|
Crackbone posted:It's bullshit. Just Google "affordable care act illegal immigrants". All the links talk about how the ACA doesn't cover illegal immigrants. In fact, it cuts the funding that hospitals get for treating illegal immigrants who go to the emergency room.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
mhachtx posted:
My uncle posted the same thing tonight, as far as Ben stein saying this, the only thing I can find is a snopes article saying he didn't
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:If this actually happened, they got the extra money back in their tax refund. Anybody that thinks working overtime will somehow net them less money overall is pretty stupid. Oh no, I know how our tax system works and I guessed that they'd get the money back at tax time. When I told the woman what I suspected was going on and that it'd be part of her tax refund I was told,"Well, I don't want it then, I want it now!" What Crackbone said is probably what happened. Didn't know about the W4's, if I still worked there, I could have passed that on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
I'm having a debate on another forum with some posters who insist that people who receive raises that put them into a higher tax bracket can sometimes end up taking home LESS pay overall, because they might no longer qualify for certain deductions or tax credits. Particularly this affects low income workers. They don't have the incentive to get a better job, work more hours or take a raise because they might lose their benefits (welfare, food stamps etc) and the trade-off ultimately COSTS them money. One poster mentioned that she is facing a dilemma of her own because if she earns over a certain amount per month, she won't be qualified for Texas healthcare for her family anymore and she'll have to start paying $1000/month. I'm not really sure how to respond to them. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:I'm having a debate on another forum with some posters who insist that people who receive raises that put them into a higher tax bracket can sometimes end up taking home LESS pay overall, because they might no longer qualify for certain deductions or tax credits. Particularly this affects low income workers. They don't have the incentive to get a better job, work more hours or take a raise because they might lose their benefits (welfare, food stamps etc) and the trade-off ultimately COSTS them money. One poster mentioned that she is facing a dilemma of her own because if she earns over a certain amount per month, she won't be qualified for Texas healthcare for her family anymore and she'll have to start paying $1000/month. That instead of blaming the government, maybe they should be mad that insurance costs $12,000 a year without a subsidy? Ask them how they think somebody is supposed to get ahead when making sure their children can get medical treatment takes up more than half of an average salary take-home pay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:I'm not really sure how to respond to them. Any ideas? It's tough because it's true and it's an awful situation. There are huge waiting lists for government housing aid but if you accidentally pick up a few extra hours of work you can find yourself homeless. I'd say the solution is to have a graduated aid system where you don't get the rug pulled out from under you. Let's say a person makes $930 a month and gets Medicaid. Let's say they get another part time job and start making. $1200 a month. I think it'd be fair to ask them to pay in a percentage of the cost of their insurance, increasing proportionally with their ability to pay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
It's funny how the few social services there are actually work in the way a lot of people think the tax code works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:I'm having a debate on another forum with some posters who insist that people who receive raises that put them into a higher tax bracket can sometimes end up taking home LESS pay overall, because they might no longer qualify for certain deductions or tax credits. Particularly this affects low income workers. They don't have the incentive to get a better job, work more hours or take a raise because they might lose their benefits (welfare, food stamps etc) and the trade-off ultimately COSTS them money. One poster mentioned that she is facing a dilemma of her own because if she earns over a certain amount per month, she won't be qualified for Texas healthcare for her family anymore and she'll have to start paying $1000/month. This criticism is actually an argument about how difficult it is to achieve social mobility in disguise. They're unwittingly pointing out that the problem is a lack of support. The issue isn't that social services deter people from working harder, it's that moving out of poverty is so difficult and even today's government help is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:I'm having a debate on another forum with some posters who insist that people who receive raises that put them into a higher tax bracket can sometimes end up taking home LESS pay overall, because they might no longer qualify for certain deductions or tax credits. Particularly this affects low income workers. They don't have the incentive to get a better job, work more hours or take a raise because they might lose their benefits (welfare, food stamps etc) and the trade-off ultimately COSTS them money. One poster mentioned that she is facing a dilemma of her own because if she earns over a certain amount per month, she won't be qualified for Texas healthcare for her family anymore and she'll have to start paying $1000/month. It varies by the program. EITC and food stamps have a gradual system where earning more slowly reduces benefits, encouraging people to work more. Welfare (TANF) forces people to work, but if the earn too much it is all gone. Medicaid is a mixed bag, as income increases, you are asked to pay slightly increasing premiums, but then bam it vanishes too. Obamacare fixes this in part by extending how much you can make