The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

Sound better than saying we need to sound the alarm and slash away left & right in the style that has led to negative growth EU economies.

I have a decent understanding of macroeconomics, and can't wrap my brain around your logic here.

What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?

It would be just as easy for someone to assert that the negative growth is due to a populace that is overburdened by tax, and regulation during a recession.

Where did you get this information, and what were they basing this negative growth off of? Was it a loss of government jobs; due to the cutting back of a parasitic beurocracy?

Serious question...

[2.0T_Convert]

I have a decent understanding of macroeconomics, and can't wrap my brain around your logic here.

What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?

It would be just as easy for someone to assert that the negative growth is due to a populace that is overburdened by tax, and regulation during a recession.

Where did you get this information, and what were they basing this negative growth off of? Was it a loss of government jobs; due to the cutting back of a parasitic beurocracy?

Serious question...

So what proof do you have that cutting government expenses and lowering taxes will have a positive impact.

Because that seems to be the great assumption made by the Ron Paul camp.

[Fritz27]

Lowering taxes puts more money in people's pockets. The economic advantage there is plainly obvious. Cutting spending goes hand in hand with that because with less revenue the government has to spend less (politicians in real life suddenly cackled and rolled a blunt to that).

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

So what proof do you have that cutting government expenses and lowering taxes will have a positive impact.

Because that seems to be the great assumption made by the Ron Paul camp.

Common sense, macroeconomics, and recorded history back up my position.

What makes you think that more of the economic behavior which caused the housing bubble, and subsequent recession will somehow produce the inverse of said, when applied to government?

You can't borrow, tax, and spend your way to prosperity; its impossible.

Lowering taxes puts more money in people's pockets. The economic advantage there is plainly obvious. Cutting spending goes hand in hand with that because with less revenue the government has to spend less (politicians in real life suddenly cackled and rolled a blunt to that).

I lol'd

[Eistreiber]

You can't borrow, tax, and spend your way to prosperity; its impossible.

True (been a while since we agreed on anything, eh?).

But you're talking about a direction. The people we elect phrase it this way, "You CAN borrow, tax, and spend your way to re-election; it is usual." And think thusly of course.

All they do is hand off the country's credit card Left to Right or Right to Left every 4 or 8 years (speed bumps every 2 years).


This being political thread... I see THAT ^ as being the problem. Forget the L vs. R ideology, we're never going to go full Commie (for the good of all) or full Capitalism (quick draw wins). The nature of civilization is finding a balance of rewarding risk and investment, while protecting those who would lose in any pure teeth- and- claws environment. We have the ethics we can afford. If you want to start shooting cripples... OK, but I'll leave it you to select the definition. Color-blind, tone deaf? Got any 'slow' kids, or relatives? Any unconventional geniuses in the family (someone like Tesla for example; brilliant, but loony as hell).

Balance = what we can afford, that we'd like to do. Clean healthy food, be able to go to the doctor when you feel bad. A legal system that approaches fairness. Voting same (current system is a laughable joke, if you're not a US citizen).

Secure borders so those damn Can-eh -dians don't come down here to mooch our mooses, enough world presence to protect our people; good enough weapons so it isn't embarrassing to watch our 'leaders' make excuses for choosing to go to war unprepared. Enough investment in the future to lead the world in... eh, something. Is there anything left that we do better?

Balance.

[pentaxshooter]

Balance is what has brought us to our current predicament. I want none of that.

[Eistreiber]

Balance is what has brought us to our current predicament. I want none of that.

Hmm... interesting. "I want none of that" is... um... trying to be tactful, here... um... ignorant? There is much 'balance' inflicted on you that you benefit from, whether you're aware of it or not.

To remove any 'artificial' balance, simply remove any law or agency that enforces such.

Please nominate (remember to fund what you use, and at least try to make an effort to consider what you take for granted; eh, cops, fire-fighters, soldiers, judges, safe food and water, mostly clean air, DEW line just in case[I just worked 2 months at Thule, and yes they do still take that sh*t seriously; and will shoot your *ss if you try to take pictures], und so weiter. Delete candidates from Left and Right if you can. Have fun).

So... I'll ask you, what should a good society/ country/ culture provide? How do you want to live, what kind of world? What for your kids? Their kids?

Open question; in 20 years how do you think this country should operate? and how do we get to this Utopia from here?

[O_G]

Lowering taxes puts more money in people's pockets.

Yeah. Money they can spend to build roads. Who needs government to build roads when there are private companies with lobbyists and CEOs to pay for?

Although, really, people get screwed no matter what. Business buys government.

[O_G]

Romney is, demonstrably, untruthful about damn near everything. Anybody who believes a word he says is a rube.

Substitute the name Romney with "any national politician" and you're just as correct. And, the thing is, the media (let alone the public) would crucify any politician who dared make truth-telling their business.

People like many things and thinking is not one of them. The quickest way to make enemies in this world is to challenge someone intellectually, even on a minor point. Everyone expects the comfortable lies.

[A.Wilder]

Lowering taxes puts more money in people's pockets.

True. But it's rarely my pocket.

[pentaxshooter]

Hmm... interesting. "I want none of that" is... um... trying to be tactful, here... um... ignorant? There is much 'balance' inflicted on you that you benefit from, whether you're aware of it or not.

The utility of such 'balance' is really besides the point.

...cops, fire-fighters, soldiers, judges, safe food and water, mostly clean air,...

All of these are great. I want them. I don't think they need to be provided by using violence against others.

Open question; in 20 years how do you think this country should operate? and how do we get to this Utopia from here?

Your prejudice against new ideas is showing itself, my friend. That which is not the status-quo does not equate to being 'Utopian'. Nothing is more 'Utopian' than the belief in a benevolent governance...

That being said, I can hope that we have come to great realizations about the size/scope/power of government and that the wonderful free market is back to its usual state of oppressing people and employing children for long hours.

What is far more likely is a vast currency disaster and the further erosion of our civil liberties. Oh, and war, we love war in this country.

[2.0T_Convert]

I'm calling for a very structured highly government controlled society within 20-30 years. For the good of the people.

Outside of the political spectrum resources we depend on will be more scarce and simple less government style leadership won't be able to deal with these issues as well as the side that will use US military muscle to fight and secure anything America needs.

[Mike!]

Government spending is, for better or worse, a direct component of GDP. Money goes from the Treasury to the pockets of government employees, contractors, and suppliers who then circulate it through the economy, either through capital investment, hiring, and production (think Lockheed Martin) or through consumer spending (bureaucrats, employees of contractors/suppliers).

Cut government spending alone, and no way around it, you're cutting money from the economy, with the benefit of adding less to the nation's debt. Combine it with tax cuts, and you're keeping the debt the same as it would be, but you're not necessarily adding the money back to the economy. It depends on what taxes are cut, and who the beneficiaries are.

As income increases, money saved instead of spent increases, and money spent on imported goods also increases. So if the tax cuts are targeted in such a way that they benefit those with higher income more, the money's not necessarily reentering the economy at the same efficiency as the government spending it replaced.

It all depends on the particulars. Cutting 1,000 middle class bureaucrat jobs and using that as an excuse to extend the top-bracket tax cut isn't going to yield a GDP benefit. Then there's the additional costs incurred to the government safety net for unemployment/social assistance and federal->state funding transfers for state safety nets for anyone losing jobs whether a federal bureaucrat or someone layed off from a government contractor/supplier.

Basically while cutting spending can be good for deficit control, it's not necessarily going to have a desirable economic effect. And if you're cutting taxes instead of letting the spending reduction go against the deficit, what's the point? You've probably just increased government costs and reduced revenues by doing so.

You can't borrow, tax, and spend your way to prosperity; its impossible.

You can't borrow, tax, and spend your way to prosperity indefinitely. Arguably, it's what we've been doing for decades. The US as the world's largest economy has been perpetuated by deficit spending for generations, rather than allowed to rise and fall on its own merits. As time goes by, we've just become more and more overleveraged, to the point where the 2008 economic collapse nearly toppled the house of cards that our current GDP levels are based on.

It comes back to "growth" as the primary measure of economic or business success. Is indefinite growth even possible? Economic sustainability seems like a more pertinent goal, but we're not getting there by trying to grow ourselves out of deficit, or by drastic cuts.

I know a lot of you are convinced that cutting back the albatross of government spending would be the path to sustainability, but even Paul's budget proposal involve presumptions that significant cuts in tax rates in tandem with proposed spending cuts will produce economic growth significant enough to actually increase revenue to government in order to balance the budget. It's an equally unreasonable pipe dream that seems to hold that we're on some extreme end of the Laffer Curve that could actually produce those results.

[pentaxshooter]

Cut government spending alone, and no way around it, you're cutting money from the economy,

No. This government only has the money it can confiscate from others. This money will be spent, and with better thrift and economy, when it is in the hands of non-governmental organizations/individuals.

The government is the only one that truly "cuts" money from the economy.

[Mike!]

No. This government only has the money it can confiscate from others. This money will be spent, and with better thrift and economy, when it is in the hands of non-governmental organizations/individuals.

The government is the only one that truly "cuts" money from the economy.

Government spending is a component of GDP. We are currently in a deficit spending situation and have been for a long time. A reduction in government spending, in and of itself, reduces GDP. It also reduces the deficit, and net additions to debt, but it's less money being borrowed, not less money being confiscated from an individual.

[zukiphile]

Mike, I know you didn't mean your answer to be comprehensive. Without taking any modestly priced shots, I would leave some commentary.

Government spending is, for better or worse, a direct component of GDP. Money goes from the Treasury to the pockets of government employees, contractors, and suppliers who then circulate it through the economy, either through capital investment, hiring, and production (think Lockheed Martin) or through consumer spending (bureaucrats, employees of contractors/suppliers).

I would add that before the treasury got the money, it represented someone's productive activity. I don't dispute the part of the cycle you describe, but think there is an important prior step.

Cut government spending alone, and no way around it, you're cutting money from the economy, with the benefit of adding less to the nation's debt. Combine it with tax cuts, and you're keeping the debt the same as it would be, ...

This assume that a reduced tax rate (the rate is nearly always what we are discussing when mentioning tax cuts) rather than tax revenue. A higher rate can increase or decrease revenue.

As income increases, money saved instead of spent increases, and money spent on imported goods also increases.

The bolded part will depend on how consumption and saving are treated. Punish the reward for saving and investment with taxes and/or reward consumption with a mortgage interest deduction, and that higher income will not find its way into saving. Not that either is categorically better or worse, but that people will distribute that extra income according to incentive.

So if the tax cuts are targeted in such a way that they benefit those with higher income more, the money's not necessarily reentering the economy at the same efficiency as the government spending it replaced.

I think it is fair to ask "Efficiency for what?". If we want that productivity immediately channelled into consumption, your observation is reasonable. If we want it channelled into, say, industrial tooling, then sending everyone $600 isn't a good way to acheive that end.

It all depends on the particulars. Cutting 1,000 middle class bureaucrat jobs and using that as an excuse to extend the top-bracket tax cut isn't going to yield a GDP benefit. Then there's the additional costs incurred to the government safety net for unemployment/social assistance and federal->state funding transfers for state safety nets for anyone losing jobs whether a federal bureaucrat or someone layed off from a government contractor/supplier.

Basically while cutting spending can be good for deficit control, it's not necessarily going to have a desirable economic effect. And if you're cutting taxes instead of letting the spending reduction go against the deficit, what's the point? You've probably just increased government costs and reduced revenues by doing so.

I agree that it depends on the particulars, but note again that your seem to imply that cutting tax rates will reduce revenue prospectively.

You can't borrow, tax, and spend your way to prosperity indefinitely. Arguably, it's what we've been doing for decades. The US as the world's largest economy has been perpetuated by deficit spending for generations, rather than allowed to rise and fall on its own merits. As time goes by, we've just become more and more overleveraged, to the point where the 2008 economic collapse nearly toppled the house of cards that our current GDP levels are based on.

So what is the difference between the US and Greece? I don't think you meant to imply that US government deficits are the cause of US prosperity, or that the US economy hasn't risen and fallen according to the relative merits of how it has been influenced by a number of policies and circumstances, taxes included.

How a government pays for services is a part of how an economy rewards productivity, but it is the economic productivity that allows the human and material resources that permits delivery of those services. It isn't the only part of the conversation, but it is a part that the greeks ignored for too long.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

No. This government only has the money it can confiscate from others. This money will be spent, and with better thrift and economy, when it is in the hands of non-governmental organizations/individuals.

The government is the only one that truly "cuts" money from the economy.

He's talking Keynesian economics breh. There's no sense in trying to reason with ANYONE who believes that nonsense is sustainable.

Keynesian economics = using one credit card to pay off another, in an indefinite cycle; all the while accumulating nothing tangible, that can later be liquidated, or otherwise be used to satisfy even a small part of a rapidly expanding, self perpetuating debt.

