The Schutze-Notes Version of James Galbraith's Latest Book: We're Screwed

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
James Galbraith has a new book out, Inequality and Instability, arguing that ... well, you know he's an economist at the LBJ School at UT Austin, so it's pretty complicated ... I'm trying to boil down what I got out of it ... I need to put this into Get-Off-My-Lawn language ... so let's imagine its not a weighty economic tome but a personals ad:

Hey, there. Are you a young person? Are you not going to inherit massive wealth? Why don't you do this? Why don't you bend over and kiss your ass goodbye?

Because you're totally screwed. Deeply so. Unless you can figure out a way to grab the world, turn it upside down and shake something good out of it, you are probably toast. Change that. Not probably. Definite toast. No jam.

Now, none of that kind of language or tone appears anywhere within 100 miles of Galbraith's book, and in fact he probably has a right to come up to Dallas and slap the crap out of me for putting it that way.

But that's what this book means.

galbraith book.jpg
We have talked about the good professor here before, you and I. He is the author of The Predator State, a 2008 book that helped provide an intellectual foundation for Occupy Wall Street, not that he meant to, any more than he wants to be described now by some blogger in Dallas as saying the world is about to end.

But Predator State was one of couple of books that provided solid economic evidence to support what became Occupy's most important and politically influential theme -- the whole 99 percent versus the 1 percent thing.

Galbraith is a pioneer in the study of income inequality in this country and the world. This new book of his takes his earlier work to a whole other level, however, in terms of practical political implication.

First, he says we're not the Lone Ranger. The United States does not have a monopoly on galloping gaps between rich and poor. There are major differences around the world, but there also are major underlying similarities. Especially where an economy has stopped relying on real production to fuel its growth and relies instead on its financial sector,the chasm between rich and poor grows more severe.

The George W. years. Remember? It seemed like almost every day the daily newspaper had a story on the front page One saying, "Consumers Urged to Buy More Crap on Credit. Country Screwed if Poor People Won't Borrow More Money at Usurious Rates."

Anyway that's how I read it. And guess what happened to the poor people who did borrow all that money at usurious rates even though they couldn't get good jobs? Oh my land, they didn't pay back the loans! We are shocked, shocked, are we not? And the western economies tanked.

In this new book, Galbraith is telling you that this picture is your future, if your world continues to depend on consumer profligacy and sleazeball lending practices as its primary economic model.

And you know what they tell us now about those sleazeballs, right? They are "too big to fail." I think that makes the rest of us too small to survive.

The scariest thing is this: All Obama is doing by propping up the financial institutions is setting us up for the next even worse cycle of debt and collapse. That's Galbraith's core point: Income disparity isn't a problem because it isn't fair. It's a problem because it fuels instability and collapse.

I heard him on the radio talking about this book. They asked what should be done to steer us in a better direction. He talked about New Deal-style jobs programs, among other things. You know, instead of continuing to listen to the Randian nutball rapists who put us in this mess in the first place, how about some FDR for a change?

Can't happen too fast for this cowboy.

This is a tough book for lay persons, and I'm about as lay as they get. I'll probably get an email from the publisher's publicist saying, "Please never mention one of Professor Galbraith's books again in that whatever-it-is that you try to write."

But look: This book is solid evidence to support the sense of doom and creeping entropy I hear among 20-somethings.

You're right. The world does suck. It is run by idiots and sons of bitches. Go straight home and eat your parents. It may be the last good meal you get.

My Voice Nation Help
49 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
GiveUpJim
GiveUpJim

Jim = senile white-guilt libtard.

Weezwas2001
Weezwas2001

 Brilliant! Ivy Leager, am I right?

LaceyB
LaceyB

I'm a worrier. Always have been. But, now that my parents are in their 60s and their health is, not awesome, I'm the sole kid (of two) in my early 30s, that gives a shit, while they pay through the nose for meager health plans. The market has destroyed what would have carried them through their later years.

I'm not a "have" anymore. When (if) a job comes at the end of school, I may recoup (some). I worry, like many Americans, that I will be "totally FUCKED", as JimS so delicately put it.

JimS, I'm a blogger, too. You get paid. But, if you want a laugh, read http://baddatesindallas.com (*shameless promotion*) It is about the sad state of being single in Dallas today, but, readable, as I've been told. Though, never as good as GOML.

Also, read this: http://m.vanityfair.com/politi...

While that article is no Galbraith, it is more reader-friendly. I believe that our economy is a "Long Slump". We are doing this to ourselves, as production turns to a service-based industry. Hella cool explanation of our times. Like my blog. (OK--no more. Gotcha).

So unfair waaah
So unfair waaah

Oh, boy, "income inequality" again. Do any of you who are bandying this ludicrous and vague term around even do a minute of serious thinking about it? Try just this one, simple thought experiment: Jack and John both get their Weekly Egalitarian Equalized Paycheck (WEEP) of $432.16, because incomes should be equal. However, Jack is a dope and wastes his money on lotto tickets, while John saves his money. Within a short time, gross inequality will result! Unfair! Now we need to control how much people can save, spend, share, or invest so that no one ends up with more money than anyone else. Perhaps assigning a combination police/revenue office to every household would work.

Fact is, "inequality" is part of life. People are different, and will accomplish different things based on scads of variables and influences. Income is just one measure -- another thought experiment: In addition to what you learned about their WEEP funds, there are other things about Jack and John that tend toward inequality. Jack is wasteful with money, but doesn't want much, has no ambition, is a good-looking 20-something with lots of girlfriends, and enjoys life on the dole. John, on the other hand, is fat, smelly, and socially inept, but reads all the time, saves his money, does programming work on the side (although he's been arrested various times for "freelance earning"). How are you going to equalize the non-monetary inequalities? Doesn't John have a "right" to a good relationship with an attractive and talented woman?

Unfair!

Weezwas2001
Weezwas2001

 Wow, dude! You like totally DESTROYED that straw man you built! You ever thought of taking a whack at some reality based situation?

Diana Powe
Diana Powe

There is nothing "part of life" about the current level of income equality in the United States. The upper 0.1%'s share has been soaring in a way that is clearly different than the first three-quarters of the 20th Century. Meanwhile, the great middle has seen very little growth. 

Your anonymously-posted thought experiment is typical of the fact-free whining that can be had at virtually any TEA Party event.

GusMitchem
GusMitchem

I don't really understand why this is a problem. It certainly isn't new, monarchs and religious hierarchies have manipulated us as long as humans have assembled in groups.

I work for a rich guy, who does business with other guys richer than him, you work for a rich guy. Sure their calls get answered when they call the politicos, because they are trying to get something done or stop a competitor from something. Government for the people by the people is about as foolish as saying if you suffer on Earth your rewards will be in Heaven 

Just the phrase "income inequality" is asinine. How about work inequality, I only work so hard and Im only so smart so I only make so much. Smart people that work really hard and pretty much all the time can have the money I don't care.

How about the rich people financing all the crap we all have, like your house, your car and that big ass TV it takes six months to pay off. Sure there is a fee for that, did the rich people trick you into wanting things too, did the rich people force you to buy stuff with their money         

JimS
JimS

Gus, great philosophy. You know, if you had only also thought to have your nuts cut off early enough in life, you could have worked in the harem.

Tim Covington
Tim Covington

One nit to pick. The "Randian nutballs" vehemently object the government propping up any business, including banks. It's the corporatist assholes in the right and the left are the ones who insist on the government propping up failing businesses.

JimS
JimS

You give them waAAAY too much credit. The Randian nutballs I'm talking about believe in wealth and slavery, and they are more than happy to use government to achieve their ends. Crediting them with having a functioning philsophy goes way too far.

Tim Rogers
Tim Rogers

Read Robert Reich's "Aftershock." He said the same thing in 2010. And the book is easy on the layman.

Mark
Mark

Before this space becomes positively diabetic with sad, sweet wishful thinking, let me rain on your parades. Galbraith and Schutze are half right: it's over. Middle class affluence was a one-time historical aberration of a unique post-World War West. After that, once all the locks and dams previously creating those artificially isolated pools of intermediate wealth at naturally isolated Third World costs dissolved, allowing capital and labor costs to flow freely world wide, the economic wage cost fluid started to drop to it's lowest common denominator across all the basins, and it ain't over yet. As more and more previously isolated labor pools dilute the denominator further - those previously bottled up Mexican, Central and South American peasants, those Congolese bush meat hunters, those Tuvanese throat singers - average incomes will only continue to stagnate drop even further. Oh, and don't forget all those generous, free-labor robots we're communicating on now. Why, I'll bet that not a one of us is dictating to a secretary with small children to support earning even minimum wage, without benefits.

Of course, we could try to hold back the tides by trying to build some sort of single International labor union that negotiated as one, with members who agreed to work only if under conditions for the overall good of all. You know, like immigrants who voluntarily refuse to work until they satisfy all the requirements other workers in their economies do.

Or, I suppose you could just try to tax the rich directly and give it to the poor, like Robin Hood. Except the rich don't have to live where their wealth is created and they don't have to create wealth where they won't get the share of it they want. And of course there is no shortage of absolutely delightful places around the world ready to fall over themselves to accommodate their residency requirements.

No, it's over. You've seen the flash. Now you're just waiting in denial for the sound to finally arrive.

Once it all finally does, though, you'll still be able to look forward to competing with every stay at home mommy world wide desperately trying to capture that next, overwhelmingly cutest poopy-event by one of their offspring to either blog about or upload to YouTube to jack that Google AdSense check by a whopping 40 or 50 cents. Hell, you might even hit the big score and get on America's Funniest Home Videos. Until then, monsieur, will we be having delicately slivered rice grain tonight, or a velvety pureed bean?

Or, yeah, I guess you could also do like Schutze and get paid to tell everybody all their troubles would go away if they'd only do [Schutze remedy of the moment].

Mavdog
Mavdog

Gee, you're apparently a very sad person seeking a reason for your negativity, hence the slamming of all things not you. Hey, wake up, it isn't these boogeymen, it's YOU!

The "economic cost wage fluid" has sought and found the lowest wage since the first days of the industrial revolution. In fact it has it's origins in the agrarian serf model. So no the pursuit of newly found low wage 3rd world workers is just a continuation of that historical march of producers seeking higher margins. Yet wages are just one factor in price hence the resurgence in domestic manufacturing over the past couple of years (i.e. the impact of distribution costs and also worker productivity).

"free labor robots"??? Your desire for catchy phrases doesn't hide your lack of understanding.

There is one word that you never use in the fatalistic new world hell hole that you predict is inevitable: productivity. I strongly suggest that to cure your self-induced manic episode spend a little time learning about the economic ideas of income and productivity. Don't know if it is as effective as a Prozac but at least it will allow you to understand why your limited vision of the world's economy is fundamentally erroneous.

Oh,and another piece of advice: attacking the messenger is never a good way of demonstrating the superiority of your ideas, your attempts at belittling the author reveal more about you than he.

JimS
JimS

Mark, read this book. Galbraith assembles impressive evidence to show that your thesis, especially where you speak of the synthesis of 3rd world and developed economies, is bullshit mythology, just like the so-called education/technology gap. Those simply do not flesh out as being the engines of income disparity. Where your worldview is certainly hooey is in your religious belief that all of this is some kind of irresistible clockwork, and all we humans can do is bow down and let it roll over us. Galbraith shows that, instead, income disparity is the product of human will as expressed in the exercise of political power. All we have to do is say no, we don't want that kind of world, where a tiny majority live like sybarritic Greek gods and the rest of humanity grinds along in execrable penury. We want a better world, one that acually works better, that produces a better life for more people. It's politics man, not science. We are human beings, not cogs. 

JimS
JimS

Well, maybe at the end of my work day I'll have time to read the book to you, Mark. Until then, keep a tight lid on your mind.

Weezwas2001
Weezwas2001

 Mark,I have been following your amazing (deranged?) series of attack comments throughout this thread wondering what on earth could have you so riled up at Jim? It seemed to go well beyond what is reasonable for a discussion on econonics to me. But with this last message, it becomes much more clear. What you're really peeved over is the fact that Jim's been, in your not-at-all humble opinion, much too easy on the uppity JWP (and probably more of "those people" as well) all these years. "White boy sidekick" good one! So it's not really economics that's got you all fired up is it? Just some good old fashioned racism. Is there medication for that?

JimS
JimS

Meds, Mark. Meds.

Mark
Mark

Jim, you're a liar, and not a very good one at that. Here's how readers can tell. There are two major things.

You're not an auto worker, not a "working man", not even a journalist, you're an English major like Garrison Keillor, so of course you recognized my fairies quote from Barrie's Peter Pan to be exactly what it was, a reference to wishful thinking, and not to anything physical at all, either supernatural imps or homosexuals.

But how were you to respond to me? You certainly don't understand anything about Galbraith other than that you vaguely think he supports your politics. The very best you've been able to muster has not been anything remotely approaching an understanding or an explanation, only a repeated bleating to read this scripture or that, hoping that some divine intervention will do the explanatory work you're incapable of for you. Read Galbraith, Chapter 2, Page 7. It saves, like John 3:16. Damn if you know how, though.

So how were you to respond? You needed an insult, because you have already established that as your modus operandi, insulting me already once up above, telling me to keep my lid on, just as you insulted Gus down below. The fairies quote gave you an ambiguous angle from which to do so if you played it right. You could call me a fairy, and if I took your bait and took homophobic offense to it, you could then paint me as a raging right-wing homophobe, a "Randian nutjob" and a homphobe to boot. If I called you out on it for being the fucking principle-free hypocrite you are, you could instead feign innocence and claim you were only referring to me as a supernatural imp (wink, wink), which given the source and context of the reference, though, makes no sense from any angle and so is one of the most glaring pointers to your lying.

The other telltale of course is the meandering, rambling, tortured nature of your response above, like a child with its hand in the cookie jar desperately trying to convince Mom there no cookie and no jar. If you were in a precinct house somewhere being asked simple questions about this episode you would already be wringing your hands, crying, and wetting your pants, desperately trying to make your shambling house of cards stand up.

Give it up, Jim. You've already blown any credibility you might have had as a blogger trying to cope with economics - it's just too complicated for you to get your English major head around - and now you've only compounded that failure by exposing your character as that of some sort of lying, squirming, chicken shit weasel whose only strength is schoolboy blog retorts and ad hominem attacks.

Give it up and go home to your chickens. Now that John Wiley Price is finally in the FBI's sights and they can provide you with the high visibility cover you need to be safe from him, it's finally okay for you to quit pimping for him the way you've been doing for decades now, to spin your alleged principles around through another 180 degree U-turn, and to skim off some final byline equity and glory out of his troubles for the years he'll be in court until you retire. And then you can still go out looking like the hero of the downtrodden South Dallas black man, no matter how many of them you've already helped him grind under along the way in the past through your mutual back-scratching and self-serving acquiescence as his passive white boy sidekick against "the Man".

JimS
JimS

 Mark, my most sincere apologies. I had no idea, when you introduced the word, “fairies,” into our little chat, that you were referring to male homosexuals. I assumed you meant supernatural imps. I responded, far too off-handedly I'm sure, with what I thought was sort of a simple tit-for-tat – Oh, gosh, there I've gone and done it again, haven't I? Anyway, by tit-for-tat, I do not intend any reference to your own anatomy, as I never intended any reference to homosexuality by use of the word, fairy, which I thought I was using as you had. I am a great admirer of homosexuals, and I hope they keep it up. I was just sort of in a hurry about doing my job – something you obviously don't have to worry about much. Meanwhile, I know I was lazy and laggardly – uh, that's not a bad one, is it? I swear it's not a reference to Lagos – in providing you the information you had requested. Here is a web site where you can hear Galbraith himself answer your questions:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...I advise skipping most of the way to the end.I note that describe me as sunken-eyed or hollow-eyed, which I take to mean old and skinny. I am both. For such a sensitive man, however, I find you just a tad too quick with the physical digs. Just to stay even, I will surmise that you are young and fat with bug-eyes. Fatty fatty bug-eyes Mark, hah-hah-hah. Are we about even here now?

Mark
Mark

Oh, I get it! You're too petulant and tongue-tied to offer anything more substantial, so in your red-faced, sputtering rage you're gonna unload the BIG insult on me this time - by calling me a fairy.

Jim, how does it feel to be unable to stop yourself from portraying yourself as the values-free empty husk you do here, alternately using homosexuality to try to lure readers into sympathizing with you on some days, and then turning around 180 degrees and weaponizing it when you think it might work for you as an insult in other situations on other days?

There's really nothing left behind those hollow, sunken eyes anymore, is there. No content at all, just word styling and pandering for hire to whoever will still have you.

But surely the real revolution will want a values-free, word styling panderer, no?

JimS
JimS

I am clapping my hands and believing in you Mark.

Mark
Mark

LOL.

Really, Jim, I think clapping your hands and saying you believe in fairies would have been far more enchanting than the petulant response you just offered instead, and who knows, maybe even more effective.

Mark
Mark

Jim, what specific political power are you and James Galbraith (who has already exercised 90% of his by selling you his book) going to exercise?

What exactly are you going to do to "say no, we don't want that kind of world,"?

Me, I'd recommend "Clap your hands! Clap your hands and say, 'I believe in fairies!'", but maybe I'm too fatalistic.

So, come on, Jim, other than creating an international labor union or somehow magically paralyzing the wealthy in place AS higher job income-producing wealth engines, you know, the way a wasp will paralyze a tarantula, what exactly are you going to do to bring back your ephemeral, mid-century Golden Age.

No, sorry, I'm not going to transfer any of my current share of income to you or Galbraith to find out. If "All we have to do is...", surely you yourself can explain it to us, for free.

pencil
pencil

Lara Logan might think your full of shite...I don't mean the mooselimb branch either.

james
james

well we can start by doin' silly-assed tree-hugger crap like growin' our own veggies....quit buyin' throwaway crap(almost everything in the stores now)  quit bein' brainless wasteful conformist/consumers. quit pourin' ant-poison flavored 'diet drinks' down yer gullets quit eatin' 40lbs of sugar a week quit sittin' in fast food drive thrus with the engine idlin' quit votin' in the same ol' scumbag politicians from the demigod/repulsifican gangs who are all whores for the filthy rich. one group wants to continue prohibition while the other wants to steal our constitutionally protected guns. they both work doubletime to steal our rights with every dumfuck new law .

Libyan Examples
Libyan Examples

Does this mean it is okay to kill all the black people, just like those brave noble Libyan Freedom-Fighters did?

Anon
Anon

why wouldn't we emulate them? most of the protests themselves there were nonviolent. it was the corrupt governments that fired on their own people. 

Anon
Anon

the political power he's talking about is called a revolution. the rich have never had success keeping down the poor that surround them over long periods of time. they end up needing the warm bodies to fight their wars and protect their assets. you talk about aberrations, but how about this one - the relative stability that's been known around the globe, and certainly in the developed world, in the post-war period is also an historical aberration. it's that stability that has made prosperity across the income distribution possible. if you think that revolution can't happen in this day and age you are kidding yourself. there's a tipping point past which people are no longer willing to put up with things. when the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed goes away, they don't exactly take kindly to it. what happens when Americans stop buying the stupid trinkets that China et al are making? do you think those factory workers who just tasted the good life just throw up their hands and say "you know what? my parents lived with less than this, so really it's not so bad". no, they don't. as Jim said, we're not just worker bees. we're humans. 

pencil
pencil

"We're seeing what causes the changes we need to have happen here over in the middle east. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and to an extent, Syria..."

Sure, just the example we need to emulate.

Montemalone
Montemalone

 We're seeing what causes the changes we need to have happen here over in the middle east. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and to an extent, Syria. It's called revolution. This country was founded on it.It's messy,and takes some time to achieve the desired (hoped for) effect.At this point in time, things haven't quite devolved to the point that people are gonna get of the barcalounger and turn off the reality tv show du jour to go out and revolt.We saw an inkling with OWS. I was disappointed in the derision heaped upon them, because they were trying to get people to wake up.

heyheymama
heyheymama

Timely post from our family's point of view.

This week, we drove through Arkansas, stopping at several historical sites, ruins of Civilian Conservation Corps camps.  The interpretive signs had photos of the camps as they were and explained why young men volunteered.  $20 out of $25 went home to their families.

Phelps
Phelps

It's just a symptom of economic idiocy in general, which is fostered by our Indoctrination System that we call Education.  

Our entire system is one Ponzi scheme on top of another.  I've had arguments (even here, I think) about the impending death of Social Security.  Why?  Because there isn't enough money to pay the entitlements promised in the future.  The end.  What is the argument I get back?  "SS is too popular for the politicians to let it fail."  Really?  The money is just going to magic itself into existence without crushing inflation?

But that's the thinking.  If we wish it hard enough and our politicians say the right magic words, everything will work out and we'll all be middle class.

Montemalone
Montemalone

 The problem is one guy making $10 million/year only pays SS tax on the first hundred grand.Now, if a hundred people were making $hundred grand/year, they'd pay SS tax on $10 million.This is the problem, a few people have gamed the system to their benefit, and we all pay the price.

Phelps
Phelps

That's specious.  They guy making $10MM a year is also only going to collect based on the first hundred grand he payed in on.  Unless you plan to increase his entitlements 100x, it's still the same bullshit game.  Either that, or just accept that SS is a welfare program, means test it, and be done with it.

Replay
Replay

Hey, if the guy is making $10MM a year, he shouldn't need the SS benefits, right?

Mavdog
Mavdog

OK, it's a welfare program. It's called "social security" for a reason. I really couldn't care less if a person making $millions upon millions won't get back what they put in. The reason? they have been compensated way more than they produced. Today's C suite occupants are incredibly over compensated to the point of being obscenely paid compared to the middle and lower levels. If corporate America didn't have such a screwed up compensation structure this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but they do and there is. The program would be sovent if there were no limit to the FICA tax paid. The system is financed on the backs of the middle class, the higher income earners have their tax capped and they also don't pay any FICA on investment income. When one considers how many of the highest income earners game the system with the favorable treatment of carried interest it makes even more sense.

It's really not very difficult to correct the inequity. All it takes is cajones.

Montemalone
Montemalone

 SS is based on that right wing be all end all - growth.Today's workers pay today's retirees, and tomorrow's workers pay tomorrow's retirees.So my argument holds up.More tax collections today to pay into the fund to pay retirees.All those current workers will feed the economy creating more work for future workers, who will then pay taxes to fund future retirees.The US population is going to grow. Probably not a bunch of lily white babies, most likely a lot of shades of brown, but they'll work and pay taxes.

Guest
Guest

Actually, it's not magical thinking.  THere is more than enough money to fund Social Security.  All we have to to is rempve the cap.  The problem is that Americans who earn over $106,000.00 a year don't want to remove the cap, and once you start earning six figures and up, it's cheaper to buy politicians than risk the cap going away.

Weezwas2001
Weezwas2001

 At the risk of spoiling a great debate, here are a few facts.

"CRS Looks At Solvency Status Of Social Security TrustFunds"

 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reviewed thesolvency status of the Social Security Trust Funds based on the 75-yearprojections in the Social Security Board of Trustees’ 2009 Trustees’ Report(the 2010 report was released after the CRS report was published) and on themore recent short-term projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),which were released in May 2010."

 

 

"Since 1984, Social Security has been generatingsurplus tax revenues. Under the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees’Report, the trust fund balance is projected to continue to grow, peaking at$4.33 trillion (in nominal dollars) at the end of 2023, before being drawn downto pay for benefits and administrative expenses. The trustees project that thetrust fund will continue to have a positive balance until 2037, allowingbenefits scheduled under current law to be paid in full until that time. Afterward,the program would continue to operate using annual Social Security taxrevenues, which would cover an estimated 76% of benefit payments scheduledunder current law in 2037."

 

100% solvency could be maintained well past 2037 by raisingthe cap to something like $250,000.

 

More at http://hr.cch.com/news/uiss/10...

Mike
Mike

When you raise the cap, you raise the benefits they receive. Now as the cap rises benefits rise. How do we make out on that deal? Or do you just want to raise the cap without benefits? That would be theft. Not surprising.

james
james

when your forcefucked to pay on it every week all your fuckin' worklife, then when ya git old it's welfare to expect thedeal to be kept? spoken like a true rich politician.

Phelps
Phelps

It's not a problem you can tax your way out of when expenditures exceed 100% of GDP in 2050.

JimS
JimS

Phelps, what about putting people to work, so that people have money to spend? Henry Ford knew workers had to have money in their pockets if workers were to by Fords.

Phelps
Phelps

I'm all for it.  Just remember that it was Ford that put people to work, not the State of Michigan.

james
james

repulsificans want to steal my reefers. demigods want to steal my guns. neither are my friends.

Phelps
Phelps

On the easy stuff like this, yeah.  You're a Kennedy Democrat, I'm a Goldwater Republican.  There's not much difference between us, unlike Bush Republicans and Obama Democrats.  We both ultimately want them to stop wasting our money and leave us the fuck alone to do what we want to do, whether it's "good for us" or not.

JimS
JimS

Truly true. I worked for Ford, and I worked for the State of Michigan. At the State of Michigan, I didn't have to work too hard. At Ford, I did.Phelps, we're back on the page, ain't we?

JimS
JimS

buy

Alfredo
Alfredo

I thought we were all suppose to spend and consume less so we could have a green sustainable econnomy

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...