote:
You mean like the jobs the private sector has been moving out of the states since the 80's?


Irrelevant. We had those jobs just a few years ago. I'm looking at what has happened since 2007. Tossing some imagined longer term trend into the middle of this discussion doesn't help at all. Look at what changed in the last 4 years.


Quote:
Quote:

Those aren't connected to each other though. Not directly. Are you aware that in the 2010 to early 2011 time frame consumption rates were pretty healthy? As a result of pumping money into the demand side of the economy for a couple years, we were artificially keeping consumption at decent levels. But as I (and most conservatives) predicted, once the money runs out, the effect disappears. It's not sustainable.
So you do need a strong consumer confidence then? I am confused are you agreeing with me?


Huh? Did you just not bother to read what I wrote? We need "real jobs". Consumption is important, but only if the money being used to consume is the result of productive employment. Consumption is only half the equation. How many times do I have to keep repeating this before it sinks in?

How many more billions of dollars do we have to spend before it sinks in?


Quote:
Quote:
That's *not* normal. The idea that you should spend money to create jobs is not normal. Jobs should make money, not cost it.


Each year the American government spends billions (so to speak) so the private sector can create jobs....trouble is, they aren't and when they do most cases it is outside of you country. Everything has a price tag, you should know this being a hard line conservative. But that gets lost in the rhetoric usually doesn't it. If spending money to help companies afford to hire more people can't work, how do you propose that solid tax breaks do....in the end companies net the same returns so what you are really trying to say is to stop giving the private sector huge tax breaks since spending money into it isn't normal? I can agree with that.


It's like you don't even bother to read the words you quote and respond to. I just said that jobs should make money, not cost it. The very idea of "spending money to create jobs" is backwards. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. If a job is not profitable unless the government funds it in some way, then that job is a net negative economically. I just don't know how much more clearly I can say this.

You're also still missing the fact that the dollars that the government spends doing this has to come from somewhere eventually. The people in the business world know this. So not only are the jobs we're creating costing us more than they generate but they also increase our debt ultimately leading businesses to create fewer productive jobs in the economy. In typical liberal fashion, we're rewarding bad economic behavior and punishing good economic behavior and then standing around scratching our heads wondering why our economy is in the dumpster.

Stop doing that! It really is that simple. Stop trying to spend money to create jobs. Instead, do everything you can do reduce the spending the government is doing. Commit to not raising taxes. Make business believe that you wont raise taxes. Do this and those businesses will create jobs. And the jobs they create will generate more money than they cost, which will cause the economy to recover.


I guess I just don't get what you think the end result of spending to create jobs will be. How do you think that will create economic growth? The very fact that the government has to spend money for a job to exist means that the job is non-productive. We're spending money to hurt our economy, not help it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Sep 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
That's all well and good Gbaji, if all that matters to someone is making a profit. If they will sacrifice anything and everything, as long as they get a maximum amount of profit.

However, not everyone in this country feels that profit is the most important thing.

First, our economy has become based on consumerism. While I feel that's not a great thing to base one's economy on, it is what we have done. In order to keep a such an economy rolling, you MUST have a strong middle class that consumes.

If the corporations care one iota about the economy of the USA, it IS their responsibility to do their part. They MUST create middle class jobs, an give decent raises to their workers. Someone MUST "feed the consumer beast".

If corporations refuse to do so, then it falls to the gov't to help out. I would much prefer this not to happen.

I realize that considering this would pop your poor, conservative mind. Thankfully, the majority of people in this country do not think like you.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#79 Sep 14 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Technogeek wrote:
Thankfully, the majority of people in this country do not like you.
I read it like this and thought, well that's harsh.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#80 Sep 14 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Technogeek wrote:
That's all well and good Gbaji, if all that matters to someone is making a profit. If they will sacrifice anything and everything, as long as they get a maximum amount of profit.

However, not everyone in this country feels that profit is the most important thing.


In all areas of society? Sure. But that's not the case here. We're talking about how to bring about economic recovery. And as much as you rail against evil corporations and their profits, it's those profits which drive our economy. And if you stop and think about it for a moment, you know that this is true. It is the profits generated in the private market which fund the activities of the government. Government is a cost to our economy. Now, when profits in the private market are sufficiently high, we can afford that cost. But when those profits are not high, we can't. That's why we're running high deficits right now.

How on earth can you think that by increasing the costs while decreasing the profits we can somehow reverse this? It makes no **** sense at all.

Quote:
First, our economy has become based on consumerism. While I feel that's not a great thing to base one's economy on, it is what we have done. In order to keep a such an economy rolling, you MUST have a strong middle class that consumes.


I'm not sure how this addresses the question at hand. I'm looking at how we go about creating jobs. This has *nothing* to do with consumption.

Quote:
If the corporations care one iota about the economy of the USA, it IS their responsibility to do their part. They MUST create middle class jobs, an give decent raises to their workers. Someone MUST "feed the consumer beast".


And they will. But surely you can see that a government which artificially increases the cost to employ people, and threatens to increases taxes on the profits of those corporations will tend to drive those jobs away? You can't possibly be demanding that corporations operate their businesses at a loss out of some kind of patriotic duty? Can't you see that if they do that, our economy will fail?

Quote:
If corporations refuse to do so, then it falls to the gov't to help out. I would much prefer this not to happen.


Corporations (heck, all private businesses) will tend to refuse to make business decisions which cost them more than they generate in revenue. And they are right to do so. Not just out of some kind of evil greed, but also because if they do this, over time the economy will fail. How can you not see this!

You're basically arguing that if the private market refuses to do the wrong thing economically, that the government should step in and do it for them. That seems pretty darn stupid.

Quote:
I realize that considering this would pop your poor, conservative mind. Thankfully, the majority of people in this country do not think like you.


I think a growing majority are coming to understand what I'm talking about. People who think like you are (thankfully) becoming the minority. The sad part is that we'll have to wait until another election year to get sufficient numbers of Republicans in congress and in the white house to make the changes that need to be made. This means that millions of americans will have to suffer for another year and a half before we can make the right choice and do the right things and fix the mess the Dems have created of our economy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81varusword75, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 3:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) technoweenie,
#82 Sep 14 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Honestly, despite multiple attempts to explain this, it appears like it's just not sinking in. I'll try one more time:

Jobs don't exist solely to put money into people's pockets so they can spend it buying stuff. That's only half of the value of a job. The other half is the productive result of the labor itself. The problem is that somewhere along the line the political left has adopted an ideological belief that the only important part of the job is the salary the worker earns. As a result, they embark on the creation of jobs without considering the other half of the equation. They don't see anything wrong with "spending money to create jobs".

But it is the wrong way to do it. Yes, in the short term you can lower unemployment and you can increase consumption. But that lasts only as long as you keep spending money. Once the money runs out, the jobs will disappear and those demand side effects will disappear with them. The only way to really fix the economy is to create sustainable jobs. Those are jobs which don't cost us money to create, but which actually generate more money than they cost. These jobs will continue to exist because they are profitable.

And instead of costing us tax dollars, they will generate tax dollars. Do this correctly, and there's no need to raise taxes or create massive jobs subsidies. But you have to get over your ideological hatred of corporate profits. By attacking those, you are attacking your own economic prosperity. Which seems kinda silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Sep 14 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
gbaji wrote:
Honestly, despite multiple attempts to explain this, it appears like it's just not sinking in. I'll try one more time:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Sep 14 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Honestly, despite multiple attempts to explain this, it appears like it's just not sinking in. I'll try one more time:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.


So you agree that Obama's jobs plan is insane? Great!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Sep 14 2011 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that Obama's jobs plan is insane? Great!
If that's the completely improbable jump in logic you want to go with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Sep 14 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
It's a cushion. /sigh
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#87 Sep 14 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that Obama's jobs plan is insane? Great!
If that's the completely improbable jump in logic you want to go with.


If we accept that definition of inanity (which I don't btw, but that's another subject), then Obama's jobs bill is the very definition of insane. We just spent a boatload of money thinking we could create jobs by selectively subsidizing and tax-crediting and funding infrastructure projects as a means of recovering the economy, and it failed horribly.

Why think doing the same thing again will produce different results? Oh! Because this time they're going to be smarter about how they spend the money! Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Sep 14 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we accept that definition of inanity (which I don't btw, but that's another subject), then Obama's jobs bill is the very definition of insane.
Whatever helps you believe I was commenting on anything political at all and not your admittance of "Hey, I keep doing this and it doesn't work, so I'll do it again" part, you go right ahead. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Sep 14 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:

Why think doing the same thing again will produce different results? Oh! Because this time they're going to be smarter about how they spend the money! Smiley: lol


So you agree that Taxes on the richest Americans should be raised. As well as many loopholes that benefit companies hiring oversees work over American work being closed. Since doing the same thing over and over won't produce different results and all.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#90 Sep 14 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:

Why think doing the same thing again will produce different results? Oh! Because this time they're going to be smarter about how they spend the money! Smiley: lol


So you agree that Taxes on the richest Americans should be raised. As well as many loopholes that benefit companies hiring oversees work over American work being closed. Since doing the same thing over and over won't produce different results and all.


Well, lets see. Four years ago we had the same Bush tax rates in effect and the same loopholes in our tax code. Yet, at that time, we had a 5% unemployment rate, and shrinking deficits and debt. So the worst we can say is that those things didn't prevent low unemployment, high GDP growth, and shrinking debt.

What "different results" did you think you were talking about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Sep 14 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Because bad things like a collapsing economy happen instantly!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#92 Sep 14 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Because bad things like a collapsing economy happen instantly!


Which in no way supports the assertion that it was taxes not being high enough on the rich that caused the collapsing economy in the first place, much less the assertion that failing to raise taxes on the rich is the equivalent of repeating a failed action and expecting different results. Your cart is about 8 steps ahead of your horse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Sep 14 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Because bad things like a collapsing economy happen instantly!


Which in no way supports the assertion that it was taxes not being high enough on the rich that caused the collapsing economy in the first place, much less the assertion that failing to raise taxes on the rich is the equivalent of repeating a failed action and expecting different results. Your cart is about 8 steps ahead of your horse.


Did I make such an assertion? My assertion that giving corporations even more tax breaks than they are getting now, will not fix things. As long as there is no correlation to the general economy, and their wealth (which they have lobbied for many years to protect from economic troubles), then they have NO reason to make the economy better.

Tell you what, I will back corporate tax breaks, if ALL of the fortune 500 companies make binding guarantees that they will use that money to create jobs.


Hahahahahahaja, like that will happen.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#94 Sep 14 2011 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Because bad things like a collapsing economy happen instantly!


Which in no way supports the assertion that it was taxes not being high enough on the rich that caused the collapsing economy in the first place, much less the assertion that failing to raise taxes on the rich is the equivalent of repeating a failed action and expecting different results. Your cart is about 8 steps ahead of your horse.


Did I make such an assertion?


Well, in typical fashion you didn't assert anything. Are you claiming that your statement wasn't in support of the idea that cutting taxes and allowing tax loopholes (for the rich of course!) was responsible for our current economic predicament and that doing it again would be repeating the same action and expecting different results? Cause that sure seemed to be what you were saying.

More specifically, you appeared to be dismissing my counter statement by suggesting that it took some time for those things to cause the economy to collapse, so it doesn't matter that it was in better shape 4 years ago. Did you mean something else? Cause that seems like the most reasonable interpretation of your post.

Quote:
My assertion that giving corporations even more tax breaks than they are getting now, will not fix things.


Ok. But there's an issue over directionality going on here as well. I'm not proposing that we further lower tax rates or create more tax loopholes. I'm saying that we should not eliminate those that currently exist. I'm saying we should keep our taxes the same because tax rate changes wasn't what caused this problem.

It was that position by me which prompted rmc's statement about repeating the same action and getting different results. So the "same action" isn't really about changing tax rates to benefit "the rich" but not changing them to hurt them.

Quote:
As long as there is no correlation to the general economy, and their wealth (which they have lobbied for many years to protect from economic troubles), then they have NO reason to make the economy better.


Except that there is a correlation between their wealth and the general economy. Interestingly enough, if there wasn't, they'd have no reason *not* to hire more people in the domestic market. The reality though is that economic conditions affect their profits. Tax rates affect their profits. The cost of employment affects their profits. All of those things are taken into account when deciding where to invest their money.

What the Dems have done over the last few years is make it less profitable to create jobs in the US. Why is anyone surprised that the result of this is fewer jobs being created in the US?

Quote:
Tell you what, I will back corporate tax breaks, if ALL of the fortune 500 companies make binding guarantees that they will use that money to create jobs.


How much of the money though? See, there's the problem. You seem to want to hold them to some kind of one to one correlation between reduced taxes paid and jobs created. But that doesn't hold true in the public sector either, does it? The one thing you can count on is that the more money companies can make in the US, the more people they will hire. The less money they can make, the fewer people they will hire. It's all relative, but you seem to hold them to a different standard for some reason.


The other thing you can count on is that jobs created in the private sector will generally be productive jobs, while those created with public money (even subsidies of private sector jobs) will generally be less productive. If the jobs produced more profit for the company than they cost, they would create them right now. So somewhat by definition, if the government has to step in to fund those jobs directly, those jobs will not produce more than they cost.


The way to create jobs is to change the variables in the equation so that hiring people becomes more profitable. Do that, and the companies will create jobs. You don't need some magical guarantee. Their own desire for profit will assure that it happens.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Sep 14 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,344 posts
If I follow you logic properly, gbaji., unions are an acid for producton in America.

Strangely, there are many states "*cough* South Dakota *cough* which are largely anti-or-passive union. Why not have the manufacturing jobs sent to these states instead of overseas? I'll tell ya why. Even though they could hire plenty of folk in states such as mine for barely over minimum wage (with folks glad for the jobs) it is simply a profit multiplier to send them out-country where the companies can get people for $7 a day instead of $7 an hour.


This isn't a union driven off-shore mess. There are plenty of states that would welcome the work, but profit demands borderline (or pure) slave labor to make the shareholders happy.


How do you not see this?


Is California blinding you from seeing the rest of the country?

____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#96 Sep 14 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
If I follow you logic properly, gbaji., unions are an acid for producton in America.


Depends on how the union is structured and operates, but by and large, yes. You hadn't figured this out from the hundreds of posts I've made over the years about the harmful economic effect of unions?

Quote:
Strangely, there are many states "*cough* South Dakota *cough* which are largely anti-or-passive union. Why not have the manufacturing jobs sent to these states instead of overseas? I'll tell ya why.


Does you explanation include an example like what happened when Boeing attempted to open a manufacturing facility in a non-union state just as you are saying they should?

Quote:
Even though they could hire plenty of folk in states such as mine for barely over minimum wage (with folks glad for the jobs) it is simply a profit multiplier to send them out-country where the companies can get people for $7 a day instead of $7 an hour.


Nope. Ever think maybe you're missing something? I'll give you a hint: Wages alone aren't really that much of a factor when considering the total cost of opening up a plant in one location over another. Um... And unions are only part of the problem. Tax rates. Over the top environmental regulations. Mandates and regulations regarding employment in general. Construction costs. Power costs. Shipping costs. There are dozens of factors involved.

It's not a simple all or nothing equation. It's a matter of degrees. Each of those factors are weighed when a company makes a decision like that. Each thing counts, but only to the degree that factor affects that particular decision. That's why some companies will move operations across state lines based on certain factors and some will move them across national lines. That's why sometimes a union presence has a major effect, and sometimes it doesn't.


If your argument held water, then there should be absolutely zero jobs in the US at all which could be done elsewhere unless the government stepped in and forced companies to employ people here. Yet, that's clearly not the case. There are millions of people who are employed in the US doing jobs which could be done in another country if the only factor to consider was the cost of the labor itself. And a whole **** of a lot of those companies are not required to do so by the government.

Quote:
This isn't a union driven off-shore mess. There are plenty of states that would welcome the work, but profit demands borderline (or pure) slave labor to make the shareholders happy.


No. Profit demands that the company generate the most revenue while spending the least amount of money. The cost of labor is only one factor. It has an effect, everything else staying the same. But it's not the all-or-nothing effect you seem to be claiming it to be. It can't be.


Quote:
How do you not see this?


I do see that. I also see the bigger picture though. I happen to know first hand, for example, that while the labor cost in a location like Hydrabad is less than that in the US, the cost to ship materials and maintain them is greater. Also, power is less reliable, and communication isn't as good. I might put a call center there, but I'd be hesitant to put a data center that serves some kind of globally accessible applications there. I might put some engineers and some remote access equipment there so they can do design work remotely, but I'd put the bulk of my engineers and the equipment itself somewhere else.

I know this because I've seen the cost sheets for these sorts of decisions. And guess what? Labor cost is only one factor, and it's hardly the most significant one.

Quote:
Is California blinding you from seeing the rest of the country?


California is leading the country in terms of making the sort of mistakes the Dems are trying to push. We're a great example of just how bad a job market can get if you push a big government agenda. Do you know that there are nearly zero manufacturing jobs at all in California? And guess what? That's not about labor costs either. It's about over the top environmental regulations. It's about import and export taxes. Why do you suppose that the biggest industries in California are based on intellectual property? It's because there's no physical objects being built, or imported, or exported. That's why we make movies, and tv shows, and do bio-research, and develop computer chip and cell phones, and write computer programs.

That works out "ok", but we've driven pretty much everything else out of the state. Which means that our revenue is reduced as a result. What do you suppose happens when the liberals who run this state decide that it's time to more heavily tax intellectual property creation as well? If history is any indicator, those industries will move out of the state as well. Heck. we're already seeing large portions of the film/tv industry move away. Very few films are actually filmed in LA anymore (cept **** I suppose). The folks who produce them live there, and often keep their business addresses there, and they have the premiers there, but most of the actual work is done elsewhere.


The clear pattern is that when government attempts to take a bigger slice of some economic activity, that activity will move elsewhere. It's hardly controversial to point this out, right? It's kinda obvious. Any rational person would do their business where they'll make the most money. And this is *not* always about labor costs. That's a factor, but not the whole picture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Sep 15 2011 at 3:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
Well, lets see. Four years ago we had the same Bush tax rates in effect and the same loopholes in our tax code. Yet, at that time, we had a 5% unemployment rate, and shrinking deficits and debt. So the worst we can say is that those things didn't prevent low unemployment, high GDP growth, and shrinking debt.


and just over 10 years ago you had the slightly higher Clinton tax set, with a 4% unemployment rate, a surplus, and shrinking debt.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#98 Sep 15 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:

Why do you suppose that is? Don't you think that being rich and being greedy, they wouldn't just sit on so much money? Wouldn't they want to use it to make more money for themselves? So why aren't they?


They are. They just aren't doing it in the USA.


Yes. Because they believe that they can make more money that way. So shouldn't we try to change that instead of trying to punish people for reacting rationally to the economic situation around them? Surely you can see that the whole "tax the rich because they aren't creating jobs" is not a viable solution?
Agreed. you should give them massive tax credits whenever they invest in the American economy but only when they invest in the American economy. For every new job they create, give them 75% as a tax credit of what that employee would have received had they remained on Employment Insurance or Welfare. (Btw, I pulled that number out of my ***, doesn't have to be 75%, just something substantial enough to incent them to put the money at home and not abroad).
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#99varusword75, Posted: Sep 15 2011 at 7:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ugly,
#100 Sep 15 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
ugly,
Quote:
you should give them massive tax credits whenever they invest in the American economy
You're a f*cking idiot.
Yeah, fuck America!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101varusword75, Posted: Sep 15 2011 at 7:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lagaga,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)