klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
They wouldn't be insolvent if the money taken out of them (by Bush n Pals) were put back. It would lower the debt too, so it likely won't happen anytime soon.
2012 Presidential Candidate Debate
- Thread starter The 1-2-3 Killam
- Start date
They wouldn't be insolvent if the money taken out of them (by Bush n Pals) were put back. It would lower the debt too, so it likely won't happen anytime soon.
The 1-2-3 Killam
Mid-Card Championship Winner
The president is not an average person, not matter how much Obama would like to portray himself as such.
I thought the same thing at times. He seemed almost spoiled, like he had to have his way.
That may be, but they still expect their President to be.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
I hope people still want that from their President. Not sure they do, but we'll see, I suppose.
I thought Obama was boring and flat. Romney was energetic, aggressive and, as someone on television said, "seemed" knowledgeable. He was dropping facts and numbers left and right. Was he correct? Was he honest? No, on both accounts. That's why he seemed like the winner.
With today's 24/7 news cycle, I doubt he gets a bump. They will fact check the shit out of every, single thing he said and reach the conclusion that, as usual, he's full of shit.
If he had been accurate and honest, he would be the clear winner. Wiped the floor with Obama... minus the facts.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Which programs and/or problems are we talking about?
Bottom line, you will not fix the country by only taking some money back from the rich. Almost every problem this country has cannot be sufficiently dealt with by only using ideas from either side of the ideological divide.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
And? The people watching the debate on tv are average people.
I doubt it unfortunately. People tend to respond best to those they can relate to.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Social security and medicare.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Are you seriously suggesting that these programs are long-term viable without any changes just because they aren't actually "bankrupt" yet?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
You actually get dumber every time you talk.
Did you miss the parts about putting the money back in them that we've been talking about for the last 20 minutes? That would be a change wouldn't it? Not taking money out of the pools?
I'm not certain about Medicare, but Social Security is actually pretty strong. The reason why people are concerned about it is because it HAS been so strong, our government has been borrowing from it to fund other things (and have been for decades). What many people don't realize when they talk about the $16t debt is that a very large percentage of it is what we owe to ourselves.
So, again, I'm not certain about Medicare, but Social Security is long-term viable. It just has to quit being used to fund other government programs, a practice that has been in use for decades.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
It doesn't change the real issue though. You have to address that the programs are having more expenses than they are taking in from taxes and this is only going to continue to get worse. Yes, this isn't as pressing of an issue for Social Security but the longer you ignore it the more drastic the change will have to be.
Medicare is a much bigger and pressing problem at the moment for sure. Didn't congress already cut these benefits some last year?
I think we may have different definitions of long-term viable. I know Social Security can survive as is for a while but that isn't what I am talking about. Social Security already pays out more than it takes in but because of interest on the nest egg it is still cash flow positive until around 2020. I don't think this "money owed" would change that significantly but maybe I am wrong.
I don't think Social Security pays out more in benefits than it takes in (or at least it didn't for a very long time, could be changing with Baby Boomers retiring, coupled with the recession and tax cuts). It pays out more to the government, as the government borrows from it, but in terms of what it takes in compared to what it pays out in benefits, I think what gets paid in is greater than what is paid out in benefits.
Thus, the Social Security model is very much long-term viable, especially when the payroll tax cut expires.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
This is a conversation I'm having with my grandmother, a woman approaching 60 who has been a staunch Christian Republican party-voter for her entire life.
I then argued that even if she voted on those ideals, she has no real reason to vote for Romney. I questioned whether anybody who really believes the craziness of Joseph Smith can actually, and effectively lead the United States.
I then argued that even if you have faith in God, that doesn't release you of the responsibility to make smart intellectual decisions in the political system. I said that those "too many Christians get wrapped up" in things that matter, and directly influence you on a daily basis. She didn't buy it.
I then carefully implied that maybe "God" didn't kill off grandpa a few months ago. Maybe he just had a heart attack while working in the garage, and that life happens and continues on, and we've got to deal with that. I have to be cautious, because I know she's an emotional wreck still. Probably always will be after being married for more than my total years of life. But I'm still working through that death too, and I don't have bullshit pseudo-science to fall back on. This kind of argument drives me absolutely nuts...
Sadly, this all too often is what religion becomes....a crutch or card for people to throw out lest they have to think outside of their little comfort box.
"Well...uh...no...uh...just, THE BIBLE"
No offense to Grandma, whom im sure is a very sweet well intentioned lady....but unfortunately, "well I just vote according to the bible, the rest of that stuff is not important" is frightening. People like that probably SHOULDNT be voting, and unfortunately, it makes up a very large majority.
And quite the contrary, no one in this race supports traditional marriage....Since im pretty sure neither see women as property to be bartered in political and buisness arrangements...which is were biblical origins of marriage lie....
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
It isn't.
Even if/when that happens it still is projected to be a drain around the mid 2030s. Doesn't sound especially long-term viable to me without change.
I missed the beginning of the debate, and I missed this gem.
Romney (paraphrase): "I believe in creating jobs, and eliminating unnecessary spending. And I'm sorry, Mr. Moderator, but as an employee of NPR, I support you losing your job."
I bet most people missed that.
A program that runs for roughly 100 years before a "projected" drain doesn't sound long-term viable to you?
Romney (paraphrase): "I believe in creating jobs, and eliminating unnecessary spending. And I'm sorry, Mr. Moderator, but as an employee of NPR, I support you losing your job."
I bet most people missed that.
A program that runs for roughly 100 years before a "projected" drain doesn't sound long-term viable to you?
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
How many years do you think it is until 2030?
Well, it started in 1935, so...
But even if we take it from today, ignoring for the moment we've been told numerous times over the last 30 years that Social Security would be bankrupt in "insert year here", the fact is 20+ years is as dependable of a program as we currently have on the books. How many other government programs could run for 20+ years completely on their own?
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
That is not remotely a fact. You clearly are irrational about this topic. I have no idea why so many young people are just sitting around happy to be ripped off by social security.
cawsnallthis
Asylum charter member
I predict Social Security will run like a Swiss watch until exactly the year 2034, at which time it will go irrevocably bankrupt. I, of course, turn 65 in 2034.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
Sarcasm?
Forbes disagrees with you.
To give it a more realistic feel, change the numbers from 7 workers and 3 retirees to 70 million and 30 million. Now what to do? Even if we have unanimous agreement on our plan, how can we make sure that retirees get their cut if it is no longer as easy as picking three fish from a basket full of ten? The most obvious and straightforward means is this: set a tax of 30% on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retireesright now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmothers bank account. This accomplishes the goal neatly and directlyand its exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. As you can see, this needs no prior financing or savings, nor would that appear to be particularly helpful. At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress. Although you can run out of money for retirement, we, as a nation, cannot.
What, then, you may ask, is the Social Security Trust Fund, the pool of money that people say will dry up and make it impossible for anyone to receive their Social Security payments? It is the surplus that resulted from having collected more in taxes than was necessary to pay out to retirees. Let me say that again: it is how much existing workers were overtaxed relative to the need to pay retirees in the past. It was never the source of the money weve been paying to Social Security recipients all these years. Strictly speaking, its completely unnecessary if we are able to precisely and continuously match tax revenues and pay outs.
We cannot do that, of course, partly because we are dealing with millions of people in a complex economy. In addition, while the payments to retirees are fairly formulaic and change in a predictable way (we can figure how many people are about to reach eligibility and how much they will draw), the revenues fluctuate with the state of the economy. They rise during expansions and fall during recessions. The trust fund can therefore serve as a place to park excess revenues when taxes exceed expenditures and from which additional funds can be drawn when the reverse occurs. Its a buffer, sort of like that give-a-penny-take-a-penny tray at the local convenience store. As always, however, productivity and productivity alone determines our ability to support a class of retirees. This is only about how we coordinate that system.
There is another trust fund issue and it is the one related to the expected increase in the ratio of retirees to workers over the next couple of decades. This would presumably cause a net drain on the fund since payments to retirees might increase relative to tax revenues. This is actually the specific phenomenon to which many people are referring when they say that Social Security is going to go bankrupt. However, a) there is no guarantee this will occur since rising productivity could drive up wages sufficiently to compensate (although our trend of stagnating wages relative to profits is frustrating this) and b) even if that did occur, this hardly means that Social Security is kaput. Any shortfall can always be addressed in a very straightforward and supremely logical fashion: raise taxes or lower benefits (and it is exceedingly like that even if this occurs, we arent talking about anything drastic). It bears emphasizing, however, that such changes would still be a function of productivity and have absolutely, positively nothing to do with how much money we have or havent saved up. Funding, finances, money, taxes, etc. are part of the coordination mechanism, not the feasibility.
The lesson from this is that if we want Social Security to be there when we retire, our efforts must be focused on increasing productivity and making sure in particular that these increases get passed on to workers in the form of higher wages. But raising the value of the trust fund is, in this respect, pointless. Even if we had an infinite amount of money in it such that we could reduce all workers taxes to zero and still pay retirees, the exact same thing is still happening: Bob is getting three fish from the basket of ten, leaving seven for the original fisherman. Whether we accomplish this via direct taxation or from a pool of funds is absolutely, totally irrelevant in terms of the underlying economic impact (except for the fact that paying retirees from a fund is likely to cause inflationexplaining why is a little complicated so I dont pursue it here). We are fooling ourselves if we think that taking money from the trust fund is giving us a free lunch. If there are only ten fish, there are only ten fish. Nothing other than changing productivity can affect that. The trust fund is worth having as a buffer, but it has zero to do with the feasibility of the system. If it runs out tomorrow, we can still have Social Security because we still have ten fish.
Incidentally, there appears to be every indication that productivity increases should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living (assuming the compression of wages ends). Thats good news. In fact, its the only news thats important.
In closing, Im not telling you whether you should be for or against Social Security, but the argument that it is going bankrupt is a non-starter. It is much ado about nothing.
What, then, you may ask, is the Social Security Trust Fund, the pool of money that people say will dry up and make it impossible for anyone to receive their Social Security payments? It is the surplus that resulted from having collected more in taxes than was necessary to pay out to retirees. Let me say that again: it is how much existing workers were overtaxed relative to the need to pay retirees in the past. It was never the source of the money weve been paying to Social Security recipients all these years. Strictly speaking, its completely unnecessary if we are able to precisely and continuously match tax revenues and pay outs.
We cannot do that, of course, partly because we are dealing with millions of people in a complex economy. In addition, while the payments to retirees are fairly formulaic and change in a predictable way (we can figure how many people are about to reach eligibility and how much they will draw), the revenues fluctuate with the state of the economy. They rise during expansions and fall during recessions. The trust fund can therefore serve as a place to park excess revenues when taxes exceed expenditures and from which additional funds can be drawn when the reverse occurs. Its a buffer, sort of like that give-a-penny-take-a-penny tray at the local convenience store. As always, however, productivity and productivity alone determines our ability to support a class of retirees. This is only about how we coordinate that system.
There is another trust fund issue and it is the one related to the expected increase in the ratio of retirees to workers over the next couple of decades. This would presumably cause a net drain on the fund since payments to retirees might increase relative to tax revenues. This is actually the specific phenomenon to which many people are referring when they say that Social Security is going to go bankrupt. However, a) there is no guarantee this will occur since rising productivity could drive up wages sufficiently to compensate (although our trend of stagnating wages relative to profits is frustrating this) and b) even if that did occur, this hardly means that Social Security is kaput. Any shortfall can always be addressed in a very straightforward and supremely logical fashion: raise taxes or lower benefits (and it is exceedingly like that even if this occurs, we arent talking about anything drastic). It bears emphasizing, however, that such changes would still be a function of productivity and have absolutely, positively nothing to do with how much money we have or havent saved up. Funding, finances, money, taxes, etc. are part of the coordination mechanism, not the feasibility.
The lesson from this is that if we want Social Security to be there when we retire, our efforts must be focused on increasing productivity and making sure in particular that these increases get passed on to workers in the form of higher wages. But raising the value of the trust fund is, in this respect, pointless. Even if we had an infinite amount of money in it such that we could reduce all workers taxes to zero and still pay retirees, the exact same thing is still happening: Bob is getting three fish from the basket of ten, leaving seven for the original fisherman. Whether we accomplish this via direct taxation or from a pool of funds is absolutely, totally irrelevant in terms of the underlying economic impact (except for the fact that paying retirees from a fund is likely to cause inflationexplaining why is a little complicated so I dont pursue it here). We are fooling ourselves if we think that taking money from the trust fund is giving us a free lunch. If there are only ten fish, there are only ten fish. Nothing other than changing productivity can affect that. The trust fund is worth having as a buffer, but it has zero to do with the feasibility of the system. If it runs out tomorrow, we can still have Social Security because we still have ten fish.
Incidentally, there appears to be every indication that productivity increases should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living (assuming the compression of wages ends). Thats good news. In fact, its the only news thats important.
In closing, Im not telling you whether you should be for or against Social Security, but the argument that it is going bankrupt is a non-starter. It is much ado about nothing.
As does MSNBC:
The first question is pretty straightforward, even though much of what youre hearing these days is simply dead wrong. While the Social Security system is in need of another overhaul (similar to the one it got in 1983), the fund is hardly going broke.
This years report by the trustees who oversee the fund found that, if left alone, the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years thanks in part to a $1.4 trillion nest egg of Treasury securities that has been stashed away over the past several decades. (A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office figures the fund is in good shape until 2052.)
This years report by the trustees who oversee the fund found that, if left alone, the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years thanks in part to a $1.4 trillion nest egg of Treasury securities that has been stashed away over the past several decades. (A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office figures the fund is in good shape until 2052.)
As does this professor in economics:
The doom and gloom about Social Security, and the claims that it needs radical restructuring, derive from the way Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration explained the system to the public. To avoid accusations of "socialism," citizens were made to understand that the pensions they would get would consist of their own money that they had put into a trust fund.
The trust-fund story made it politically easier to start the system and maintain support for it. But that story has made it vulnerable to the prediction that it is going bankrupt and will have to be radically changed. After all, if the pensions come out of the trust fund, and the fund will shrink to zero in about 2033, as predicted, then isn't the system unsustainable?
In fact, the pension payments that Social Security makes are financed 100 percent out of current taxes on the still-working population. In most years, the receipts from the payroll tax have been more than sufficient to pay scheduled benefits. In times when they have been insufficient, money from the income tax is used to pay benefits. If benefits aren't paid out of the trust fund, then what, if anything, does it do?
The trust fund consists of a collection of federal government IOUs in the drawer of the Social Security system. Whenever the money collected by the payroll tax exceeds the amount spent on pensions, the extra money is sent to the Treasury, which spends it on other programs and sends Social Security an IOU. When the amount collected by the payroll tax is insufficient, Social Security sends some IOUs back to Treasury, which uses money collected by the income tax to help pay that year's pensions.
Story continues below.
Some right-wing analysts have said that those IOUs are of zero value. They are right! (Write on a piece of paper that you owe $100 to yourself. Are you better off?) However, the fictional nature of the fund's value does not mean that Social Security cannot pay the pensions it owes. And when Social Security's stock of valueless IOUs has all gone back to Treasury, new arrangements can be made to supplement the payroll tax, or raise it.
Whether the trust fund will "run out" in 2033, or is already of zero value, Social Security pensions will be paid if the public wants them paid, and the means will be found to pay them out of current revenue. The public does want that, and always will. People do not want their parents needing financial help from them, or being forced to move in with them, or worse, living on the street.
So Social Security is not broke or bankrupt or headed for disaster, regardless of what its enemies say. Or even what its trustees say.
The trust-fund story made it politically easier to start the system and maintain support for it. But that story has made it vulnerable to the prediction that it is going bankrupt and will have to be radically changed. After all, if the pensions come out of the trust fund, and the fund will shrink to zero in about 2033, as predicted, then isn't the system unsustainable?
In fact, the pension payments that Social Security makes are financed 100 percent out of current taxes on the still-working population. In most years, the receipts from the payroll tax have been more than sufficient to pay scheduled benefits. In times when they have been insufficient, money from the income tax is used to pay benefits. If benefits aren't paid out of the trust fund, then what, if anything, does it do?
The trust fund consists of a collection of federal government IOUs in the drawer of the Social Security system. Whenever the money collected by the payroll tax exceeds the amount spent on pensions, the extra money is sent to the Treasury, which spends it on other programs and sends Social Security an IOU. When the amount collected by the payroll tax is insufficient, Social Security sends some IOUs back to Treasury, which uses money collected by the income tax to help pay that year's pensions.
Story continues below.
Some right-wing analysts have said that those IOUs are of zero value. They are right! (Write on a piece of paper that you owe $100 to yourself. Are you better off?) However, the fictional nature of the fund's value does not mean that Social Security cannot pay the pensions it owes. And when Social Security's stock of valueless IOUs has all gone back to Treasury, new arrangements can be made to supplement the payroll tax, or raise it.
Whether the trust fund will "run out" in 2033, or is already of zero value, Social Security pensions will be paid if the public wants them paid, and the means will be found to pay them out of current revenue. The public does want that, and always will. People do not want their parents needing financial help from them, or being forced to move in with them, or worse, living on the street.
So Social Security is not broke or bankrupt or headed for disaster, regardless of what its enemies say. Or even what its trustees say.
And I found many more articles like this. But I wanted to leave you with one of the comments in that Forbes article that I thought was, well, supportive of my statement earlier.
Are most mistaken, Social Security IS going bankrupt! So are Medicare and Medicaid. Consider the following stories in the Los Angeles Times.
April 6, 1992 The new siren is a frank and gloomy assessment that the national trust fund that pays hospital bills for 34 million Americans on Medicare will be broke in 10 years. The would be George H.W. Bush telling us that Medicare would be broke in 2002.
Slyfox note: Source -
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-06/local/me-301_1_health-care
January 9, 1984 Some adjustments are needed to head off bankruptcy in the Medicare system. The trust fund that helps pay doctor and hospital bills for 29 million Americans will run out of money by 1990 if nothing is done That would be President Reagan saying that Medicare would be broke by 1990.
June 20, 1980 Unless Congress acts, the Social Security fund will run out of money to pay retirement and survivors benefits by late 1981 or early 1982, the funds government trustees reported Thursday.
May 6, 1978 The social security trust funds that pay benefits to retired and disabled workers will be in good shape for several more decades but the fund that pays hospital insurance under Medicare will go broke by 1990, the trustees told Congress today. That would be President Jimmy Carter again with a go broke date of 1990.
August 30, 1960 That the [Medicare] bill passed was totally uninformed and almost totally irrational made no difference; the Democratic Presidential candidate can cry that he wanted to do more the old folks and the Republican candidate can say that the Congress might have done less if he hadnt been so busy We said that he bill was total uninformed, and it is Nobody knows what it is right to do about medical aid to the aged because nobody has determined how many need help .Moreover, the political promoters have not had the courage to declare bluntly that everybody at age 65 receive a government health stipend, regardless of need
Oct. 8, 1940 Republican Presidential candidate Wendell Willkie addressed social security I want to say this in connection with social security that unless there is a change in administration those people who are presently paying into social security fund will never get any benefit there from If it continues down the present path it will eventually bankrupt this country. We are bound to have either bankruptcy or inflation, and I say it very solemnly that those who are paying in on their social security will never get the principal of the social security when they need it in their old age
So, in other words Social Security has been going bankrupt for over 70 years! Social Security was on the verge bankrupting the entire country before your father was even born. What is more, 70 years from now, when your children are approaching retirement it will still be going bankrupt.
April 6, 1992 The new siren is a frank and gloomy assessment that the national trust fund that pays hospital bills for 34 million Americans on Medicare will be broke in 10 years. The would be George H.W. Bush telling us that Medicare would be broke in 2002.
Slyfox note: Source -
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-06/local/me-301_1_health-care
January 9, 1984 Some adjustments are needed to head off bankruptcy in the Medicare system. The trust fund that helps pay doctor and hospital bills for 29 million Americans will run out of money by 1990 if nothing is done That would be President Reagan saying that Medicare would be broke by 1990.
June 20, 1980 Unless Congress acts, the Social Security fund will run out of money to pay retirement and survivors benefits by late 1981 or early 1982, the funds government trustees reported Thursday.
May 6, 1978 The social security trust funds that pay benefits to retired and disabled workers will be in good shape for several more decades but the fund that pays hospital insurance under Medicare will go broke by 1990, the trustees told Congress today. That would be President Jimmy Carter again with a go broke date of 1990.
August 30, 1960 That the [Medicare] bill passed was totally uninformed and almost totally irrational made no difference; the Democratic Presidential candidate can cry that he wanted to do more the old folks and the Republican candidate can say that the Congress might have done less if he hadnt been so busy We said that he bill was total uninformed, and it is Nobody knows what it is right to do about medical aid to the aged because nobody has determined how many need help .Moreover, the political promoters have not had the courage to declare bluntly that everybody at age 65 receive a government health stipend, regardless of need
Oct. 8, 1940 Republican Presidential candidate Wendell Willkie addressed social security I want to say this in connection with social security that unless there is a change in administration those people who are presently paying into social security fund will never get any benefit there from If it continues down the present path it will eventually bankrupt this country. We are bound to have either bankruptcy or inflation, and I say it very solemnly that those who are paying in on their social security will never get the principal of the social security when they need it in their old age
So, in other words Social Security has been going bankrupt for over 70 years! Social Security was on the verge bankrupting the entire country before your father was even born. What is more, 70 years from now, when your children are approaching retirement it will still be going bankrupt.
So exactly what part of my statement was irrational? Was it the part where I was right about Social Security being viable long-term, or the part where I was right about people predicting the end of Social Security for years?
I'm hoping so. It would make the most sense.
Oh, something else that irked me about Romney's comments last night. Romney kept saying he supported many of the measures in the Affordable Healthcare Act, including children staying on their parents insurance until 26, pre-existing conditions not denied, etc. But Romney said he wanted the states to adopt it on their own.
So the question I have is...if Romney repeals "Obamacare", what would be different from the way it was before? Meaning, why would the states suddenly decide to implement this type of healthcare reform, when they never bothered to before? There was a very disconnect in his logic on this, and I'm wondering why Obama didn't call him on it.
So the question I have is...if Romney repeals "Obamacare", what would be different from the way it was before? Meaning, why would the states suddenly decide to implement this type of healthcare reform, when they never bothered to before? There was a very disconnect in his logic on this, and I'm wondering why Obama didn't call him on it.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
I am confused why you think this is against what I am saying. It basically says the system is viable because we can always reform it then makes an unsubstantiated claim that such reforms are likely to not be drastic.
Interesting how he is correctly only focusing on the amount taken in vs the amount paid out and not that other money you and KB were trying to say is the difference maker.
Pretty lofty claim to not get into why at all.
Since when is the bold part not my point?
This is a stupid statement that kind of falls back towards my issue in general. You can't just say a program will be fine because you can continually pull in money from elsewhere to fund the deficiencies. I thought the US had learned its lesson about this type of approach, well actually I didn't so I guess I should not be that surprised.
I said it wasn't long-term viable without reform. I clarified that by viable I mean cash flow positive. None of what you presented disagrees with that. Some seem to think the inevitable economic recovery will lead to making up enough of that difference but even then they all seem to suggest this will have to involve adjustments. Common sense explains that if adjustments are needed that the longer you wait, the more drastic they will have to be. I am ok with waiting a little longer on Social Security reform, especially since the right is trying to exploit this need at the moment, but that doesn't make what we have now a solid system. Specifically for the irrational comment I was mostly talking about your assertion that a program being able to last 20 years made it the Best in the World. About all that means is that Social Security is in a better current state than the medi programs. Which brings me to my second question, why are we not talking about those programs?
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
I hope all this rhetoric leads to them letting Biden go buck f'in wild when the VPs meet.
