 |
| This is over seven times the cost of the New Deal in today's dollars |
To put this in perspective, that Recovery act ran a cost of under 1 trillion dollars. The official number was around 850 billion dollars. That followed the "great recession" which people lost trillions in wealth, property, and savings.
Over the past day or so, the Senate has just passed 4.7 trillion dollars in new stimulus for an economy that just added over 900,000 jobs back in the last jobs report? What can possibly justify such outrageous spending numbers? Desperate Democratic politicians willing to bankrupt our society in hopes of helping themselves in an upcoming midterm election? Anyone have any other ideas?
Want some more perspective? The entire New Deal spending in today's dollars would have costed approximately $650 billion in spending (it cost around 42 billion at the time). This new spending scheme will be on pace to outspend the ENTIRE NEW DEAL by approximately SEVEN TIME OVER!
Let me repeat that. This new round of spending is SEVEN TIMES more than we spent on the entire New Deal that helped us out of the great depression. Can anyone justify spending seven times more than the New Deal? Can anyone say that what appears to be a temporary economic set back from Covid justifies seven times the stimulus relief from the Government?
Let's not even get into who is going to pay for it? We are already giving tax breaks of $300 per children per month for every household with children. We are not raising taxes on anyone, and since we have never been able to pay for even modest stimulus packages by sticking it to the rich, we can hardly expect that to put any sort of dent into a 4.5 trillion dollar package.
The CBO (who is now less credible than the Ministry of Silly Walks) suggests that adding 4.5 trillion in spending will only add a fraction of that to the deficit and debt. Anyone want to bet that they are not just marginally wrong, but wrong on an epic scale. It's literally impossible for us to spend 4.5 trillion dollars more without really raising any revenue and suggest that the cost per year will only be in the tens of billions.
By pure math, this spending (over the next decade) will literally cost 450 billion per year with nothing tangible to offset that cost. If the CBO really believes that the economy will be stimulated to the point that it will cover a majority of that cost in revenue, then we must be headed for an extended economic boon... the likes of which we have never imagined, much less seen in our nation's history.
53 comments:
Slow Joe truly does fancy himself the second coming of FDR.
The only thing they really have in common is neither can climb a flight of stairs.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell credited President Biden with helping to get the roughly $1 trillion infrastructure bill passed in the Senate, but said he doesn’t anticipate many more opportunities for Republicans to work with Democrats,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
Said McConnell: “There’s nothing to back you up like the promise of a presidential signatory, if you’re in the same party as the president. And so I think the president deserves a lot of credit for getting the Democrats open to reaching a bipartisan agreement on this bill.”
He added: “When the president ran for office, he said he was a moderate, so I was looking for some evidence of it. And we finally, finally found it.”
Russia is supplying more oil to the U.S. than any other foreign producer aside from Canada as American refiners scour the globe for gasoline-rich feedstocks to feed surging motor-fuel demand.
U.S. imports of crude and refined petroleum products from its former Cold War adversary surged 23% in May to 844,000 barrels a day from the prior month, government data showed. Mexico was edged out of the No. 2 spot as its shipments to its northern neighbor rose by less than 3%.
Russia has become a favored source for U.S. fuel makers largely because it producers ample supplies of semi-refined oils such as Mazut 100, an ideal feedstock for American refineries accustomed to processing thick, sludgy crude from Venezuela and the Middle East. Cargoes from the former dried up due to sanctions, and OPEC-orchestrated output limits have crimped shipments from the latter, leaving an opening for Russian exporters.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s
Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
FULL STATEMENT: The White House urges OPEC+ to pump more oil (above and beyond the current 400,000 b/d monthly hikes the cartel is already implementing) | #OOTT
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1425420240616411137
So Biden killed Keystone, supported Russia's pipeline and now is asking OPEC to pump more oil
How is this "green"?
How does this help Americans?
How did all this effect gas prices here?
Worse president ever
we are fucked
A great and very overlooked point -
UPDATE: Commenter Moron Robbie correctly observes:
And remember, it's not just $1T or $3.5T.
It's $1T or $3.5T in perpetuity, year after year after year, added to the baseline and spent in perpetuity via continuing resolutions.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/395137.php
One cannot overstate how badly the middle class is getting fucked on this deal.
The Democrats’ $3.5 trillion package of climate and social initiatives, including subsidized child care, expanded Medicare and paid family and medical leave benefits.
The most important issue is climate change.
Unless we address it, we might face termination like the dinosaurs.
Thecoldheartedtruth is (who is now less credible than the Ministry of Silly Walks)
Nursing Home Rog...
The man who is proud of the fact that he cost his state (how much money again) on surgeries that he didn't have the means to pay for himself. He seems to actually think that people getting something for nothing is what Government should be about.
When you look at all of the post Covid stimulus spending put together (including the original 1.9 trillion) - we are not at TEN TIMES the cost of the entire New Deal.
Who is paying for your Nursing home bills, Roger? Is it you?
Biden/Harris/James/Schumer/Pelosi/krugman/Roger
All fucking wrong on inflation.
⬆️0.5%⬆️
Be Proud
Socialist Winning
$1,900,000,000,000.00
$1,200,000,000,000.00
$3,500,000,000,000.00
Totaling
$6,600,000,000,000.00 just in the first 7 month in office.
"Who is paying for your Nursing home bills, Roger? Is it you?"
He said he has " a six figure income guaranteed for life" .
I pay for my rent and meals myself.
I'm not on Medicaid because I have sufficient income for my life.
It's not a nursing home.
It's an assisted living facility.
I pay for my rent and meals myself.
I'm not on Medicaid because I have sufficient income for my life.
It's a temporary process.
I come and go anytime I want.
Some of the people here are very disabled, either physical and again severe mental disorders.
It's not an easy thing to see every day.
If one of your parents or a friend lost their minds, it is very disturbing.
Don’t forget those juice boxes you buy, Alky
Now there ia a life goal.
"I have sufficient income for my life."
Yes, you have money for juice boxes.
Roger you dont own the dirt on the bottom of your shoes.
A Nobel prize winning has diagnosed you as a cultist Scott.
Before the right embraced Covid denial, there was climate denial. Many of the attitudes that have characterized the right-wing response to the coronavirus pandemic — refusal to acknowledge facts, accusations that scientists are part of a vast liberal conspiracy, refusal to address the crisis — were foreshadowed in the climate debate.
Yet from the response to Covid-19 among Republican officials — especially the opposition to lifesaving vaccines — it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the paranoid, anti-rational streak in American politics isn’t as bad as we thought; it’s much, much worse.
On Monday the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report. The conclusions won’t surprise anyone who has been following the issue, but they were terrifying all the same.
Major damage from climate change, the panel tells us, is already locked in. In fact, it’s already happening, as the world experiences extreme weather events, like heat waves in the Pacific Northwest and floods in Europe, that have been made far more likely by rising global temperatures. And unless we take drastic action very soon, catastrophe looms.
ADVERTISEMENT
We can, however, safely predict how influential conservatives will react to the report, if they react at all. They’ll say that it’s a hoax or that the science is still uncertain or that any attempt to mitigate climate change would devastate the economy.
That is, they’ll react the same way they’ve reacted to past warnings — or the way they’ve reacted to Covid-19. Extreme weather events probably won’t change anything. After all, Republican governors like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Greg Abbott in Texas are still opposing virus-control measures — not just refusing to act themselves but also trying to block vaccine requirements by local governments and even private businesses — as hospitalizations soar.
However, while there are important similarities between the right’s response to climate change and its response to Covid-19, there are also some important differences. The pandemic has opened frontiers in destructive irrationality.
You see, while climate denial was intellectually irresponsible and morally indefensible, it also made a kind of narrow-minded sense.
For one thing, warnings about climate change always involved the long run, making it easy for denialists to claim that short-run fluctuations refuted the whole concept: “See, it’s cold today, so global warming is a hoax!” This kind of evasion has gotten harder lately, now that we’re having what were supposed to be once-in-100-years fires and floods every couple of years. But it helped confuse the issue.
