Debates

Sanders and Clinton Vs. Capitalism

Neither seem to realize how much better life is, thanks to markets.

|

Clinton and Sanders
CNN

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, along with other Democratic presidential candidates, were in Las Vegas, a city that does not believe in stifling commercialism, at the Wynn hotel, where suites go for as much as $900 per night. They came to deplore the evils of capitalism. 

The senator from Vermont identifies himself as a "democratic socialist," and he's no pretender. In 1985, as mayor of Burlington, he traveled to Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of what he called the "heroic revolution" of the Marxist Sandinistas. 

CNN debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked, "You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?" Sanders responded with grim vehemence: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well, not just a handful of billionaires." 

Clinton gingerly distinguished her views from his. In thinking about capitalism, she said, "I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families." But she said it is necessary to "save capitalism from itself." 

From all this, you wouldn't know that capitalism has been the most productive economic model in history. The United States attained one of the highest living standards on earth through its reliance on private business, property rights and relatively unfettered markets. 

"What ingrates they are," Hoover Institution economist David Henderson tells me. "They wouldn't be wearing those nice clothes, living in nice places or even having emails and computers to talk about if it weren't for capitalism." 

Sanders and Clinton may take for granted the affordable travel, instant communications, appetizing food, advanced medical treatments and comfortable accommodations available to them—and most other Americans—on a routine basis. But these are largely the products of a profit-driven economic system. 

Its achievements are too formidable to be denied. The capitalist class, one writer noted, "has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades." The author is someone Sanders may have read: Karl Marx. 

Modern American capitalism is imperfect, as any system is imperfect. But to suggest it serves no function but to enrich "a handful of billionaires" or periodically crash the economy is misinformed or dishonest. 

Consider the progress made by the planet's least fortunate inhabitants. The World Bank notes that between 2000 and now, despite the global financial crisis, "about 1 billion people rose out of extreme poverty. Most developing countries saw solid income growth for the bottom 40 percent of their income distributions." This change did not come about because the world grew more socialist. 

What about here at home? Contrary to progressive myth, the middle class has not been ground into poverty in recent decades. 

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office reported, "For households in the middle three quintiles of before-tax income, the cumulative growth in inflation-adjusted before-tax income between 1979 and 2011 was 29 percent." For the bottom fifth of the population, the increase was 59 percent. The fact that the top 1 percent did better yet doesn't nullify the progress. 

In addition, consumers have access to many valuable things that didn't exist in 1979 (such as cellphones, HD televisions and the wonders of the Internet) or are better or cheaper than before (such as cars, air conditioning, power tools, groceries and clothing). 

Clinton insists on limiting her praise to small companies that have not been successful enough to become large ones. But anyone eager to see workers prosper should beware of such romanticism. On average, employees of companies with 500 or more workers typically earn nearly double the wages paid to workers at those with fewer than 50 employees. 

There is nothing inherently bad about big business. Amazon, Apple, Costco, Facebook, Starbucks and ESPN are huge enterprises that have flourished by catering to the desires of consumers—many of whom couldn't live without them. 

The two Democrats should hope Americans don't consider which serves them worse—an economic system that falls short of egalitarian ideals or a political system that fills high offices with people like Sanders and Clinton.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: ICYMI: The 3 Best and Worst Moments of the First Democratic Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s distressing, but Hillary is simply pandering. She knows better. But Sanders is an ignoramus who has no clue how wealth is created.

    1. I would agree and I would put Obama in the same camp as Sanders – both act like wealth is a natural resource….

      1. Wealth is just something they steal at gunpoint from ‘big corporations’.

      2. I think there’s more truth in this than you think. Witness Sanders’ constant harping that there’s been a huge transfer of wealth in the last few years to the “1%.” To him wealth was just sitting there and the powers-that-be let the 1% take it. They didn’t actually create any wealth or participate in the wealth created by others (e.g. by investing).

    2. On the contrary, both Sanders and Clinton are social democrats on the Bismarckian model. They are well aware of of present realities of power and wealth and have no intention of changing them greatly. That is, they both favor capitalism, although they would like to regulate it a little differently than it is now regulated.

      I doubt if anyone actually knows ‘how wealth is created’ since wealth is value, and value is subjective, and the subjective, for humans, is very complicated. But I know what you mean: how money is made, how the powerful and the rich keep their marbles, and so on. Both Sanders and Clinton know these things, too.

      Sanders, however, is too eccentric, for example calling himself a ‘socialist’. The ruling class will not allow him anywhere near the presidency.

  2. “The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”
    ? Milton Friedman

    1. If buyers care what color or religion someone is, it matters. Ask any real estate developer or agent. I think Uncle Milton was oversimplifying a bit there.

      1. And then most get over it when they realize it will hurt them financially.

      2. Yeah, “Anarcissie” so what? Its called freedom of association, a freedom we use to have before you decided who we could do business with or associate with. But to you that is probably not “intolerant”. What it is is hypocritical.

        1. I wasn’t measuring markets according to their moral status — that’s another issue. I was merely showing that Milton Friedman was wrong.

          Many people have values which defeat pure money interest. Racists, for instance, are often willing to pay more for real estate if they can thereby satisfy their desire to stay away from the kind of people they don’t like. Markets not only transmit their values to the general community, they sometimes amplify them.

          1. And racists self segregating is bad?

  3. Wait, I thought incomes have been stagnant for forty years? Or is that just more progressive dipshitery?

    1. That is correct. But Bernie also reminds us that this is because all the new money is going to the top 1%. The number of billionaires is doubling every few years… and yet the median wage (half earn more, half less) is the same as it was in 1999.

      1. What is new money?

        Citation needed

  4. They wouldn’t be wearing those nice clothes, living in nice places or even having emails and computers to talk about if it weren’t for capitalism.

    Unfortunately, yes, they would. The leadership class in socialist societies always lives quite well. If you want to see homes that would make a hedge fund manager blush, try looking at some of the dachas enjoyed by the Politburo in the old Soviet Union. It’s the rest of us who would have to make due without nice clothes, decent homes, e-mails or computers.

    1. They might have nice houses, but their cars, appliances, electronics, etc would suck or not exist at all (unless they were importing them from foreign capitalist countries). Most of the coolest, most amazing stuff that rich people have are mass-market goods that *everybody* has in a capitalist society (and nobody — rich or poor — would have without capitalism).

      1. Well, the politburo members also had the added perk of being able to sentence millions to death, that must count for something no ?

    2. Yes, and it astonishes me how this obvious this conundrum and hypocrisy is, but routinely overlooked. Shame on me if I should ever point this observation out!

  5. Democrats are exploiting is that hard working, successful people love capitalism while those who are lazy or failing demand this economic inequality “fixed” so it all becomes politics of envy. The difficulty is how those who fail or are lazy are becoming the new Democrat party and supporting these initiatives even though they fail to understand that someone has to pay for their programs. As such, the fix to income inequality is assumed to be more money and “stuff” for the poor while the reality is that it will be fixed by keeping the poor where they are and taking more from the rich to make them poor as well.

    1. It isn’t that they fail to understand, it is that they don’t care to understand.

    2. The “politics of envy” argument is purest BS. The worker who has not seen a raise in 30 years looks at the CEO who is making 10 times what his predecessors made 30 years ago, and he says “wait, that’s not fair.” Is that envy? or a desire for economic justice?

      1. It is envy. Why does what a ceo make matter to your quality of life?

        Ive seen a raise every year. My friend has had a 25 pct jump and is looking at another in this year alone

        Also the pay gap of ceo to average worker is misleading. Since it includes less than 1 pct of ceos but that wouldnt fit the narrative

        1. The whole “hasn’t seen a raise in 30 years” is technically illegal as well. No raises, especially with hourly gigs, violates all kinds of federal labor regs.

          Only the public sector and gov-funded non-profits get away with no raises…

        2. Also, most socialists I’ve met personally wanted to be millionaires without working a lot, if at all. IF they’re not that, they’re already rich or government workers. So, anecdotal sure, but my experience is a lot of socialists are greedy, envious, lazy, or invested in being bureaucrats who get a bunch of power.

          1. How many socialists have you met? I mean actual socialists — people who believe in the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers. Greedy, envious, lazy, that’s just human nature, qualities independent of ideology. But becoming a socialist seems like a mighty roundabout path to actually getting stuff. You should give all those socialists you meet some good advice.

            1. All of them “believe” in the “control of the means of production by the workers.” They also believe that workers need to be led by the intellectual vanguard, who are the controlling bureaucracy.

              I will grant that most of them were young and angry, as I was. I understand being young and poor and not seeming to get a leg up or advance. It was also college, where the savior professors would preach the glories of socialist utopia. However, many non-college kids were “socialist” too – druggies, perpetually unemployed, gamers of the system.

              So, let me ask you – what intrepid workers call themselves socialist that you know? Anybody willing to pick potatoes and fish for the rest of their lives? Do you know anybody who lived in communist/socialist countries? Or are you steeped in Marxist Theory, yet never read any Marx aside from quotes? Did you read the Frankfurt School? Do you listen to music online? IF you do, then you’re steeped in false consciousness comrade, having been brainwashed by the falsities and contradictions of capitalism.

              1. There are many successful cooperatives producing all kinds of things. Such organizations are socialist according to the definition. The people who work in them must not be too unhappy, or they’d all quit. Companies or states which were under the control of a vanguard would obviously not be actually socialist. (Thus Lenin called the ‘socialism’ which he constructed ‘state capitalism’ — ownership and control of the means of production by a private elite, in his case the not very democratic or consensual Communist Party.) I doubt if there can be any socialist states, given that the state requires control of some by others.

    3. Shut up a Donk with one comment:

      “I never got a job from a poor man.”

      Or at least send it into fits about how greedy you are.

      1. Jeez, I’ve got to stop. One more: If you never got a job from poor people, you lack talent and imagination, or you’re very high-minded. The poor, having the least power, are the easiest to exploit.

  6. ‘It is not from the benevloence of the butcher,baker and brewer we get of daily sussinace,but from their own self interest’

  7. political hyperbole 101: identify a ‘problem’ and then promote yourself as the solution provider. whether or not capitalism is a real problem has nothing to do with the process of getting elected.

    1. See also, any product shilled on late night tv for a problem no normal person has ever had or even considered.

      1. yep, it’s the same process for business and politics, but with business, the consumer has a much more direct sense of the quality of the product once they get to use it.

        with politics and government, the ‘solutions’ are usually something the voter won’t experience firsthand and that allows politicians to claim they worked without much recourse. or, when they don’t work, the failure is simply blamed on another organization, party, lack of funding, etc.

      2. Hey! I needed a pocket fisherman for years before Ronco made it real!

  8. We’d all be better off if the police would focus is on crimes that have actual victims.
    Does anyone, other than those who pad their pockets from prohibition, honestly believe that wasting $20 Billion and arresting 3/4 Million Americans annually for choosing a substance scientifically proven to be safer than what the govt allows, is a sound policy?

  9. So… we’re surprised that the near-retarded Sanders, who has never had a private sector career, is down on Capitalism? The guy is a clown, and the state of Vermont’s most successful welfare recipient. I say go to Hell, Sanders!

    1. I read that as “Heil, Sanders!”
      That’s what you get for being a nationalist and a socialist, I suppose.

  10. One question I repeatedly wonder about: are politicians really as economically ignorant to believe what they preach, or are they counting on, and catering to, the economic ignorance of voters?

    This election provides insight, but not answers, to that question. In Sanders’ case, I think it’s the former: he really does believe much of what he says, and he says it out of sheer ignorance. In Clinton’s case, I believe it’s mostly the latter: a bit of ignorance, but mostly pandering to the uninformed electorate. In particular, she’s noted how Sanders’ soak the rich and give people free shit platform has resonated, so she’s also promising a ride on the free shit express (while astutely realizing she can’t as easily fake disdain for the rich).

    1. “One question I repeatedly wonder about: are politicians really as economically ignorant to believe what they preach, or are they counting on, and catering to, the economic ignorance of voters?”

      Yes.

    2. I think it’s hard to tell sometimes, and I don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things. A socialist politician is a socialist politician, regardless of what’s going on in their head. Lefties often make the excuse that they have good intentions but just don’t know any better.

      I read a book that said it really doesn’t matter at all whether the tyranny is intentional or not: you’re STILL living under tyranny, no matter what the tyrant is thinking. It was either Herbert Spencer or Frederic Bastiat; it escapes me at the moment.

    3. The idea that it needs to be “either-or” economic ignorance or malice is a false dichotomy. It’s a good deal of both.

      Whenever you think: “Ignorance/stupidity OR malice??” you should immediately answer “yes.”

      It’s both. Progressivism is inherently self-contradictory in its premises. It gets away with it because its adherents have no sense of philosophy or any grounding in logic (which they see as a tool of the patriarchy). They are both willfully ignorant and fundamentally illogical.

      At some point, even in the law, sufficient ignorance is considered the functional equivalent of malice. It doesn’t matter, ultimately, if you kill me because you’re a moron or because you hate me. I’m just as dead either way. I think I’d almost rather be killed by malice; it kinda bums me out if I get offed by an idiot.

  11. Oops! Reason, a politically focused blog, gets fundamentals of politics dead wrong again. Bernie Sanders is not a democratic socialist. A fundamental requirement for that label is very strong support and loyalty to democracy. Bernie’s definitely ain’t got that.

    1. What makes you say that Bernie does not support Democracy? He has been in Congress for 25 years!

      1. Career politician with no economic sense

  12. I personally feel libertarians have to stress that they support a free market and not capitalism per se. But defending capitalism as a free market option is certainly OK.

  13. I have a feeling Sanders might do some damage in that he will move some people who are in the middle to the left on economic points.

    Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t. I believe in a society where all people do well, not just a handful of billionaires.

    I feel this might appeal to a lot of people. It’s difficult to have a convincing counter-argument of the same length, but it’s probably doable. Don’t expect it from idiot team red though.

