Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
They have both houses of Congress now, why nothing but repeal?
dude; I have told you each and every time, what it is about. It is not my fault, you are simply, clueless and Causeless.dude, are you like the Eveready bunny hitting a fking wall or something. I have no idea what this gibberish is supposed to mean. I have asked at least five times for you to present this in english. And you keep repeating the gibberish.I believe in unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, for Labor that may not be ready for, "prime time".
I have to laugh again, dude, I'm my own person. I read materials from many outlets, I process it and I make observations from reactions to specific topics. I watch the libturds daily on the broadcast channels and I fight getting sick at the miss information that is presented and talk to the tv and radio about what isn't being reported. Hilarious. When I do watch interviews with the left, they always use their talking points. They have to be, they all say exactly the same things. It is quite fking obvious who uses talking points. BTW, I'm still waiting on evidence of any russia hacking. just saying. I've seen ten senators and representatives from the left and they spew the same line. need an investigation. Well fk, there's been a fking investigation for eight months now. still zip. And still the talking line need an investigation. Also, the libturds have never ever offered up how to help the poor. evah. all they wish to do is to throw money at them and keep them quite. SAD.....Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
Just right wing, "hate on the poor"?I believe in unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, for Labor that may not be ready for, "prime time".
I believe in giving career students a trailer to live in and a fishing pole so they can eat.
I already explained, they need 60 votes in the senate. they don't have a majority, they have a simple majority. 51 votes. Can't do much there. just can't And we already know the libs will be obstructionists, schumer said so. They cannot afford Trump to be successful. It is a sad day in the country that party trumps country.
where? you keep falling over yourself there. here, I'll show you again.Just right wing, "hate on the poor"?I believe in unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, for Labor that may not be ready for, "prime time".
I believe in giving career students a trailer to live in and a fishing pole so they can eat.
I know, you keep posting gibberish and expect we know your language. It doesn't work that way. Most all of us use English. you should try it and perhaps we could answer your fking question.dude; I have told you each and every time, what it is about. It is not my fault, you are simply, clueless and Causeless.dude, are you like the Eveready bunny hitting a fking wall or something. I have no idea what this gibberish is supposed to mean. I have asked at least five times for you to present this in english. And you keep repeating the gibberish.I believe in unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, for Labor that may not be ready for, "prime time".
You're going to wait a long time. It's all classified and dangerous. It's a CONSPIRACEE!!!!!I have to laugh again, dude, I'm my own person. I read materials from many outlets, I process it and I make observations from reactions to specific topics. I watch the libturds daily on the broadcast channels and I fight getting sick at the miss information that is presented and talk to the tv and radio about what isn't being reported. Hilarious. When I do watch interviews with the left, they always use their talking points. They have to be, they all say exactly the same things. It is quite fking obvious who uses talking points. BTW, I'm still waiting on evidence of any russia hacking. just saying. I've seen ten senators and representatives from the left and they spew the same line. need an investigation. Well fk, there's been a fking investigation for eight months now. still zip. And still the talking line need an investigation. Also, the libturds have never ever offered up how to help the poor. evah. all they wish to do is to throw money at them and keep them quite. SAD.....Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
well when you present a fact rather than a talking point a real discussion can happen. until then though all you got is mumbo jumbo talking points. The world is moving forward without you all.You're going to wait a long time. It's all classified and dangerous. It's a CONSPIRACEE!!!!!I have to laugh again, dude, I'm my own person. I read materials from many outlets, I process it and I make observations from reactions to specific topics. I watch the libturds daily on the broadcast channels and I fight getting sick at the miss information that is presented and talk to the tv and radio about what isn't being reported. Hilarious. When I do watch interviews with the left, they always use their talking points. They have to be, they all say exactly the same things. It is quite fking obvious who uses talking points. BTW, I'm still waiting on evidence of any russia hacking. just saying. I've seen ten senators and representatives from the left and they spew the same line. need an investigation. Well fk, there's been a fking investigation for eight months now. still zip. And still the talking line need an investigation. Also, the libturds have never ever offered up how to help the poor. evah. all they wish to do is to throw money at them and keep them quite. SAD.....Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
Yes, facts are repetitious.
Hilarious after the last 8 years. The New BS GOP even voted against their own ideas, in the middle of their own corrupt great recession. I just hope I live long enough to see another period of real Dem control like under FDR, LBL, and Obama(Only 3 weeks in session-all ACA).
it was a very hilarious last eight years. I agree. I am enjoying the cleanup. as I said we're moving forward. you and obummer can stay in your failed past.
Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.well when you present a fact rather than a talking point a real discussion can happen. until then though all you got is mumbo jumbo talking points. The world is moving forward without you all.You're going to wait a long time. It's all classified and dangerous. It's a CONSPIRACEE!!!!!I have to laugh again, dude, I'm my own person. I read materials from many outlets, I process it and I make observations from reactions to specific topics. I watch the libturds daily on the broadcast channels and I fight getting sick at the miss information that is presented and talk to the tv and radio about what isn't being reported. Hilarious. When I do watch interviews with the left, they always use their talking points. They have to be, they all say exactly the same things. It is quite fking obvious who uses talking points. BTW, I'm still waiting on evidence of any russia hacking. just saying. I've seen ten senators and representatives from the left and they spew the same line. need an investigation. Well fk, there's been a fking investigation for eight months now. still zip. And still the talking line need an investigation. Also, the libturds have never ever offered up how to help the poor. evah. all they wish to do is to throw money at them and keep them quite. SAD.....Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
Yes, facts are repetitious.
2012. nice. still in the past. been through it all for you soooo many times it has become exhaustive. again, you know not what you discuss here.Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.well when you present a fact rather than a talking point a real discussion can happen. until then though all you got is mumbo jumbo talking points. The world is moving forward without you all.You're going to wait a long time. It's all classified and dangerous. It's a CONSPIRACEE!!!!!I have to laugh again, dude, I'm my own person. I read materials from many outlets, I process it and I make observations from reactions to specific topics. I watch the libturds daily on the broadcast channels and I fight getting sick at the miss information that is presented and talk to the tv and radio about what isn't being reported. Hilarious. When I do watch interviews with the left, they always use their talking points. They have to be, they all say exactly the same things. It is quite fking obvious who uses talking points. BTW, I'm still waiting on evidence of any russia hacking. just saying. I've seen ten senators and representatives from the left and they spew the same line. need an investigation. Well fk, there's been a fking investigation for eight months now. still zip. And still the talking line need an investigation. Also, the libturds have never ever offered up how to help the poor. evah. all they wish to do is to throw money at them and keep them quite. SAD.....Seeing Fox/Rush etc RUN the New BS GOP, that might help. So where tf DO you get their BS, talking to dupes?seeing I don't listen to the idiots in the media, it would be hard pressed to talk about what they say. Profiling is a very strange tool to use to justify a post. but I know, it is part of the talking points memo to bring up FOX and Rush and all of them. When you submit your timesheet, I can sign it stating you used the talking points from the memo.
Yes, facts are repetitious.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Clean up what, dupe? Go back to another corrupt GOP meltdown? Scam health system? The economy is just Reaganism rolling on...
Nothing's changed DUHHHHH....2012. nice. still in the past. been through it all for you soooo many times it has become exhaustive. again, you know not what you discuss here.Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Nothing's changed DUHHHHH....2012. nice. still in the past. been through it all for you soooo many times it has become exhaustive. again, you know not what you discuss here.Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Got some more new BS
talking points LOL?
This is from 2007: Still true, just WORSE!
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
OTOH, slightly better than what it would be with no Obama...Nothing's changed DUHHHHH....2012. nice. still in the past. been through it all for you soooo many times it has become exhaustive. again, you know not what you discuss here.Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Got some more new BS
talking points LOL?
This is from 2007: Still true, just WORSE!
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
ahhh look at them talking points.
Almost free pubic colleges became expensive under Reaganism>no competition? Ditto college loans? All to save the richest from paying their fair share?Nothing's changed DUHHHHH....2012. nice. still in the past. been through it all for you soooo many times it has become exhaustive. again, you know not what you discuss here.Here's a good one- We basically have a flat tax system after 35 years of Voodoo. With rich getting all the new wealth and the nonrich and the country going to hell all that time.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Got some more new BS
talking points LOL?
This is from 2007: Still true, just WORSE!
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
That is correct, the United States is a hell hole, just like Super-Duper-Diaper-Pooper says, lol. Notice how nobody wants to get in here, geeze!
Maybe that brilliant Super-Duper Guy ought to look WHY college tuitions started rising so much, lol.
In any case, I know he and his group got reprieve as Trump and company needs to do tax reform and an Obamacare fix of some sort, but if I was them, I would get a lot of KY for September. I warned you, so if you have no lubricant, don't blame us-)
