AlterNet reports
When Republicans in Congress passed a big, fat tax break bill in December, they insisted it meant American workers would be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" all the way to the bank. The payoff from the tax cut would be raises totaling $4,000 to $9,000, the President's Council of Economic Advisers assured workers. But something bad happened to workers on their way to the repository. They never got that money.
In fact, their real wages declined because of higher inflation. At the same time, the amount workers had to pay in interest on loans for cars and credit cards increased. And, to top it off, Republicans threatened to make workers pay for the tax break with cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So now, workers across America are wondering, "Where's that raise?". It's nowhere to be found.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this week that wages for production and nonsupervisory workers decreased by 0.1 percent from May 2017 to May 2018 when inflation is factored in. The compensation for all workers together, including supervisors, rose an underwhelming 0.1 percent from April 2018 to May 2018.
That's not what congressional Republicans promised workers. They said corporations, which got the biggest, fattest tax cuts of all, would use that extra money to increase wages. Some workers got one-time bonuses and an even smaller number received raises. But not many. The group Americans for Tax Fairness estimates it's 4.3 percent of all U.S. workers.
The New York Times story about this record breaker describes the phenomena this way: "Companies buy back their shares when they believe they have nothing better to do with their money than to return capital to shareholders." So despite promises from the GOP and the President's Council of Economic Advisers, corporations believed further enriching their own executives and shareholders was a much better way to use the money than increasing workers' wages--wages that have been stagnant for decades.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @09:59PM (48 children)
Soylents slow spiral into yet another Trump bashing media outlet. It would be so nice to find a place to escape all this petty political bickering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:07PM (12 children)
The hysterics are getting boring. On-topic: When interest rates are back above inflation, workers can start saving and planning for their future. Remember that? Workers feeling like they have a future? [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:25PM
How many had kids without being able to afford it?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:26PM (10 children)
That's a feature, not a bug. By having inflation intentionally higher than the interest rates available, it forces people to invest their money in the stock market as that's the only way most people have for coping with inflation. There's a couple of US bonds that are indexed to inflation, so you don't lose as much value, but the other options are some form of stock, ETF or mutual fund most of which are purchased from individuals who have no duty to offer choices that are in the best interest of their clients.
To make matters worse, retirement accounts are increasingly either not available through work at all or are available and have increasingly expensive options inside of them based upon how the company felt about that particular fund's salesperson.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday June 22 2018, @01:09AM (7 children)
Most workers really don't have money to invest as they are living hand to mouth. So most people do not invest in the stock market. Here where I live, in central California, most people cannot even invest in buying their own homes. That was something just about everyone could do in the '50s and '60s. That gave them an equity cushion that they could fall back on. Inflation in everything but wages is destroying the country as the rich get richer and more and more poor are created.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @03:08AM
And here you are, captaining the new normal. #SAD
ess joooke comrade
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:25AM (4 children)
The rich can get richer faster when they can drive the poor into debt slavery... as not only are the poor paying for their stuff, you've also got 'em paying usury.
And the poor seem to be so susceptible to advertising.... I've seen 'em go buy the damndest things just to try to impress someone, not seeming to realize they have just offered several years into the future to pay for it. There is strong financial incentive to string 'em out in debt, and no incentive to wisen them up to not spend money they do not have.
I am fuming a bit here over a neighbor kid, who I know has few resources, carrying on over an expensive new car he just agreed to make payments on.... and I thought he would have been far better off had he bought something like I bought... an old diesel van... as a van would have given him a place to put his tools, and the option of not relying on someone else who has "the company truck" to provide him employment. He paid over 10X the amount I paid for the van, and what he has is almost useless for doing anything useful. Trying to impress the women with a "hot ride" is about the last thing this guy needs to be doing. Women see that car, and expect to go to really expensive restaurants. He's just being played sucker. But somehow, the "system" has successfully ingrained this paradigm into him. I see the finance company repossessing his ride when the economy burps again.
And he will never get out of his parent's house.
He even has his girlfriend living there... in his parent's house ... raising his son... while he continues to go out ... playing the field ... while his girlfriend rakes in government cheques.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday June 22 2018, @09:30AM (1 child)
Well; to be blunt; he probably gets at least ten times the action you get.
It rather boils down to his priorities. Better to live a day as a tiger than hundred years as a sheep?
Yeah well, that's not cool. But still, he seems to have identified his priorities. He can always have his sweet ride repossessed and eke out a meagre existence in his parents' basement later - but he's only young once.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Friday June 22 2018, @04:51PM
That's how it works in car commercials and staged youtube videos. Oh and in testimony from guys with expensive cars.
Nobody gets laid for their stupid car in america.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:41PM
Spoken like a true incel! Your old diesel van (that is a sensible vehicle allowing you to do things, as you mentioned, such as transporting tools you need) proves that you hate women!
Death to incels! Police be upon them!
(Score: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:45PM
Buying used cars is actually a luxury. If my 8 year old car needs a $5,000 repair, I can either take the money out of savings (I have it... barely) or junk it and buy a five year old car to replace it. If the neighbor kid buys a used car and it suddenly needs a $3,000 repair, most likely he can neither afford the repair or a replacement. If he has payments on it, he's doubly screwed because he has no vehicle and a payment. If the same lower income person buys a new car, the payments are higher but for at least three years all maintenance problems more complex than oil changes and maybe one set of brakes and tires are the dealer's cost and not the buyer's.
