REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tax reform.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 02:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3933
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


DT -

Please private email.

You seem reluctant to credit the experience of other first-world coutries (all but the US) who took the leap into the massive social experiment of public medicine.

I'm not sure where you think their results are 'false'.

Do you not believe it's cheaper? Do you not believe people live longer, have higher vaccination rates, lower infant mortality, lower disease rates et al with better and more inclusive medical coverage? Do you think the US is so genetically different from Canada, England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden AND Japan that their results are immaterial?

Do you not trust the figures showing private medicine and wasted money go hand-in-hand?

Your hasty dismissal of vast amounts of information puzzles me. It's like you repeatedly walk into a wall you claim is not there.

Please let me know your thinking.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

This is the part where I'm a right-winger. These are all the debates we should have, and ideally, we should try both people's way, state by state. None of this national system, then we just do it one way and don't get to find out whose right. Some states go your way, some go mine, some go some other way, and time proves one of us is right.
Seems like a lot of wheel re-invention to me.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

I know quite a lot about the situation. If the state of Vermont had a socialized medicine system, it might work, and be like Sweden. But if the US govt. did, it would become like the Soviet Union, with reused needles spreading AIDS as it tests for Bird Flu, etc.

The system we have is not a private system. It's a private-public hybrid, and a disaster. Korea has a private system, as does the UK. UK also has a public system, both work, my british friends tell me that the private system works better.

I think you've been sold on half the story. The other have the story is a world of zero quality, zero choice, zero accountability, and it's available in most of the world, which has a much lower standard of living than the United States.

The truth is a wealthy first world, and yes, capitalist, nation like sweden is going to do okay. The US will not. This country is a big lumber empire that gets very little right these days.

The reason Hillary Clinton and her democrats want a national healthcare plan is so that they can create an enormous corporate welfare giveaway to their friends to the tune of a trillion or more a year.

But the nightmare that follows is a public health which starts out great, and in fifteen years is going about black neighborhoods giving everyone vaccinations and free AIDS with every shot.

I want the accountability of the true free market to put the talentless practitioners out of business.

In general, I think I'm an extremely well informed right wing extremist. The amazing this isn't that we don't reach agreement on this point, but that we can agree on anything at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I favor a 'fat tax' as I call it. Money which isn't doing anything, it just sits there. Large amounts of cash are sitting in someone's bank account somewhere, earning interest, but not creating any business. If money isn't active in the economy, it's not doing anyone any good....etc...etc.
Huh? There is no such thing as money doing "nothing". How do you suppose the banks pay you an interest rate? They loan it out, is how.

Quote:

Taxes. Hoover hiked taxes to pay for social programs. Payroll tax comes from payroll which comes from the company budget, ie,. profits. If you didn't have a a pre-tax profit margin of >20%, you folded. And never came back. Industries don't exist in America now because they are not economically feasible, ie, they cannot generate >20% of pre-tax profit, and payroll tax is a tax on the number of workers, whether there's a profit or not. 100s of businesses would open up if we killed the stupid income tax
In addition to your egregious historical inaccuracy, I'm going to say that I think we should just kill the whole idea of profit. End of problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I think you've been sold on half the story. (The rest is) ... zero quality, zero choice, zero accountability, and it's available in most of the world, which has a much lower standard of living than the United States."

See ... I know Canadians /Canadiens, and they overwhelmingly love their system (80%) ! And it does well by them. I don't know how many statistics you want, but their coverage, quality, 'outcomes', and cost outshine the US like a star next to a dusty moon.

And you seem to think that the marketplace, and only the marketplace, creates accountablity.

First, of all the marketplace doesn't create accountability in medicine, while regulated medicine does. Yes, even factoring in big money influence on the regulators. To use a previous example from this board: who would you trust to cure your Hodgkins? A medical clinic in MeHEEko with their hand out for mucho American $ and a sales-pitch worth of promises for their untested cure? Where the conflict of interest is so strong you can smell it? Or medical care up to international standards?

Secondly, in a democracy the government IS held accountable through different means. It's called the vote. When France had elderly people die during their heat-wave, the health system, no matter little responsible - was taken to task.

Thirdly, there are business reasons - like low overhead, efficiency and lack of a profit - itself a conflict of interest in medicine - to give government the health care business. On strictly economic reasons alone, government is the clear winning vendor.

YES, I agree that it COULD be open to corruption. And sadly, there is a large part of the US that eats shit and says it tastes like steak. So you can't count on a large minority of your fellow USers to be intelligent consumers of government products.

But your fantasies of free AIDS come across as truly unhinged.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, what really caused the Great Depression? Hoover REDUCED income taxes from 73% to 25% by 1925, and didn't increase them until 1932. Clearly, it wasn't "tax increases" (as DT erroneously claims) that created the Crash of 1929. By then, the top 0.1% had the highest percentage of wealth and income ever seen in American history... levels that we're just now re-approaching today. Much money in the hands of the average American was based on stock market speculation, not on wages or assests. When the stock market crashed, their wealth evaporated too.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:56 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

So, what really caused the Great Depression? Hoover REDUCED income taxes from 73% to 25% by 1925, and didn't increase them until 1932. Clearly, it wasn't "tax increases" (as DT erroneously claims) that created the Crash of 1929. By then, the top 0.1% had the highest percentage of wealth and income ever seen in American history... levels that we're just now re-approaching today. Much money in the hands of the average American was based on stock market speculation, not on wages or assests. When the stock market crashed, their wealth evaporated too.



Hoover wasn't president in 1925. That was Coolidge who reduced taxes.

Is this true? This is the opposite of what I was reading, which went on and on about hoover tax and spend. But wikipedia half agrees with you, the tax hike was in 1932, that's too late to be the cause of the depression, though it I would hazard a guess that it didn't help.

Anyway, I think I'm going to suffer a defeat here, because some of my information on Hoover appears to be wrong.

We really need a tax scholar to settle this. The top bracket is not of much importance, it's the total % of the payroll which goes to payroll tax which most strongly effects the economy. I actually don't care if the rich pay taxes or not, I think it's a dumb idea to tax them heavily, because they and their money will just leave, but I don't think it has that major an impact on the economy either way.



well, the average american's wealth is not a major issue either. The reason a stock market crash feeds a depression is that the stock price determines a companies valuation, and that company may have to sell shares in order to raise capital. If the shares are more valuable, it can raise more capital to expand business, hire workers, etc. Ultra-low capital means no expansion possibility, hence the creation of no new jobs.

The war debt with germany is also a major issue, and one for which hoover was responsible for re-instating, though it had been wilson's idea in the first place, i hold them both responsible.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:03 PM

DREAMTROVE


I'm interested in this subject enough that I think it should become a new thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:22 PM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

not at all, this has already happened. I think youre accountability is 'called the vote' is pure fantasy. By this logic, America openly supports a policy of torture killing and wholesale theft of its own money. Capitalism is accountability. In captialism, if the product doesn't work, the people stop buying it. In religion and govt., that is not the case.

But overall, I've really gotten quite offended (not by this specifically) and am thinking of bailing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 12:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

How do you suppose the banks pay you an interest rate? They loan it out, is how.


This is a flawed process called Usury, which, combined with Fiat money, is and always has been a recipe for disaster.

Our founding fathers made some pretty good attempts to set conditions where this problem would never occur, aided by Roger Sherman (See Also: A Caveat Against Injustice) who knew full and well what would happen down that road and was very intent on preventing it.

Trivia point: name the first, last, and only time the United States was debt-free, and how did this come about ?

-Frem















Answer: During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the charter of the national bank in 1832.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 1:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi DT,
Quote:

By this logic, America openly supports a policy of torture killing and wholesale theft of its own money.
In captialism, if the product doesn't work, the people stop buying it.

I do believe it's true. I think most USers don't really care if the US tortures and kills. They won't go out into the streets and demonstrate in favor of it, but if it's done quietly and out of sight - well, so it goes. And I think most USers have become so innured to US style capitalism - to the victor belongs the spoils ! - that they think the rich and powerful are supposed to have free reign.

In capitalism, people might stop buying a product unless there is a monopoly. Since most products come from large, vertically integrated corporations that either ARE monopolies (like u-soft) OR are in collusion (like energy producers), the market is, essentially, a monopoly already.

Anyway, If I personally did offend you I apologize.

Sincerely,
Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 2:21 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER


A quick anecdote on chance of Socialized Medicine:

Was at my cousin's Med. school graduation a few years ago and every doctor/professor who spoke railed against socialized medicine. Not for being a bad system, but for being against the graduate's economic interests.

When I asked my cousin and her fellow graduates about the emphasis on the issue (being a supporter, it got my attention), they told me they were indoctrinated (not the word they used) against it from the first day and they had almost universally bought it, with gusto. They're good students, they listen to the profs.

A few years in the real world might change some of their minds (although it hasn't changed hers), but I fear there is a insurmountable amount of institutional greed to overcome for it to ever become a reality in the US.

But back to the topic. Taxes bad. We don't need no stinkin' social programs.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 2:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi FellowTraveler,

In Canada, there are public med schools as cheap as public grad schools, which are very cheap. Not having the number of doctors artificially limited, and not having doctors saddled with enormous med school debts, does wonders for attitude adjustment.

Personal finances wouldn't be a selling point for private medicine if school and med practice finances weren't such a big problem.

I get the NEJM (for fun, not as part of my job). In it the FAILURE of the US system to deliver health care is a frequent topic, and Canada has been cited many times as an example of a well-functioning medical system.

From your post I gather med school profs are in rebellion against the AMA and are busy indoctrinating a generation of foot soldiers. To what end, I don't know. To innure private practice docs to accept insurance company BS to prop up insurance companies at the expense of doctors and patients?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:27 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hi FellowTraveler,

In Canada, there are public med schools as cheap as public grad schools, which are very cheap. Not having the number of doctors artificially limited, and not having doctors saddled with enormous med school debts, does wonders for attitude adjustment.

Personal finances wouldn't be a selling point for private medicine if school and med practice finances weren't such a big problem.

I get the NEJM (for fun, not as part of my job). In it the FAILURE of the US system to deliver health care is a frequent topic, and Canada has been cited many times as an example of a well-functioning medical system.

From your post I gather med school profs are in rebellion against the AMA and are busy indoctrinating a generation of foot soldiers. To what end, I don't know. To inure private practice docs to accept insurance company BS to prop up insurance companies at the expense of doctors and patients?



Rue,

My experience with the med. school profs is limited to that one event (or that 2 days of events). And it wasn't Johns Hopkins, it was Marshall U. The more prestigious med. schools may stick with the company line. I honestly don't know.

But wait, does the AMA actually endorse socialized medicine? Or are the writers at the NEJM supporting it? Or is one the arm of the other?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


JAMA is AMA's publication. (The title always makes me smile a little - for obvious reasons.)

NEJM is the best known medical journal for practicing MDs. They often print up various studies. NEJM has in the past printed up extended editorials written by the AMA.

If I recall correctly, the NEJM printed a lengthy article by the AMA president in favor of a 'single payer' system, using Canada as an example. In that case, the 'single payer' would be the government.

edited to add:
SOME governments seem honest and do the 'big government' thing well, like Sweden. I would not trust the present US administration to either be honest about ANYTHING, or to do ANYTHING well.
The notion of a government-paid health system is for some time in the future when people in the US have cleaned out the trash and made the government worth something.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 5:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

most USers don't really care if the US tortures and kills


I think this can easily be disprove.

Support for bush is officially around 1/3. Polls always lie (selections are made randomly, but only pseudo-randomly, they're always padded to prevent a revolution,) I suspect true support is closer to 1/4
So, if a 10 is Bush Is God, then Hero is a 9, Auraptor and Finn are 8s and Geezer is a 7 and a 6 is Bush can go to h-ll.
But if you actually poll, I think at least geezer, and maybe some of the others would oppose torture and killing of civilians.

Quote:

And I think most USers have become so innured to US style capitalism - to the victor belongs the spoils !


This isn't fair. America is one of the better capitalist economies. Korea is probablly the best, India is up there, Japan is good except for the taxes, but the US is pretty clean or was, most of the time. Now it's becoming the USSA.

Quote:

that they think the rich and powerful are supposed to have free reign.


Well sure, if they earned it. I think inheritance is a flaw in our system. We'd be a much more free market if a persons money evaporated when they died.

Quote:

In capitalism, people might stop buying a product unless there is a monopoly. Since most products come from large, vertically integrated corporations that either ARE monopolies (like u-soft) OR are in collusion (like energy producers), the market is, essentially, a monopoly already.


it's getting that way. something needs to be done. I think that the more appropriate name for this war is the CNN/FOX war.


Quote:

Socialized Medicine


I've heard the BS argument. They're right for all the wrong reasons. It's a disaster because of the disaster it is. Even in rich countries, it's a second rate system, in poor countries, it's a third rate system. We have a second rate system right now, but for the most part, America is a third world country. It's just co-existing with a superwealthy society.

Quote:

But back to the topic. Taxes bad. We don't need no stinkin' social programs.


There's the firefly spirit. You think Mal would put up with taxes?
Social programs are often a menace. Do you remember the sterilization program? People were trying to make sterilization a condition of receiving assistance. There's a social program. Nazis were of course fond of social programs.
Are there some that do some good? sure. But I'd rather see the govt. just handing out chunks of cash to charities than running it own, because its own are all pervasive inescapable and have a certain Heil to them.


Quote:

Personal finances wouldn't be a selling point for private medicine if school and med practice finances weren't such a big problem.


Very true. We should completely privatize the education system. Bring in more competition.

Quote:

I get the NEJM (for fun, not as part of my job). In it the FAILURE of the US system to deliver health care is a frequent topic, and Canada has been cited many times as an example of a well-functioning medical system.


Canada is demographically nothing like the US, it's not a fair comparison. Canada would be like the United States of New England, which I would grant, might be able to pull it off. But the united states of texas alabama and west virginia are not.

Quote:

insurance


inflates prices. It should be reformed. There should probably be such a thing as insurance, but the industry needs a radical reform, because it's being as blank check as the govt right now. If insurance companies were competing against each other for customers with ever lowering rates, that they got from re-negotiating drug and care prices, then the system would work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 5:22 PM

DREAMTROVE


Radical tax reform idea:

If you vote for a candidate, then you have to pay for his spending.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Even more radical tax reform idea - if you pay for the spending you get all the benefits! The naysayers get - nothing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 11:18 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Quote:

But back to the topic. Taxes bad. We don't need no stinkin' social programs.


There's the firefly spirit. You think Mal would put up with taxes?

Social programs are often a menace. Do you remember the sterilization program? People were trying to make sterilization a condition of receiving assistance. There's a social program. Nazis were of course fond of social programs.
Are there some that do some good? sure. But I'd rather see the govt. just handing out chunks of cash to charities than running it own, because its own are all pervasive inescapable and have a certain Heil to them.




No, I think Mal would not put up taxes. He strikes me as a small government conservative.

But, I think Mal has no problem using Government healthcare when needed. Just thinking about Book in "Safe". And I don't recall Mal asking to be billed.

Edit- "no problem" may be a bit of an overstatement...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:25 AM

DREAMTROVE


Book has a heath policy. I think they talk about pay ing for it. Anyone recall?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:55 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Even more radical tax reform idea - if you pay for the spending you get all the benefits! The naysayers get - nothing.

No, not radical to me. I am in favor of this.

People ought to be able to buy what they want. You want nationalized healthcare--go ahead and buy it. I don't want to buy it, I don't pay for it and I don't use it. It is completely fair and reasonable to me.

It is only when someone forces me to buy a product I don't want that makes me unhappy.

I would support nationalized health care under the following conditions.

1. Private health care, esp. trauma medicine, continues to be available.
2. People who don't want to use nationalized health care do not have to pay for it in ANY way.
3. The government opens up the health care market by deregulating alternative health care (like getting rid of double standards for risk for midwifery / home births and obstetrics / hospital births). We who do not use nationalized health care need to have access to alternatives.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Radical tax reform idea:

If you vote for a candidate, then you have to pay for his spending.

I love that!

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Very true. We should completely privatize the education system. Bring in more competition.
SURE.
Quote:

Reading, math scores lower in charter schools
4th grade students in public schools had higher test results, report shows

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14466095/
So-called competition doesn't work in education either. Now, I'm sure you'll tell me that this isn't "really" a capitalist sytem but the point of fact is that charter schools are set up for two reasons: To make a profit (not automatically a good reason to teach kids) or to push a religious agenda (definitely not a good reason)


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS,
Quote:

The naysayers get - nothing.
-------------
I am in favor of this.

As long as you promise not to benefit from tax-paid infrastructure - roads, schools, research and the like.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:16 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
As long as you promise not to benefit from tax-paid infrastructure - roads, schools, research and the like.

Well, I wouldn't be a naysayer on roads. Just on schools, research, nationalized health care, and whatever else. I'd pay for roads. But I'd rather not pay for or use schools, or the research, or workman's comp, or social security, or the 10 million other things government does. But I'd check off roads! I like roads.

Now military defense might be a bit difficult. It'll be hard for the government to say, Hey Iran, you can bomb THOSE guys who don't pay taxes for military spending, but not THESE guys cause they checked off defense on their tax forms.

Hugging my roads...Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Ok. Sorry to derail slightly and this is not personal, just a comment on your sign off - you saying you're "hugging your roads" makes you sound like you're a car ....

TTUL

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY


LOLOL. And how do you know I'm not a car?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTTS,

Excellent. Run for office, I'll vote for you.

Signym,

Don't start another war over education. To us on the right, the failure of american education isn't an opinion, it's a fact, because we compare it to other nations who are taking our jobs, not because they work for less, but because in part of regulation, and in part because of a better education system.

Again, I refer to *this* govt. can't do anything right, least of all, education.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I see from another thread CTS won't be able to respond, so I'll just bump this up for a bit.

CTS doesn't want the results of ANYTHING government has spent $$ on except roads. How about the internet? (used to be DARPA)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:55 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rue

The only problem with anarchy is that someone would come along and form a govt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL