Fast Food Strike Epidemic!

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   It's spreading... people are striking in Detroit now. Yeah, that's a great idea... an area where the unemployment rate is only down to 20%? 15%? because everybody has left, I'm going to quit my entry-level job to complain that my entry-level job doesn't pay $15/hr.
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/1 … 2944.html?
   
   If raising minimum wage to $15/hr is good, then raising it to $30 is even better! Heck, let's just pay everybody $100/hr! We'll all be rich!!!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      God forbid minimum wage workers fight for a slightly better wage those evil evil *******.
      
      Like it or not many people ARE trying to support a family on minimum wage.
      27 000 figure needs citation.
      
      How you can be angry at minimum wage workers for trying to improve their wage is beyond me. If the strikes are becoming widespread then obviously there is a serious issue. I find it terrifying how quickly the right would like us to become automatons, if you can't find work you are just scum of the earth, if you do find work then keep your mouth shut and work no matter what is done to you for the good of your bosses, don't you dare have an independent thought or excersize your rights, that might take a few cents from the blessed millionaires and billionaires..
      
      I know, I know poor McDonalds the multibillion dollar company with a twenty percent profit margin just can't afford to give a cent more to people 7.25 an hour, and wouldn't it be terrible if THEY did instead of the taxpayer having to stop these people from starving.
      
      NO obviously that would be terrible too, as we all know in the conservative mind anything that helps poor people is obviously a great evil.

      replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Maybe the fast-food owners should just fire the whiners and put these in:
   
   http://momentummachines.com/gallery/

   replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Also, before anyone comes in and says "You can't support a family on minimum wage!"
   
   1 - You're not supposed to be able to support a family on minimum wage. Entry-level jobs are there for people without skills or experience. If you want more money, you have to be worth more money, so you need to develop skills and experience.
   
   2 - When you add in his federal tax refund and food stamps, he has at least $27,000 per year in net income. He also would qualify for housing, cash assistance, and free healthcare.
   
   3 - If he made $15/hr, he would pull in about $27,000 in net income, but he might not get free healthcare anymore, so it might actually make his situation worse. Go figure.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Correct.
      People are biting the hands that feed them as they take something the non-brilliant Obama said and run with it without even figuring out the consequences.    His idea of raising the minimum wage to ($9  per hour I think it was) was just another part of his agenda to create controversy and uprising.   Strange how so many people latch onto whatever comes out of his mouth,  like he's all-knowing or something, and then they add more miles to it even.
      It's a crazy world.
      
      If it keeps up,  the majority of people will simply be political activists while a small minority actually work for a living,  giving their profits to those who don't wanna get their hands dirty.

      replyreport
      1. 49

         Lie Detectorposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You mean those that work for a living are being overwhelmed by those who vote for a living?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yep.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You mean liberals who make 7% more on average being overwhelmed by the uneducated masses who can't find work and need our money not to starve? Yeah we are feeling a little overwhelmed, why can't conservatives get an education and get a job?

            replyreport
            1. 49

               Lie Detectorposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               How much did you pay in taxes last year?

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know where you get the 27,000 number.  That doesn't sound realistic at all.
      
      But let's take it.  Let's say with federal assistance he is able to support a family on minimum wage.   But without the federal assistance, where would he be?
      
      I agree people shouldn't have babies they can't afford, but unless you want forced abortion, sterilization, fines for kids(which then exacerbates the problem because the poor person can't support the kids to begin with, on top of the fines), or the state taking the kids away (which will also be expensive because they must be cared for) there is no real way to stop this problem without starving kids to death. 
      
      Part of the problem is everyone thinks they are entitled to be a parent, and many people are not mature enough to be one.  The way to combat this is a reframing of cultural values that say anyone can be a parent.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You do realize your point here contradicts itself right?
      
      Workers are bad because they are greedy enough to want more wages.
      They should not want more wages because federal assistance already helps them.
      But Federal assistance is means tested so if they receive more wages they will receive less assistance.
      SO in that case workers are not even striking to make more money they are striking to not have to live off the government even while working full time.
      
      Obviously that is bad the taxpayer should cover that not the hyper profitable corporation ...
      
      Ah the logic.

      replyreport
4. 66

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   Minimum wage is compulsory unemployment. The options at this moment in time are to accept the current minimum wage, not have a job or abolish the minimum wage so more people can come into the workforce.
   
   I bet most minimum wage defenders don't know that it was originally lobbied for by union members so new un-skilled labour couldn't come into the workforce and give them competition.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yup it was introduced because in industrial England skilled workers were being replaced by unskilled workers for a lower wage, a huge number of building collapses etc. resulted from the poor quality workmanship, wages eventually became so low from competing with each other that Christian societies released pamphlets covering the fact that thousands of families were actually starving to death while both parents worked seventy to eighty hours a week  (and usually the children were doing at least 50 by age 9) so a minimum wage was required.
      
      
      The first labor law was to stop children working 80 hours a week because hundreds were dropping dead from exhaustion.
      
      YAY free market, it worked so well!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Do you actually think its in businesses' interest to have collapsing buildings and lower productivity? If it was such a pressing problem, businesses would pay more for higher skilled labour in the first place. If it has to be enforced, it's obviously not something the market seems to be a relevant problem at the time. Getting more people into the workforce was clearly the priority - when in the workforce, they can gain relevant experience and raise their wage over time, accordingly. The richer union members clearly didn't like that, lobbying for the policy and propagating amongst unions the rather odd idea that having no job at all is somehow more noble than working for a low wage. It's purely self-interest and hardly humanitarian.
         
         I'm a business owner and I want to hire low-skilled workers that are only worth $3 an hour, what do you think i will do if minimum wage is raised to $6 an hour? Their skills are only worth $3 an hour to me, so I may as well just not hire them.
         
         Provide me the logical explanation as to why raising minimum wage will not cause unemployment. You surely understand that making minimum wage $100 an hour would be harmful to the economy, so I would like to know at what point do economic laws change and make minimum wage beneficial to the economy. $15? $20? And why?
         
         You can provide statistics, but I am in agreement with Jaxson that there are numerous variables that could very easily counterbalance it. Unless you can provide the logical framework for why your scenario can occur, you cannot claim anything.

         replyreport
5. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   No Josak
   
   They want the government to steal from a different group of people, that's all. Just in a way that would not only hurt them if it actually happened, but it would cause far more damaging effects to the entire nation if it happened.
   
   They don't care about anything, they deserve to force someone else to pay them what they think they are worth. $15/hr minimum wage, such a great idea. That would only eliminate 20% of all jobs directly, and another 20% indirectly.
   
   Ah the logic.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes they want the government to "Steal" (ha) from an extremely successful corporation whom they work from rather than the general American taxpayer, as noted incredibly evil
      
      If you actually think people are angling for $15 then you don't understand how a strike works (probably because you have never been involved in one) it's a negotiation, I expect the actual target is about $10.
      
      Lastly this conversation has been had allover the world, Australia pumped it's minimum wage to 15.50 AUD and conservatives cried impending doom... employment rose.
      
      Australia pays a full quarter more purchasing parity for minimum wage and it's economy is just in tatters right? Wait it's the strongest in the first world? Huh.
      
      Australia is poorer per Capita (by about 10%) and has unemployment about 5%, obviously we cannot possibly afford a higher minimum wage ...
      
      SO weak.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         So forcing one person to give more of his money to another person isn't stealing? News to me.
         
         They are both incredibly immoral, one just has even worse consequences than the other.
         
         Yes, I have never been in a labor strike. Want to know why? I don't feel entitled to the money of other people. At all. If I don't like my wages, I can try to negotiate, accept them, or quit. I run my life the way I want, I let others run their lives the way they want. It's a hard concept, that... liberty is difficult for most people.
         
         As for Australia, you should know by now, I've told you enough times, that country to country comparisons are essentially impossible to make. The only way to compare the effects of a change in two scenarios is if you can control for every other variable, and compare to a control. Also, I love your phrasing "pumped minimum wage to 15.50"... yeah, they PUMPED it from 15.00, look at that HUGE increase. I bet we would expect GIGANTIC consequences from a 3% increase, and that's completely comparable to a discussion about a 50%-100% increase.
         
         If you really want to talk about Australia, then you have to be willing to discuss inflation, standard of living, cost of living, strengthening/weakening of the currency(and the effects that has on imports, exports, and foreign investments), etc etc etc.
         
         Oh, and Australia raised the min wage from 13.74 to 14.31, and unemployment rose the following year by 1.3%! That cost some 200,000 people their jobs! Oh noes, if we're going to try to attribute a single variable to the entire economy of a country!!! Oh, and look! They raised the min wage again to 15.00, and unemployment rose again! Ooh, ooh, and when they raised it to 15.50, unemployment went up again! Oh, and they raised min wage to 15.96, and unemployment hit a 3-year high(essentially a 9-year high), completely reversing their downtrend!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Nope taxes and minimum wage by the power of the people through lawful governance is not theft, most people grasp that very simple concept, try harder.
            
            Strikes are a legal way of negotiating wages so that next statement is pretty dumb.
            
            Oh yes the very convenient "we can't compare them!" no you don't WANT to compare them because they disprove your point, economics itself is based on comparative studies across nations and timelines if we refuse to do so there is no such thing as empirical economics  because it's always a different nation or a different time. All economic theory is based on such comparative debate but obviously you know better
            
            Nope minimum wage fell after each of the minimum wage price rises except the last one because it coincided with the GFC which affected everyone and the world and is an easily identifiable variable.
            
            So you prefer that the taxpayer pays people who work full time to keep them from starving rather than the company who employs them. I see. Workers negotiating a minimum wage is obviously worse than people depending on welfare when we have a huge debt
            
            Minimum wage $15.50 AUD
            Currency: Similar to ours trending upwards in recent years
            Unemployment: about half of ours
            Inflation: about the same as ours
            Standard of living: significantly better than ours (because they have fewer working poor, I wonder why????? )
            Cost of living already accounted for above in price parity comparison.
            Obviously if we pay $10 an hour the economy will collapse
            Two for fun, GINI index: they are a full quarter better, I wonder why????
            Debt by GDP: about a quarter of ours. I wonder if it's because in Australia people are supported by their employer not the taxpayer.
            Any other excuses you care to bring up to avoid facing the facts? We can debate those too.
            
            So ridiculous.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Oh also forgot to mention I said pumped because it was raised almost 2.50 in four and a half years.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  And their unemployment rate went up 1.5%. Who woulda thunk?

                  replyreport
6. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Yeah, talk about ridiculous. You're still trying to compare datasets without controls or corrections. Anybody who deals with actual scientific studies knows that you can't get anything useful out of uncontrolled data.
   
   Oh, and you're ignoring facts too. Unemployment did go up every time.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Actually I listed all the controls and corrections you asked for, let me guess you have more excuses right?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         No, you didn't. You don't control for variables by listing them all

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I not only listed them I demonstrated there was little difference or they favored that Australia was doing better.
            
            October 2006 — effective from 1 December 2006 — On 26/10/06 the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) handed down its first decision on minimum wages for employees covered by WorkChoices. It awarded a $0.72/hour increase to existing minimum adult rates up to and including $18.42/hour and $0.58/hour for rates above that. The minimum adult rate, except for those on special rates, was set at $13.47/hour
            
               
            May 2001 — $13 pw re aw rates to $490; $15 pw to aw rates over $490 to $590; $17 pw to aw rates over $590 pw; minimum wage increased from $400.40 to $413.40
            
            2002    
            May 2002 — $18 pw to award rates; minimum wage increased from $413.40 to $431.40
            
            2003    
            May 2003 — $17 pw to award rates up to and including $731.80 pw; and $15 pw increase to award rates above $731.80 pw — from a date no earlier than 12 months after the increase provided for in the May 2002 decision. Federal minimum wage for full-time adult employees of $448.40 pw
            
            2004    
            May 2004 — $19 pw to award rates — proportionate adjustment for non-adult award rates — from a date no earlier than 12 months after the increase provided for in the May 2003 decision. Federal minimum wage for full-time adult employees of $467.40 pw
            
               
            October 2006 — effective from 1 December 2006 — On 26/10/06 the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) handed down its first decision on minimum wages for employees covered by WorkChoices. It awarded a $0.72/hour increase to existing minimum adult rates up to and including $18.42/hour and $0.58/hour for rates above that. The minimum adult rate, except for those on special rates, was set at $13.47/hour
            
            2007    
            July 2007 — effective from 1 October 2007 — On 05/07/07 the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) handed down its second decision on minimum wages for employees covered by WorkChoices. It awarded a an increase of $10.26 per week ($0.27 per hour) to the standard Federal Minimum Wage (FMW) bringing the weekly rate to $522.12. The standard FMW increases from $13.47 to $13.74 per hour,
            
            
            What's that all of these years unemployment went down??? Up until the crisis when unemployment went up around the whole world.  Nope you were just wrong.
            
            
            

            replyreport
7. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Josak, do you understand what it means to control for variables? Clearly you don't. It means you have to eliminate the effects of all other variables(not just list the variables) to compare datasets.  You. Didn't. Do. That.
   
   What you did doesn't come close to doing that. It means nothing. In fact, having other variables that show Australia doing better than the US undermines your argument, because if other variables are better for one dataset than another, then when you do control for them they will make the rest of the data worse.
   
   You're so far off base on this one.
   
   Your chart is ridiculous, we're talking about a 4-year period so you post a 30-year chart? Go look at the time-frames we're talking about. Unemployment was down to 4% before the period you mentioned a couple posts ago. Right after it jumped to 5.5%. That means it went up. 5.5 is more than 4.
   
   Now you've gone and abandoned your previous argument, and you want to talk about a different time-frame? Lol, talk about cherry-picking

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yup I controlled for the variables by explaining they were similar or demonstrating that the variables you listed were doing better and no that supports my argument, I noted that Australia has a minimum wage PP 25% higher and yet they are doing better, surely not?! but yes they are, the variables that were better where caused rather than causation variables.
      
      Who said we are talking about a four year period? Why would we do that when we know that the GFC massively impacts that period, could it be that you are cherry picking? I noted that minimum wage increase affected by the GFC had to be dismissed so I found a larger sample size (which is a good thing) unaffected by the variable of the GFC (see variable minimization).
      
      Then you ignored it and made excuses as ever.
      I'll make it simpler for you:
      
      Minimum wage $15.95 AUD (point of conversation)
      Currency: Similar to ours trending upwards in recent years (similar and thus irrelevant)
      Unemployment: about half of ours (this demonstrates that high minimum wage can co exist with low unemployment)
      Inflation: about the same as ours (similar and thus irrelevant)
      Standard of living: significantly better than ours (because they have fewer working poor, I wonder why????? tongue ) (demonstrates the positive effect of a high minimum wage does nothing to explain why Australia can do it and the US cannot, back's my argument)
      Cost of living already accounted for above in price parity comparison. (25% higher, it's already accounted for so irrelevant.)
      Obviously if we pay $10 an hour the economy will collapse
      Two for fun, GINI index: they are a full quarter better, I wonder why???? (backs my argument high minimum wage is good)
      Debt by GDP: about a quarter of ours. I wonder if it's because in Australia people are supported by their employer not the taxpayer. (Backs my argument high minimum wage is good)
      There I didn't think it was necessary but I have now also explained the variables for you.
      
      So the poorer nation, has less unemployment and a massively higher minimum wage and none of the variables you listed explain why they can and we can't . Going to continue making excuses? I am sure you will, it's all you've got.

      replyreport
8. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Just like always, you're not listening. At all.
   
   LISTING VARIABLES IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONTROLLING FOR THEM!
   
   You did not control for the variables, and having better variables in one dataset makes the other variables in that dataset of less value.
   
   For instance, say you have two plants. One of them gets plenty of water, plenty of sunlight, and a 'miracle grow' treatment. The other doesn't get enough water, sunlight, or the miracle grow treatment.
   
   The first plant grows best. We look to see if the treatment was effective or not. You are saying "Yes, it is, because that plant did better". When in fact, we know that sun and water help a plant grow, so that diminishes the argument that the treatment helped.
   
   If it were reversed, and the plant that didn't get enough water or sun got the treatment, and it did better, then that would strengthen the argument that the treatment was effective.
   
   Your attempts to act like you have controlled for variables are laughable at best.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I listed and then evaluated the impact of the variables listed in my last comment, none of the variables you mentioned affected Australia in such a way that it should be able to do better so yes the variables were eliminated, none of them backed your argument.
      
      Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many excuses, ever going to run out?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Lol, you keep digging deeper and deeper.
         
         I listed and evaluated the impact of variables, so I controlled for them.
         
         I would love to see you submit a research paper for peer review with that methodology for control

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            yes and the evaluation found they were either irrelevant or backed my argument, that is exactly how one deals with variables.
            
            Again with the excuses.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               No, you don't deal with variables by saying 'they are irrelevant' or 'they back my argument'.
               
               Want to try again?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  If they are and they do that is actually exactly what you do.
                  
                  For example if inflation is the same in two countries you eliminate it as a variable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Nope. Unless everything else about the two countries is the same, then the same rate of inflation has different effects.
                     
                     Let's just agree to disagree Josak. We won't get anywhere. If you want to keep saying you have controlled, go ahead.

                     replyreport
9. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Let me just say, that argumentum ad absurdum is a valid logical argument. If your logical framework and reasoning are true, then an argument should be true when extended to absurd levels.
   
   Which is why, if you argue that raising minimum wage to $15/hr wouldn't cause unemployment, then you must also argue that raising minimum wage to $100,000,000,000/hr wouldn't cause unemployment either.
   
   If you can't argue both positions, then there is a flaw in your logic, either in your premise or in your reasoning.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are using the appeal to extremes logical fallacy, which is a common misuse of reduction ad absurdum.  I'm sure you'll deny that, though.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         No, because I am not changing either the premise or the method of reasoning in the argument. Misuse of argumentum ad absurdum only occurs when either the premise or method or reasoning changes.
         
         EDIT if you want to claim I'm misusing it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how. Just saying it doesn't mean anything.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Well, it's been awhile since I studied philosophy so I looked it up to see if what you say is true.  I couldn't find any definition or description to support your claim that appeal to the extremes fallacy requires a change in either the premise or the method or reasoning.  I did find this, though:
            
            "A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections."
            
            So, unless we have a philosophy professor reading the forums to interpret for us, I will stand by my interpretation.  I'm guessing you will stick with yours.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               That has to do with taking the interpretation of an argument to extremes, not taking the logical extension of an argument to extremes. There is a difference. For example, from the same page you quoted.
               
               "example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!"
               
               The argument is "We should divide everything 50/50". It is an extreme interpretation of what "everything" means to suggest that it also means reproductive organs.
               
               If what you are doing is taking the logical extension to its extreme, it is a valid argument, and very well-documented.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, I think you are right on this one.
                  
                  If Josak stated "a rise in the minimum wage will not create unemployment" then his statement can be disproved using that argument.

                  replyreport
10. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago

    Interesting article:
    
    Why won't this McDonalds move 20 feet into lower wage Idaho

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Your link doesn't work.  It's one I'd like to see - can you fix it?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, it should work now.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks, but now I'm disappointed.  There was never any effort to actually answer the question, just more propaganda for higher minimum wage.
             
             Starting with the obvious question of could it be moved across the street questions of Wa. corporate and personal tax rates, property taxes, energy costs, and a whole host of other things and ending up with an answer of would moving have increased or decreased profits.
             
             Without seeing a traffic study (imperative in locating a McDonalds) we can assume that moving across the street into Idaho would provide the same customer base and that lower wages would increase profits, but is it true, or did they stay in Wa. for other reasons?  Even the store owner says wages are just a small part of a bigger puzzle.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't really post it as a direct response to the OP.  Actually, your last sentence conveys exactly what I hoped people would get out of it, that wages are a small piece of a big puzzle.  It is simplistic to say that raising the minimum wage will automatically result in higher unemployment, but it also simplistic to say that raising the minimum wage will not.  The truth is that for some businesses it would result in layoffs.
                
                However, even some high-level Walmart CEOs are starting to realize that their employees cannot afford to shop at Walmart.  Sure, they have saved huge sums of money by working people fewer than 30 hours/week and keeping their wages under $9/hour.  But, their short-term desire to make more money off the backs of their employees is now starting to bite them in their a$$es.

                replyreport
                1. 95

                   wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                   I figured that, PP, I was just hoping for more from the article.  I'm in Idaho, Wa (in the form of Seattle) is like Bill Gates compared to a homeless man.  Wages (and living costs) are double to triple what they are here.  I realize that Spokane is not Seattle, but it still has many of the same laws, such as min. wage - how does it actually work out across the border?
                   
                   But there is nothing new about people not being able to buy the product they sell or produce - few people can afford a Mercedes and fewer yet a Rolls Royce.  However, if WalMart employees can't shop there, where can they shop?  Everywhere I've been Wally World is the cheapest thing around (outside of thrift stores, and you don't buy food there).
                   
                   I have a hard time supporting WalMart employment policies, but it seems to be what the public wants.  You don't sell at super cheap prices by paying medium or good wages.

                   replyreport
11. 59

    Superkevposted 10 years ago

    Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.

    replyreport
12. 61

    Mark Johannposted 10 years ago

    How terrible is the news, and would it be the sign of wrong US policy?

    replyreport