On top of that, there are safety concerns. As much as we enviro-hippies hate it, mass is a huge factor in collisions. If I roll over a large pickup truck, I'm most likely dead and so are the other occupants. But if we don't roll over, we're going to walk away without a scratch from collisions that will massacre the occupants of a smaller vehicle. Within the same weight class, differences in crash engineering are also enormous. There are a whole range of crashes that would cause serious damage to the occupants of a 2006 Chrysler minivan that will only shake up the occupants of a 2018 Chrysler minivan. So larger vehicle size and newer, safer crash protection are two valid reasons to buy more expensive vehicles. I have my family of six in a brand new Chrysler van, and I'd put us all in a Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition if I could afford the difference.
But otherwise yes, your point stands. No reason to buy a Mustang when a Focus will do. No reason to buy a Tundra pickup if you can get the job done in a smaller Tacoma. And if you do have $10,000 set aside, rather than making a down payment on a new X, spend $5,000 on a used X and save the $5,000 for repairs - plus all of the money you save month to month without payments. If I didn't have kids, I would be in a used Civic, Focus, Corolla, etc... I could never live with myself if I lost a kid in a car crash, but if I die in a crash I won't be around to miss me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 22 2018, @12:23PM
Well, I can't speak for central California, but the stats overall say home ownership rate [wikipedia.org] has been relatively constant since the 1960s and actually trended UP until the early 2000s (where it was artificially high, obviously, resulting in the huge housing crash because people actually couldn't afford homes but were given mortgages anyway).
Basically, it's been between 60 and 70% since the 1950s. Recently, due to the trend of younger people marrying later (which is often the impetus for buying homes), it's been trending back down toward mid-1960s levels. What does seem to be true is that more Americans carry less equity in the houses they own these days on average, which is a concerning trend -- but not surprising considering the tendency toward consumer debt in recent decades.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Friday June 22 2018, @09:15AM (1 child)
It would be wiser for "average people" to put their money in the bank. One should only gamble with money they can afford to lose - and the stock market is a form of gambolling.
People should be encouraged to put money in the bank. Money is the bank is not "wasted capital" because it, too, can be re-invested in the economy. If anyone should be left holding the bag, it should not be the general populace - for they are the ones that suffer the greatest consequences, but they also hold the key to re-establishing a solid economic future.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:27PM
No. The stock market is not gambling. By that logic, owning a small business or rental property is gambling. Owning stock is nothing more than owning a portion of a business. Would owning an HVAC repair business or rental house be gambling? Stock price fluctuations often don't reflect the underlying value of the business. The stock owners profit from dividends and an increase in value of assets of the company. If you own WalMart stock, you literally own part of the store down the street from you that is selling cheap crap and has a building and equipment that you could be sold if it became unprofitable.
Consider shares of most companies can be bought for less than $1000 per share. This allows the common person to be able to afford shares (ownership) in many different companies. Investing is hedging against a loss of employment. When you work for a corporation and have no investments or significant savings you are betting your lively hood that your boss won't fire you, your location won't close down, that they aren't going to go bankrupt, you won't be replaced by a computer sitting in rack, etc. Stock prices are volatile because, frankly, sometimes people are stupid. Even many hedge fund managers and financial advisors. I am stupid sometimes too. Warren Buffet has been stupid.
Buying bonds are a large risk as well. If the fed increases interest rates, what you would be able to sell your bonds for just decreased because nobody in the right mind would buy a 3% bond for full price when 4% ones are being issued.
Buying a home is not without risk. Interest rate changes can drive home prices up or down. A higher home value sounds great, but unless you sell it (and likely buy another house with an inflated price) you will just pay more in property taxes, which are now not as worthwhile to deduct on federal taxes thanks to the higher standard deductions. Also consider the local economy. What if you live in manhatten and the NYSE and Nasdaq move shop to the much cheaper Raleigh, NC? The investment banks will follow suit. Suddenly that closet sized apartment you payed 1.5M for is now worth 500k, and you just lost your job because the local economy tanked. The bank doesn't care what your property is worth. They want their 1.2 million you still owe.
Owning stocks is the sane way to live in a capitalist society. A well run business can adjust to economic and cultural conditions to stay profitable. If you own a dozen well run businesses in different sectors, even a major disruption in one (think electric cars if you own an oil company) won't do a whole lot of damage to your net worth. A market crash is the equivalent of a going out of business sale. It is an opportunity to buy shares at a discount.
Putting all your eggs in one skill basket is risky too. Sysads and programmers make a fortune now, but that may change. For example, learn some basic carpentry, plumbing, or auto repair skills. Learn about psychology, negotiation, and persuasion (think sales jobs and management). You don't have to be an expert, just good enough to convince someone to hire you for slightly less than average.
Gambling isn't even gambling, it is entertainment. The games are rigged in favor of the Casino. All games are designed in a way to guarantee that over the long run the casino will take in more than it pays out. Consider a house advantage of 1%. Given a few million iterations, luck is no longer a factor. It is just statistics. "Gambling" is usually nothing more than placing bets that will almost guarantee you will lose in the long run.