Also, there was big money behind climate denial. Fossil fuel interests were prepared to spend large sums creating a fog of skepticism in the expectation that delaying climate action would be good for their bottom lines.
Last and least, but not irrelevant, free-market ideologues didn’t want to hear about problems that the free market can’t solve.
None of these explanations work for current Covid denial.
Florida’s sevenfold increase in hospitalizations since mid-June can’t be dismissed as a hypothetical long-run issue.
Businesses may have protested lockdowns that reduced sales, but as far as I can tell, corporations are eager to see maximum vaccination, which would help them get back to business as usual, and a growing number of companies are imposing their own vaccine mandates.
And even die-hard libertarians generally admit that promoting vaccines to stop a plague is a valid role for the public sector.
Yet here we are: Trying to limit a deadly pandemic, even via vaccines that convey huge benefits at little risk, has become a deeply partisan issue.
How did that happen? I’d tell the story this way: America’s rapid vaccination pace during the spring was very good news for the nation — but it was also a success story for the Biden administration. So influential conservatives, for whom owning the libs is always an overriding goal, began throwing up roadblocks to the vaccination program.
This had far-reaching consequences. As I’ve written before, the modern G.O.P. is more like an authoritarian political cult than a normal political party, so vaccine obstruction — not necessarily denunciation of the vaccines themselves, but opposition to any effort to get shots into people’s arms — became a loyalty test, a position you took to prove yourself a loyal Trumpist Republican.
Presumably, the politicians who made this calculation had no idea that reality would strike back this hard and this fast — that Florida would so quickly find itself with almost nine times New York’s rate of hospitalizations, that cities in Texas would find themselves virtually out of I.C.U. beds. But it’s almost impossible for them to change course. If Ron DeSantis were to admit the deadliness of his Covid mistakes, his political ambitions would be over.
So Covid denial has turned out to be even worse than climate denial. We’ve gone from cynical catering to corporate interests to aggressive, performative anti-rationality. And the right’s descent continues, with no bottom in sight.
The alky takes great pride in being a ward of the state, and like any liberal the more folks that can be made dependent upon government the better.
He was probably hammered and passed out piss drunk when JFK said - 'ask not what your country can do for you...'
No self-respecting American wants to be on the public tit, yet the alky wears it like a badge of honor.
As I have written myself on this blog.
He agreed with me today!
As I’ve written before, the modern G.O.P. is more like an authoritarian political cult than a normal political party, so vaccine obstruction — not necessarily denunciation of the vaccines themselves, but opposition to any effort to get shots into people’s arms — became a loyalty test, a position you took to prove yourself a loyal Trumpist Republican.
rrb would shoot someone who was a needle at his front door.
I'm not a ward of the state, I'm here voluntarily.
Krugman.
LMAO.
You ARE a ward of the state alky.
You're locked down in a facility you cannot voluntarily leave without an escort, and if I had a dollar for every time you bragged on here about fleecing the US taxpayer to pick up the tab on your $1.6 MILLION cirrhosis liver transplant, I'd already be retired.
In short, you have failed at every single aspect of life. You've lost the nest egg of your last wife who you beat like a fucking drum, you posted your bank account information on twitter so anyone could fucking steal it, you've begged for $$$ and threatened suicide on Facebook, and you live on this blog like it's your lifeline... because it is.
When it comes to the basic human condition, yours can be illustrated and represented by a bucket of runny diarrhea.
I don't have an escort. I come and go by myself Jimmy Hitler
I'm not on Medicaid because I have sufficient income for my life.
But you had the government pay for your surgery, right?
How much did you cost the taxpayers and how damned proud of it are you?
Scott, this article I just found, explains exactly why I quit voting for any Republican candidate.
FORTY YEARS AGO, on August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and barred them from ever working again for the federal government. By October of that year, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or PATCO, the union that had called the strike, had been decertified and lay in ruins. The careers of most of the individual strikers were similarly dead: While Bill Clinton lifted Reagan’s ban on strikers in 1993, fewer than 10 percent were ever rehired by the Federal Aviation Administration.