In other words; Keynesian economics is akin to being way behind on your mortgage, and constantly refinancing it at a higher interest rate each time, and borrowing AGAIN off of money that you cash advanced yourself from said loans, and then blowing this newly leveraged money on hookers, and blow.

Proponents defend this economic disaster by crying about how it must be perpetuated to keep the hookers, and coke dealers in business.

[zukiphile]

He's talking Keynesian economics breh. There's no sense in trying to reason with ANYONE who believes that nonsense is sustainable.***Proponents defend this economic disaster by crying about how it must be perpetuated to keep the hookers, and coke dealers in business.

If you want people who are willing to discuss ideas with you to return to the conversation, that sort of rude dismissal does not serve your purpose.

If you want to get tha all heat no light crowd more involved, the response above is pitch-perfect.

My two cents.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

If you want people who are willing to discuss ideas with you to return to the conversation, that sort of rude dismissal does not serve your purpose.

If you want to get tha all heat no light crowd more involved, the response above is pitch-perfect.

My two cents.

I don't disagree with you, but my post was meant to demonstrate how ill conceived Keynesian economic theory is. It was was not intended to invoke thoughtful discussion from those who blindly subscribe to what amounts to an economic 'weekend in Vegas'; because it happens to fit into their naive, money squandering view of the 'perfect Utopian', socialist dream state..

[Mike!]

Mike, I know you didn't mean your answer to be comprehensive. Without taking any modestly priced shots, I would leave some commentary.



I would add that before the treasury got the money, it represented someone's productive activity. I don't dispute the part of the cycle you describe, but think there is an important prior step.



This assume that a reduced tax rate (the rate is nearly always what we are discussing when mentioning tax cuts) rather than tax revenue. A higher rate can increase or decrease revenue.



The bolded part will depend on how consumption and saving are treated. Punish the reward for saving and investment with taxes and/or reward consumption with a mortgage interest deduction, and that higher income will not find its way into saving. Not that either is categorically better or worse, but that people will distribute that extra income according to incentive.



I think it is fair to ask "Efficiency for what?". If we want that productivity immediately channelled into consumption, your observation is reasonable. If we want it channelled into, say, industrial tooling, then sending everyone $600 isn't a good way to acheive that end.



I agree that it depends on the particulars, but note again that your seem to imply that cutting tax rates will reduce revenue prospectively.



So what is the difference between the US and Greece? I don't think you meant to imply that US government deficits are the cause of US prosperity, or that the US economy hasn't risen and fallen according to the relative merits of how it has been influenced by a number of policies and circumstances, taxes included.

How a government pays for services is a part of how an economy rewards productivity, but it is the economic productivity that allows the human and material resources that permits delivery of those services. It isn't the only part of the conversation, but it is a part that the greeks ignored for too long.

I appreciate the commentary Zuki. To answer a few questions you posed,

By "efficiency," admittedly I was refering to it being a larger increase to GDP, at least in the short term sense. It is a simplistic presentation of it. I started on the topic of the effect of government spending vs. cuts on GDP, as I felt it was being mischaracterized earlier in this page. Personally, as I hope my later statements expanded on, I believe there's too much emphasis on aggregate "GDP" alone.

I do believe that at this point in time, for the US in particular, cutting tax rates will reduce tax revenue. The US nominal and effective rates (after deductions/credits) are low relative to similarly developed countries, and my cumulative experience leads me to believe we're on the left side of the Laffer curve. I've certainly seen no evidence that we're on the right side of the curve.

Cutting payroll taxes over the past few years has certainly helped soften the economic landing and allowed for both GDP growth and overall revenue growth, so it's certainly not cut and dry. The unfortunate truth when it comes to measuring the effect of deficit spending on bolstering the economy, and of tax cuts on revenue growth, is there's no control group to see what would have happened if the action hadn't been taken.

With regards to the effect of the cumulative national debt on the economy, I think there are a lot of parallels between Greece and the US. The US is simply not as far along as Greece in terms of accumulating debt (as a % of GDP). I'm inferring from the way you brought up that topic that you're thinking "if deficit spending grows an economy, then why is Greece in the situation it's in?" (correct me if I'm misinterpreting). What I'm getting at is natural economic pitfalls that would otherwise result in negative growth have the potential to be masked by the economic effect of deficit spending. For both the US and for Greece, had the cumulative deficit spending represented by debt not have ever been incurred over time, present GDP levels would be lower.

This isn't to say that deficit spending is the driving factor behind GDP growth, only that it is a factor, one of many economic inputs. My bit about rises and falls was acknowledging creative destruction and its impacts, and noting that the positive economic effect of deficit spending will have, over time, resulted in some reductions in incidences of negative growth, and in turn opportunities for creative destruction. It's helped induce a prosperity, what some might characterize as the illusion of one (I would argue the prosperity was real, but the bill still needs to be paid sometime).

To add a personal finance analogy, it is like getting a credit card for $10,000 that you didn't have before, charging groceries on it while you're laid off, buying a big-screen TV with it once you have a job again, but never really paying it down. The prosperity is real. You were able to maintain your lifestyle. You are enjoying the luxury of the TV. But now you have a $300/mo payment that you can barely 'afford' on a cash basis. Could you then, ever really 'afford' to have maintained your lifestyle to begin with? Should you have just scraped by when you were laid off? What happens if you lose your job now? Basically, the prosperity was real, but it was also debt-funded, and that should be recognized.

The full picture of Keynesian economic policy involves paying down debt or accumulating surpluses during times of economic growth, which allows for funding for lean times. In the personal finance analogy, this would be more like going through a $10,000 savings account and then having to build it back up, rather than a $10,000 credit card. Unfortunately, this approach is often not followed through with, which leads to a popular misunderstanding of the overall value or lack thereof of Keynesian policy.

[2.0T_Convert]

In other words; Keynesian economics is akin to being way behind on your mortgage, and constantly refinancing it at a higher interest rate each time, and borrowing AGAIN off of money that you cash advanced yourself from said loans, and then blowing this newly leveraged money on hookers, and blow.

From the perspective of a nation where millions depend on government services that sound a hell of a lot better than saying we have no choice but the eliminate food stamps, unemployment, welfare, federal education aid, etc..

[pentaxshooter]

Government spending is a component of GDP. We are currently in a deficit spending situation and have been for a long time. A reduction in government spending, in and of itself, reduces GDP. It also reduces the deficit, and net additions to debt, but it's less money being borrowed, not less money being confiscated from an individual.

Well, sure, it affects GDP, but who cares? GDP is a largely useless and terribly flawed way to measure economic growth

[pentaxshooter]

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." -Paul Krugman, 2002.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

From the perspective of a nation where millions depend on government services that sound a hell of a lot better than saying we have no choice but the eliminate food stamps, unemployment, welfare, federal education aid, etc..

Realistically I have no problem with maintaining current social welfare programs; while systematically reining in the beurocratic waste, abuse, and fraud; that any realistic person would agree drives up the cost of said programs considerably. That said; expansion of social welfare shouldnt even be considered IMO.

Im a realist, and at my core a compassionate human being. I would never advocate cutting off the literal life line of millions of poor people.

I am however against the expansion of social welfare as a means of purchasing votes, while further strangling the 'productive populace' that foots the bill.

From a fiscal perspective we need to stop the bleeding, and that's not accomplished by blowing off another leg; expecting the blast to cauterize the old wound, as well as the new one...

[pentaxshooter]

.

I would agree with this sentiment. Even my heartless anarchist self doesn't advocate pulling out the rug

We could start by ending our military empire.

[Mike!]

Well, sure, it affects GDP, but who cares? GDP is a largely useless and terribly flawed way to measure economic growth

It's a great way to measure economic growth. But I agree that economic growth shouldn't be the be-all end-all thing that we're all striving for.

[zukiphile]

I do believe that at this point in time, for the US in particular, cutting tax rates will reduce tax revenue. The US nominal and effective rates (after deductions/credits) are low relative to similarly developed countries, and my cumulative experience leads me to believe we're on the left side of the Laffer curve. I've certainly seen no evidence that we're on the right side of the curve.

You could be correct that cutting some rates now would reduce government revenue in the short term. I would suggest that the peak point in the Laffer curve isn't static and a marginal FIT rate that was on its left two decades ago could be on its right today.

Part of the frustrating effect of government budget crises is that they suggest that how much the government gets in the next year is a pivotal economic consideration.

If you take the example of investment in machine tools, the kind of tooling that is necessary to make other tools, hypothetically making a return on that sort of investment tax free would deprive government of the revenue from those investments, but would increase the incentive to create the resources that allow industrial productivity, and the increased productivity, somethng that otherwise would not have existed, would be added to the tax base.

That isn't an analysis based on the laffer curve in a single year, but a thought about tax policy over time that allows greater productivity.

With regards to the effect of the cumulative national debt on the economy, I think there are a lot of parallels between Greece and the US. The US is simply not as far along as Greece in terms of accumulating debt (as a % of GDP). I'm inferring from the way you brought up that topic that you're thinking "if deficit spending grows an economy, then why is Greece in the situation it's in?" (correct me if I'm misinterpreting). What I'm getting at is natural economic pitfalls that would otherwise result in negative growth have the potential to be masked by the economic effect of deficit spending. For both the US and for Greece, had the cumulative deficit spending represented by debt not have ever been incurred over time, present GDP levels would be lower.

You used the word "masked" with I think is precisely correct. All that masking served to let greeks think getting to your job at 11am, chain smoking and sending out for coffee before leaving early to go home for a nap, together with retiring at 60 was working fine. Now you have a greek population, who when asked to cut back on government transfers (not services, transfers) take to the streets to rail against the injustice of having to work as if they were citizens of a first world nation.

It's helped induce a prosperity, what some might characterize as the illusion of one (I would argue the prosperity was real, but the bill still needs to be paid sometime).

I don't think the prosperity is illusory, and I would suggest that it always is eventually paid through inflation.

The other complication is that taxes and government are not fungible widgets. The original GI bill seems to have freed up or assisted in creating a large pool of talent. Before that, the frenetic industrial dictat of WWII looks to have amped up an industrial capacity that had been hobbled by depression and the New Deal.

On the other hand, agricultural controls that had farmers paid not to plant, an explicit policy to limit food production, left the world poorer.

I acknowledge your point that poltiical history hasn't reflected an implementation of keynesian policy. While that theory may well be believed by many, and certainly contains some valid observations, it doesn't reflect why those debt polices are undertaken politically.

I think the more pertinent measure is the portion of the productive economy diverted into government. How that wealth is pulled from the economy, i.e. what is taxed and when it is taxed, are important specific considerations. Yet in a broader sense, at some point if too much is pulled from production of wealth, there isn't enough wealth created and left over to do the things we want to do politically.

To paraphrase Thatcher, economically there is the limit of running out of other peoples' money. The gloomy lesson of the greek model is that politically we only recognise that when we've no other choice. Action without choice is rarely a happy path.

[pentaxshooter]

It's a great way to measure economic growth. But I agree that economic growth shouldn't be the be-all end-all thing that we're all striving for.

I much prefer PPP (Private Product Produced) which is GDP - government spending.

Don't even get me started on how stupid CPI is

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

We could start by ending our military empire.

Pffffft, cough, cough... pass that shít breh. :p

[pentaxshooter]

Pffffft, cough, cough... pass that shít breh. :p

Damn, I forgot that is all I am supposed to care about. You know, being a Paulbot and all.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

Damn, I forgot that is all I am supposed to care about. You know, being a Paulbot and all.

Screw that... I AM the vast right wing conspiracy, and enjoy sticky nuggets as much as any dirty lefty. screw the stereotypes breh Except perhaps Bang Olufsun; which is a damn fine sound system IMO.

[zukiphile]

Screw that... I AM the vast right wing conspiracy, ...

I don't remember you from the meetings, but I usually arrive early and drink a lot.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

I don't remember you from the meetings, but I usually arrive early and drink a lot.

Im the guy who lights his black market Cubans with rolls of one hundred dollar bills, while watching the $5000 an HR prostitutes marinate a large bald eagle with gallons of 50 year old, single malt Scotch, while several more $5000 an HR prostitutes season the eagle with multiple kilo's of cocaine, while the bird roasts slowly on the coals created by the burning of The Constitution, as well as piles of elderly people, and minorities; to give it that stench of burning flesh, and effluence that we love so much..

Remember me now?

[adoniram7]

This is fun:

My immigration lawyer (not for me, of course) is from Romania but was
born and raised for the most part in Russia.

He went on an tirade this past meeting, unsolicited, about how the
Democratic Party and Obama sound EXACTLY like the Soviet Propaganda.
He ranted and raved as to how he ESCAPED to get away from that crap,
and can't believe it exists here.

I asked him if he had ever met a Russian who voted for Obama, and he
said only those of the 70+ year old generation, who were afraid to have
their benefits taken away. (Queue the grandmother thrown off the cliff
ad against Ryan....)

All the rest voted against him.

[FlashRedGLS1.8T]

We could start by ending our military empire.

You're going to get stoned to death...be careful.