I will continue to buy stocks with any spare cash I get.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Snow on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:34PM (6 children)
If you are at a party and some asshole takes a piss in the punch bowl, it's tough not to talk about it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Sulla on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:40PM (4 children)
The response to a guy pissing in a punch bowl is not yourself pissing in the punch bowl like CNN is trying to do. Being a shithead does not warrant being a shithead.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:02PM
Whatabout CNN? Whatabout EMAILS??
Take yer own advice eh?
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday June 22 2018, @01:58AM
Physician, heal thyself
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:00PM (1 child)
CNN pissing in the punch bowl? How so? Do you always get irritated with the messenger when he brings bad news? Why?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday June 23 2018, @12:25AM
Bad news is fine, making up bad news is not.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @03:20AM
And I thought congress was to have been disbanded by now. So many broken promises.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:52PM (20 children)
Maybe, just MAYBE the problem is with a documented liar pretending to be a US President? Petty political bickering? Do you not see what is happening to our country? Not only is the status quo of corruption getting worse but Trump is dismantling lots of good programs under the guise of saving money and being more efficient. The sheer volume of lies and corruption is so big that nearly everyone sees it. You can see that even Huckabee is troubled sometimes when she gets called out, they all know what they're a party to.
Then we have people like you trying to downplay this horror. Sorry bud, you're in the minority. Even on this Libertarian tech news site you are in the minority, even some of the hard core conservative users bash Trump! Although, the whole partisan thing does get a lot of crossed wires when the issue isn't just "Is Trump a douche"?
There is something wrong with our country and it is exemplified by Trump and his supporters. Lies, corruption, hatred.
Even when Trump says "good" things like bringing back jobs or whatever he STILL wraps it up with a nice blanket of hatred and fear. Wake up.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:02PM (12 children)
Well it's super awesome that no Democrap ever lied, right? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-liberal-democrats-use-lies-to-get-what-they-want [washingtonexaminer.com]
Maybe Trump is a delusional optimist, and I'm okay with that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:06PM (4 children)
Whatabout? WHATABOUT????
This isn't a partisan issue. Stop trying to hide the elephant in the room. We have a lying scumbag in office, public statements from him detailing his own depravity, and here you are trying to evade the very simple fact with stupid whataboutisms.
Whatabout getting a spine?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday June 22 2018, @07:52AM (2 children)
So your choices were an orange lying scumbag, and an evil lying scumbag, and you're pissed because people chose orange over evil?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:59PM (1 child)
I was ready to vote for Bernie. Who screwed that up?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @10:43AM
That would be Hillary's machine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:44PM
Yeah but but but Lincoln jailed journalists! Slavery used to be legal! I don't see anybody legalizing slavery! (why would they want to be responsible for your welfare as a capital investment when you make a much more handy expendable resource) How dare you complain!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:06PM (1 child)
No Democrat or any other Republican has been caught lying more frequently than President Trump. And unlike any of those other politicians, the President has an actual cult of personality that backs whatever he wants.
The status quo is for him to not just bend the truth, but to outright make up facts and figures rather than having one of his staffers come up with an unreasonable estimate.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @02:52AM
So you'd prefer to have a good liar in office rather than a bad one? I'll take the bad one every time. You can find the truth far more easily when given bad lies compared to being given misleading data. Misleading is far, far worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:06PM
Bu . . . bu . . . bu . . . Teh Democrats!1111!1
Deflection: For when you have no idea how to defend your own guy and you really want to take everyone's attention off him. Quick! Look over here!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:09PM (3 children)
He's a greedy selfish lying pig. How you can't see that just blows my mind.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @02:56AM (2 children)
No one is arguing that he isn't. The problem is you guys are acting like everyone else is perfect. They aren't, so stop pretending they are. Saying a liar should be booted out of office is being an asshole because you can catch everyone else in politics lying as well but you aren't calling for them to be booted.
In other words, stop being a hypocrite.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @03:11AM
No one is acting like everyone else is perfect. In fact, every time someone brings up Obama the standard reply is "he's a scumbag too, but that is a tangential point so stop trying to evade the real point."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:06PM
Which guys? Who? I want you to be specific. Give us some names. Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are just another whatabout dittohead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:06PM (4 children)
Nope. He's just a symptom.
The problem is 4 decades of creeping anti-democracy Neoliberalism.
Characteristics Of Neoliberalism [soylentnews.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Touché) by captain normal on Friday June 22 2018, @01:24AM (2 children)
I don't know about the term "neoliberalism". I would just call it what it is; neonineteenth century robber baron-ism.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @02:10AM (1 child)
Yup. The Gilded Age was brought under control via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.
Within the lifetimes of many of us, the enforcement of that has been abandoned/disassembled.
Reagan was a notable inflection point but Jimmy Carter's deregulation of trucking and telecommunications are things that folks too easily forget--but shouldn't.
Politicians of both of The Big 2 parties have been working against Joe Average and for the corporatists for a long time.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by captain normal on Saturday June 23 2018, @12:17AM
Well...I believe it was Mark Twain (Sam Clements) who first said, "We have the best government money can buy."