PATCO was dominated by Vietnam War-era veterans who’d learned air traffic control in the military and were one of a vanishingly small number of unions to endorse Reagan in 1980, thereby scoring one of the greatest own goals in political history. It’s easy to imagine strikers expressing the same sentiments as a Trump voter who famously lamented, “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
The PATCO saga began in February 1981, when negotiations began between the union and the FAA on a new contract. PATCO proposed changes including a 32-hour workweek and a big increase in pay. The FAA came back with counterproposals the union deemed insufficient, and on August 3, with bargaining at an impasse, most of the air traffic controllers walked out.
It was unquestionably illegal for PATCO, as a union of government workers, to strike. However, which laws are enforced is always and everywhere a political decision: Wall Street firms broke countless laws in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, yet almost no executives suffered any consequences. Reagan & Co. wanted to send a message that mere workers could expect no such forbearance. Just two days after the strike began, the air traffic controllers were gone.
MOST READ
Nancy Pelosi’s Surprise Flip on Student Debt Cancellation Came After Urging From Billionaire Power Couple
Ken Klippenstein, Ryan Grim
The significance of Reagan’s actions is rarely discussed today in the mainstream, and for understandable reasons: It was the first huge offensive in a war that corporate America has been waging on this country’s middle class ever since. As Warren Buffett — current estimated net worth $101 billion — has said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
The stunning victory of the wealthy over everyone else can been measured in several straightforward ways. During a speech last May at a community college in Cleveland, Joe Biden explained one of them:
From 1948 after the war to 1979, productivity in America grew by 100 percent. We made more things with productivity. You know what the workers’ pay grew? By 100 percent. Since 1979, all of that changed. Productivity has grown four times faster than pay has grown. The basic bargain in this country has been broken.
Productivity is a simple but extremely important economic concept. Over time, as technology advances and society learns how to use it, each worker can produce more. One person with a bulldozer can move a lot more dirt than one person with a shovel. One person with the latest version of Microsoft Excel can do a lot more math than one person with Napier’s bones.
The meaning of Biden’s statistics is that for decades after World War II, America got much richer overall, and average worker pay went up at the same rate. Then the link between productivity and pay was severed: The U.S. overall continued to get much richer, but most of the increased wealth went to the top, not to normal people. Corporate CEOs, partners at corporate law firms, orthopedic surgeons — they make three, five, 10 times what they did in 1981. Nurses, firefighters, janitors, almost anyone without a college degree — their pay has barely budged.
The situation is especially egregious at the bottom of the pay scale. Until 1968, Congress increased the federal minimum wage in line with productivity. That year, it reached its highest level: Adjusted for inflation, it was the equivalent of $12 per hour today. It has since fallen to $7.25. Yet the whole story is far worse. Even as low-wage workers have battled fruitlessly to get the federal minimum wage raised to $15, no one realizes that if it had continued increasing along with productivity since 1968, it would now be over $24 per hour. At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year. This seems incredible, yet there are no economic reasons it couldn’t happen; we have simply made a political decision that it should not.
Another way to understand this is to look at the other end of American society. In 1995, Bill Gates had a net worth of $10 billion, worth about $18 billion in today’s dollars. That was enough to make him the richest person in America. If that were all Gates had today, there would be 25 or so billionaires ahead of him in line. Jeff Bezos, currently in first place, possesses 10 times Gates’s 1995 net worth.
Then there’s the number of significant strikes in the U.S. each year. A confident, powerful labor movement will generate large numbers of strikes; one terrorized and cowed into submission will not. According to the Labor Department, there were generally 200-400 large-scale strikes each year from 1947 to 1979. There were 187 in 1980. Then after the PATCO firing, the numbers fell off a cliff. In 1988, the last full year of Reagan’s second term, there were just 40 strikes. By 2017, there were seven.