and still get Medicaid, and when you fall off Medicaid you can get insurance with heavily subsidized premiums, and subsidized out of pocket costs, nearly as cheap as Medicaid. So earning $1000 more will change your insurance plan, but your total costs shouldn't increase by $6000 or anything. Unfortunately, Obamacare reintroduces this problem at the other end. As soon as you cross 400% FPL you lose all subsidizes, and depending on your age and where you live this could mean losing $7000 in subsidies because you earned an extra $50 that year. The problem is that US programs always (or often) place hard caps, which is stupid. They should always be setup with a maximum benefit for those at the very bottom and as your income increases, the benefits very very slowly drop. That way you let people naturally drift off the program as their income causes the benefit to reach $0 on its own. For example, if you removed the 400% FPL limit and said anyone over 400% gets subsidies to keep their premiums at 9.5% of their AGI it would mean single that people making $65000 whose insurance is $12000 would still get help. But it would naturally exclude people making $125000 without some stupid artificial hard cap. The argument from the right is often that this is proof the programs promote dependency (because people would rather earn $25k with aid, than earn $50k without aid, obviously!), and that is why we should gut the programs. The proper response is, "the programs are complicated, but generally you have a point that many are designed poorly. The best solution though is to fix the way they work so people who need help keep getting it, those that could use the help but currently don't will get help proportional to their income, and all the programs would scale such that earning more money always leaves you better off financially." Its like the opposite of FYGM, its "Didn't Get Mine, gently caress Yours!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Its like the opposite of FYGM, its "Didn't Get Mine, gently caress Yours!" That's certainly the argument a lot of people seem to have against unions. I don't got no good job and I didn't go to no fancy college, why should you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
I like the phrase crab mentality, or crabs in the bucket. It's a down-homey, common-sensible phrase that working class people ought to gravitate to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:At least for some people, it stems from not understanding marginal tax rates, and thinking that they can wind up losing significant amounts of money by going up to the next bracket. And some of it is just flat-out spite - they'd rather make less money if it means giving less to the government. The rest is probably just platitudes and Just So Stories. This is what confuses me about taxes and small business. I don't care what my small business tax is, at the end of the day if I'm not making enough money from the business to pay for what I do then I'm doing a lovely job. And I'm not going to hire people out of the good of my heart and having extra cash, but out of the expectation that they will earn me even more profit. I'll hire someone if they'll net me an extra dollar each before taxes. I'll hire a thousand people. And if you raise taxes I'll hire a thousand more. AS LONG AS THEY MAKE ME A NET PROFIT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
So my grandpa just posted this article (from February, for whatever reason): http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/27/pres-obama-cut-health-care-troops#ixzz28ZDRYCVU I skimmed the article, and the one it sourced, and I'm not really sure what to make of it. Can I get a more educated take than mine (basically anyone who knows anything about this kind of thing) on how to respond to it? Basically I'm wondering to what degree this is bullshit, since Snopes doesn't really turn out anything on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Cakeequals posted:So my grandpa just posted this article (from February, for whatever reason): Here's the Obama camp's response to similar accusations: http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/romney-is-wrong-to-claim-that-president-obama-plans-cuts-to-health-care-for/ The most important and deceptive part of that article is how it leaves out what Romney's plans are for Tricare, which are to privatize it with a voucher system very similar to what Paul Ryan wanted to do with Medicare, which was extremely unpopular. This kind of hypocrisy and deception by omission is very similar to how Paul Ryan keeps talking about Obama "cutting $800 million from Medicare" when it's actually not a cut but rather a decrease in reimbursement rates and a policy which Ryan was not only in favor of, but actually factored into his much maligned budget.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:I like the phrase crab mentality, or crabs in the bucket. It's a down-homey, common-sensible phrase that working class people ought to gravitate to. I saw crabs in a bucket actually doing that yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Anyone ever tried just going with, "You trust the guys who hate socialized medicine to not hurt Medicare?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
They'd just respond about how the free market is the best or some such nonsense as soon as they see "socialized".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Sankis posted:They'd just respond about how the free market is the best or some such nonsense as soon as they see "socialized". They just don't think Medicare is socialized medicine, likely because they don't actually understand what socialism is other than scary dogwhistle. Like these retards. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Cakeequals posted:So my grandpa just posted this article (from February, for whatever reason): This misleading on a couple things I can see immediately. The title sets the tone for the article, saying he's cutting benefits for troops, but healthcare for *troops* is untouched. The premium increases are for retirees, and for military families, which they mention in the article, but its too late TROOPS has already been stuck in your mind by the title. Also, there are no benefits cuts I can find, only premium and copay increases. The article also mentions that "unionized civilian workers" for Dept. Of Defense are not hit by the cuts. The implication is that the UNION cut a deal with Obama because he is in their pocket. Except, the change was to all of Tricare, no exceptions. The reason the civilian workers are unaffected is because they don't get Tricare at all! They get the same Federal Employee Health Benefits all other Federal Employees get (including Congress). And their premiums increase whenever those plans' premiums increase, and their cost sharing (copay, deductibles, etc) change whenever the private insurance companies which operate them decide to increase them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
BJA posted:My uncle posted the same thing tonight, as far as Ben stein saying this, the only thing I can find is a snopes article saying he didn't You obviously should never mislead someone, but if you can convince him something he thinks Ben Stein said is wrong, I wouldn't go the extra step and tell him that it isn't actually a Ben Stein quote. The guy has proven himself to be a giant shithead and even if someone thinks less of him for the wrong reasons, that's probably a net good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Ben Stein, a Jewish man, literally made a movie where he called people who study evolution the spiritual successors of Adolf Hitler's eugenics because it's called social Darwinism. There's no real goof there, I just wanna be clear who right wingers think is some intellectual giant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Boxman posted:You obviously should never mislead someone, but if you can convince him something he thinks Ben Stein said is wrong, I wouldn't go the extra step and tell him that it isn't actually a Ben Stein quote. The guy has proven himself to be a giant shithead and even if someone thinks less of him for the wrong reasons, that's probably a net good thing. Yeah, it usually matters when people say "here's a Ben Franklin quote..." and he never said or wrote it, because its as much about characterizing the person or making them sound like they are "on our side". But with the Ben Stein quote it doesn't really matter because its the kind of thing he would say. Just go after why the quote is stupid in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Ben Stein, a Jewish man, literally made a movie where he called people who study evolution the spiritual successors of Adolf Hitler's eugenics because it's called social Darwinism. He also thinks Darwinism explains the origins of life. So its pretty clear he doesnt understand even the very basics of evolution. FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Darwinism does explain the origin of life. poo poo that can reproduce reproduces and poo poo that can't...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
From the owner of a pizza shop near me. Normally cool dudes, but the Free Market Fellatio here is astounding.quote:It sounds to me as though you are asking me if I am endorsing sweat shop type labor... The answer is no... Me and my business survive at the very end of the economic chain and survive by keeping costs low and quality high... Quality high, means we already pay above minimum wage, but not until the employee has shown they deserve more by hard work and quality pizza production, not because the government tells me I have to pay more... In a truly free market economy, prices and wages fall where they will be by the normal economic pressures... Inflation has always been the result of inflated wages that the economy can not support... Think about it for a minute... Lower costs mean lower prices... The natural balance of our economy is messed up because of the laws and practices of the generations of law makers and manufacturers that preceded our own... Sure its nice to be guaranteed a wage, but what if that wage is being paid for a low performing employee??? Corporate greed has shown that all manufacturing will go to the areas of the globe that will produce the items at the lowest cost hence no manufacturing jobs in the US... and an entire piece of the economic food chain of the country has become extinct as wage earners/spenders... While the companies enjoy a temporary high level of profits until they start to run out of customers because the jobs are no longer here... Our parents generation skipped the pain that their children are now feeling so that they could earn high wages and have cheap products... That can only go on so long before the balance of economic power changes to the country with the most complete, balanced economy. Manufacturing is the key... The countries economic problems are a result of poor structure and can't be permanently fixed by taxing or not taxing... The problem is a real economic solution is not overnight and our country has become spoiled and impatient and not willing to sacrifice... We live in a society of entitlement... I think entitlement sucks! My two cents... EDIT: Holy poo poo somehow I'd missed the phrase "natural balance of our economy". I wasn't aware that economies were naturally-occurring entities! Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Do you know a great way for the Koch borthers and the like to stick it too the lazy moochers? Pay them so much that they actually have to start paying federal income taxes. That'll show'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:From the owner of a pizza shop near me. Normally cool dudes, but the Free Market Fellatio here is astounding. "Lower costs mean lower prices" is literally laughably untrue in so many circumstances, not least of which including lower costs often result in just more profit. This guy owns and operates a business? What gets me is he is so close to realizing it; he even talks about greed and he just needs to make the connection between the two concepts to recognize that companies will by and large pay people the absolute minimum they can to get by. 
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:"Lower costs mean lower prices" is literally laughably untrue in so many circumstances, not least of which including lower costs often result in just more profit. This guy owns and operates a business?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Yup. For some reason, he seems to believe that the price/wage spiral is the only underlying cause of inflation, and that inflation alone is the cause of economic crisis. Next time it comes up (or if it's still ongoing) ask him what proportion of his costs are due to wages, because if it's not 100% you can then point out that if he doubled his wages paid the price of his pizzas wouldn't have to double to keep making the same profit he was making before. Here's a decent study on fast food establishments and minimum wage changes in New Jersey; it should relate pretty well with a pizza place. It's a slightly older paper now, but the findings are pretty thorough and it's easy enough to read through. Particularly this portion, related to minimum wage and price inflation: quote:"The average restaurant in New Jersey initially paid about half its workers less than the new minimum wage. If wages rose by roughly 15 percent for these workers, and if labor's share of total costs is 30 percent, we would expect prices to rise by about 2.2 percent ( = 0.15 X 0.5X 0.3) due to the minimum-wage rise. Much of the price increase due to minimum wage increases is passed on, but it doesn't happen at an equivalent ratio and is influenced by competition within the market. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Next time it comes up (or if it's still ongoing) ask him what proportion of his costs are due to wages, because if it's not 100% you can then point out that if he doubled his wages paid the price of his pizzas wouldn't have to double to keep making the same profit he was making before. Isn't this a huge problem and the source of flat wages over the past 30 years? Haven't there been increases in productivity over these past few decades but management and business owners have simply horded the profits rather than sharing them with their employees?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Isn't this a huge problem and the source of flat wages over the past 30 years? Haven't there been increases in productivity over these past few decades but management and business owners have simply horded the profits rather than sharing them with their employees? This really depends on who you ask. If you ask people who measure this kind of thing, and have data, the answer is resoundingly yes. If you ask the people who are doing the hoarding, or foolishly believe that one day they will be among those doing the hoarding, the answer is no. The problem is that historically low tax rates are simply too much of a burden for them to raise wages. But if we simply elect leaders who will lower their rates, and slash Social Security, Medicare, our children's education, and eliminate tax breaks that help us clutch to our dwindling financial security, they will be able to afford to pay us so much that none of those things will matter! Probably. Maybe. Well, almost certainly*. * - Certainly not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Sarion posted:This really depends on who you ask. If you ask people who measure this kind of thing, and have data, the answer is resoundingly yes. And this is what always puzzles me, when people argue that eliminating the minimum wage will somehow cause everyone to get paid more than minimum wage. Shouldn't it not matter if minimum wage laws exist if they intend to pay people more than that anyways?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Isn't this a huge problem and the source of flat wages over the past 30 years? Haven't there been increases in productivity over these past few decades but management and business owners have simply horded the profits rather than sharing them with their employees? While an anecdote, about 16 years ago I was working a fast food joint, and the Feds decided to raise minimum wage from 4.25 to 4.75. The store owner had spent the previous few weeks complaining about how this was going to be terrible and he wasn't sure how he'd make it. He raised prices on most things to cover this huge loss he expected to have from having to pay people upwards of 3-4 extra dollars a shift. After a month or so, a manager who also handled bookkeeping said the store was making more then before and said that the they could actually pay employees more, or drop prices back to what they were before and still do well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:And this is what always puzzles me, when people argue that eliminating the minimum wage will somehow cause everyone to get paid more than minimum wage. Shouldn't it not matter if minimum wage laws exist if they intend to pay people more than that anyways? Well the point is they should have the choice. "Free Will" is a big deal for a lot of people like this, they want to be able to make the "wrong choice". Naturally though their thought process is they they themselves will never make the wrong choice but others very well may, weeding out the weak and stupid. And of course major corporations can make these "mistakes" all day and never have to own up to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:And this is what always puzzles me, when people argue that eliminating the minimum wage will somehow cause everyone to get paid more than minimum wage. Shouldn't it not matter if minimum wage laws exist if they intend to pay people more than that anyways? One would think so, but that's because these people have a hosed up view of how Capitalism works. For some reason many Americans think it will "naturally" take care of everyone, because companies that make shoddy products or screw their customers will go out of business. Likewise, companies that screw their workers will lose out because people will choose not to buy from them, and workers will leave them to work for their competitors who treat them better. In reality it encourages businesses to do the absolute minimum required to maximize profits. Which is often bad for both customers and employees. There are some businesses where screwing your employees will lead to them to leave for competitors; but these are mostly businesses where the labor force is highly specialized and businesses are forced to compete for labor, such as technology companies. And then you have companies where the labor requires little to no education or skills. Without regulation, these companies race to the bottom because if $6.50 an hour isn't good enough for you, well someone else is desperate enough to do it for $6, so gently caress off. In fairness, the market does produce its own bottom, there is a point where people just won't work for you. And prior to the last minimum wage hike, lots of minimum wage jobs had moved beyond the $5.25 minimum wage. But the problem is the market's bottom is not a liveable wage. Hell, our current Federal minimum wage isn't either. Meanwhile, there are lots of States with minimum wage laws above the Federal level. For example, Washington's is the highest. Jan 1st of next year it will be $9.19 an hour, nearly $2 an hour, or $4000 a year higher than the Federal level. Last I checked though, this hadn't shuttered WalMart, McDonalds, or even mom and pop small businesses. And those businesses in other States aren't raising their own pay to compete for labor, because there are plenty of people willing to work for $7.25 because they're desperate enough to take whatever they can get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Here in Canada our minimum wage ranges from $9.75/hr to $11/hr but almost all provinces are between $10 and $10.25, with regular incremental increases most years in most places. It's still not enough to get you out of poverty but it's a drat sight better than the US. And our economy is running better than yours, with less poverty, go figure. In fact the only real movement to change the minimum wage here is to make it higher so it would actually be a living wage. Our (current) second-biggest party had that as part of their platform a few years back, and even introduced a motion to set the federal minimum to $12/hr, but it didn't pass because we've had wannabe Republicans in power for the last six years. I kind of wish more progressive Americans would use Canada as an example of things when discussing how to improve the country. For example, when people bring up the minimum wage, you could mention that ours is significantly higher than yours, and it hasn't strangled business to death. In fact all it's done has ensured that people working at minimum wage can afford a slightly nicer (read: less lovely) place to live and a little better food. I know you'll inevitably get an argument back from American Exceptionalism about how whatever works for other countries won't work for the US for some unknown reason, but I still feel like having examples of well-run progressive countries is a better tool than pure theoretical arguments. Also because if our current government gets their way we'll race to the bottom with you as well, and we sure do have our own share of crazies, but for the time being at least we're still doing well... vyelkin fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Canada has been successfully demonized to an extent that you can dismiss it simply by saying "Canada" derisively. Don't think the right isn't going to try and inoculate people against the most obvious avenues of attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Sarion posted:There are some businesses where screwing your employees will lead to them to leave for competitors; but these are mostly businesses where the labor force is highly specialized and businesses are forced to compete for labor, such as technology companies. The most effective method is unions, a non-government system run by the people to get what they need can be very important to protect unskilled workers (when I was a register jockey in college it was a lifesaver). But the same sort of people who argue against minimum wages are also against workers organizing against unfair practices for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I kind of wish more progressive Americans would use Canada as an example of things when discussing how to improve the country. For example, when people bring up the minimum wage, you could mention that ours is significantly higher than yours, and it hasn't strangled business to death. In fact all it's done has ensured that people working at minimum wage can afford a slightly nicer (read: less lovely) place to live and a little better food. I know you'll inevitably get an argument back from American Exceptionalism about how whatever works for other countries won't work for the US for some unknown reason, but I still feel like having examples of well-run progressive countries is a better tool than pure theoretical arguments. No, you generally just get flat-out denial. e.g. I was watching the O-Rilley/Stewart debate and O'Rilley's argument against a socialized system like Canada was that it was so bad that Canadians end up coming to the US anyway (and that the British have bad teeth so clearly the NHS is a failure). There's also the very odd attitudes of just out right hatred of Canada and Canadians, I have no idea why. Something about them being weak or something stupid? e: what VideoTapir said
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Laminator posted:(and that the British have bad teeth so clearly the NHS is a failure) It's so frustrating to see examples from all over the world, all pointing in the same direction, all proving that these policies work, and the response keeps coming back to, "Nuh uh, not in America  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:40
|
|
