| On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation to significantly cut Social Security. The bill introduced by Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69. For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35% If nothing happens, Social Security will start to lose its ability to pay benefits in full in the 2030s. However, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo notes that by 2090 it will still be paying at 74%. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html more tax or benefit cuts are the only options huh |
| I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. |
 |
ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. You would even cut pension What benefit would the USA get? |
 |
Dylaan_Omer said: ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. You would even cut pension What benefit would the USA get? The blow back on the republican party will be immense. |
 |
| lol good to point as said three Billion Dollar spent for arming, supporting TERRORISTS in Syria as of 2015. Those are ALL hard earned people's Tax money! also The U.S. provides Israel $10.2 million* in military aid each day, money go there and here wasted all war criminals need to put in their place American dream is going down each year As Israel Prospers, Obama Set to Give Billions More in Aid While Netanyahu Demands Even More! lol https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1539230&show=0#post22 |
 |
Dylaan_Omer said: ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. You would even cut pension What benefit would the USA get? They wouldn't get anything, it's not the governments job to meddle in the economy. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from outside threats. The government is not made to baby sit it's citizens with welfare. |
|
ThomasDankEngine said: They wouldn't get anything, it's not the governments job to meddle in the economy. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from outside threats. The government is not made to baby sit it's citizens with welfare. Why are you so addamently against Social Welfare? People work their entire lives and then go homeless in some cases Social Security has its benefits why are you idealogically motivated instead of being pragmatic over this issue. |
|
Dylaan_Omer said: ThomasDankEngine said: They wouldn't get anything, it's not the governments job to meddle in the economy. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from outside threats. The government is not made to baby sit it's citizens with welfare. Why are you so addamently against Social Welfare? People work their entire lives and then go homeless in some cases Social Security has its benefits why are you idealogically motivated instead of being pragmatic over this issue. Social security worked when it was first introduced. The ratio of workers to retirees was something like 17 to 1. Nowadays that ratio is more like 3 to 1, and it’s only getting worse with the baby boomers retiring. Mathematically there simply isn’t enough money to prop up social security. I know of old folks who haven’t had an increase in their social security for years (keep in mind social security was designed to compensate for inflation). The only people who haven’t been screwed over are the people who invested into private retirement insurance to supplement their social security. The government has no business in insurance. Edit: Apologies, in the 50s the ratio of workers to retirees was 17 to 1. When social security was first introduced in the 40s the ratio was 160 to 1, wow. Guess when you give retirees benefits everyone wants to retire earlier. https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html |
-Krouton-Dec 10, 2016 6:35 PM
| Signature is too edgy for me. |
| im surprise people are against welfare like pensions when they act like safety nets when you can no longer work, its the governments job to allocate budget for it since it comes from people's taxes anyway ye the welfare funds of the government are running out because life expectancy are increasing so that means more old people are retiring while young people are either unemployed or cannot contribute much taxes because of low pay rich people should be tax higher or even lessen the huge military budget by like 100 billion dollars and use that money for pensions |
AllenVonStein said: Yeah 38 billion is way too much for a country like Israel which isn't poor and underdeveloped. Netanyahu also isn't the best with money. $2700 of Isreali tax payers money for ice cream is just ridiculous.The U.S. provides Israel $10.2 million* in military aid each day, money go there and here wasted all war criminals need to put in their place American dream is going down each year As Israel Prospers, Obama Set to Give Billions More in Aid While Netanyahu Demands Even More! lol https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1539230&show=0#post22 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-military-aid.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahus-ice-cream-budget-causes-political-stir.html |
 |
Dylaan_Omer said: ThomasDankEngine said: They wouldn't get anything, it's not the governments job to meddle in the economy. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from outside threats. The government is not made to baby sit it's citizens with welfare. Why are you so addamently against Social Welfare? People work their entire lives and then go homeless in some cases Social Security has its benefits why are you idealogically motivated instead of being pragmatic over this issue. People should work harder, and save money. Not my problem someone is homeless. I don't want to give money to someone who made bad life decisions, that's on them. |
|
| Best way first to manage budget is to cut the foreign aids and start focusing on the country. |
ThomasDankEngine said: That's the dumbest shit ever--you realize you are talking about veteran benefits too right?They wouldn't get anything, it's not the governments job to meddle in the economy. The only thing the government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from outside threats. The government is not made to baby sit it's citizens with welfare. And you are going off the lightest premise of Adam Smith, in which he fails to quantify any of our modern economic issues, like artificial demand into account. Government Intervention (to a point) is needed because no country can truly hold the elements needed for pure-economies. We know this by history, and at the very least modern societies need some level of public hygiene or we risk widespread disease. Do you want a society to last a few decades or for longer than a couple centuries? |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Joms said: That barely account's for less than 10% (I believe it's still at 6%) of the entire budget---and we send them the excess surplus we don't need. What real aid other than defense is there?Best way first to manage budget is to cut the foreign aids and start focusing on the country. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| i wonder if people who support this ever being poor... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Kuma said: Well, apparently Trump was propped up by the working class. If I can take solace in anything, it is the knowledge that I am part of the 5% so whether or not we have social security, I'll be fine.i wonder if people who support this ever being poor... At this point, I am really questioning why I even bother being economically liberal when the people who would actually benefit from such policies are more interested in electing someone who will do more to benefit me. |
 |
| The US is already worse than some third world countries. They want to drag it down more? ThomasDankEngine said: Dylaan_Omer said: Why are you so addamently against Social Welfare? People work their entire lives and then go homeless in some cases Social Security has its benefits why are you idealogically motivated instead of being pragmatic over this issue. People should work harder, and save money. Not my problem someone is homeless. I don't want to give money to someone who made bad life decisions, that's on them. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/ |
Pirating_Ninja said: Kuma said: Well, apparently Trump was propped up by the working class. If I can take solace in anything, it is the knowledge that I am part of the 5% so whether or not we have social security, I'll be fine.i wonder if people who support this ever being poor... At this point, I am really questioning why I even bother being economically liberal when the people who would actually benefit from such policies are more interested in electing someone who will do more to benefit me. maybe, you just want see more people happy, than few people extreamly happy... but that's people for you... |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| Barber: What would you like? Guy: Just fuck my shit up. |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
SolidusSmoke said: Social Security, as the name implies, is supposed to function as a back-up when your retirement plans go to shit. For example, remember the financial crisis? Anyone who retired around that time would have been fucked as the value of their 401k would have been halved.If after 60 years you haven't thought of saving for your retirement.. Well then.. Have fun being a Walmart greeter. |
|
| That's why there should be abortion and even set up a branch to assist people to kill themselves whenever they're depressed. |
bottle said: they just need to crossing the border thou...That's why there should be abortion and even set up a branch to assist people to kill themselves whenever they're depressed. https://news.vice.com/article/assisted-suicide-is-now-legal-in-canada-and-one-province-is-providing-free-drugs-to-do-it |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| You don't really need to have a job to have income. Specifically make it illegal if you don't make 100k per year. |
ThomasDankEngine said: Not my problem someone is homeless. I don't want to give money to someone who made bad life decisions, that's on them. you know there are a lot of Homeless Veterans in ur country , specially in some states they served ur country and saved freedom blabla ... but in the end they kinda deserve it |
|
ThomasDankEngine said: Dylaan_Omer said: Why are you so addamently against Social Welfare? People work their entire lives and then go homeless in some cases Social Security has its benefits why are you idealogically motivated instead of being pragmatic over this issue. People should work harder, and save money. Not my problem someone is homeless. I don't want to give money to someone who made bad life decisions, that's on them. Seems you are selfish and that it wouldnt matter if Social Security isnt that useful as it was in the past you would still be idealogically motivated to be against it instead of being pragmatic. How much do they charge for that again? How much do you have to pay for them? I assume your rich or financially good since you wont need Social security. |
|
| This was actually a big issue during the primaries. Contrary to what people may think, Trump himself actually DOES NOT want to cut social security. Back then the Republicans attacked Trump heavily for that stance, calling him "not a true conservative" or "a new york liberal". The "#NeverTrump" people still call him these things even now. Pretty ironic considering the Democrats call Trump a "far-right" person. My guess is that some people can only see along "ideological lines", even though Trump himself does not follow any ideology, which many people's brains just cannot process. That's why Trump is paradoxially seen as "right wing" and "left wing" at the same time and indicates that most likely all of them are wrong about him. That said, I am quite interested in how Trump will react to these bills once he is in office. |
 |
ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. Absolutely. Prepare yourself comrades, the socialist revolution draws near! |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Dylaan_Omer said: ThomasDankEngine said: People should work harder, and save money. Not my problem someone is homeless. I don't want to give money to someone who made bad life decisions, that's on them. Seems you are selfish and that it wouldnt matter if Social Security isnt that useful as it was in the past you would still be idealogically motivated to be against it instead of being pragmatic. How much do they charge for that again? How much do you have to pay for them? I assume your rich or financially good since you wont need Social security. The government is basically stealing from me to give to others. Imagine if someone walked in to your house and took your money. I don't think you would be very happy. I'm fine with the following: Public education, Infrastructure projects, Military spending, Veteran programs, Science grants and programs. Stuff that we all use, not just the individual. We all need education, infrastructure, etc. We shouldn't need someone to give us food and money. That is why we were suppose to take advantage of the education for. There is no way you can tell me with a straight face that someone who worked hard in school, went through college, got a useful degree, needs food stamps and welfare. We don't need weflare, it is unfair for me to give money to someone who didn't work as hard. |
|
ThomasDankEngine said: Dylaan_Omer said: Seems you are selfish and that it wouldnt matter if Social Security isnt that useful as it was in the past you would still be idealogically motivated to be against it instead of being pragmatic. How much do they charge for that again? How much do you have to pay for them? I assume your rich or financially good since you wont need Social security. The government is basically stealing from me to give to others. Imagine if someone walked in to your house and took your money. I don't think you would be very happy. I'm fine with the following: Public education, Infrastructure projects, Military spending, Veteran programs, Science grants and programs. Stuff that we all use, not just the individual. We all need education, infrastructure, etc. We shouldn't need someone to give us food and money. That is why we were suppose to take advantage of the education for. There is no way you can tell me with a straight face that someone who worked hard in school, went through college, got a useful degree, needs food stamps and welfare. We don't need weflare, it is unfair for me to give money to someone who didn't work as hard. you're ok with giving weapons with your money (mililtary spending) oversees but not food in the country you live in? |
| He probably does not recognize that to get unemployment with a limited time, people need to work and pay enough tax first. Similar for medicare, unless handicapped. Essentially they have paid their tax to get that back. Except medicaids are for kids and those nearly have nothing where some only cover emergency. The shitty jobs prevented people from earning more (as if they can if they want?). Since all minimal wages don't really live up with the actual living cost, nor are they enforceable...they are useless. the boss can say you're are not even hired, you're just contractors for example. You can forget about having a family or retirement as well. There's no such a thing as useful degree, even MD can end up wandering in job mart if no hospital accept residency. They surely don't want to hire too many. The majority of the degrees are uselessly related to the jobs and yet you need to pay for the ridiculously higher costs. And you're surely of no concern when surging amount of homeless camp everywhere including outside your home. |
bottleDec 11, 2016 1:44 PM
AnimeFreak-San said: ThomasDankEngine said: The government is basically stealing from me to give to others. Imagine if someone walked in to your house and took your money. I don't think you would be very happy. I'm fine with the following: Public education, Infrastructure projects, Military spending, Veteran programs, Science grants and programs. Stuff that we all use, not just the individual. We all need education, infrastructure, etc. We shouldn't need someone to give us food and money. That is why we were suppose to take advantage of the education for. There is no way you can tell me with a straight face that someone who worked hard in school, went through college, got a useful degree, needs food stamps and welfare. We don't need weflare, it is unfair for me to give money to someone who didn't work as hard. you're ok with giving weapons with your money (mililtary spending) oversees but not food in the country you live in? Ha! You think military spending has to be overseas? I would cut all of that, from all countries. You have to have a military to protect the sovereignty of the country though. I never said I would spend money on the military in other countries. |
|
| @ThomasDankEngine After reading your recent two posts that more detailed your idea of things (though I don't agree on all things in your list) I see what your reasoning is. The examples support a modern society, not as big as the US, but would be interesting to experiment with. I think that would place it in a semi-isolationist/libertarian policy government. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| @ThomasDankEngine Except our current economic model NEEDS social care. A society that doesn't provide jobs to all it's citizens on purpose (to keep minimum wage low and profits high) can't really afford to let 15% of it's population starve. It'd lead to an immediate revolution. Social care is just a tool like another to increase corporate profit. the way you think about it just show how short-sighted and indoctrinated you are. You think the world is a harsh place where you can only count on yourself, when all the leaders and CEO who taught you that are holding hands to buttsex you steal the fruit of your work. |
 |
Clebardman said: @ThomasDankEngine Except our current economic model NEEDS social care. A society that doesn't provide jobs to all it's citizens on purpose (to keep minimum wage low and profits high) can't really afford to let 15% of it's population starve. It'd lead to an immediate revolution. Social care is just a tool like another to increase corporate profit. the way you think about it just show how short-sighted and indoctrinated you are. You think the world is a harsh place where you can only count on yourself, when all the leaders and CEO who taught you that are holding hands to buttsex you steal the fruit of your work. Doubt it, US citizens are cucks. No one is really willing to go at it. You're telling me some poor people can over throw the strongest, most powerful country to have ever existed? Edit: Also, they're not stealing the fruit of my work. They're paying me for it. Silverstorm said: @ThomasDankEngine After reading your recent two posts that more detailed your idea of things (though I don't agree on all things in your list) I see what your reasoning is. The examples support a modern society, not as big as the US, but would be interesting to experiment with. I think that would place it in a semi-isolationist/libertarian policy government. Could be, I am all for a global economy. If a corporation wants to sell goods to the citizens of the country, then they should be able. Vice versa. |
dontnoticemeDec 16, 2016 12:11 PM
|
Avg income of the richest top 1% vs the other 90% Make sure you are not the shitty 90% in US or Japan (red) Be the top 1% then life hasn't been better. |
bottle said: Avg income of the richest top 1% vs the other 90% Make sure you are not the shitty 90% in US or Japan (red) Be the top 1% then life hasn't been better. this kind of data is why i do not get the reason that the 90+% are just lazy, most of the world runs on socialism for the rich while capitalism for the poor, socialism works wonders for the 10% since they are getting more wealth meanwhile the 90% of people in the world is left behind but still a lot of people insist its just laziness thats causing them to be not part of the rich |
ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. I'd love to hear you say the same thing when you lose your job, have to drain your savings, can't find another job within the time it would take you to eat up all your reserves, can't rely on other to support you, lose your home and will be forced to live off the streets when the government refuses to help you stay on your feet while you go look for work. "But that will never happen to me!", I will then hear you say. To that I say, "never say never". Stuff like that is happening to plenty of Americans (through no fault of their own), and a lot of them are stuck in unemployment for a very long time, because no one wants to hire them, or there aren't even enough jobs to go around in their particular area and they can't move due to lack of funds. How is it fair to them to say that they shouldn't get any help from the government? Sure, there are plenty of people who abuse the system, but that doesn't invalidate the system itself. I'm all for some sort of reform to make it more difficult for people to mooch off the system, but there should still be something in place for those who truly need it. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Good old GOP, actively working against their voters. I'm sure they'll find some way to shift the blame elsewhere though. Seriously though. Gut Social Security and then what? Retirees can't retire or are forced out of it and now have to compete in a shrinking job market making it harder for everyone to find employment. Meanwhile you could simply increase the tax caps and close some loopholes and you'd have no problem fully funding it. |
| Dunno how you can even act self righteous about this when the system is so clearly unsustainable. There are less young people working, and more retirees who will need to be supported with social security within the coming years. So taxes on the young working force keep increasing until it's no longer feasible to continue, and then what? So while you feel good about yourselves for helping out the poor helpless retirees, college grads are being screwed. Perfect example of the failure of welfareism. |