The direct causal relationship between the firing of the air traffic controllers and the crushing of labor is widely noted and celebrated on the right. In a 2003 speech at the Reagan Library in California, then-Chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan spoke glowingly of the “flexibility” of U.S. labor markets, by which he meant “the freedom to fire.” Greenspan said that “perhaps the most important” contribution to these flexible markets “was the firing of the air traffic controllers in August 1981. … [Reagan’s] action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”
Donald Devine, the head of Reagan’s Office of Personnel Management at the time, later wrote, “American business leaders were given a lesson in managerial leadership [by Reagan] that they could not and did not ignore. Many private sector executives have told me that they were able to cut the fat from their organizations and adopt more competitive work practices because of what the government did in those days.”
The question today is whether the U.S. will ever go back to being the middle-class society it once was. Many Americans have long believed and hoped that that was the norm, and we will naturally return to it without much effort on our part. But as the past 40 years have gone by, it appears more and more that Gilded Age brutality is the U.S. norm, and the years of an American middle class were a brief exception. That means recreating it will require the same titanic struggle needed to create it in the first place.
The Biden Reconstruction process will make the middle class wealthy again.
https://theintercept.com/2021/08/06/middle-class-reagan-patco-strike/
I voted for Reagan in 1980. I have never voted for a Republican candidate ever.
Because I was a union carpenter who made good money and lifetime pension benefits
The Republicans have voted for right to work for less jobs for decades and one of them will outlaw right to work for less legislation.
The Biden Reconstruction process will make the middle class wealthy again.
Yeah, by crippling their earnings with unnecessary and completely avoidable inflation from now until the end of the Republic.
Keep listening to Krugman and Lil Bobby Reich alky. They're never wrong
Even as low-wage workers have battled fruitlessly to get the federal minimum wage raised to $15, no one realizes that if it had continued increasing along with productivity since 1968, it would now be over $24 per hour. At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year.
This is why we have change course
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I voted for Reagan in 1980. I have never voted for a Republican candidate ever.
Never go "full-retard."
Roger Amick said...
Scott, this article I just found, explains exactly why I quit voting for any Republican candidate
FORTY YEARS AGO, on August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan
Guess you were lying when you have proudly said you voted for Reagan twice
Of course that doesn't preclude you for continuing to lie
Why would you think anyone cares how you vote ?
If anything it would encourage anyone to vote the opposite
And be right
But it is a regular leftist tactic as if that would give credence to their point
ROFLMFAO !!!
Even as low-wage workers have battled fruitlessly to get the federal minimum wage raised to $15, no one realizes that if it had continued increasing along with productivity since 1968, it would now be over $24 per hour. At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year.
$4.00 gasoline price would not matter
rrb said...
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I voted for Reagan in 1980. I have never voted for a Republican candidate ever.
Never go "full-retard."
Too late !!!
I never said that I voted for Reagan twice
CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978CEOs were paid 351 times as much as a typical worker in 2020
A billionaire owns The Washington Post communist party newspaper!!!
LMAO
I think it's a lot like when roger claimed he had worked on skyscrapers
And the next day said he never had.
His "photographic memory" had failed him
caught by his own lies.
They were so close together it was easy to retrieve and prove
He went off to the next fantasy of his
poor roommate, he must be being punished
At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year.
While their real purchasing power plummets to that of a couple making $46,000.00/year.
All I can say is "bring it" alky. I make my living supplanting people with technology and networks, and this kind of thinking is a massive windfall for guys like me. For example - fast food restaurants around the nation are swapping out people for kiosks in the front of the house and swapping out people for robotics in the back of the house.
When imbeciles who think they know basic economics get to sit in the big chair it never goes they way they think it will, and I'm absolutely fine with that.
The days of overpaying clowns like you for menial tasks like 'Tab A into Slot B' are over.
$4.00 gasoline price would not matter
Dumbass, labor is often the single largest expense in the cost of production of just about EVERYTHING.
You honestly think that you can raise wages while the purchase price of goods and services remains static?
A billionaire owns The Washington Post communist party newspaper!!!
True, from last year
The 57-year-old mogul, who founded the online retailer out of his garage 27 years ago this month, became the richest man in history when his net worth rose $8.4 billion to reach a record-breaking $211 billion on Tuesday, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire's Index.
https://people.com/human-interest/jeff-bezos-net-worth-jumps-to-211-billion-making-him-the-richest-person-ever/
So the guy who prints the Washingtron Post and preaches "income equality" made 8.4 billion in one day.
How many Amazon workers would that pay for in a day ?
and Amazon profits largely the result of Chinese slave labor
Evil
praised by many on the left, read by all.
quoted here regularly
Roger is spectacularly wrong at math.
"$24 per hour. At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year. "
Let's unpack the above.
$24 an hour × 2080 = 49,920
$49,920 × 2 = $99,840
99,840 ÷ 7.65 = $13,050
$86,790 and then we have to deduct Federal and State Income tax.
Tranny Daddy epic fail
Roger, deduct 9.3% more for California state income tax
Medicare and Medicaid services are not the same thing. You should have known better than you tried to call me crazy.
When you turn 65 or 62 if the law changes you will apply for Medicare just like I did.
The liver transplant and recovery process costed $1,600,000. If you got a similar situation, you would of course apply for Medicare Senior Advantage program.
If we didn't have a Medicare plan, that was created by LBJ! Millions of families would be buried in debt because they would be paying for their parents problems.
You said that one of your parents had a tough time.
You probably don't remember when Reagan said that Medicare would destroy the medical system.
Medicare is basically insurance.
Most people pay more money than they charge the system.
I paid taxes for my lifetime.
I pay $16 per month and a maximum amount of about $4,000
Try to stay off Medicare and see what it will cost you to use private insurance!
LMAO
The Democratic party is the only one that cares for everyone!
The numbers came from https://theintercept.com/2021/08/06/middle-class-reagan-patco-strike/
Gross income kputz
Gross income kputz
Gross income kputz
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Gross income kputz
Raw purchasing power is based upon NET income AFTER taxes, alky-putz, alky-putz, alky-putz.
Fuck, you're stupid.
Running from this Roger.
Your math is spectacularly wrong.
"At that level, a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year.
$4.00 gasoline price would not matter"
Take home more like 78,000, but then thier is California sales tax "The statewide tax rate is 7.25%"
Trump did leave Office, gasoline was @ national Average $2.16. .
Bit, let us use 4F-Alky's $4.00
So every gallon costs $1.84 more for his working couple.
The average worker bee drives
"Americans drive an average of 14,300 miles per year, according to the Federal Highway Administration."
So 28,600 miles for Alky's couple.
Average car gets 25 mpg.
1,144 gallons bought × $1.85 = $2,104
But according to Roger-math , the extra $2,104 for the same gas .
"4.00 gasoline price would not matter"
Roger dials up more wrong shit.
"Roger AmickAugust 11, 2021 at 11:53 AM
Gross income"
Vs.
Roger, said "take home "
"a couple working full-time minimum wage jobs would take home $96,000 a year. "
Nope, wrong and wrong
Roger, i know, math is tough .
You just don't know all of the "adulting terms".
Let me help.
"Take-home pay is the net amount of income received after the deduction of taxes, benefits, and voluntary contributions from a paycheck. It is the difference between the gross income less all deductions. ... The net amount or take-home pay is what the employee receives."
See the net is what they get to use to puchase items.
The alky's problem is simple -
He's never signed the front of a payroll check. Only the back.
Exactly RRB.
Tell us again how gross income absorbs the inflationary costs without feeling it alky...
Shake Shack CFO Katherine Fogertey told analysts that customers can expect to pay as much as 3% to 3.5% more for their food, and those numbers could go up even further in 2022. The new increase will be more substantial than what's usual for the chain, she added.
"This is higher than the approximately 2% menu price we have historically taken at the end of most calendar years, and we'll be evaluating the need for further price increases that might go into effect in 2022," Fogertey said.
Shake Shack has raised its prices not once, but twice in the last year. The first increase came last December, when prices went up by 2%. Then, in February, the chain increased its delivery prices by 5% via third-party apps, and then another 10% in the spring.
https://www.eatthis.com/news-shake-shack-burgers-will-get-more-expensive-soon/?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=msn-feed
According to alky-nomics, all we have to do is raise the min wage to $50/hour and this problem solves itself.
Whee!
Post a Comment