US raging like proper poles!

french women have hairy armpits :(

It's a myth. I love hairy armpits and can't find a girl with :(:(

Did you read Palin's comments (during her interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network) on the Obama administration's response to the situation in Egypt? It's too bad the Colbert Report and the Daily show are on vacation this week because they would have had a field day with her declarations (and syntax) :)

I did, unfortunately, and I'll never get those brain cells back. :(

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/skins/4od

We should switch to a resource based economy, then medical care would be free because there would be no money!

Zeitgeist is the answer to all the worlds problems right?

Yes, we can all hold hands and skip into the future!

Usa is an imperialistic monster, the American dream only applies to the fortunate and established, feel free to visit sweden.yohd love it.

Yeah we scandis welcome with love all the irresponsible, reckless baffoons and nettakers.

yeah lets go to Sweden where free speech and freedom is neglected in the constitution. On the way you can even get raped for free,

as if any country is truly free

don't be naiv.

How about you turn off the TV and ask yourself why the insurance companies are in favour of the obamacare and the big businesses generally support big government politicians?

They are so because this allows them to buttfuck ordinary people even more. How do you think they feel about the fact that a stupid democrat legally requires everyone to buy their product (health insurance)? Fees will skyrocket soon and you'll drown in socialist shit that flooded Eastern Europe and set it back for decades in comparison to the western world.

Tea Party is the slim chance that your country gets back to the principles that made it the richest one in history.

...or not. Are you seriously arguing that the Democrats are the ones who care more about the big businesses than about the people?

Neither party gives a shit about the people.

If that was true how come their votes are diametrically opposed on a large number of issues?

Because both parties now think that any amount of compromise will show that the party is weak and it will hurt their chances in the next election.

Next question.

That's not the real reason, since it's not a new occurence.

This level of partisanship is definitely a new (as in the last 15 years of this country) occurrence and it has only got worse. At least in most of the last century both parties would be willing to compromise on major issues in order to solve various problems. Now they've essentially taken to the attitude of "it's my way or the highway".

By "not a new occurence", I meant that the differences between the parties don't suddenly appear right before elections (like the one in November). The two parties vote very differently on a large number of issues, the Democrats being those who according to me care a lot more about the people (the stances of the two parties on the tax cuts for the wealthiest being a good example of that). You don't have anything to back up your claims that none of them care about the people and that their voting differently is only based on a will not to appear weak for elections.

The differences you speak of are around all the time now because even 2 years is apparently not a long time between election cycles. Hell they've even been talking about the next presidential election since late 2009.

Basically my stance is this and although it is somewhat cynical I think it is pretty realistic. Both parties cast their votes based on how their constituents feel in order to please them and continue to be reelected. As a result most votes are split down party lines and legislation is rarely compromised on as was the way the whole system was designed to be.

Both parties do tend to agree on some things however. A good example is terrible legislation like the Patriot Act.

The problem with your reasoning is that it isn't falsifiable.
When representatives vote like the people want them to, it means they're only thinking about the next election.
When representatives don't vote like the people want them to, it means they're listening to lobbies.
No matter what they do and which way they vote, you will argue that their vote is a reflection of them not caring about the people. You don't have any evidence to actually ground that assertion in reality, especially since you're accusing everyone in the House of behaving like that.

I never said anything about lobbies at all. Congress' job is to use their best judgement to help this country prosper, not blindly vote on ideological grounds so that the RNC or DNC will fund their reelection campaign.

Of course like any group of people everything I said does not fit every single person in congress but definitely the majority.

On a side note why the fuck do you even care you're in Belgium...

Belgium does have its own problems, but whatever happens in the USA affects the rest of the world, like it or not.

First of all, the representatives don't only vote according to their electorate's demands, particularly for the less visible issues. Second, when they do, I don't see why it would necessarily only be for reelection purposes, since they'll probably often genuinely agree more with their electorate on what's the best option rather than with the electorate of the other party...
I'm certainly not saying that the representatives never have reelection in mind, but I have yet to see anything supporting your claim that they only vote with reelection in mind and that this applies to the vast majority of the representatives.

wow :/

By democrats I mean the Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). I don't know if they're just too stupid to understand that what they do favours big businesses or that they're totally corrupt and want to take advantage of the status quo.

But that's the only option a socialist can be: an idiot or a thief, neither of which is much of a desirable alternative.

So you are actually arguing that the health care reform does not benefit the ones who didn't have access to health care in the first place? How does the clause that forces insurance companies to accept insuring people with a pre-existing condition benefit those companies exactly? How would getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich benefit big businesses instead of the people? Your last sentence is beyond ridiculous.

Oh, how narrow your socialist thinking is... ;) Do you even know what insurance means? It means paying IN CASE you fall ill in the future. If the companies weren't allowed to deny the insurance based on a pre-existing condition, everyone would just wait until one gets sick and then insure.

Fees will increase dramatically because the insurance agencies will have to take the additional risk related to insuring people with higher likelihood of needing medical care into account.

And the additional bureaucrats hired to "supervise" Obamacare will also have to be paid out of taxes or deficit spending.

But all it takes is for a commie to ask "how can you be so mean and deny those poor people health care?" A hundred years ago there was no compulsory insurance in the US and guess what - people didn't die on the streets.

Good job dodging every single one of my questions there. Regarding what you said, the point of making everyone buy insurance is precisely to make sure that people won't buy one once they are sick but will instead contribute for everyone, so your point is completely null and void.

And the additional bureaucrats hired to "supervise" Obamacare will also have to be paid out of taxes or deficit spending.

Except it's been established that the health care reform will instead save a lot of money. But yeah, I suppose that it's easier to not look at the actual numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office when they don't go your way.

But all it takes is for a commie to ask "how can you be so mean and deny those poor people health care?" A hundred years ago there was no compulsory insurance in the US and guess what - people didn't die on the streets.

I'm not sure what making sure people have access to health care has to do with being a communist. I guess when you don't really have any rational argument to back up your position it's easier to call the other guy Hitler or Stalin, something the Tea Party has gotten very good at and that you seem to embrace as well. You're digging your own hole with that comparison with the situation as it was a hundred years ago by the way, life expectancy was obviously WAY lower than it is now.

Fees are already increasing because of it. =P

Prices are already going up, which makes the democrats look pretty bad. A federal judge just ruled the law as unconstitutional, and it will have to go through the supreme court. I hear that the cost of repealing the bill will still cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, but I haven't seen a direct source.

Either way, it needs to go.

The Supreme Court will pass the law based on the inter-state commerce clause because they're always the goverment's buddies. They've done wonders with that clause over the years.

Oh, I'm sure they will. We just re-authorized several provisions of the unconstitutional patriot act. =/

fucking politics.

A pretty nice editorial in the NY Times regarding the ridiculous budget cuts put foward by the Republicans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/opinion/11fri1.html

"tens of billions in ideologically driven cuts to job training, environmental protection, disease control, crime protection and dozens of other critical functions that only the government can perform."

There's nothing ideological about living withing your means. That also refers to governments no matter how many Krugmans advocate otherwise.

If you had paid attention to the article, you'd have seen that the author argues that the cuts are ideological because they target programs that the Republicans dislike no matter what, instead of things that the country could actually do without. Remind me, why exactly did the Republicans want an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich? Oh that's right, it's because they care more about the rich than about fiscal responsibility. The only programs they want to cut are those helping the poor, and ironically those that would help the economy get back on track both on the short term and on the long term (education, programs to help ppl get jobs etc.).

Daaaaaaamn, I' ve just noticed the nationality of yours. There's no point in trying to convince a Belge that socialism is a self-destructive concept and that right wing people don't disapprove of "helping" the poor because they're mean but because those government programmes don't help anyone.

I don't know how they could even be against extending the cuts. Budget balance should be brought not by increasing taxes (or ending the cuts for that matter) but by decreasing spending.

What you just wrote is basically equivalent to you shutting your ears and shouting "LALALALA SOCIALISM IS BAD". 99% of economists, whether from the left or the right, will tell you how ridiculously stupid it was to extend the tax cuts for the rich. And the programs we're talking about DO help people and are necessary. You can't declare out of thin air that they do nothing when the results are there to prove they do.

Not economists. Keynesians say so.

No, that is clearly not true. Economists from both sides criticized the extension of the cuts.

On what basis? I'd rather see a legitimate reason behind their critique than just a term "economists".

The legitimate reason is that the cuts will have close to zero positive effect on the economy, while not extending them would have greatly helped the federal budget and allowed the government to reduce/avoid cuts on programs that ARE greatly needed for the economy recovery. Again, the VAST majority of economists agree on this.

Zero positive effect? Taxing rich people means taking money that would most likely be saved (and therefore used for investment). Instead the money will probably be paid out as an unemployment benefit and spent in Walmart just to find its way to China in exchange for imported goods.

Leaving aside the moral aspect of relieving the rich from taxes and not the poor (which in America would lead to equality as the rich pay a lot more in taxes), the economic consequences are negative.

And now ask yourself - would the additional tax revenue from letting the taxes rise cause the reduction of deficit or would all that money be spent on entitlements ? If you believe the former, c'mon....

See some Peter Schiff's videos on youtube to get a fresh (and correct on top of that :D) perspective on these things.

By the way, seeing how Bernanke, Greenspan and Krugman make/made idiotic comments on a daily basis, I tend to disregard most of what mainstream economists say.

Zero positive effect? Taxing rich people means taking money that would most likely be saved (and therefore used for investment).

Throughout the entire debate on whether or not to extend the tax cuts for the top 2% of the population, the Republicans kept shouting it was necessary to extend the cuts because they would lead to job creation. Studies, including one by the Congressional Budget Office have shown they would instead have almost no effect on job creation, namely that "those $100 billion in tax cuts on income above $250,000 would reduce unemployment in 2011 and 2012 by...somewhere between 0.1% and nothing at all" (this is a quote from the article in The Economist, based on the numbers from the report).

Instead the money will probably be paid out as an unemployment benefit and spent in Walmart just to find its way to China in exchange for imported goods.

Apparently you're more interested in brandishing money going to unemployed people as a kind of scarecrow rather than coming up with actual arguments. You know very well that the overwhelming majority of the money that would have been made had the tax cuts not been extended for the wealthiest would not have gone to unemployed people. That money would have helped considerably with dealing with the problem of the debt, and the extension will have a very detrimental effect on the said problem, not only because the money won't be there but because there will have to be cuts on programs that have a real positive impact on the economy and on job creation, like I already said.
By the way, unemployment benefits, apart from being morally justified because I'd rather not see unemployed people starving, are economically necessary because it means those people can buy products. This is one of the main reasons unemployment benefits were introduced in the first place, to make sure poor people could contribute to demand (like they do in the scenario you just described, by the way).

Leaving aside the moral aspect of relieving the rich from taxes and not the poor (which in America would lead to equality as the rich pay a lot more in taxes), the economic consequences are negative.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The economic consequences of extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are negative, like I just explained, not the other way around.

I tend to disregard most of what mainstream economists say.

Ok, so now you've gone from not caring about what Keynesians have to say to not caring about what "mainstream economists" in general have to say. Again, the vast majority of economists agree it was a terrible idea to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest. I see you praised Reagan a few posts below, did you listen to what his first budget director David Stockman had to say about the cuts? I disagree with him on a lot of things but the truth is that in this case there is very little doubt that the cuts were a terrible idea economically, and that Republicans are extremely hypocritical when they both argue for fiscal responsibility and defend those tax cuts.

you disregard everything he said because he is from belgium? do you still realize how incredibly retarded that makes you look (even on esr)?

atleast try to reason and discuss things instead of throwing mud and repeating one-liners palin would've been proud of.

...because Belgium is socialist country? I suppose the UK too, then, and Germany, Scandinavia? Damn socialism and its fair, affordable health care. Let the sick man in NA stick to their current system, which despite privatization spend more on health care than any other country, while still costing more for the consumer as well and best of all leaves 50.000.000 people uninsured. Spending more than anyone else to get less than anyone else sounds like a good deal to me, as long as it couldn't possibly be construed as socialism in political rhetoric to confuse and rile up the proles (and poles, apparently).


Though to be honest from what I can see the the bill lost most of its weight when they decided against including a public option because they were afraid of utter lunatics such as yourself.

People didn't die on the streets a hundred years ago? Lets check life expectancy.
1900 49,2(M~F)
2010 78,3(M~F) (36th world)

I wonder if advance in medicine and health care availability had anything to do with that.

Isn't life expectancy on its own a bit misleading? The only reason life expectancy is higher now is due to lower infant mortality. Don't we actually live shorter unhealthier lives now, just with far, far less deaths in the first year of life?

Also not great to use the UK as an example of anything health related. Both our care and overall health as a nation is absolute garbage.

Of course it's a factor of intrinsically related things, economic growth > advancement in medicine > higher standard of living > better health care for citizens.

Infant mortality is a factor in life expectancy but far from the only one what with all the progress we've made in treating illnesses and diseases over the past century and rise in standard of living. Remove the dead babies out of the equation entirely and we're still living longer lives measurable decade by decade. But even if it were the only factor, improvements in infant mortality over the last century is directly related to better health care.

The NHS may not be perfect in terms of prices by western/northern European standards but it's easily better than what they have across the Atlantic. 50.1M uninsured, god knows how many bankrupt because someone in their family got sick.

Please point to me saying that health care system in USA is good? You don't have to ask whether I think it's based on true capitalism, do you?

The only unsocialist country in Europe is Lichtenstein.

Nice of you to attribute the increase in life expectancy to the mere fact of improved availability of a doctor (It isn't even the case in Poland where people have to wait months for a procedure in a public facility but can get it instantly if they pay out of their pocket. I bet it's the same everywhere.)

You have got into your head that selling health care is somehow different than selling milk and that government can be efficient at the former while being famously rubbish at the latter.

If only we had some basis of comparison.

Western Europe largely has government run health care. Everyone is covered, availability is good and it costs the host nations between 6-11% of GDP.

The US is the only developed country in the world that does not have national health coverage. 50,7M citizens are not covered, prices are extremely high and it costs the host nation 16% of GDP.

If you want to argue as you implied that the US is a failure because it's not "pure capitalism" please elaborate. So far you've shouted socialism! but that just tells me you're stuck in the '50s while the rest of the world moved on. If you're not going to bother explaining why it's bad in relation to this, the use of such concepts lose all meaning and are only good for instilling empty emotion, in this case "bad".

The sole fact that the cost is so big indicates that there has been government interference with it, as the private system is the one which minimizes costs. If u don't know why that is so then go get some decent book on that topic because it would be a waste of time for me to prove that to you.

So you can't tell me why? am shocked.

"the cost is so big indicates that there has been government interference with it"

funny that the 100% government run programs have lower costs then...

Western Europe largely has government run health care. Everyone is covered, availability is good and it costs the host nations between 6-11% of GDP.

The queues are generally much longer in Europe. If follows first from the general supply-demand schedule, when someone meddles with prices it always is bound to come up with side-effect of the supply mismatching with demand. If something is too cheap, it's generally not available to everyone like rentcontrol apartments or venezuelan stores not having food - the price of our healthcare system is cancer and heartsurgery patients having their health deteriorate in the process of waiting to have access to care. I personally would sell my property or take a loan to get private healthcare immediately than wait for death.

The secondary and perhaps bigger flaw with government control is the ineffective way tightly budget-based coordinates and adjusts to the changes in demand. We come to the reason why people tend to hate politics - the supply is coordinated by special interest groups who make things better off for themselves rather than coordinate things out of general urgency and need. You might be interested to know that the biggest political party in Finland is not a socialist party or freemarket party but a rural-area party which has basically one objective - to channel the funds to rural areas, field owners, agriculture and hillbillies and nobody else. The outcome - the access to healthcare in major cities is poor but godsknowswhere it's excellent. So basically the losers are city poor and the winners are field owners.

The price distortion also makes the management of those organisations much harder. In a freemarket system the management has easier job to monitor what they're doing right and what kind of services people are willing to pay because of the price mechanism. They might be located at idiotic place where no-one goes or supply wrong kind of treatment but may continue on to do so because people have no choice - they are assigned spesific doctors and hospitals by post code. Only way to change it is large slow bureaucracy.

The US is the only developed country in the world that does not have national health coverage. 50,7M citizens are not covered, prices are extremely high and it costs the host nation 16% of GDP.

USA has a national healthcare with better availability, however it's not a government system. I can only speak on Funland, but you have to pay a certain portion of your fees such as visits and medicine so if you're a bum it's not necessarily living on easy street either.

The uncovered are actually employed people who cannot grant for government assist but don't want to buy a private insurance - they are risk takers. I think this is perfectly fine as long as they carry the responsibility of their actions. The average insurance afaik isn't much bigger than your broadband bill. One thing that grinds me about government control is the fact that government rations private behavior in order to pay costs - taxing alcohol fastfood etc. Should or shouldn't they tax all skateboards for twisted angle budget?

Large chunk of USA healthcare costs are due to Medicare, which is a government run program. Also the level of technology and innovation (on a world scale in medical inventions USA is without competition number #1) and the quality of service (american patients in sickbeds enjoy single rooms more often) is something american consumers pay for. One mistake people make is to assume that public sector in the USA will work as efficiently as it does in EU. It simply doesn't.

In a nutshell I'm for privately run healthcare, which could be supplied to poor by vouchers or income transfers rather than government taking over the whole thing.

I don't really believe a theoretical discussion in micro-macro-economics has any meaning when not followed up with evidence so I'll just stick with practicality with data and make my assumptions from that. The results do not rhyme with your assertions in regards to the quality of the US health care system.

In 2010 the Commonwealth Fund released a report on various aspects of the health care system in thirteen states, Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Among the things they compared was health care efficiency, quality and access to care.

The US came in dead last in the overall ranking with not only the least equitable system but they also get lower quality and less efficiency.

You can find the report here and news post that followed with a recap from the BBC and Reuters

Most Americans that are insured get it from their employer. However more than 26.5M get it directly from an insurance company. A comprehensive report in 2009 by AHIP Center for Policy and Research gave data on how much it costs.

On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family.
The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609.
The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year.

It's not broadband and not close to it. Sure it's affordable for people with good wages but wealth distribution in the US is not exactly examplary. 50,7M uninsured says everything.

Medicare in the US is government run and the consensus is that it's a resounding success with satisfaction rating up to 90% and increasingly lower costs for the state. Since this thread is titled dear Tea-Party one could list endless examples of the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in their rhetoric. One of the clearest one though is the old vets with their signs condemning the oh-so evil Socialist-Obamacare, while they themselves are all on medicare. And they love everything about medicare, they just don't want it for poor people.

True, I can't assume public health care will work as efficiently as it does in Europe. I can claim with certainty however that the private health care system they have is not working, it's not efficient when compared to Europe and it's not efficient when compared to their own government run medicare system, whether you look at cost or availability.

we have "socialism" in most parts of europe, did i get this right? ehm, hate to break this with you but a lot of people would disagree.

you could also say you're pretty much alone here, except for those bible belt'ers. :)

National health care, state pension plans, anti-trust laws, progressive income taxes, unemployment benefits, government subsidies for housing or agriculture - that's all socialist concepts, all of which we have in Europe.

you could also say you're pretty much alone here, except for those bible belt'ers. :)

Powerful argument!

that wasn't an argument, i was making fun of you. none of this has anything to do with what socialism is about, namely the cooperative ownership (and management) of the means of production.

i'm still undecided if you're just trolling though... :)

If you have to cite Wikipedia, don't quote-mine.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

err, i'm a marxist by heart the only thing i need wiki for is translating german - > english.

i don't understand your point though, true once the means of production are in public hands we'd have to think about the allocation of resources... what you trying to tell me?

Subsidies and regulations influence allocation of resources, artificially lowered interest rates too.

what is your point?

mine is (if it isn't crystal clear by now): allocationg of resources is the step _after_ the public ownership of the means of production has been established, otherwise it doesn't make any sense, which is also the reason i laugh at people calling anything out there in europe "socialism".

...get it now?

Crystal clear or not, it's downright wrong. I've just showed you how government influences the allocation of resources owned by private entities.

To think that socialism is a monolythic concept is erroneous in the first place ;) You don't have to be in 1950s Soviet Russia to experience socialism. Collecting taxes for redistributive purposes is a violation of private property and a move towards public property.

I've just showed you how government influences the allocation of resources owned by private entities.

yes, and what does that have to do with socialism again?

socialism is based on who-controls-the-means-of-production and has nothing to do with what a state does with its tax money.

in a socialist state (and i'd say it's atleast debatable if the old soviet states fit that description) there are no resources owned by private entities, hence no tax money and therefore a completely different take on the "allocation of resources" of course.

you and your redneck friends using a word out of context to scare the simple minded people to get your way is resembling the scare tactics of a mccarthy or reagan which is both sad and disgusting (to me).

atleast be honest and come clean with your agenda, there's no need for this kind of stuff.

"in a socialist state (and i'd say it's atleast debatable if the old soviet states fit that description) there are no resources owned by private entities, hence no tax money and therefore a completely different take on the "allocation of resources" of course."

So you're suggesting that it's debatable if any socialist state has ever existed? I'm officially done trying to argue with a skewed mind like yours.

nice dodging there, ignoring what we were talking about in the last 10 posts.

do you really want to discuss the economy of the (early) soviet union now? what i was hinting at is that one could argue that in fact the economy model would better be described as state capitalism as opposed to socialism, that the state acted as a capitalist itself (with lenin actually describing the system himself in these terms at some point).

A state can't act as a capitalist when it owns all the means of production because in that case there is no market for those means and therefore no prices so the monetary calculation, on which economic activity in capitalism is based, is impossible.

I was gonna keep out because it's clearly pointless to debate anyone on the internet but you've just written something that would be harmful for anyone to believe in (about the state capitalist phenomenon).

Glad I haven't read anything from lenin.

And one more thing - state enterprises are enough to declare a country socialist. As I've stated before, it's not Soviet Russia but it's socialism in its milder shape - stupidly called social democracy nowadays. Inventions like the welfare state are all just a consequence of that.

Nice of you to mention Reagan, whose economic policy (mainly tax cuts) laid ground for the economic growth during Clinton's years. Sure, he did indebted USA but few people wouldn't in times of an arms race.

A state can't act as a capitalist when it owns all the means of production because in that case there is no market for those means and therefore no prices so the monetary calculation, on which economic activity in capitalism is based, is impossible.

do you have thought about the fact that the soviet union did trade with other (capitalist) states and in that regard clearly acted as a capitalist? i thought that was rather obvious. besides, there was/is a (black) market in most socialist states.
both hint towards the fact that true socialism is only possible on a world wide scale, not with one single state on its own.

Glad I haven't read anything from lenin.

i kinda agree on your sentiment but with lenin being the leader of the (early) soviet union his words show something important in this case.

As I've stated before, it's not Soviet Russia but it's socialism in its milder shape

no, there is no socialism in "milder state". either the means of production are in public hands or they are not, that's the underlying principle.

the welfare state came to life with bismarks development of social insurance in germany which had nothing at all to do with socialism but rather with the fear of it (long story, not sure if you want to go there).

i mentioned reagan because of his political rethoric, not his take on taxes. i thought that was pretty obvious aswell.

After reading your replies, you seem to have a very distorted view of "socialism" imo.

If I had to pick a country to live in between any nation of Western Europe or USA, 11 times out of 10 I would pick West Europe. USA is fucked up beyond repair. - side personal rant

our govt is like a parasite, it keeps leeching the blood of the people. pretty soon we're gonna run out of blood for them to take.

yours?

That should be a dictionary definition for every government.

Let me guess. You're in university and just read some Hayek and Rand. You're a producer son!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mat...y-20100928

p. balanced view

Hey very cool blog!! Guy.. Beautiful.. Wonderful.. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionallyKI am satisfied to search out numerous useful information right here in the publish, we want develop more techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing agaagcbfdged

Fuck 0bama and his fucking ugly ass wife and kids and FUCK 0bamacare.

Oh and FUCK YOU and your ugly wife and kids.

Get a job and stop sucking off society you fucking loser.