Obama Ag Secretary: More People On Food Stamps Means More Jobs

[red states rule]

Is it any wonder the US economy is in the tank given this kind of thinking?


<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1HjTX0wdMW4" frameBorder=0 width=425 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[KartRacerBoy]

What is your problem? You don't like helping feed the impoverished? Or you dislike the idea that foodstamps also help stimulate the economy (a secondary effect)?

[Thunderknuckles]

Yes, and unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs.

:cuckoo:

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes, and unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs.

:cuckoo:

May you soon become unemployed and desperately need a job. Let's see how quick you reject unemployment benefits. I suspect you'll become a hypocrite pretty fast.

And the supply side idea of cutting taxes so business can sit on more profits in an economic downturn is frankly nuts. Keynes was right. Friedman was wrong.

[Monkeybone]

It's what they want. You get enough people on there to strain it even further and thus another "crisis" comes about and we have to do something drastic again to fix it all.


WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

[Thunderknuckles]

May you soon become unemployed and desperately need a job. Let's see how quick you reject unemployment benefits. I suspect you'll become a hypocrite pretty fast.

I was unemployed for over a year and a half and just recently was hired. We came dangerously close to losing our home. I know all about being in need and as such I have no issue with unemployment.
I just think it's ridiculous to think that unemployment checks and food stamps are a great way to create jobs.

[KartRacerBoy]

I was unemployed for over a year and a half and just recently was hired. We came dangerously close to losing our home. I know all about being in need and as such I have no issue with unemployment.
I just think it's ridiculous to think that unemployment checks and food stamps are a great way to create jobs.

I've been unemployed for a year and a half. Still haven't found a job.

I don't think the guy was stating that the jobs thing is the main effect of food stamp benefits. He was saying that as far as a stimulus to the economy, people on food stamps spend every dollar of the benefit. As such it not only helps feed them but also helps keep the workers in the food industry employed. Nothing is saved as might happen if the govt cut taxes. Some portion of those tax savings will be spent and some will be saved if an economy like ours except for those on the financial edge. Higher income folks will save a portion of the tax savings to hedge for the future. Not true with a benefit like food stamps (or unemployment). You can be pretty sure 100% will go into the economy.

[Monkeybone]

I've been unemployed for a year and a half. Still haven't found a job.

I don't think the guy was stating that the jobs thing is the main effect of food stamp benefits. He was saying that as far as a stimulus to the economy, people on food stamps spend every dollar of the benefit. As such it not only helps feed them but also helps keep the workers in the food industry employed. Nothing is saved as might happen if the govt cut taxes. Some portion of those tax savings will be spent and some will be saved if an economy like ours except for those on the financial edge. Higher income folks will save a portion of the tax savings to hedge for the future. Not true with a benefit like food stamps (or unemployment). You can be pretty sure 100% will go into the economy. Yeah, just look at California. Those Casinos and strippers eally needed that money.

[Nukeman]

I've been unemployed for a year and a half. Still haven't found a job.

I don't think the guy was stating that the jobs thing is the main effect of food stamp benefits. He was saying that as far as a stimulus to the economy, people on food stamps spend every dollar of the benefit. As such it not only helps feed them but also helps keep the workers in the food industry employed. Nothing is saved as might happen if the govt cut taxes. Some portion of those tax savings will be spent and some will be saved if an economy like ours except for those on the financial edge. Higher income folks will save a portion of the tax savings to hedge for the future. Not true with a benefit like food stamps (or unemployment). You can be pretty sure 100% will go into the economy.Ok first of all, all those "dollars" being spent by the person on foodstamps and unemployment were TAKEN from someone else...

I understand what your saying about the spending the benefits, but you could also argue that the taking of the money from others has resulted in them NOT being able to spend the money on luxuries thus causing the someone to lose his/her job in whatever industry they were in. Kind of a catch 22 don'tcha think??

I have to ask your unemployed for over a year and a half yet you still have internet connection and can spend a LOT of time on this board, and I am assuming others as well!?!?!?!?!? How is that??????

[fj1200]

And the supply side idea of cutting taxes so business can sit on more profits in an economic downturn is frankly nuts. Keynes was right. Friedman was wrong.

That you would say that means you haven't been paying attention. We had a nice fat stimulus that clearly had little effect based on their own projections. Job growth out of this recession has lagged, nonexistent?, FAR behind other recessions that were either tax neutral or tax cutting; what further proof of Keynesian failure do you need? IIRC someone tagged the multiplier of food stamps, etc. at 1.84; do you think that was close to accurate?

[KartRacerBoy]

Ok first of all, all those "dollars" being spent by the person on foodstamps and unemployment were TAKEN from someone else...

I understand what your saying about the spending the benefits, but you could also argue that the taking of the money from others has resulted in them NOT being able to spend the money on luxuries thus causing the someone to lose his/her job in whatever industry they were in. Kind of a catch 22 don'tcha think??

I have to ask your unemployed for over a year and a half yet you still have internet connection and can spend a LOT of time on this board, and I am assuming others as well!?!?!?!?!? How is that??????

Wife is employed. Yes, I have an internet connection. Have you tried living without one in today's day and age? You save money by spending money sometimes.

[red states rule]

I was unemployed for over a year and a half and just recently was hired. We came dangerously close to losing our home. I know all about being in need and as such I have no issue with unemployment.
I just think it's ridiculous to think that unemployment checks and food stamps are a great way to create jobs.

Well they do need people to take the apps for unemployment and food stams, and then peopel to rpint them up

Does that count?

[red states rule]

Wife is employed. Yes, I have an internet connection. Have you tried living without one in today's day and age? You save money by spending money sometimes.

Yea, part of the "stimulus" was to ensure internet connections for a few rural people

and libs wonder why the stimulus was a total failure

[KartRacerBoy]

That you would say that means you haven't been paying attention. We had a nice fat stimulus that clearly had little effect based on their own projections. Job growth out of this recession has lagged, nonexistent?, FAR behind other recessions that were either tax neutral or tax cutting; what further proof of Keynesian failure do you need? IIRC someone tagged the multiplier of food stamps, etc. at 1.84; do you think that was close to accurate?

Plenty of reasons for that Mr. Hasn't Paid Attention for the Past 11 Years. The stimulus was crippled from the start. Only 70 million went to infrastructure and 40% of that remains in treasury hands. Yada, yada. Tax cuts were included as part of it instead of spending by govt, Yada, yada.


Do you remember the tax cuts under W? How well did that do to stimulate the economy? I didn't see W's economy growing us into deficit reduction but tax cuts are supposedly perfect magic to supply siders. Guess what, economics isn't as simple as folks make it out to be. Lots of variables.

[red states rule]

Plenty of reasons for that Mr. Hasn't Paid Attention for the Past 11 Years. The stimulus was crippled from the start. Only 70 million went to infrastructure and 40% of that remains in treasury hands. Yada, yada. Tax cuts were included as part of it instead of spending by govt, Yada, yada.


Do you remember the tax cuts under W? How well did that do to stimulate the economy? I didn't see W's economy growing us into deficit reduction but tax cuts are supposedly perfect magic to supply siders. Guess what, economics isn't as simple as folks make it out to be. Lots of variables.

70% for infrastructure? Please post a link to that

Here is what some of our tax dollars went to in that "stimulus". 102 examples of waste and pork







The 102 worst ways the government is spending your tax dollars:
102: Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other insects ($187,632)
101: Highway beautified by fish art in Washington ($10,000)
100: University studying hookup behavior of female college coeds in New York ($219,000)
99: Police department getting 92 blackberries for supervisors in Rhode Island ($95,000)
98: Upgrades to seldom-used river cruise boat in Oklahoma ($1.8 million)
97: Precast concrete toilet buildings for Mark Twain National Forest in Montana ($462,000)
96: University studying whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida ($8,408)
95: Foreign bus wheel polishers for California ($259,000)
94: Recovering crab pots lost at sea in Oregon ($700,000)
93: Developing a program to develop "machine-generated humor" in Illinois ($712,883)
92: Colorado museum where stimulus was signed (and already has $90 million in the bank) gets geothermal stimulus grant ($2.6 million)
91: Grant to the Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance to support the traditional arts apprenticeship program, gathering and festival ($30,000)
90: Studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive in Maryland ($30,000)


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/blog/2010/03/12/waste-102-the-final-list/#ixzz1VKB6fWtW

[KartRacerBoy]

Reread that RSR.

[red states rule]

Reread that RSR.

My mistake, but didn't Obama, trhe Dems, and the liberal media sell the stimulus as repairing our crumbling bridges and roads?

What tax CUTS were in the stimulus? I know there a few (very few) tax credits that would last only for a short time

But nearly all the "stimulus" was pork and slush funds that went to the unions

Bottom line is it was a total waste of about $1 trillion - and Dems want another "stimulus"

[KartRacerBoy]

My mistake, but didn't Obama, trhe Dems, and the liberal media sell the stimulus as repairing our crumbling bridges and roads?

What tax CUTS were in the stimulus? I know there a few (very few) tax credits that would last only for a short time

But nearly all the "stimulus" was pork and slush funds that went to the unions

Bottom line is it was a total waste of about $1 trillion - and Dems want another "stimulus"

I heard that number and the % still in the treasury on a radio program. The focus of the program was how difficult to dump $ into infrastructure and hope for quick spending due to competitive bid laws, environmental review, and states/local govts not having plans in place becz they never expected $ to drop on them. Truly shovel ready is apparently pretty damn rare.

I do think that a lot of the $ went to state employees so they weren't laid off, either teachers, cops, fireman, other state agency workers. But that's good sense to me. Keeping folks employed is good when an economy is spiraling down. As I've argued elsewhere, the stimulus was counteracted in large part by states decreasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues. I haven't looked for it but I'd be interested in seeing if total 50 state reductions in spending was larger or smaller or the same size as the stimulus package.

[red states rule]

I heard that number and the % still in the treasury on a radio program. The focus of the program was how difficult to dump $ into infrastructure and hope for quick spending due to competitive bid laws, environmental review, and states/local govts not having plans in place becz they never expected $ to drop on them. Truly shovel ready is apparently pretty damn rare.

I do think that a lot of the $ went to state employees so they weren't laid off, either teachers, cops, fireman, other state agency workers. But that's good sense to me. Keeping folks employed is good when an economy is spiraling down. As I've argued elsewhere, the stimulus was counteracted in large part by states decreasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues. I haven't looked for it but I'd be interested in seeing if total 50 state reductions in spending was larger or smaller or the same size as the stimulus package.

But the money was not used to repair roads and bridges. I only posted a tiny part of all the waste and pork that we know about

As far as keeping union workers on the payroill it was a waste of money. It was a one time influ of cash and now most of them are laid off. the fact is the state/county could not aford to keep them on the payroll and it just was an excuse for more federal spending that resulted in zip

Last number I saw, the cost to the US taxpayer for those "saved/created" jobs was around $230,000 PER JOB

[fj1200]

Plenty of reasons for that Mr. Hasn't Paid Attention for the Past 11 Years. The stimulus was crippled from the start. Only 70 million went to infrastructure and 40% of that remains in treasury hands. Yada, yada. Tax cuts were included as part of it instead of spending by govt, Yada, yada.

Do you remember the tax cuts under W? How well did that do to stimulate the economy? I didn't see W's economy growing us into deficit reduction but tax cuts are supposedly perfect magic to supply siders. Guess what, economics isn't as simple as folks make it out to be. Lots of variables.

What have I not paid attention too? At least two of the Bush cuts involved a rebate, to ensure those who don't even pay taxes got a refund :rolleyes: , which bottom line add to the deficit with zero stimulus effect. The first cuts in '01 were phased in while the '03 cuts only removed the phase in period. Also after the recession pretty much ended the Fed receipts leveled off at ~18.5% of GDP which is the historical number, if you want to look at the deficits look at the spending side, Bush did not use his veto pen very well and the Republicans were rightly punished in '06/'08.

They are the ones who sold the stimulus plan and its purported results not those who were against it. If they wrote a bad bill blame the ones who passed ineffectual stimulus. If you want to get technical the stimulus probably wasn't even very Keynesian to begin with, correct me if I'm wrong but Keynes advocated spending, or even tax cuts, during recessionary periods while keeping other fiscal/monetary policies constant; what we were blessed with was increasing taxes, regulations, or at least the expectation of higher, while ALSO bumping up spending. At best the two policies were counter-effective to each other. Now if they had wanted to throw some dollars at real infrastructure type programs while not advocating higher interventionist policies that would have been something worthwhile to support.


I heard that number and the % still in the treasury on a radio program. The focus of the program was how difficult to dump $ into infrastructure and hope for quick spending due to competitive bid laws, environmental review, and states/local govts not having plans in place becz they never expected $ to drop on them. Truly shovel ready is apparently pretty damn rare.

I do think that a lot of the $ went to state employees so they weren't laid off, either teachers, cops, fireman, other state agency workers. But that's good sense to me. Keeping folks employed is good when an economy is spiraling down. As I've argued elsewhere, the stimulus was counteracted in large part by states decreasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues. I haven't looked for it but I'd be interested in seeing if total 50 state reductions in spending was larger or smaller or the same size as the stimulus package.

Hmm, tight regulations you say... ;) The problem is not in the government spending, higher/lower/whatever, it's the insistence on intervention by those who have zero idea on what to do; The whole premise is flawed from the beginning.

[KartRacerBoy]

What have I not paid attention too? At least two of the Bush cuts involved a rebate, to ensure those who don't even pay taxes got a refund :rolleyes: , which bottom line add to the deficit with zero stimulus effect. The first cuts in '01 were phased in while the '03 cuts only removed the phase in period. Also after the recession pretty much ended the Fed receipts leveled off at ~18.5% of GDP which is the historical number, if you want to look at the deficits look at the spending side, Bush did not use his veto pen very well and the Republicans were rightly punished in '06/'08.

They are the ones who sold the stimulus plan and its purported results not those who were against it. If they wrote a bad bill blame the ones who passed ineffectual stimulus. If you want to get technical the stimulus probably wasn't even very Keynesian to begin with, correct me if I'm wrong but Keynes advocated spending, or even tax cuts, during recessionary periods while keeping other fiscal/monetary policies constant; what we were blessed with was increasing taxes, regulations, or at least the expectation of higher, while ALSO bumping up spending. At best the two policies were counter-effective to each other. Now if they had wanted to throw some dollars at real infrastructure type programs while not advocating higher interventionist policies that would have been something worthwhile to support.


Goddamn, I thought I heard someone scuffling around my house. You're in my liquor cabinet, aren't you? I'm glad I only keep the cheap stuff to serve conservatives in there. Now leave!

Look up at post 18. I think I've already said the stimulus was less than Keynsian. It was a political mishmash of what was acheivable but apparently wasn't effective for lots of reasons that I've stated in other threads and posts.

As to your revenue claim, wouldn't you have expected revenues/GDP to be higher after tax cuts if the whole supply side thing was true?

[fj1200]

Goddamn, I thought I heard someone scuffling around my house. You're in my liquor cabinet, aren't you? I'm glad I only keep the cheap stuff to serve conservatives in there. Now leave!

Look up at post 18. I think I've already said the stimulus was less than Keynsian. It was a political mishmash of what was acheivable but apparently wasn't effective for lots of reasons that I've stated in other threads and posts.

As to your revenue claim, wouldn't you have expected revenues/GDP to be higher after tax cuts if the whole supply side thing was true?

Let's see you praised just getting the money out there, gov salaries and all, and bemoaned that so little was infrastructure, and hard to get going at that. Sounds like they generally got what they wanted... except results of course. ;) I also further explained its failure from a pure Keynesian standpoint, subject to your confirmation of course.

Do you want to get into a discussion of my views of supply side? I'm game besides the comment was driven by Hauser's Law not specifically SS.

And your liquor? I only need the cheap stuff, no sense flaming the good stuff.

[KartRacerBoy]

Let's see you praised just getting the money out there, gov salaries and all, and bemoaned that so little was infrastructure, and hard to get going at that. Sounds like they generally got what they wanted... except results of course. ;) I also further explained its failure from a pure Keynesian standpoint, subject to your confirmation of course.

Do you want to get into a discussion of my views of supply side? I'm game besides the comment was driven by Hauser's Law not specifically SS.

And your liquor? I only need the cheap stuff, no sense flaming the good stuff.

Good god, you're awake at this hour? Old man, I have new respect for you!

Did you really read all my posts or just the ones that fit your mindset? I've said that the stimulus was a bastard child. It basically helped state govts pay state salaries. It had minimal infrastructure spending in it and only 60 percent of that got spent so far, and that state budget cuts offset it (my guess). That's hardly real Keynsian economics. It's not a surprise it wasn't effective in improving the economy, but that is a problem of politics more than economics.

Kinda like those wonder W tax cuts and fantastic effect they had on driving the Bush economy forward like a bull on steroids. Not.

[fj1200]

Good god, you're awake at this hour? Old man, I have new respect for you!

Did you really read all my posts or just the ones that fit your mindset? I've said that the stimulus was a bastard child. It basically helped state govts pay state salaries. It had minimal infrastructure spending in it and only 60 percent of that got spent so far, and that state budget cuts offset it (my guess). That's hardly real Keynsian economics. It's not a surprise it wasn't effective in improving the economy, but that is a problem of politics more than economics.

Kinda like those wonder W tax cuts and fantastic effect they had on driving the Bush economy forward like a bull on steroids. Not.

Yes I read your posts and I know that you doubt it's Keynesian effectiveness. But I doubt any Keynesian effectiveness because it takes money out of the private sector to fund government activity until the private sector starts to roll again, seems counterproductive at the very least when you account for the lack of efficiency of government programs.

The Bush economy? How were those unemployment stats? I know it wasn't rocking like the late 90's but that was a blue moon occurrence and had zero chance of sustaining long term, no matter what the CBO said. Taxes were lowered and tax receipts returned to their post-war norm after the '01 recession; what else do you want from a tax policy? Except of course for the elimination of corporate income taxes. ;)

[KartRacerBoy]

fj, I'm always surprised that you don't bring up the "lost decade" of Japan when debating Keynsian vs Supply Side. It is a real conundrum why it diidn't work in Japan, but the "beauty" of economics is that one can always point to other variables that "offset" one's theory. It makes for great and long arguments. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

fj, I'm always surprised that you don't bring up the "lost decade" of Japan when debating Keynsian vs Supply Side. It is a real conundrum why it diidn't work in Japan, but the "beauty" of economics is that one can always point to other variables that "offset" one's theory. It makes for great and long arguments. :laugh:

A question, is fj also an economist? I may have to give my middle child this site. ;) Not! He just graduated in May with BS in econ and has managed to find a job in field. Yes, one that will pay for his MS, so he's pumped.

[fj1200]

fj, I'm always surprised that you don't bring up the "lost decade" of Japan when debating Keynsian vs Supply Side. It is a real conundrum why it diidn't work in Japan, but the "beauty" of economics is that one can always point to other variables that "offset" one's theory. It makes for great and long arguments. :laugh:

Japan, not exactly a red letter example for Keynesians is it? I've always thought that they had higher tax rates than most, surely corporate as they were highest until a recent cut iirc, but I don't know for sure and haven't found a good source for historical rates. It seems to me that they are not exactly a risk taking people and without the innovations in the US being manufactured in Japan, going to China, Korea, etc. they don't have a base on which to build growth.

Their high corporate rates have done to them what I think it has/is/will do to us, it will drive jobs and investment overseas leaving our high wage workers high and dry. Many manufacturing jobs can hang on as they aren't easy to shift but once we lose those jobs, as happens during economic downturns, they are easy to shift overseas and won't come back.

But I think if you dig down deep there will be no conundrum of why it didn't work in Japan, it really doesn't work anywhere.

[fj1200]

A question, is fj also an economist? I may have to give my middle child this site. ;) Not! He just graduated in May with BS in econ and has managed to find a job in field. Yes, one that will pay for his MS, so he's pumped.

No. I do have an MBA in econ and finance but most of my economics is self taught/gleaned based on my readings and time while trading back in the day.

Good for your son... if he likes it. :poke: I can't stand all those numbers.

[Kathianne]

No. I do have an MBA in econ and finance but most of my economics is self taught/gleaned based on my readings and time while trading back in the day.

Good for your son... if he likes it. :poke: I can't stand all those numbers.

Well I guess it's interests. He's a highly gifted person. He thought he wanted to teach English, that didn't work out after observing high school students towards student teaching. LOL! Then he turned towards economics, after working 3 years in a bank. Now he's working for an association that lobbies, but it's a 'nice' association. ;) yeah, he's in the beltway, Fairfax, VA.

[red states rule]

Good god, you're awake at this hour? Old man, I have new respect for you!

Did you really read all my posts or just the ones that fit your mindset? I've said that the stimulus was a bastard child. It basically helped state govts pay state salaries. It had minimal infrastructure spending in it and only 60 percent of that got spent so far, and that state budget cuts offset it (my guess). That's hardly real Keynsian economics. It's not a surprise it wasn't effective in improving the economy, but that is a problem of politics more than economics.

Kinda like those wonder W tax cuts and fantastic effect they had on driving the Bush economy forward like a bull on steroids. Not.

Lets check the numbrs during the Bush years. Unemployments averaged around 5.5%; gas was about $1.80 gal; GDP was around 3%; and libs called that another near Great Depression

Again, the "stimulus" was used to keep government workers on the payroll for a short period of time - then the well ran dry

And what did we get out that "stimulus"? A GDP .04% If fact the last five quarters saw a shrinking GDP dispite all that taxpayer money was spent

[logroller]

Goddamn, I thought I heard someone scuffling around my house. You're in my liquor cabinet, aren't you? I'm glad I only keep the cheap stuff to serve conservatives in there. Now leave!

Look up at post 18. I think I've already said the stimulus was less than Keynsian. It was a political mishmash of what was acheivable but apparently wasn't effective for lots of reasons that I've stated in other threads and posts.

As to your revenue claim, wouldn't you have expected revenues/GDP to be higher after tax cuts if the whole supply side thing was true?

I've always felt about other people's beer and liquor they way Friedman described other people's money. It would appear you feel the same way; paid for with your money, you are more considerate of where it goes--- Friedman didn't have it wrong after all.

Video quality sucks, but here's a link (http://youtu.be/5RDMdc5r5z8).

Edit: not Friedman's own words but gets the point across. I don't need CPI-w or CBO reports to explain to me the logic behind this


http://youtu.be/leYMlFWWrmw

From Free to Choose


The 4 Ways Of Spending1) Spend your own money on yourself.
2) Spend your own money on somebody else.
3) Spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
4) Spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

[fj1200]

^Another one of your Friedman rantings I see. :slap: You should be banned for posting such logic.

[KartRacerBoy]

^Another one of your Friedman rantings I see. :slap: You should be banned for posting such logic.

A pox on both your houses.

FYI, I went to a lecture Friedman gave in DC in the late 80s. Ha, ha. Bet you weren't there! :cool:

[logroller]

^Another one of your Friedman rantings I see. :slap: You should be banned for posting such logic.


I see you feel threatened by your "quote fucker" title being challenged. :laugh:As annoying as I may be, I could be more so--Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if I used a Michael Moore clip to support illogical talking points.:coffee:

[KartRacerBoy]

I see you feel threatened by your "quote fucker" title being challenged. :laugh:As annoying as I may be, I could be more so--Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if I used a Michael Moore clip to support illogical talking points.:coffee:


Seriously, who wouldn't want the title "Quote-Fucker"? It's just good, clean fun!

And while I disagree with Uncle Milty's thinking on many things, I always loved his unrealistic idea of a negative income tax. So brilliant it was politcally infeasible.

[fj1200]

A pox on both your houses.

FYI, I went to a lecture Friedman gave in DC in the late 80s. Ha, ha. Bet you weren't there! :cool:

I bet you didn't get any action after that one either. :laugh:


I see you feel threatened by your "quote fucker" title being challenged. :laugh:As annoying as I may be, I could be more so--Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if I used a Michael Moore clip to support illogical talking points.:coffee:

Check it! My new title that is. I wouldn't watch your Moore clips any more than I watch Red's clips. ;) Friedman I'll watch though.

[logroller]

A pox on both your houses.

FYI, I went to a lecture Friedman gave in DC in the late 80s. Ha, ha. Bet you weren't there! :cool:

Come to think of it, I had chicken pox in the 80's. Obviously your curse is irrefutable proof of witchcraft and you need to burned at the stake.

Now where did leave my torch and pitchfork?

(How's that for lack of logic fj?:thumb:)

[KartRacerBoy]

I bet you didn't get any action after that one either. :laugh:

Surprising difficult to find a date for that event. Who would've guessed? But even though I disagree often with Uncle Milty, he was a brilliant man and that just gets me HOT! So I (kinda) get some action afterwards...

[KartRacerBoy]

Come to think of it, I had chicken pox in the 80's. Obviously your curse is irrefutable proof of witchcraft and you need to burned at the stake.

Now where did leave my torch and pitchfork?

(How's that for lack of logic fj?:thumb:)


I've been called many things but Christine ODonnell is not one of them. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Come to think of it, I had chicken pox in the 80's. Obviously your curse is irrefutable proof of witchcraft and you need to burned at the stake.

Now where did leave my torch and pitchfork?

(How's that for lack of logic fj?:thumb:)

So perfect that a Keynesian will have no trouble picking it up. :coffee:


Surprising difficult to find a date for that event. Who would've guessed? But even though I disagree often with Uncle Milty, he was a brilliant man and that just gets me HOT! So I (kinda) get some action afterwards...

:laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

So perfect that a Keynesian will have no trouble picking it up. :coffee:





Now that's just hurtful coming from a supply sider. :blues:

[red states rule]

Obama's policies were "working fine" until he ran out of other peoples money to spend.

$4 trillion dollars spent and all the country got to show for it was a credit downgrade