Ivich said: The entire system could be very easily solved with one minor tweak . . . Dunno how you can even act self righteous about this when the system is so clearly unsustainable. There are less young people working, and more retirees who will need to be supported with social security within the coming years. So taxes on the young working force keep increasing until it's no longer feasible to continue, and then what? So while you feel good about yourselves for helping out the poor helpless retirees, college grads are being screwed. Perfect example of the failure of welfareism. Don't put a cap on how much income you tax. For well . . . Obvious reasons I suppose, social security works the opposite of most taxes in that anything you make over $100,000 is not taxed. That however does not mean that you don't draw the same amount out as the next fellow, it just means that while those making under $100,000 have their entire salary taxed, those making over only have a percentage of it taxed. Welfare will always be a failure in a crony capitalist system which encourages larger and larger gaps between income if said welfare is reliant on only taxing the lower income brackets while redistributing said money to everyone in equal portions. |
|
AO968 said: ThomasDankEngine said: I hope they cut everything. If it were up to me I would cut every social benefit. Get rid of all unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, cash assistance, Public housing, supportive housing, child support, etc. I would also cut all taxes to a flat tax rate. Hopefully these Republicans cut everything. Overall this is a good start though. I'd love to hear you say the same thing when you lose your job, have to drain your savings, can't find another job within the time it would take you to eat up all your reserves, can't rely on other to support you, lose your home and will be forced to live off the streets when the government refuses to help you stay on your feet while you go look for work. "But that will never happen to me!", I will then hear you say. To that I say, "never say never". Stuff like that is happening to plenty of Americans (through no fault of their own), and a lot of them are stuck in unemployment for a very long time, because no one wants to hire them, or there aren't even enough jobs to go around in their particular area and they can't move due to lack of funds. How is it fair to them to say that they shouldn't get any help from the government? Sure, there are plenty of people who abuse the system, but that doesn't invalidate the system itself. I'm all for some sort of reform to make it more difficult for people to mooch off the system, but there should still be something in place for those who truly need it. I'm rich so I don't have to worry about that. |
|
ThomasDankEngine said: AO968 said: I'd love to hear you say the same thing when you lose your job, have to drain your savings, can't find another job within the time it would take you to eat up all your reserves, can't rely on other to support you, lose your home and will be forced to live off the streets when the government refuses to help you stay on your feet while you go look for work. "But that will never happen to me!", I will then hear you say. To that I say, "never say never". Stuff like that is happening to plenty of Americans (through no fault of their own), and a lot of them are stuck in unemployment for a very long time, because no one wants to hire them, or there aren't even enough jobs to go around in their particular area and they can't move due to lack of funds. How is it fair to them to say that they shouldn't get any help from the government? Sure, there are plenty of people who abuse the system, but that doesn't invalidate the system itself. I'm all for some sort of reform to make it more difficult for people to mooch off the system, but there should still be something in place for those who truly need it. I'm rich so I don't have to worry about that. And there's your problem. You can't see it from a poor man's POV and fail to grasp that some people actually need welfare to stay afloat. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
ThomasDankEngine said: Quantify "rich".AO968 said: I'd love to hear you say the same thing when you lose your job, have to drain your savings, can't find another job within the time it would take you to eat up all your reserves, can't rely on other to support you, lose your home and will be forced to live off the streets when the government refuses to help you stay on your feet while you go look for work. "But that will never happen to me!", I will then hear you say. To that I say, "never say never". Stuff like that is happening to plenty of Americans (through no fault of their own), and a lot of them are stuck in unemployment for a very long time, because no one wants to hire them, or there aren't even enough jobs to go around in their particular area and they can't move due to lack of funds. How is it fair to them to say that they shouldn't get any help from the government? Sure, there are plenty of people who abuse the system, but that doesn't invalidate the system itself. I'm all for some sort of reform to make it more difficult for people to mooch off the system, but there should still be something in place for those who truly need it. I'm rich so I don't have to worry about that. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Quantify "rich". i guess he is so rich he does not have excess money to pay for higher taxes, my guess is he is just bluffing |
AO968 said: And there's your problem. You can't see it from a poor man's POV and fail to grasp that some people actually need welfare to stay afloat. People shouldn't NEED welfare. Welfare was only designed to be a safety net. This is comming from someone who is not rich. The entire welfare system needs to be vetted, and the people who are being a parasyte on it, need to be dropped from welfare support. Make them go through religious charities or something. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |