Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Not My Circus, Not My Monkey at the General Forum; Originally Posted by STFAN ..... Social Security is an insurance fund STFN Not according to the Social Security Administration that ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2014, 06:31 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by STFAN View Post
..... Social Security is an insurance fund

STFN
Not according to the Social Security Administration that quotes Arthur J. Altmeyer, former U.S. Commissioner for Social Security:

Quote:
Social Security as Social Welfare

In the United States, the term "social security" is used to cover a large portion of the field of social welfare. This term first came into general use in the United States in 1935, during the Great Depression, when the Social Security Act was passed.
Social Security History

Social Security it a tax and spend government welfare program and not an insurance program.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2014, 07:07 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You are correct about Locke but your collectivist philosophy is not what he asserted. Natural property rights held in common become individual rights by the introduction of labor and capital. That's the opposite of the philosophy of "you didn't build that" you share with our President.

Your advice to become better informed is good, why don't you take the time to understand Locke instead of just parroting the cherry picked socialist distortion you claim as libertarian?
There are two huge caveats when John Locke addressed the Right of Property that most over look

First and foremost Locke's argument were based upon "sweat equity" where the physical labor of the person established they ownership of the land and natural resouces. It was human labor made it the land or natural resources "personal" and "private" (i.e. private property) to them. It was based upon their Right to Provide for their own "survival and comfort" (not luxury) by expending labor that gave them the "right" to personal property all of which is derived from nature that belongs to "all people" (i.e. the "common").

We can note that near the end of the 17th Century when Locke formulated his arguments for the Natural Right of Property the Industrial Revolution was still about 100 years in the future but we can apply Locke's arguments because a machine does not expend any "sweat" and a machine has no "rights" nor can it establishe a "right of property" based upon Locke's arguments.

A person might be able to physically use "40 acres" to provide for their "survival and comfort" and to that land they can establish a "natural right of property" based upon John Locke's arguments. Just because they can plow 1,000 acres with a tractor does not change the fact that they only have a "Right of Property" related to the "40-acres of land" based upon their physical labor. The "machine" doesn't have a Right of Propert and can't create a "Right of Property" for the person.

Next is an even greater caveat in John Locke's arguments.

A person can secure private land or natural resources from the "common" but only so long as there is "enough, and as good as" left for every other person in society. So a person can obtain a "private right of property related to land" of let's say 40-acres but only if every other person in society can also go out and homestead 40-acres of their own. Locke's arguments are not based upon "statutory ownership" but instead on the "right of property" were everyone can go out and live off of the land. No one has a "right" to charge them for the land they would need to have to provide for their "survival and comfort" and there must be enough land (or natural resources) for everyone that they can obtain free of charge.

I hate to tell people this but because so few have so much land there isn't "enough, and as good as" free land left for the rest of those living in society.

Our laws of statutory ownership of land and natural resources have never been based upon the "natural right of property" as argued by John Locke. They've always been based upon the government control of the land and natural resources that is based upon the "divine right of kings" that was never changed when the US became a nation. This affects not just the water we drink, the goods we require, but "money" itself as "money" is literally a commonly accepted commodity used to facilitate the barter system. Federal Reserve notes are not "money" but instead a promise of payment in "money" which are commodities (that the Federal Reserve doesn't own).

Everything we have and require is based upon the "Natural Right of Property" and this affects everything in our economy including "compensation for labor" where the "labor of the person provides their survival and comfort" based upon Locke's arguments. There is enough land and natural resources to ensure that the "labor of the person" does provide for their "survival and comfort" and if they cannot survive and have minimal comfort based upon their physical labor then their "Natural Right of Property" is being violated.

Few understand the caveats imposed under Locke's arguments for the "natural right of property" were physical labor establishes the Right to "Survival and Comfort" and that "Enough, and as Good As" must exist for every person in society.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2014, 07:42 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Was there ever a question why liberals support the SS proposal? Why wouldn't the same political philosophy that gave us the SS Ponzi scheme to begin with support a proposal that would defer its collapse for 45 years? Liberal politicians can run on having "saved" SS leaving the problems for a future generation. It is the same corruption with pensions that infects Democrat led cities like Detroit that leads to bankruptcy.

The "libertarian" proposes a government regulated pension program based upon the government mandated minimum wage. Even you ought to be able to see the disconnect.
I acknowledge that the minimum wage exists and that privatization must be based upon the "lowest income" workers. Republican proposals for privatizing Social Security have always been based upon those that require Social Security the least or not at all. Privatization must be based upon those that require Social Security the most which is what I've proposed.

One thing that Libertarians also address is personal responsibility and if all employers assumed personal responsibility they would be voluntarily providing adequate compensation for their employees. The fact that many employers are irresponsible by under-compensating their employees is juxtaposed to Libertarian political ideologies that require personal responsibity for Libertarianism to actually work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Social Security is headed for formal bankruptcy, it is already insolvent. Medicare will limp along for a bit longer thanks to Obamacare's denial of service model. Look at the staggering unfunded liability in these programs.
The term "unfunded mandate" is really a misrepresentation. It refer to taxes not yet collected for expenditure not yet due and payable. Social Security is not bankrupt nor is it insolvent today and the assumption it will become insolvent and go bankrupt assumes no changes to the funding will occur. If we simply lift the cap on Social Security taxes on "earned income" and also impose the Social Security tax on "unearned income" then Social Security will have the revenues necessary into the 22nd Century. In short tax all income as opposed to only taxing the income of the bottom 2/3rds of the American People.

Why we excluded imposing the Social Security taxes on all income has always been an unanswered question. Why should taxes be imposed on the first dollar of income and not imposed on the last dollar of income for millions of people is a puzzlement. A person with a million dollars of income a year is far more able to pay a tax than someone with $15,000 a year in income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Obamacare is a government take over of the healthcare system, the polar opposite of the libertarian free market philosophy. Yet, you opine that is superior to the marginally more free market that we had before and resist the reform that would certainly fix Obamacare by removing the Federal bureaucracy's meddling and dictates of death panels.
It is pitiful how the "social-conservatives" misrepresent the facts. As created the Federal Government wanted little to do with Obamacare seeking instead to have the States control the insurance exchanges. Ironically the Republicans that always argue for the States to control programs for the People overwhelmingly rejected State control of insurance in their own states. A total of 26 States, predominately Republican controlled, refused to take control under the provisions of the ACA where it could have been a state run program. Then they have the balls to claim it was a "federal take-over" of insurance in America because they forced the federal government to take over responsibility.

We can also note that Obamacare only affects about 16% of the American People if all of the uninsured eventually become insured under it's provision. Control of only 16% of the market is hardly a take-over of anything.

Finally they are no "death panels" and that is pure BS being made up by nutcases like Sarah Palin. The IPAB has no authority to deny clinically proven medical treatments that might be required by an individual and it only applies to Medicare which existed long before Obamacare. The term "death panel" actually referred to government funding for counseling of terminally ill individuals and nothing more.

It amazes me that Republican opinions are typically based upon ignorance, propaganda, and myth as opposed to facts.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2014, 08:18 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,370
Thanks: 10,662
Thanked 11,203 Times in 6,709 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
I wonder if there are those that don't know that using the term "Monkey" to describe an African-American is a very degrading racist statement equatable to using the N-word.

If anyone wants to understand why much of the opposition against President Obama is based upon racism then it is expressions like this, regardless of whether the person know that they're making a racist statement, that lends creditability to that belief.

Note: "Not My Circus, Not My Monkey" is a Polish proverb that translates to "Not My Problem".
The comment leads to the question as to why you chose to use the phrase in the first place given the sensitivities referenced. Given that you accused me of racism for citing Obama's book largely dedicated to his African father, it is easy to see the partisan motivation for bleating charges of racism.

There is a famous cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln as a great ape. Dubya was portrayed as Curious George along with being referred to as "Chimpy". But Obama is far too delicate a flower for such mocking, besides whining about racism distracts from exposing his failed Presidency.
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2014, 08:53 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,370
Thanks: 10,662
Thanked 11,203 Times in 6,709 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
I acknowledge that the minimum wage exists and that privatization must be based upon the "lowest income" workers. Republican proposals for privatizing Social Security have always been based upon those that require Social Security the least or not at all. Privatization must be based upon those that require Social Security the most which is what I've proposed.

One thing that Libertarians also address is personal responsibility and if all employers assumed personal responsibility they would be voluntarily providing adequate compensation for their employees. The fact that many employers are irresponsible by under-compensating their employees is juxtaposed to Libertarian political ideologies that require personal responsibity for Libertarianism to actually work.



The term "unfunded mandate" is really a misrepresentation. It refer to taxes not yet collected for expenditure not yet due and payable. Social Security is not bankrupt nor is it insolvent today and the assumption it will become insolvent and go bankrupt assumes no changes to the funding will occur. If we simply lift the cap on Social Security taxes on "earned income" and also impose the Social Security tax on "unearned income" then Social Security will have the revenues necessary into the 22nd Century. In short tax all income as opposed to only taxing the income of the bottom 2/3rds of the American People.

Why we excluded imposing the Social Security taxes on all income has always been an unanswered question. Why should taxes be imposed on the first dollar of income and not imposed on the last dollar of income for millions of people is a puzzlement. A person with a million dollars of income a year is far more able to pay a tax than someone with $15,000 a year in income.



It is pitiful how the "social-conservatives" misrepresent the facts. As created the Federal Government wanted little to do with Obamacare seeking instead to have the States control the insurance exchanges. Ironically the Republicans that always argue for the States to control programs for the People overwhelmingly rejected State control of insurance in their own states. A total of 26 States, predominately Republican controlled, refused to take control under the provisions of the ACA where it could have been a state run program. Then they have the balls to claim it was a "federal take-over" of insurance in America because they forced the federal government to take over responsibility.

We can also note that Obamacare only affects about 16% of the American People if all of the uninsured eventually become insured under it's provision. Control of only 16% of the market is hardly a take-over of anything.

Finally they are no "death panels" and that is pure BS being made up by nutcases like Sarah Palin. The IPAB has no authority to deny clinically proven medical treatments that might be required by an individual and it only applies to Medicare which existed long before Obamacare. The term "death panel" actually referred to government funding for counseling of terminally ill individuals and nothing more.

It amazes me that Republican opinions are typically based upon ignorance, propaganda, and myth as opposed to facts.
Personal responsibility is expressed as the employer's obligation to "fairly compensate" employees. A gross perversion of the term into a collectivist mandate no doubt administered by a central government bureacracy.

Social Security has a huge unfunded liability not unfunded mandate. The huge trust fund filled with unsecured IOU is a systemic problem with the program. The spiraling demands on general fund revenues are inevitable as is the default or reduction in payments by decree.

Completing the trifecta of partisan denials is the claimost that Obamacare death panels don't exist. There is no requirement for Obamacare to fund any treatment or to set compensation for treatment at a level that will make it viable. Thanks to the law death panel authority reverts to Obama's political appointees if nominations are not confirmed. Obama has yet to offer nominees so his political lackeys have dictatorial power over life and death decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2014, 07:30 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Quote:
Note: "Not My Circus, Not My Monkey" is a Polish proverb that translates to "Not My Problem".
The comment leads to the question as to why you chose to use the phrase in the first place given the sensitivities referenced. Given that you accused me of racism for citing Obama's book largely dedicated to his African father, it is easy to see the partisan motivation for bleating charges of racism.

There is a famous cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln as a great ape. Dubya was portrayed as Curious George along with being referred to as "Chimpy". But Obama is far too delicate a flower for such mocking, besides whining about racism distracts from exposing his failed Presidency.
As is the usual case even when you spell it out there are those that apparently can't read. It is a Polish proverb that translates to "Not My Problem" that has absolutely nothing to do with making a disparaging (or racist) remark about people.

Was the cartoon of Lincoln racist? Probably as it could very well be that they were inferring that Loncoln was a "N-word" by opposing slavery. Yes, there were those that used the disparaging name of "Chimp" in referring to former President Bush but it wasn't racist as it carried no racial implications. It was still wrong to use it as we should always refer to the president, any president, in a respectful manner even when disagreeing with their actions and agenda.

When someone repeatedly makes racist remarks they shouldn't be surprised of someone notices it and comments on it. Instead of looking at the person that points out their racist remarks they should probably look in a mirror.

Of note by most standards President Obama is a success as the US is far better off than when he took office. Unemployment is down to below 6%. The US has become the second largest producer of oil in the world and, as of today, gasoline prices are below $3/gallon. The stock market is at record highs. Millions of Americans that couldn't afford health insurance now have insurance. Immigration problems that the GOP controlled House refused to address when it had the opportunity have been addressed under the law by executive order. Minimal tax reform has been accomplished that has reduced the deficits (but not eliminated them). Some civil rights issues have been addressed that were previously ignored.

I don't support President Obama on many issues but I can't deny that the US is better off than it was when he took office and that is the criteria for judging the success or failure of a president.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2014, 07:55 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Personal responsibility is expressed as the employer's obligation to "fairly compensate" employees. A gross perversion of the term into a collectivist mandate no doubt administered by a central government bureacracy.
Contract law invalidates any contract where coercion is used to affect the conditions of the contract. The "market" creates coercion in the employment contract that forces a person to accept employment "at a loss" where they can't afford to live off of the compensation. Under-compensation that is a result of market coersion related to employment is a violation of contract law.

Do you support contract law and do you believe the government should enforce contract law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Social Security has a huge unfunded liability not unfunded mandate. The huge trust fund filled with unsecured IOU is a systemic problem with the program. The spiraling demands on general fund revenues are inevitable as is the default or reduction in payments by decree.
The Social Security Trust Fund has over $2 trillion in assets secured by the "Credit of the United States" in compliance with Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the US Constitution. So far not a single dime of the General Fund has been used to fund Social Security as Social Security has dedicated tax sources from FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes. A simple revision to the FICA/Payroll/Self-employment tax that eliminates exemptions to the tax (without raising the rates) will fully fund Social Security for many decades to come.

I still believe my proposal to privatize Social Security that virtually eliminates it (except for a small safety net that is far superior to Social Security today) and completely eliminates Medicare is far superior but Social Security can be fully funded by eliminating the favoritism in the tax codes (i.e. crony capitalism) for the wealthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Completing the trifecta of partisan denials is the claimost that Obamacare death panels don't exist. There is no requirement for Obamacare to fund any treatment or to set compensation for treatment at a level that will make it viable. Thanks to the law death panel authority reverts to Obama's political appointees if nominations are not confirmed. Obama has yet to offer nominees so his political lackeys have dictatorial power over life and death decisions.
The IPAB, that only addresses Medicare treatments, cannot deny necessary medical services and treatments that have been clinically proven. It can, like a private insurance company, choose between two equally effective treatments based upon cost effectiveness. There is no such thing as a "death panel" either in name or practice under the ACA. It is strange that the IPAB was created to help responsibly control government expenditures under Medicare (exclusively) but Republicans apparently oppose this effort to help responsibly control medical expenditures by Medicare. Do Republicans actually support more spending on Medicare?

Payment for medical services is controlled by Congress. With the GOP taking control of the legislative agenda of both houses of Congress it is a simple fix for the GOP to increase medical service re-imbursement for both Medicare and Medicaid that historically have only paid 90% and 89% of the actual costs of medical services.

But yes there is a problem with both Medicare and Medicaid that the GOP can fix now that it has a majority in both the House and Senate. I wouldn't anticipate any opposition from Democrats if the Republicans want to increase compensation medical services paid for by Medicare and Medicaid. Fully funding all medical expenditures by Medicare and Medicaid would result in the IPAB becoming unnecesary and the Republicans could abolish it.

Sounds like a good thing that Republicans could do now that they control the legislative agenda of Congress. It would have bi-partisan support from what I can see.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 11-10-2014 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2014, 08:09 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,370
Thanks: 10,662
Thanked 11,203 Times in 6,709 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
As is the usual case even when you spell it out there are those that apparently can't read. It is a Polish proverb that translates to "Not My Problem" that has absolutely nothing to do with making a disparaging (or racist) remark about people.

Was the cartoon of Lincoln racist? Probably as it could very well be that they were inferring that Loncoln was a "N-word" by opposing slavery. Yes, there were those that used the disparaging name of "Chimp" in referring to former President Bush but it wasn't racist as it carried no racial implications. It was still wrong to use it as we should always refer to the president, any president, in a respectful manner even when disagreeing with their actions and agenda.

When someone repeatedly makes racist remarks they shouldn't be surprised of someone notices it and comments on it. Instead of looking at the person that points out their racist remarks they should probably look in a mirror.

Of note by most standards President Obama is a success as the US is far better off than when he took office. Unemployment is down to below 6%. The US has become the second largest producer of oil in the world and, as of today, gasoline prices are below $3/gallon. The stock market is at record highs. Millions of Americans that couldn't afford health insurance now have insurance. Immigration problems that the GOP controlled House refused to address when it had the opportunity have been addressed under the law by executive order. Minimal tax reform has been accomplished that has reduced the deficits (but not eliminated them). Some civil rights issues have been addressed that were previously ignored.

I don't support President Obama on many issues but I can't deny that the US is better off than it was when he took office and that is the criteria for judging the success or failure of a president.
When someone claims racism for using imagery they promoted it should come as no surprise when their hypocrisy is pointed out.

The ape and Chimp references to past President's are said to be non racist because both are white. President Obama is to be treated differently because of his race, discrimination if not racism.

Not even Obama's super surrogate, Bill Clinton, claimed we are better off under his Presidency instead he opted for the nonsensical "he did as well as anyone could have". But it comes as no surprise that someone who hides behind a smoke screen of racism would recite propagandists talking points about Obama's so called success.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2014, 08:21 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,253
Thanks: 1,489
Thanked 2,300 Times in 1,834 Posts
Default Re: Not My Circus, Not My Monkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
When someone claims racism for using imagery they promoted it should come as no surprise when their hypocrisy is pointed out.

The ape and Chimp references to past President's are said to be non racist because both are white. President Obama is to be treated differently because of his race, discrimination if not racism.

Not even Obama's super surrogate, Bill Clinton, claimed we are better off under his Presidency instead he opted for the nonsensical "he did as well as anyone could have". But it comes as no surprise that someone who hides behind a smoke screen of racism would recite propagandists talking points about Obama's so called success.
I never supported and openly condemned those that used the cartoon image of former President Bush as a chimp. As I stated no one should make personal disparaging remarks in referring to the President of the United States. Is it an insult to the entire nation when they do. The Office of the President deserves respect regardless of who the people elect to be president. Show that respect.

That image of former President Bush could have been "implied racism" but to actually refer to President Obama as a "monkey" is explicit racism. Implied racism is subjective while explicit racism is not subjective. Remember that when it comes to explicit racism it exists in both Democrats (32%) and Republicans (79%) and it should be condemned whenever either resort to explicit racism in their statements.

What former President Bill Clinton's opinions are don't carry much weight with me. Except for his tax code revisions that would have generated a surplus to pay down the national debt (and that former President Bush screwed up by cutting taxes and driving up the national debt) I didn't have much respect for him as a president and I certainly opposed many aspects of his political agenda such as the passage of DOMA that established discrimination under the law in violation of the US Constitution.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
circus, monkey, not

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0