Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Unemployment Thread pt 2 (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
Post a reply

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby careinke » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 01:01:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '
')

Finally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Here are some questions to get us started.............
Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?


Presumably, the Murdoch party is the way to go. :lol:


Mindless diversion in order to avoid the subject.


The subject is excessive spending in a capitalist society dedicated to mindless consumerism, the net effects of that on goverment budgets given that the American manufacturers of this junk have largely skipped off to China and have bled the taxpaying base dry (isn't it funny, but no sooner does a nice small businessman hit the big time, he moves his operation to China 8O ) and the influence of these corporateers who say one thing and do another.

Given the TP's foxiness, who is going to tackle the issue? Wolves in sheeps clothing?

If this is mindless diversion, then lets hear your take on the matter especially given that it was conservatives who took a liberal capitalists budget surpluses and turned them into gaping deficits which continue to bedevil the current crop of liberal capitalists (whom the corporateers call communists. :lol: Just count yourself lucky that real communists wont be around for a few decades to come, chum.)


I assume your take on this is nothing can, (or will), be done, and a crash is inevitable? I agree with you on the crash, just not on the reason. But my purpose is to find out how the Libs would solve this if they had all the power. (OK, no smart comments from COG saying they already had that opportunity for two years)
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby AgentR11 » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 01:03:50

You can't assume such a rosy result.. such a tax directly on assets would unwind bubbles so fast it'd make your head spin. Still, yeah, it would generate plenty of revenue and would absolutely hose the people you are talking about wanting to hose.

That said, it'll never, ever happen. Those with wealth know how to keep the proletariat focused on evil ole income. Someone starts having a serious conversation about taxes on assets replacing an income tax and we'll have a great round of obnoxious bonuses and big score paydays in the market; the news will eat it up; the focus will swap right back to income and capital gains. And it'll be back to the game they know and profit by oh so well.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby americandream » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 01:10:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'O')K this guy says the US is worth 1.4 Quadrillion

http://dmarron.com/2010/01/04/whats-the-united-states-worth-1-4-quadrillion/

If this was correct 2% would end up being 28 TRILLION PER YEAR. Wow we could pay off the total debt fund the current budget and still have over ten trillion to do cool stuff with! Amazing in one fell swoop you solved EVERYTHING! Amazing.

What do you think Six, Pstar, Loki, POPs, AD, anybody?

I still don't like the idea of giving a list of everything I own to the government.


I don't think that they are talking about a balance sheet like inventory of the general populace. Rather, I think they are talking about annualised GDP (a return on GDP) as that would be routinely measured (although they do touch on a nationwide stocktake). A one off valuation would be useful as collateral but then again, what sort of investors are they after. Mom and pop down at the local post office. Doing a full balance sheet inventory for the US isn't necessary IMHO if that's the case and the records of annualised GDP should do, especially if the security is directed at returns on growth. So a 3% GDP rise would translate into a similar return on investment? We have something along these lines at present...it's call FDI and the US enjoys a pretty good spot on that index. I guess this would be another way of attracting DI without the F and is possibly one instrument very likely to see the light of day, especially with revenue falling away with the cuts that WILL eventually be made. There will be all sorts of exotic securities considered so I am not surprised by this development.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby careinke » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 02:01:21

OK, here is a graph showing total net worth of US households and charities.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Graphic.png

It shows a high of 65 trillion in 2007. Using that figure would only make us 1.3 trillion a year. That comes out to 1/2 of our current revenues. You would have to triple the rate to 6% just to have a balanced budget.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby americandream » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 02:36:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'O')K, here is a graph showing total net worth of US households and charities.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Graphic.png

It shows a high of 65 trillion in 2007. Using that figure would only make us 1.3 trillion a year. That comes out to 1/2 of our current revenues. You would have to triple the rate to 6% just to have a balanced budget.


Yes. But you cannot make an inventory basket into a basis for a security. There has to be some growth factor as the basis for calculating the annualised return. The stocktake, net or gross would only be useful to those investors who want something more than the promise of a growing economy, as COLLATERAL. To issue, say bonds, based on a nationwide stocktake would be nonsensical. What we have here is another form of derivative based on a country's GDP. I can see these being traded on an exchange as countries vie to outgrow each other in a bid to attract capital beyond FDI, debt based bonds and savings certificates.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby prajeshbhat » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 04:08:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'F')inally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Here are some questions to get us started.............
Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?


The first thing to understand is that the government is not doing any charity by cutting taxes. The governments job is to collect taxes and provide public services in return. Like the European governments. The recent eagerness from both the American left and the right to provide tax relief shows that the government is no longer interested in representing the interests of the people.
The taxes will not be raised. In fact I expect to see a lot more generous tax reliefs in the future. But don't expect the government to care about your brilliant ideas on how to fix the system either. Once they stop collecting taxes from you, they no longer have to listen to you.

As for the economic problems, a lot of americans believed that they were somehow chosen for prosperity. They still do. The government has no choice but to run deficits in order to win their votes(or just to maintain order in the system).
prajeshbhat
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 17 May 2011, 02:44:33
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby americandream » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 04:18:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('prajeshbhat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'F')inally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Here are some questions to get us started.............
Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?


The first thing to understand is that the government is not doing any charity by cutting taxes. The governments job is to collect taxes and provide public services in return. Like the European governments. The recent eagerness from both the American left and the right to provide tax relief shows that the government is no longer interested in representing the interests of the people.
The taxes will not be raised. In fact I expect to see a lot more generous tax reliefs in the future. But don't expect the government to care about your brilliant ideas on how to fix the system either. Once they stop collecting taxes from you, they no longer have to listen to you.

As for the economic problems, a lot of americans believed that they were somehow chosen for prosperity. They still do. The government has no choice but to run deficits in order to win their votes(or just to maintain order in the system).


Deficits also highlight one of Marx's critiques of capital. The tendency for surplus to consolidate in the hands of the few with the result that the government is increasingly driven to borrowing as a consequence of falling revenues....from failing wage levels, underscored by the drive to end all forms of direct taxation.....which in turn foreshadows the casualisation of employment. The end result of all of this is the eventual whittling away of the state and the rise of a truly global market place as the very rationale for the state gradually evaporates, like a fine mist in the morning.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby prajeshbhat » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 05:11:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'D')eficits also highlight one of Marx's critiques of capital. The tendency for surplus to consolidate in the hands of the few with the result that the government is increasingly driven to borrowing as a consequence of falling revenues....from failing wage levels, underscored by the drive to end all forms of direct taxation.....which in turn foreshadows the casualisation of employment. The end result of all of this is the eventual whittling away of the state and the rise of a truly global market place as the very rationale for the state gradually evaporates, like a fine mist in the morning.


Agreed. Income tax is the only direct form of taxation. If you are taking a part of my income, i can demand something in return. If I don't pay income tax what right do I have to ask the government to protect me. Consumption tax on the other hand is when you just take a bite out of my luxury. You owe me nothing.

Last time I checked, I did not hear American people saying that they have come to terms with the fact that everlasting growth and prosperity is impossible. Until they do, deficits will continue.
prajeshbhat
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 17 May 2011, 02:44:33
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby Cog » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 08:23:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('prajeshbhat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'F')inally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Here are some questions to get us started.............
Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?


The first thing to understand is that the government is not doing any charity by cutting taxes. The governments job is to collect taxes and provide public services in return. Like the European governments. The recent eagerness from both the American left and the right to provide tax relief shows that the government is no longer interested in representing the interests of the people.
The taxes will not be raised. In fact I expect to see a lot more generous tax reliefs in the future. But don't expect the government to care about your brilliant ideas on how to fix the system either. Once they stop collecting taxes from you, they no longer have to listen to you.

As for the economic problems, a lot of americans believed that they were somehow chosen for prosperity. They still do. The government has no choice but to run deficits in order to win their votes(or just to maintain order in the system).


What is your Constitutional basis for all this? You know, the document laying out the enumerated powers of the federal government.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby prajeshbhat » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 08:38:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'W')hat is your Constitutional basis for all this? You know, the document laying out the enumerated powers of the federal government.


You are right. So go ahead and don't pay the income tax. Without the federal government you might see the emergence of a lot of local mafias that will demand protection money from you. Don't think they would care that much about the constitution. Just don't expect the government to care when you require protection under the law.
No taxation, no representation.
prajeshbhat
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 17 May 2011, 02:44:33
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby Cog » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 10:31:04

The income tax has a constitutional basis. I'm referring to all the other expanded operations you want the federal government to undertake. I don't see those listed in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe you have a different version.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby Satori » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 16:26:05

ummm Cog
I'm sure your aware of the "general welfare" clause ?

thats pretty much WIDE OPEN :shock:

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
User avatar
Satori
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby Loki » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 17:02:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '
')
Finally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Ha ha, I'm not a "liberal," though I do admit to a deep strain of populism and associated contempt for the aristocracy. But I think Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo are flaming liberals when it comes to immigration, and that the NRA are a bunch of pink pantie waists when it comes to gun rights.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
1. How much is "tax the fuck out of" the top 5%? I assume you are talking income. So 90%, 95%, 99.99%? Should capital gains be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income?


90% income tax is a good start for the top 5%, as well as confiscatory taxes on assets. And capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than regular wages. If the transnational rich flee the country, good riddance to bad trash.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'). How do you want to disengage from our globalist policies? More tariffs, No Tariffs, penalties for moving jobs overseas?

Yep, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. The Founders loved tariffs, esp on luxury items that the rich imported (see Jefferson). Severe tariffs on goods coming from authoritarian low-wage countries---I'd be OK with outright bans on goods from some countries like China. Severe penalties for companies that offshore jobs.

The counterpart to offshoring is mass immigration---needs to be ceased immediately, all illegals deported (no exceptions), and birthright citizenship repealed. Employers who knowingly hire illegals should be jailed and their property confiscated.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')3. Do you believe we can keep borrowing indefinitely? Are you concerned about the deficit? How about the debt? (I'm not asking to pass judgement, I am asking to figure out what the end goal is)

The debt problem is way overblown, but yes, it's a problem. The first thing we need to do is cut the military by an order of magnitude, and close ALL overseas bases. And as I said before, confiscatory taxes on the top 5%. And if corporations want to be considered "people," they can pay the same tax as real humans. I'd also like to see the end of mortgage and child deductions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')4. How would you feel about the following suggestions to strengthen Social Security (yes I know some of them are contradictory)
A. Remove the income cap on the payroll tax (meaning your payments don't stop after $85,000 or whatever it is now days)
SS would be in fine shape for decades if the politicians hadn't raided the cookie jar, this needs to end. Removing the income cap entirely is also a good step. And I'm not opposed to means testing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?
I've become far more open to consumption taxes lately. We have no sales tax in Oregon, instead we have a heavy income tax. I make $9.25/hr, yet the state still taxes the hell out of me (just got a letter saying I owe them another $100 for last year's taxes). I'd prefer to pay a sales tax as my consumption levels are fairly low.

Of course next to none of this is going to happen. We'll continue along the same unsustainable path---a government by the rich, for the rich, with a modest safety net for the proles---until we can't. We'll likely descend into Third World status over the next few decades, with the middle class living like the poor live today (if they're lucky), and the poor living in cardboard boxes or just dying in the street. But no worries, the aristocracy will continue to be fabulously wealthy, thoroughly insulated from the reality of most Americans.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby americandream » Sat 20 Aug 2011, 17:12:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('prajeshbhat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'F')inally!!! A liberal willing to actually risk making a proposal. Can you give a little more detail so we can crunch some numbers and see if we can come up with a realistic, mathematically sound, Liberal solution to situation we are in.

Here are some questions to get us started.............
Anything else? consumption taxes, tax reform, investments? Oh, one last question, can we continue on the present course?


The first thing to understand is that the government is not doing any charity by cutting taxes. The governments job is to collect taxes and provide public services in return. Like the European governments. The recent eagerness from both the American left and the right to provide tax relief shows that the government is no longer interested in representing the interests of the people.
The taxes will not be raised. In fact I expect to see a lot more generous tax reliefs in the future. But don't expect the government to care about your brilliant ideas on how to fix the system either. Once they stop collecting taxes from you, they no longer have to listen to you.

As for the economic problems, a lot of americans believed that they were somehow chosen for prosperity. They still do. The government has no choice but to run deficits in order to win their votes(or just to maintain order in the system).


What is your Constitutional basis for all this? You know, the document laying out the enumerated powers of the federal government.


The fact that it contemplates a territorial entity called the US. It invents a mercantilist state with the reasonable mercantilist expectations those give rise to (meritocracy, protectionism, infrastructure, labour welfare, native mercantilist wealth base (as opposed to global capitalist)) or else it would be an absurdity and irrelevant and have been struck down as irrelevant a long time ago in mercantilist days, by the feudalist southerners, in their courts.

It lives as long as the US as a mercantilist entity, lives. Of course, the Constitution is now anathema in globalising capital and can only be really exploited by exploiting and distorting its bourgeoisie (mercantilist) anti-Royalist objectives for a merit based society (liberty) whilst of course, overlooking its territorial intent which will of course be where it's final legitimacy lies. When the state whittles away, so will the constitution which to a large degree, will be outdated and irrelevant.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby Cog » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 06:31:16

Rubbish!!.

The people can whittle away the power of the state, through its elected representatives to any size we desire without destroying the intent of the Constitution. I fully intend to do my part to weaken the power of the federal government November 2012 and at the same time increase power among its various citizens. Exactly what the Founders intended.

You really need to read the Constitution again carefully and the Federalist papers in particular to get a flavor of what the Founders intended. Clearly you want to get your socialist talking points out there but that is hardly germane to the issue of downsizing the federal government.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby smiley » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 07:15:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('loki', 'Y')ep, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. The Founders loved tariffs, esp on luxury items that the rich imported (see Jefferson). Severe tariffs on goods coming from authoritarian low-wage countries---I'd be OK with outright bans on goods from some countries like China. Severe penalties for companies that offshore jobs.

I'm afraid that such an isolationist policy would backfire. Some level of protectionism by (local) government is good. But if you take it too far it becomes counterproductive.

The greatest innovation comes from competition, remove that competative element and your companies become lazy, and pretty soon they will be lagging behind on the world markets. I think that to some extend explains the problems US manufacturing has at the moment.

Furthermore such a policy would risk countermeasures from other countries. And in that respect the other countries have a lot more potential to hurt the US than otherwise. For instance to counter a ban on Chinese auto exports to the US, China could block its molly and nickel to the US. That would deliver the US steel industry a great blow, and with it the parts makers and somewhat further down the line the US automotive industry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve become far more open to consumption taxes lately.

I agree and I think if well excecuted this is one of the best forms of taxation. I don't understand why some people are so negative about it. It is so simple you pay for what you consume, how much you pollute etc, and in contrast to other taxation scemes you have the choice not to pay the taxes by not buying the product.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby americandream » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 07:49:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'R')ubbish!!.

The people can whittle away the power of the state, through its elected representatives to any size we desire without destroying the intent of the Constitution. I fully intend to do my part to weaken the power of the federal government November 2012 and at the same time increase power among its various citizens. Exactly what the Founders intended.

You really need to read the Constitution again carefully and the Federalist papers in particular to get a flavor of what the Founders intended. Clearly you want to get your socialist talking points out there but that is hardly germane to the issue of downsizing the federal government.


The core of object of the Constitution was the founding of a merit based mercantilist republic. Federalism was a useful sop to those who still feared the centralism of the English court in the United Kingdom's affairs..a sort of token decentralisation. The mercantilist objective was central and is what has united the US from the outset (bar the flash fight with the feudalists down south).

The civil war was fought precisely to validate mercantilism as without merit, mercantilism would have withered, hereditary privilege would have returned and there was of course the risk that the Loyalists could have assumed the reigns of power again.

An essential component of mercantilism (in contrast to capitalism) is its parochialism (witness the parochial style of exchange practiced by the Japanese, Chinese and Germans....export oriented but heavily skewed.) Mercantilism also contemplates a vitalised state with Keynesian features as mercantilism pivots between the twin pillars of an internalised market.

Where capitalism arises is when the Enlightenment principles that underlie this early bourgeoisie mutation gradually narrow the wealth spread, thwarting the ambitions of ambitious mercantilists. Couple this with the legal order which contemplates property in invisibles and it's no surprise that mercantile constitutionalism is making way for border free capital. In fact, wait until the mercantilists assume power which they will in the next term or two then watch them switch sides. Capitalism cannot be resisted. Waste of time.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby dissident » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 08:51:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '
')I'm afraid that such an isolationist policy would backfire. Some level of protectionism by (local) government is good. But if you take it too far it becomes counterproductive.

The greatest innovation comes from competition, remove that competative element and your companies become lazy, and pretty soon they will be lagging behind on the world markets. I think that to some extend explains the problems US manufacturing has at the moment.


So I suppose the US during the 1950s and 60s was some backward, under-developed state since it did not have to compete with the rest of the world. There was sufficient internal innovation to make the US the world leader in technology and since globalization has taken root the number of competitors has actually shrunk internally and globally. The takeover by the transnational oligopolies is a direct contradiction to all the claims that globalism would encourage diversity and a more competitive marketplace.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '
')Furthermore such a policy would risk countermeasures from other countries. And in that respect the other countries have a lot more potential to hurt the US than otherwise. For instance to counter a ban on Chinese auto exports to the US, China could block its molly and nickel to the US. That would deliver the US steel industry a great blow, and with it the parts makers and somewhat further down the line the US automotive industry.


The control of China over rare earth minerals is way overstated. There is no geological magic that concentrated these elements in just one country. Mines are being developed in other regions of the world. The only reason China can coerce the US economically is because the traitor globalists have shipped so much of US production to China and have turned the US into some sort of shopping mall economy sustained by trickle down from the super markups the merchants make on imported Chinese junk.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby vision-master » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:27:51

lsol

Image

You could be next......

Image
vision-master
 
Top

Re: Now Hiring: Unemployed Need Not Apply

Unread postby AgentR11 » Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:28:26

Don't indulge in the first without an overwhelming, corporate health, reason to do so; and the second becomes much less likely.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests