Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How The Federal Reserve Is Purposely Attacking Savers, mell said:

    "Here's what truth would sound like if I were to re-write Yellen's speech:

    My fellow Americans. Decades of poor fiscal restraint and accommodative monetary polices have brought us to an uncomfortable juncture.

    My intention today is not to cast blame – there will be plenty of time for that later – but to take stock of where we are so that we can all decide on the best course forward, openly and honestly, as should be the case in a democracy.

    There are no easy choices at this point, only a rather poor range of options spanning from somewhat unpleasant to potentially catastrophic.

    The heart of the matter is simply this: the US government has built up an extraordinary amount of public debt, and an even larger pile of unfunded liabilities.

    There’s simply no way for those to all be paid back under current terms. And given recent trajectories in play with respect to economic growth and deficit spending patterns, those debts and liabilities are only growing larger with time.

    Quite simply our choices are these:
    Pay down the debt by taking in more revenue than expenses. This is also known as austerity and given the size of the debts and other obligations, several decades of severe belt tightening would be required. This program would be extremely painful for nearly everybody and would require massive tax hikes coupled to major spending cuts.
    Default on the debts and obligations. This simply means not paying people, investors, institutions and countries what we have promised to pay. Down this path lies the potential for massive destruction of our financial and political systems, so we have chosen to not entertain this path any further than to mention it exists.
    Do nothing and wait for a fiscal and monetary accident to happen. This is a guaranteed disaster that could result in the sudden and permanent decline of opportunity in this country that would be so painful we cannot even predict the possible outcomes.
    Engineer conditions where negative real rates of interest slowly allow the government’s obligations to fall relative to inflation. Over the span of decades this is the least painful route and our country has been down this path before.
    We’ve selected path #4 as the least bad option. Since 2009 our policies have been geared towards #4 and we see no alternative besides staying on that path for as long as necessary. The alternative is the literal bankruptcy of our nation and we cannot and will not allow that to happen. Not on our watch.

    While path #4 is the least objectionable of them all, it comes with its own share of unfortunate consequences and injustices. At its heart, negative real interest rates are an effective tax on savers and those whose incomes fail to keep pace with the inflation we are creating as an overt act of policy. This generalized and widespread loss of purchasing power takes a little bit from everyone, rather than a lot from a few systemically important institutions such as your federal government, which spreads the pain widely, and therefore causes the least disruptions to our daily lives.

    Path #4 has a name: Financial Repression. This policy combines negative real interest rates with various forms of capital controls and tax policy to assure that nobody can evade it.

    Obviously this is not fair, nor is it in alignment with our national narrative of prudence and hard work being rewarded because, truth be told, it rewards the profligate and those who produce nothing of real value but can play the game of high finance well. Yet here we are without any better options before us, and so we reluctantly chose Financial Repression.

    One other distasteful ‘feature’ of the program of financial repression we’ve been putting you all through is that the rich get richer. Until or unless there is a massive change to the taxation and wealth re-distribution programs of the federal government, the Federal Reserve’s program of Financial Repression will continue to deliver an ever-larger gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

    Such is the nature of the compounding function combined with the inequity of who gets first access to the newly created funds we make available in order to drive the interest rate curve into negative territory.

    Are there any risks to this program? Well, the largest of them really needs to be discussed. Financial Repression has worked in the past, but it has only worked because we experienced both inflation and economic growth in equal measures.

    Today, for reasons that we are still studying, neither the wage growth necessary to incite the sort of inflation we need nor economic growth have arrived as we thought they would.

    If economic growth does not return, then the entire program of financial repression could well fail, and fail spectacularly. Everything depends on a return of economic growth sufficient to service the vast increases in debts that will result from the program.

    But if that growth does not materialize? If the world is now stuck in a ‘New Mediocre’ of low growth then one risk is the possibility of a crisis that will be rooted in a permanent loss of confidence in debts of all forms, but government debt specifically. Down that road lie currency crises, and a wide variety of related financial upheavals the final result of which is what most will experience as a massive destruction of wealth.

    We are working hard to assure that these risks are well contained, but you should be aware that they exist

    After all, this is all of our futures that we are experimenting with and we do not have a playbook that we can follow here in 2014. We are in wholly uncharted territory. The exact arrangement of conditions we see across the global landscape is brand new.

    We’re sorry to have to be in the position of engineering Financial Repression, but we felt there were no other options before us and we hope that you agree that a slight yearly discomfort to almost everyone is preferable to a major disruption to our way of life, our political system, and the possibility of worse things.

    Is this fair? No. Was it avoidable? Yes. Is there anything we can be doing differently today? Not that we are aware of. The choices are between bad, worse and utterly terrible. We're choosing the bad path, and we hope you’ll agree that this is the best we can do at this point.

    But you deserve the truth because it’s already completely obvious and available for anybody with access to a computer. Since we are all in this together and we’re all being asked to sacrifice in some way, it's much better that we all agree on the treatment plan.

    It’s not a perfect plan, far from it. But considering the alternatives, this is the best one on the table.

    If you want to make it more fair, more equitable, and with an eye towards building to a future in which we can all share some hope, you’ll need to turn to your policy makers and ask them to work from the fiscal side to correct what they can. Without a profound realignment of priorities, we’ll just get more of the same and, truth be told, eventually more of the same turns into a fiscal and monetary disaster about which nothing can be done except absorb the pain and loss that it will bring.
    Conclusion

    Context is everything. The growing gap between the very wealthy and everyone else is a consequence of Fed policy.

    Whether you decide to be shocked, angry, or scared by Janet Yellen’s recent speech is up to you. Personally, I'm pissed off at being lectured to that falling further behind the super wealthy is my fault for not investing enough in my kids, not being entrepreneurial enough, and not having wealthy parents.

    That level of ‘blame the victim’ is psychopathic, utterly appalling, and I reject it on every level. Worse, the level of trust destruction that happens with such a tone-deaf speech stains our entire national leadership. It is the modern version of Let them eat cake.

    Once an institution, be it royalty of old or the Fed today, gets so far off the rails that they cannot locate their own role in the misery they see around them, it’s a sign of a huge problem for that society.

    Ms. Yellen should not be allowed by anyone to get away with such a patently and provably false set of arguments. She should have been soundly booed off the stage and the President should be asking for her resignation immediately.

    But we’re so far down the rabbit hole that almost nobody blinked an eye at the speech, and thought it perfectly normal.

    For you personally, you need to be aware that the debts, deficits and liabilities across the entire OECD world are continuing to grow at a far faster pace than GDP, and far faster than oil production and discoveries of low-cost oil reservoirs (those schooled in net energy understand this to be the real issue), and that the most likely outcome, someday, will be an extraordinary financial accident.

    It will be called something else -- a period of wealth destruction -- but for those who can see it coming, it will actually be period of massive wealth transfer.

    And we'll keep up our efforts on how to see clearly amidst the intentional obfuscation, to help those aware to the situation avoid ending up on the wrong side of that transfer."

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in California real estate market stuck in low gear, mell said:

    gsr says

    Don't worry, another "stimulus" is coming.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-s-housing-policy--the-definition-of-insanity-145304611.html

    >>

    Federal Housing Finance Agency director Mel Watt on Tuesday unveiled new regulations that would make it easier for Americans to buy a house with little or no money down. The rules are aimed at private lenders who opposed a proposal that borrowers make a 20% down payment.

    If you like your crony capitalism, you can keep your crony capitalism!

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in 3% down mortgages now available again, mell said:

    If you like your moral hazard, you can keep your moral hazard!

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in Mark Cuban to GOP: Forget the social issues, mell said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    The social issues are a distraction that has allowed the rich to do and be what they are today. The greater we focus on social issues the more poor we create.

    Coincidence?!?!?

    I think NOT!

    Social issues does this.

    "I'll let you lay off 30,000 people, and automate you business, ship most of your work over seas, and give you tax breaks and other cushy incentives, IF

    You build a YMCA and endorse a gay marriage deal.

    Agreed.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in Slump in mortgage rates fails to rally home buyers, mell said:

    Negative rates! Moarr Fed cowbell! Loosen the lending standards already!

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in How Japanese Hyperinflation Starts (In 1 Chart), mell said:

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in The implications of being right about stocks, mell said:

    Analyzer says

    mell says

    Analyzer says

    Carl Icahn said U.S. stocks would be in trouble if it weren't for the Fed.

    Carl Icahn knows a thing or two - but don't worry, Iwog has got him cornered as well!

    Some claim the Fed does not have influence?

    Yes, apparently so. The Fed must be just there for shits and giggles ;)

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in The implications of being right about stocks, mell said:

    Analyzer says

    Carl Icahn said U.S. stocks would be in trouble if it weren't for the Fed.

    Carl Icahn knows a thing or two - but don't worry, Iwog has got him cornered as well!

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Deficiency Judgements (Post- Foreclosure), mell said:

    tatupu70 says

    How is it moral hazard--banks lost HUGE amounts of $$. Lehman went under. IndyMac went under. Several were acquired at fire sale prices.

    Yeah, by TBTFs who were assured the bailouts.

    tatupu70 says

    Do you know what moral hazard is??

    Being able to acquire an asset without any of your own cash results in => moral hazard

    Being able to lend money backstopped by the taxpayer results in => moral hazard

    There's no reason for people to be honest anymore or have morals in business transactions if they look at the Fed/government and banks for an example.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Deficiency Judgements (Post- Foreclosure), mell said:

    Blurtman says

    WillyWanker says

    I don't see any problem with this. If you borrowed the money and then got foreclosed you owe the bank some money.

    Chickens coming home to roost, et al.

    And Tishman Speyer?

    There is no problem with any of this as long as the banks aren't bailed out. The banks should have the right to go after anybody who owes them, individual or corporate deadbeat, but of course often there's nothing left to seize. That's called tail risk and the Fed and the government have removed it, leading to moral hazard and dislocations/distortions as well as wealth inequality. Most of those loans would never be made, or only once until a correction like 2008 takes care of it. If bankers pump an asset as safe investment, knowing that it isn't, they should go to jail for fraud. We already have laws for this, Obama and placeholder just decided not to enforce them

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, mell said:

    indigenous says

    Just wanted to remind everyone of the Wogsters response:

    PS, Patrick you might want to consider a cricket button in order to make things more efficient?

    He's got you cornered, just wait! ;)

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    HydroCABRON not hydrocarbon says

    mell says

    But where would you draw the line then, what's a reasonable percentage?

    42% top marginal rate on income. Tax capital gains at the same rate as income, with no distinction between short and long-term gains.

    Cut corporate tax rates while ending deductions for all expenses, particularly interest.

    Not bad. I'd prefer a two-to-three tiered flat income tax, but can live with a progressive income tax if the top rates are reached at higher incomes than they currently are. I'd make up with a consumption tax for any shortfalls if there would be any. I'd like to keep the distinction of long-term and short term cap. gains to give an incentive of investing/saving for the long-term, at least up to a certain amount or considering a ratio salary to cap. gains. I agree on ending deductions (esp. on interest).

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    Mell has a nasty habit of simply leaving a conversation

    No he has a nasty habit of working as he is neither part of the FIRE sector nor of the government ;)

    Call it Crazy says

    Call it Crazy says

    iwog says

    Voting Republican has consequences.

    iwog says

    Vote Republican, cut your own financial throat. It's as simple as that.

    Does that mean you will give back ALL your gains in the housing and stock market because they were gained under Repub economic policies???

    I'm still waiting for an answer... Did you run away again?

    LOL

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    HydroCABRON not hydrocarbon says

    mell says

    I am saying that the tax cuts weren't the main driver for this. Public debt and where/how you spend the money generated from said debt matters much more.

    This matters more than top marginal tax rates dropping into the 35 percent range and capital gains tax cuts?

    I don't believe it.

    It's worth considering. But where would you draw the line then, what's a reasonable percentage? I'd favor asset and resource taxes plus consumption tax over income and capital gains tax, but would surely touch the cap. gains tax before income taxes. Also, this will not solve much if you keep spending more than you take in.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    Mell has a nasty habit of simply leaving a conversation when he's cornered. In this case:

    1. He can't justify the national debt causing wealth disparity because exactly the opposite happened in the 1940s.

    2. He can't answer my question about why France is so horrible.

    3. He can't explain why Reagan is an inflection point.

    4. He (and most other nuts on the right) can't explain why crony capitalism is such a huge problem when crony capitalism was MUCH LARGER AND MUCH MORE PREVALENT during the 1950s through 1970s. Think the cold war, NASA, interstate freeway system, etc.

    So he leaves.

    LOL, come on now. It is definitely possible to use short-term debt to create a gain for yourself, say by winning a world war or inventing a new world technology. Chances are though the longer you roll-over that debt without showing anything that you will fail, especially if you shove it all into the FIRE sector, or government handout programs (for the rich and the poor).

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    FortWayne says

    National debt, it's all from war spending. One that Republicans like to make, but not to pay for...

    That's true, however Mell was offering the point that the national debt was responsible for increased wealth disparity in the 1980s and onward.

    I think it's a ridiculous premise however I'd love to know exactly how he thinks that works.

    You are being foolish, inequality barely budged, nonetheless economic times were hard. You can bring wealth inequality to ZERO by dictating everybody's assets/income at any given point in time. But your country will be poor and your economy non-existent. Debt is the problem.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    HydroCABRON not hydrocarbon says

    mell says

    Don't let me bring out the 2008 hockey-stick again

    So what happened in the past 10 years means we shouldn't talk about Reagan's role, seeing as that might cause you to question your religious belief that the Fed is the only significant culprit here.

    Do I have it right?

    No, I am not a fan of Reagan, I am saying that the tax cuts weren't the main driver for this. Public debt and where/how you spend the money generated from said debt matters much more.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    mell says

    Don't let me bring out the 2008 hockey-stick again, Wealth inequality doubled in the last 10 years.

    You mean wealth disparity doubled in the last 10 years while the rich were enjoying Bush's 15% capital gains tax rate? Wow who would have guessed! Maybe congress should have let Obama change it.........

    Answer my question. Why the inflection point at Reagan? Stop running.

    Don't be a fool. Wealth inequality sped up 2009 and is completely decoupled from Obama's raise of the long term cap. gains rate for the wealthy. You are proving my point.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    For decades.

    Now answer my question. Why the inflection point at Reagan?

    You can't read - compared to the last 10 years this makes a laughable inflection point. But I already answered it - the answer is the increase in federal debt held by the public.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    HydroCABRON not hydrocarbon says

    mell says

    The reason for the inequality is largely the Fed and government continuously bailing out the FIRE

    What's weird is that inequality started to grow right at the point Reagan's tax cuts took effect, even though the Fed had been around since 1913.

    Probably just an eerie coincidence.

    Don't let me bring out the 2008 hockey-stick again, Wealth inequality doubled in the last 10 years. I'm not a fan of Reagan increasing the deficit, but taxes are not the main driver for this. Assets are. We can talk about taxing assets (such as land/resources), but not income.

    http://time.com/money/2917709/wealth-inequality-doubled-over-last-10-years-study-finds/

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    Get rid of tax and spend and neo-keynesian crony capitalism, and things will change for the better. EVERY budget MUST be balanced, NO borrowing from future generations/taxpayers (change legislation to make it a crime with severe punishment and this will take care of itself). As simple as that.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    mell says

    This is not a partisan issue - the fiscal policy of mainstream Republicans and Democrats and last couple administrations has been largely the same. Overall you can look at the trend of federal debt held by the public since Reagan took office and you can clearly see that debt-addicted neo-keynesianism, which is a perfect enabler for rampant crony capitalism fucked this up. The Fed keeps counterfeiting and debasing the currency, distorting the markets, and the government is running out of its biggest source of tax dollars, the wage slaves after bailing out the 1% and TBTFs.

    How difficult is it to comprehend that drastically cutting taxes on the rich results in more money going to the rich and less money going to the middle class?

    Neo-keynesianism??? WTF is wrong with Republicans???

    No. Taxes are not the reason for wealth inequality and not a good tool to balance in a globalized world, unless you are talking about a temporary levy on the uber-wealthy. You can see that with France, you can go into the 70% brackets and still choke your economy. The reason for the inequality is largely the Fed and government continuously bailing out the FIRE sector and levitating the markets and playing favorites with subsidies. Plus, no matter how much is collected, they always manage to spend more. The only solution that would have worked was to let the TBTFs fail, bring prices down drastically and start over while cutting spending drastically. Furthermore a radical shift in entitlement thinking needs to happen. If you are a net receiver,you have to help out with assigned work tasks, otherwise your funds will be canceled.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    iwog says

    mell says

    No surprise here - the Fed and the government catering to the 1% and the 47% have been sucking the wage-slaves dry. What an Obummer.

    Why do you think the trend reversed with Reagan and became even sharper after Bush?

    This is not a partisan issue - the fiscal policy of mainstream Republicans and Democrats and last couple administrations has been largely the same. Overall you can look at the trend of federal debt held by the public since Reagan took office and you can clearly see that debt-addicted neo-keynesianism, which is a perfect enabler for rampant crony capitalism fucked this up. The Fed keeps counterfeiting and debasing the currency, distorting the markets, and the government is running out of its biggest source of tax dollars, the wage slaves, after bailing out the 1% and TBTFs, and continuing to appease the 47% out of necessity for their votes.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, mell said:

    No surprise here - the Fed and the government catering to the 1% and the 47% have been sucking the wage-slaves dry. What an Obummer.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Musing On Your Views..., mell said:

    "A fair question.

    Here's my view: Americans, in general, refuse to confront what the 'culture of more' really means.

    Let's look at the statistics.

    If you are in the top quintile, which means you have an income of more than about $90,000 in your household, you are the effective funding source for the government. If we extend that down to the 4th quintile we comprise approximately all federal revenues.

    That is, if you are in the lowest to middle quintile you are a net sink on the government, not a net source.

    That threshold is approximately $55,000 a year in family income, or around $30,000 if you're a single person.

    Now let's talk about what constitutes privation, poverty, or, if you prefer, "need".

    In this country you may think you're poor if you have a family income around $50,000 but you're not. What you don't have is a (newer) Lexus, Mercedes, or similar. You don't live in a swanky area near or in a big city. You can't go out for steak and lobster every night. You don't take fly-away vacations to wherever you wish. In short, you don't have the trappings of being "rich."

    But you probably do have a $100+ cell phone bill, you probably do pay upwards of $100 for "cable TV" (or satellite), you probably do drive a car newer than five years old and you probably do have some designer clothing in your closet -- and likely quite a bit of it. You probably do have a large-screen TV in your living room, and likely another one in at least one bedroom and you probably eat out at least once or twice a week, with most of you "eating out" daily at your job rather than bagging a lunch in with you. If you have kids they probably have $300+ mobile devices in their hip pocket before they have a driver license (which you paid for), another $100/month cell bill, video game consoles and a whole bunch of $50 video games, they're dolled up like Dancing With The Stars contestants, you believe they're entitled to a college education irrespective of how they fund it (and you'll give up all your financial information and put them, yourself or both into debt to get it) and more. Most of you with a couple of kids live in a vastly larger house than the one I grew up in, about 1,200 square feet for four of us; hell, most couples with a townhouse (and no kids!) have more space than that. You most-certainly have plenty of decent-quality food to eat, you most-certainly have flushing toilets and hot showers, you most-certainly have a means of getting around and you most-certainly are not, by any rational definition of the word, impoverished.

    So here's the question for you: Are you willing to compromise what you claim is important to you in terms of personal and national integrity, never mind liberty, so you (and/or your family) can have the privilege of living in a swanky part of town, with two parents working and shoving the kids off into daycare, driving that Lexus and otherwise living better than 95% of the world's population does? In short the deal you've made is about privilege, not "need", and in exchange you source the funds for the scams!

    That's the choice, you see. So long as you are a net producer you are the problem because you enable the addictions and stupidities. You make possible the government spending. You make possible the lies. You make possible the inflation, the Fed's actions, what Wall Street does, the gouging of people at the doctor's office and hospital, the blatant rip-offs by police officers confiscating property from people who have done nothing wrong and even the shutdown of an entire town searching for one guy who took a shot at two cops while, in a single weekend, a dozen or more people are shot in Chicago and nobody lifts a damned finger.

    Yes, you're responsible for Obama being able to occupy the White House with a questionable pedigree, issue illegal executive orders modifying legislation (a power he does not have but has arrogated to himself) and more. You were equally responsible, irrespective of your vote or political party, when Bush did the same crap and Clinton before him. You're responsible, if you're one of those producers, for all the things you whine about when it comes to both foreign and domestic policy.

    It's all you, because without you there is no funding to do any of that.

    I know the riposte that will come: The government will simply ratchet down on you if you cut your earnings back voluntarily and you'll wind up in the street.

    In a word: smiley

    Here's why -- it's already true that the first three quintiles of earnings in terms of household income are net sinks; that is, their effective household income is higher than their nominal income. That is, they are net consumers. And I already pointed out where the threshold is -- and that's from the CBO's data, not mine.

    The government cannot ratchet down on you if you choose this course of action because there is nothing to take (everyone below that line is a net sink on government resource) and they would have done it already if they were able. They know damn well that if they try it a majority of the population is now incentivized to rise up and revolt. That is the math, and those in the government are fully aware of it which is why you have everyone screaming at you to "work harder", "make more" and similar. It is not about your success, it is about you volunteering through your own expression of greed and avarice to screw everyone else, most-particularly your children, grandchildren and those not yet born just as long as you are led to believe you can get "yours."

    You choose folks.

    I used to be one of those guys who got writer's cramp stroking checks to the IRS but eventually I came to the above conclusion -- there was no way to keep doing that and sleep with myself at night. I was enabling it as certainly as is someone who allows another to live under their roof and/or protection that refuses to contribute to the common benefit of the household and instead drinks or drugs themselves into a destructive stupor.

    I decided to change my way of life in that regard as I found enabling national stupidity to be an outrage I could no longer sit for. Voting and personally lobbying for change, along with working in the political process (for both "major" and third parties) delivered no net positive change nor was there any apparent on the horizon. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    I believe there are but two ways to resolve this dilemma, the illegal way and the legal way. The illegal way is to simply not pay taxes and hope they don't come after you; hide income, sell drugs, whatever. It might work and it might not, but if it doesn't you are pretty likely to go to prison. After all if you're going to be a net producer The Devil insists that you produce for him!

    But the legal way and the one that the government can't do anything about is to reduce your family income to be under the threshold where you are a net producer.

    If you live in a high-cost area you may need to move. So what? If you have a spouse that is hung up on material things and the trappings of wealth or living in a swanky location you may have a personal problem in that you decided to be with the wrong person. I cannot answer whether that is true for you but I can tell you that if you are driven to the acquisition and holding of wealth for someone else then you're cuckolded or worse.

    If you personally are hung up on such things then just shut up and suck up what comes to you because you've made a deal with The Devil on the premise that he will help you at other people's expense. That never works out in the end. Ask all the medical folks who took the deal offered them: Play along with the government scam and medicine will go from being a solid middle-class (middle quintile) income to one in the top quintile -- Hippocratic Oath be damned.

    Those very same doctors are now crying poverty, refusing to see Medicare patients because it doesn't pay enough, crying about "cost management", malpractice insurance and being "forced" to become part of a hospital staff rather than an independent practitioner.

    The beast they got in legion with turned on them and screwed them in the ass, as it always does.

    My answer to those people's complaint is simple and succinct: **** you -- a decision to screw everyone for a little piece of the scam, which is exactly what you decided to do, earned the wage now being paid.

    When you make a deal with The Devil you always get ****ed. It might not happen immediately but it most-certainly will happen and when it does you have nobody to blame but yourself because you tried to exploit others -- that is, do an evil thing for your own personal aggrandizement and wealth."

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 230 milliseconds to create.