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:19PM
I'd use the term plutocracy, but sadly, you're spot on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)
Actually, I don't view him as a liar (like I do most politicians). He admits openly that he is not to be trusted about anything:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/politics/trump-bannon-wsj/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:33PM
So... you don't think he's a liar because he told you he is a liar? That does sound like Trump supporter logic.
Bythe way, and you can trust me on this, because I'm telling you straight out that I'm going to ripp you off. Send me your retirement, your health care, your education and your infrastructure, and I'll make you a rich man!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @04:30PM (2 children)
There is nothing wrong with Trump Bashing.
Ordinarily I wouldn't like politics getting injected into everything everywhere all the time. But it has become unavoidable in a way never before seen. Since Trump took office everything in the whole wide world has seriously changed for the worse in case you haven't been paying attention.
This is a president who is averse to science. Who appoints government department heads who undermine and dismantle those departments. Who cares nothing about the environment. Education. I could just summarize that he cares only about himself, and being in the spotlight.
This is a president who has expanded the swamp. Increased the wealth divide. Shakes hands with dictators. Makes enemies of our closest and longest allies who share our fundamental values. Says the free press is the enemy of the American people (his words). Promised to bring back a hell of a lot worse then waterboarding. This is a president who says that racists and white supremecists are "fine people", "on many sides". A president who has openly promoted violence even before being elected. Cancels military exercises with one of our allies to appease a dictator who is a threat to that very ally "to save money". A guy who smiles because he's making money at his private club as an international crisis unfolds during dessert, and a club member gets a photo with the nuclear football guy. I could go on and on and on.
Complain about Democrats and politics all you want, but Trump has completely changed the game and I don't mean in a good way. There is no longer civil civil discourse.
If this continues it will become important to everyone all the time on an existential level.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:21PM
Those were overt aggression and were destabilizing.
...and let's note here that the economic sanctions on North Korea have not been lifted.
Y'know what they say about how even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then and a busted clock is right twice a day.
The Peter Sellers movie "Being There" documents the fact that even a total nitwit can sometimes be taken for someone insightful.
On all other items listed, we are in complete agreement.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:27AM
I am not in the US, so I am looking on from outside, but what I see is that you think you have made a bunch of killer points against Trump. From the Democrat point of view you have. But :
To conservative republicans these are all at worst neutral points. To libertarians the middle one is excellent.
Which is it, expanding the swamp or dismantling departments? To a republican the Gov departments are the swamp.
Any evidence of this? Despite the obvious media bias, he appears to be doing the best he can to keep jobs in America.
Republicans are actually mostly moral people. They would prefer a strong president who brings peace to a weak one who bombs brown people for profit.
I'm an Aussie. The media here hates Trump, but we don't hate the USA. You are not in danger of losing your allies. There is a substantial block who think we need something similar to clean the crap out of our parliaments. One Nation is the closest we have, but they don't have Trump's competence.
Yeah. The people who think he's doing a good job can see the media bias against him. And they don't like terrorists. And they understand hyperbole. Not going to persuade them that he is evil based on things the media says he says.
The media keeps claiming that. Trump supporters think he said some people in those states are fine people. Trump supporters now routinely ignore any negative press Trump gets. The media blew their credibility and are now treated as the lying shit-holes republicans think they are.
Did it save a billion dollars or not? And 'appeasement' is when you try to buy off someone stronger than you. If a democrat had done it the media would be claiming it as a brilliant gesture of good will that also saved a billion dollars.
The civil civil discourse that the proletariat see is two teams who take turns to blame the other team for the screwing over they are getting.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @04:34PM (3 children)
I will add, at this point I would be THRILLED to have George W Bush back. And I didn't vote for him. Until we survive Trump, the trump bashing will continue.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:23PM (2 children)
Be careful what you wish for.
The major impact of a USAian president is his judicial appointments, which carry lifetime tenure.
Dubya would be appointing Reactionary judges, just like Drumpf.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:02PM (1 child)
That's true. But then why would it be any worse if both appoint such judges.
The bigger picture issue is that W wasn't a jackass who thinks that nuclear war is acceptable, maybe even desirable.
W never wanted to have military parades like all good dictatorships have. America DOES NOT DO military parades.
W wasn't someone who's ego required FIVE flyovers at his coronation.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:16PM
Yeah. The way his ego needs constant feeding and how he can be manipulated with a bit of flattery|pomp is really scary.
(I've also seen stuff by mental health professionals saying that his brain has undergone significant organic degradation i.e. he's senile.)
Now, if I was going for a change, I'd want Mike Pence in there.
While I completely disagree with his politics, at a minimum he has a stable personality.
It also appears that he was in on the colluding with foreign powers thing and could be impeached for conspiring to violate campaign laws.
For that to be useful|happen, however, the House and the Senate would need to be expunged of a significant number of GOP toadies and gain a supermajority of law-and-order sticklers.
N.B. In the California Primary Election (jungle primary) June 5, turnout was under 12 percent of registered voters.
A lot of folks (potential voters) have just given up on Democracy--or whatever thing it is that remains in USA.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:15PM (4 children)
What that "tax cut" did was prove how much Wall Street pwned Congress. And these grinning idiots are happy to go on national TV, secure against the threat of being voted out of office, let alone going to jail.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Friday June 22 2018, @02:12AM (3 children)
I don't know that pwned is the right term - Congress suffered no defeat or even compromise, they no doubt mostly made out like bandits doing exactly what they signed on to the job to do.
Owned is a far more appropriate term - leased at the very least.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 22 2018, @04:09PM (2 children)
You guys are as 100% correct as anyone could be. It's a fully-entrenched system (congress and corporations). I have an elderly friend who is now 99 and still 100% sharp, and she and I have discussed this problem for 20 years. I told her 20 years ago I saw no fix for it, and it's only gotten worse and worse.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-corporations-turned-into-political-beasts-2015-4 [businessinsider.com]
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ [theatlantic.com]
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/congress-corporate-sponsors/ [motherjones.com]
The list goes on and on.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday June 22 2018, @05:04PM (1 child)
Yep, the entire purpose of a corporation is to unnaturally concentrate wealth and power. Their rise to political powerhouses was almost inevitable from at least the moment they were let off their initially very short leash. (Originally American corporations could only exist for very limited durations to achieve specific well-documented goals.)
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 22 2018, @11:55PM
Thanks, I had no idea that corporations were supposed to be short-lived. That's very depressing but also interesting. I know the Brooklyn Bridge project was run by a temporary corporation. I'll have to do some historical research...
(Score: 2) by black6host on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:15PM (1 child)
When corporations incur extra costs they pass it on to the consumers via price increases, or more irritatingly, by reducing the size of the item being sold so you're paying the same for less.
When corporations see cost decreases they immediately pass that on to the consumer by way of lower prices or increasing the amount you get for your money. Wait... That doesn't seem to be the way it works in my world. Competition can drive prices down. However, the corporation is still acting in it's own best interests.
I'm not judging. I'm just saying I'm not surprised and never thought those tax cuts were going to do the common person much good. Y'all can argue with me about economics but I'm not sure it's worth your while. I think I'll wait to see those increases in wages and standards of living before I believe it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:38PM
One of the problems is that they are eliminating competition by allowing huge mergers.
No competition, no problem.
A little competition, collusion on price fixing.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:24PM (8 children)
Bottom level drops 0.1% while the overall increases by 0.1% - which means that supervisors not only gained more, but since there are less of them, they gained a lot more, probably > 0.5%.
These are small numbers, but that trend has been continuing for decades. In the late 1980s a friend of mine was head teller at a bank. Her boss went off to a meeting with the other branch managers where they got together and decided that it had been a tough year, so they were going to have to cut the teller's salary increase to 1/2 of COLA (something like 1.5%, effectively a pay cut); but that didn't stop the managers from deciding to give themselves all 10% raises for the same period.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:10PM (7 children)
Bingo, and that's one of the reasons why we need to put the income tax brackets back the way they were decades ago. Having tiered income tax brackets significantly discouraged that sort of thing as the savings they would make on those tellers having reduced COLAs could lead to them paying more money back in taxes that could be used for public benefit. And at a certain point any extra money they would be making was so taxed that there wasn't any real point in screwing over the workers as they'd have to give virtually all of it back to the government.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:56PM (6 children)
That has never actually been true. Even if I'm giving back 75% of every dollar earned, I'm still getting more, more is always better.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday June 22 2018, @12:32AM (5 children)
In 1944-45 the top tax bracket, over $200,000 (2.9 million in 2009 dollars), was taxed at 94%. If the corporation is only pocketing 6% of every additional dollar it earns, it's probably a lot better off dumping the whole dollar into salaries or other operating costs in order to grow the business and/or paying more to increase the quality and loyalty of the employees working there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:48AM
Gee, that would be such a shame! /s
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:49AM (3 children)
The effective tax rate was less than that. Still better than what we have now, though.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday June 22 2018, @09:35AM (2 children)
Would you be able to expand further?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 22 2018, @12:49PM (1 child)
The nominal tax rate is basically NEVER what rich people pay. They can afford accountants and tax attorneys and foreign bank accounts to get around as many taxes as possible. The effective rate the rich paid back in the 1950s when the nominal income tax rate was >90% was probably about 42% [slate.com]. These days, they pay more like 36%.
I used to harp on the fact that tax rates used to be so much higher too. Until I realized the effective overall tax rate on the richest hasn't varied that much over time. Basically, the higher the taxes, the more incentive rich people have to hire lawyers to figure out ways around them. That's not to imply that tax increases on the wealthy have no effect, but they're often significantly less than what it looks like if you just quote the nominal tax rate.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 23 2018, @01:19PM
A big part of what these "tax loopholes" are doing is telling the rich how to use their money.
Personally, if I had all that much money, I'd be more offended by being told how to use 80% of it so I could keep 55% of the total, instead of doing whatever I damn well pleased with it and only keeping 45% of the total.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:36PM (31 children)
In fairness, there is some stuff there that can tend to help the working class...primarily the increase in the standard deduction. HOWEVER...not so much if you happen to live where you have notable state, city and/or property taxes ("coincidentally" mostly blue states) and were itemizing...since you're now very limited in that deduction. This trend also punishes states that tend to actually pay their own way...thank you very much.
As if history hasn't given us enough proof that trickle down doesn't work, I'd say there's a new reason at play here: We're supposed to believe that the lower corporate tax will increase jobs and help the economy via more corporate spending. That is, the "We would hire those 1200 new people, but our corporate income tax is too high!" theory. Oddly enough, the exact opposite can and does occur. That is, higher corporate taxes can cause companies to spend more to chip away at those taxable profits! Lower corporate taxes can create an incentive to actually keep those profits. Our company has actually seen this first hand, as more than one prospective customer has told us exactly as much. Interesting.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:42PM (21 children)
OH...and one thing that really unnerves me is the BS fed to people about their paychecks regarding the withholdings going down and their checks "getting bigger". FFS...that's just a matter of fucking with the W4 rules used for the withholding amount and is meaningless by itself until you see how it nets out with your refund or payment. That's just playing on people's ignorance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:02PM (20 children)
I calculated my net tax liability with the updated tax brackets and deductions and the reductions in withholding match that quite well. I suspect that's the case for most people, like me, who take the standard deduction or had itemized deductions that were close to it. So, I don't think the "bigger paychecks" are deceptive at all for most people.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:06PM (19 children)
That depends a lot on which state you live in. In high state income tax states such as CA, a lot more people (myself included) will pay more in Federal tax.
The tax "cut" was cynically designed to benefit:
1. Very wealthy people by a large amount
2. Ordinary people in red states by a small amount.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:43PM (6 children)
While I don't doubt that the impact of capping the SALT deduction wipes out any benefit for well off people in high-tax states. I think you're underestimating the benefit to most ordinary people in low tax states. For people who have incomes that fall into the middle class range and take the standard deduction, their tax liability was cut by 20-30%. That seems like a pretty large benefit to me.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday June 22 2018, @12:11AM (4 children)
30% of what, though?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @12:16AM (3 children)
30% of their 2017 tax liability assuming their gross income didn't change.
So those who paid 10k in taxes in 2017 are paying 7k this year.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 22 2018, @02:27AM (2 children)
And people who paid $1k last year are getting a $300 tax cut.
Percentage alone tells you nothing.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @05:03AM (1 child)
Someone only paying $1k in taxes last year is probably at a much higher percentage. I'd have to re-run the calcs for that case, but they might not be paying any tax at all this year with the same income.
Although, with unemployment down, maybe they will end up paying more because they found a much better paying job.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @04:41PM
Just re-ran those calcs. If someone filed single last year and paid $1k in taxes, they would pay about $440 this year and would owe no taxes if they joint filed.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @12:30AM
Just to add to this. From what I can find, recent history indicates that people in the situation I was describing represent ~70% of the taxpayers (i.e. ~30% of filers choose to itemize)
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:44PM
Exactly...same here in New Jersey, where working class home owners' biggest expense can be their property tax. They get screwed in this one for sure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Friday June 22 2018, @01:39AM (10 children)
My wife and I have four kids, so the axe on exemptions hurts. Even with the new larger standard deduction and new lower tax bracket percentages my tax liability went up. I caught the ugly end of the income curve, if our gross household income was $50k lower we would be ahead a few thousand per year and if it was $50k higher we would be ahead more than five thousand per year. But as it is, nope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @11:27PM
You know, I think they can reverse vasectomies these days.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 23 2018, @01:37PM (7 children)
Welcome to the shrinking middle - which side will you be leaving on? If you're like the majority, it won't be the high side (as you might have guessed by your increased tax bill...)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:27PM (6 children)
I misread the terms of the 2018 tax changes. I do have my tax liability drop substantially. I wrote about it here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=26245&page=1&cid=697595#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] I apologize for the misinformation.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:32PM (5 children)
Care to share how much?
I'm curious about effective tax rate pre-post changes.
My tax situation changes enough year to year that it's hard to tell what is from the law change and what is from our personal circumstances.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Monday June 25 2018, @02:19AM (4 children)
So with your taxes, there are two different things to look at. You probably know this, but I want to be clear to any reader. Your gross income is the household income. Your taxable income is the portion of your gross income that will be taxed. There are deductions and exemptions, which lower your taxable income. And there are , which lower the amount of tax you owe. So say you have $100,000 in gross income, $15,000 in deductions and $3,000 in credits. Then the tax you owe would be calculated based on an taxable income of $100,000 - $15,000 = $85,000. Let's say that tax number came out to $11,000. You would subtract the $3,000 in credits, and you would actually owe $8,000.
My wife and I have jobs and we have four kids under the age of 18.
Under 2017 law our taxable income was gross household income - (itemized deductions or standard deduction) - (personal exemptions). The standard deduction for married filing jointly was $12,700 and our itemized deductions were $18,000, so we used itemized deductions. The personal exemption are $4,050 per person in the family, so $24,300. So our taxable income was gross income - $42,300. The child tax credit is $1,000 per child, but if your taxable income exceeds $110,000 the child tax credit is reduced. So we didn't get a $4,000 tax credit for our four kids, we got a lot less.
Under 2018 law our taxable income will be gross household income - (itemized deductions or standard deduction). Personal exemptions are gone. The standard deduction for married filing jointly was raised to $24,000. This year our itemized deductions won't exceed $24,000. So we'll pay tax on gross income - $24,000. Even with the new lower tax rates, our total tax liability goes up slightly because of the $18,300 in deductions and exemptions we lost. The extra income tax will be roughly $1,000.
But I missed that part of the 2018 tax changes are that the child tax credit doubles to $2,000 per child and the threshold for having the child tax credit reduced was raised from $110,000 to $400,000. So instead of getting some fraction of $4,000 as a tax credit in 2017, in 2018 we will get all $8,000 in credit. So our 2018 tax liability will go down more than $5,000. That doesn't count any raises I get this year or anything else that changes our income, of course.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 25 2018, @10:44AM (3 children)
So, we're increasing the reward for children, (weakly) encouraging people to increase the population, as if we don't have enough people on the planet already.
We've got two kids and fall in that 110-400 range, so I'm guessing we get a net benefit, too - even though we're on standard deduction instead of itemized. Turbotax will tell all...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Monday June 25 2018, @01:28PM (2 children)
My annual expenses for each child grossly outweigh a $2,000 per child tax credit, so I think at best we're making parenthood a hair less brutally expensive. That's not much of an encouragement.
Of course, we could solve two problems at once by dumping the child tax credits in the tax code and allowing more legal immigration. Then you get population growth without adding to the world population. But this is the US, and it appears that 40+ % of the voters only want immigrants from central, northern, and western Europe.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 25 2018, @02:13PM (1 child)
Kids are as expensive as you let them be, and I doubt that many people factor in the child tax credit when they decide to use protection or not... but still, I'd rather remove all direct "parenthood benefits" paid to anyone who can claim dependents and instead reduce the costs of doing a good job raising your children directly, starting with reducing the cost of a good education and healthcare. Take that $36,000 per head and put it straight into free university for kids with acceptable GPAs, and other meaningful life-skills programs for kids without acceptable GPAs. Oh, right, I'm behind the times: $30K per head ($7500 per year) was the cost of a BS degree when I entered university in 1984, by 1988 that same university had hiked tuition to $60K.
Haters of different skin colors are still legion, we need another couple of generations of social adjustment to reduce that to non-significant levels, and at present I think we're doing a little backsliding on the issue.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Monday June 25 2018, @03:36PM
Agreed on all points. Except I went to college in the 90s. :)
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Sunday June 24 2018, @03:55PM
GODDAMNIT! I posted bad information. I didn't realize the threshold for the high-income phaseout of the Child Tax Credit changed with the tax code changes. I'm wrong, we do save big with the tax cuts because in 2017 our > 110k gross household income cut the $1,000 tax credit per child down to $300 total. In 2018 the $2,000 tax credit per child doesn't get reduced until the gross household income is above $400k. That's not an income level I'm lucky enough to have, so even though our gross tax liability goes up $500, once you factor in the additional $7700 in child car tax credits our net tax liability is down $7200.
I hate spreading misinformation, I wish I had a way to annotate the previous post as withdrawn/incorrect. I apologize.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:32PM (5 children)
Isn't trickle down economics the entire basis for the federal reserve system? They make it cheaper for the biggest banks in the US to borrow money and hope this trickles down to everyone else?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 22 2018, @01:52AM (4 children)
Whether or not it's the theory behind the Federal Reserve:
Starting in 2008, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates as far as they could possibly go in an effort to counteract the financial crash and resulting crash of the "real economy" (production and distribution of goods and services, rather than the financial manipulations of Wall Street and commodities markets). The hope was that the banks would lend out money more easily, which would stimulate demand for goods and services purchased using those loans, and that increased demand for goods and services would in turn get more people back to work producing the goods and services in question.
That action was probably better than doing nothing as some European banks tried to do. But it was also of limited value because a lot of the banks in question took the money they were borrowing from the Federal Reserve and used it to buy US Treasury Bonds rather than take on the risk of loaning it. In short, the money didn't "trickle down".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @05:57AM
Interesting, seems like something to be concerned about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:22AM (1 child)
Remember that the banks in question would have loved to extend loans, if they could have.
First: loan regulations were tightened in the wake of the sub-prime thing.
Second: banks were under a lot of pressure to increase their reserve ratios so that they could pass stress tests.
Result: they had to get reserves, not loans, despite Congress thumping tables and looking angry. Politically inconvenient? Sure. But the alternative was not being banks any more. Huzzah for unintended consequences.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 22 2018, @06:22PM
It's not a simple problem. Some of the banks were illegally loaning more money than they were allowed to. (They're only allowed to lend a certain percentage more than they actually have.) When people started looking, they started trying to get legal quickly. But the problem was because they weren't legal to start with.
OTOH, it's also dubious when you say "the banks would love to lend money", because those are individual transactions. Corporate entities don't have a centralized consciousness. It would be fair to say "The managers of those banks would love to lend money", but that's not really true, because the managers don't do the individual transactions. They set policies that encourage particular actions, which aren't always the ones that they intend, and they don't always check carefully exactly what actions result. You could say this means that they are incompetent as managers, but they've got lots of other things that they need to do, and those they are supervising will sometimes hide their actions. (Did the Wells Fargo managers know that invalid accounts were being opened? Or did they just set up conditions that encouraged that? And is "just" appropriate in that prior sentence?)
When perverse incentives are created, perverse actions tend to result, even when those actions were ostensibly discouraged. But I don't know of a financial system around (I'm no expert, of course) that isn't full of perverse incentives.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @04:23PM
So are you for or against the federal reserve system, which you seem to recognize is based on trickle down economics?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday June 22 2018, @01:30AM (2 children)
Trickle-down was always a lie. Not a mistake, not an incorrect theory, but something that was known by the people promoting the idea to be complete nonsense.
The Reagan administration came into power with a very clear goal: Eliminate as many federal government programs as possible, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This wasn't because these programs were unpopular, but because the people who had financially and politically backed Reagan's campaign hated paying for them and hated their very concept as socialism gone haywire.
Enter Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, longtime allies of Reagan going back to his days in California: Norquist reasoned that they could get rid of these programs by doing the tax cuts first without getting rid of the popular programs they wanted to eliminate, drive up a massive deficit, and then the Republicans could go to the public and say "We wanted to keep grandma's Social Security, but the budget unfortunately required that we cut back on it. Sorry, but it's the only responsible thing to do." So far, so good.
But that created a second problem of Democrats like Tip O'Neill saying "Wait a second, you were the ones being irresponsible by making all these crazy tax cuts." Enter Arthur Laffer, who with a vague diagram drawn on a paper napkin put forward the argument that tax cuts would actually increase government revenues (even though that had never happened), and now they had the answer to complaints about irresponsible tax cuts.
But then a third problem came along: The tax cuts would be most dramatic for the rich, in part because their taxes were the highest, and in part because they were the ones who had funded Reagan's campaign and wanted return on their investment. Which folks like Tip O'Neill could again point out seemed more than a bit unfair and corrupt. Enter David Stockman with his "supply-side" ideas, which he would later admit was, in essence, "trickle-down economics" (the term was coined by Will Rogers, and was definitely not intended as a compliment). This provided complex-sounding and technical-sounding reasons why the tax cuts for the rich would benefit everybody else, even though again that didn't and hasn't matched reality. But it seems like it ought to work, and that's enough to convince enough people that skewing tax cuts to the rich is totally reasonable and OK.
The whole thing is lies piled upon lies, with the ideas consistently failing any kind of empirical test they face. And the reason you know the promoters of those ideas aren't honest is that whenever their idea fails to match reality, they don't say "Whoops, we were wrong, back to the drawing board to figure out something better". Instead, they get nice salaries from think tanks and go around continuing to talk about their ideas and pretend like they all work perfectly. And one reason I know that is that I got to hear Arthur Laffer giving his spiel 20 years later - and he went on for an hour providing exactly zero data for any of his claims, mostly because there isn't any. And he didn't supply any evidence in the Q&A afterwords either that might bolster what he was saying, again because there isn't any. That's not a guy looking to get the right answer, that's a propagandist dressed up like an academic.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @02:34AM
Yup. It's called The Two Santa Claus Model [wikipedia.org]
It dates to 1976.
In addition to tax-and-spend Democrats, there were now borrow-and-spend Republicans who cut taxes, mounted up debts, and, as soon as the Ds got power, the Rs squawked about those debts (which the Rs had run up).
Arthur Laffer, who with a vague diagram drawn on a paper napkin
It was just thought experiment.
There was no actual data set.
There has NEVER been an example of Trickle Down working.
In fact, when the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class goes below 50 percent, the economy begins a decline that ends in a crash.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by captain normal on Friday June 22 2018, @03:12AM
"This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They dident start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue."
Will Rodgers---Nationally syndicated column number 518, And Here’s How It All Happened (1932), as published in the Tulsa Daily World, 5 December 1932.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers [wikiquote.org]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:37PM (7 children)
My salary went up by 3k/year and my taxes went down by 3k/year. So I have no complaints.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:49PM
And Sulla promised me he'd give me half, so I have no complaints either!
Thanks, Sulla! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Touché) by slinches on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:04PM
#MeToo
(that is the new "this", right?)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:36AM
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @12:54AM
One thing to note about this article is that it doesn't account for the personal income tax cuts in its "analysis" of the tax cuts. All it says is that the corporate tax cuts haven't impacted gross hourly wages on average. Even if this meant that few people were getting raises (not necessarily true*), the vast majority of people have seen a significant reduction in taxes on those earnings, so they are keeping more of that income.
*an alternative explanation is that many people's wages have increased, but that has been offset by hiring more entry level employees.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Aegis on Friday June 22 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)
Your deduction went down 3k (allegedly).
You'll know if your taxes went down at the end of the year.
You're assuming that the Trump admin did some math correctly which hasn't had a great track record thus far.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday June 22 2018, @02:42AM
Im an accountant, i dont have to rely on the trump admin for how the taxes will work out. The changes were pretty simple.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Friday June 22 2018, @04:57PM
Make sure you get right up in the face of evert greasy handed working joe and tell him.
I'm posting my windfalls to facebook along with this article right now. I can't wait to thank all my Trump voting family for their generosity.