    1. LOL you are so funny. You really don’t get it, do you? Bernie does not have to “move” people to the left – they are already there!!

      65% support expanding Social Security:
      67% support “Medicare for All” Single payer health care:
      63% Support Free Tuition at public colleges:
      64% support increasing corporate taxes:
      61% support increasing taxes on the wealthy:
      63% support a $15 minimum wage:

      Moreover, 215 economists support Bernie’s proposal of a $15 Minimum Wage as well ? they even submitted a petition to Congress: http://www.budget.senate.gov/d…..nimum-wage

      1. [citation needed]

        1. 192% of all people know that 12/3 is a moajortiy.

      2. To pay for sanders programs would require raising taxes on the 99 pct by a significant margin. Would you support this?

      3. EuroYankee-

        I can only speak personally, but any source that shows a 2/3 majority believing in a candidate’s or party’s platform smells fishy.

        It would be true the other way around too if in the inverse, such as: “Huckabee says 63% of people support prayer in school and 67% support the ten commandments being the only law in the US” or somesuch.

        It’s not that majorities can’t agree, but it’s an odd coincidence. Plus, survey statistics are easily manipulated.

        Besides, these are all politicos. Isn’t life lesson 1 to not trust the sweet honey that comes from a politician’s mouth?

  14. They [presidential candidates] are all scam artists, no differently from all previous presidents, regardless of party affiliation. 🙂 .

    But so what?

    I don’t care which scam artist finally gets elected, or which doesn’t, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr “investment advisor with a near perfect prediction record” [insert name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .

    Why? Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

    For a link to the plans results 1972-2011, email: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom ,
    with “Savings Plan Results” in the subject line

    Regards,onebornfree
    Financial Safety Services

  15. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  16. “The United States attained one of the highest living standards on earth through its reliance on private business, property rights and relatively unfettered markets.”

    I think this really conflates capitalism the ideal with capitalism the reality. Even if we admit that markets in the past were relatively unfettered, we have to deal with the fact that all levels of government here in the US have been meddling in and directing essential parts of the economy since the beginning.

    I don’t see it as any coincidence that the American banking system has never even approximated a free market and is extremely powerful and wealthy, for instance. Or that the government has dumped huge amounts of public money into the transportation system and that some of most successful businesses rely heavily upon it.

    It’s one thing argue that a genuine free market system would greatly benefit everyone. It’s quite another to hold up the US or any other nation as the paragon of such a system.

    1. Markets are unfettered until they need to be fettered. Like in the New Deal. Then Reagan comes along and says “we don’t need these regulations” … and Yikes!! S&L Bailout. Then Clinton comes along and says “we don’t need these regulations” and Yikes! 2008 meltdown.

      1. [citation needed]

      2. Not sure it had to do with lack of regs.

  17. Sanders said his massive proposed payroll tax would hit ‘everyone’. I guess you get the kind of socialism you deserve especially if you’re poor or middle class.

  18. To credit the success in the US to “capitalism” is wrong on two fronts – the success is – at this point – illusory and what we currently have is corporo-fascism.

    The corporo-fascistic model is created the illusion of wealth while the government has having us eat our seed corn for the better part of seven decades. We’ve gone from a country with equity, made loans to other countries, produced and traded with other countries on a reasonably equal footing, and were new to the Ponzi Scheme smoke and mirrors, with plenty of time to undo its unhealthful destruction of equity and its fair allocation. Now we are a debt besotted country with Ponzi Schemes near the breaking points, Trillions of dollars misallocated, and politicians adamant the “we didn’t make that”, and Republicans that are just to the left of JFK and Democrats studying Chavez’s economic model for pointers.

    1. cont-

      So many people seem to think we have great wealth, but we have an accrual basis debt that is at least equal, if not much greater, than the net wealth held in private hands. In short, we either have a safety net of government promises or we have personal wealth, but NOT both. There is only one pie, and there is apparently going to be a rather vicious fight over its possession in the not too distant future.

      Suffice it to say, we have a lot of development here in the West, relative to other countries, and there HAS been stretches of reasonably unfettered production. But those days are long gone. We are a in the Financial Giant stage of our existence as a country. Just as the Dutch and English were centers of power and influence throughout the globe with paper charters and invincible navies. We’re a currency shift and burst economic bubble away from being a second world country.

      1. cont-

        If only we HAD had a free market the last century. But we didn’t we’ve had warfare/welfare and the useful idiots who gobbled up America’s greatness. We were the beneficiaries of the rest of the world tearing itself apart, leaving us as the bread basket and arsenal of the world, which birthed a military industrial complex and dozens of the other complexes run by “czars” (what a lovely meme that was a decade or so ago- every hungering for czars to fix everything since the towers came down). We are simply entering the end game of what was wrought in 1913.

        1. cont-

          Any semblance of privacy is gone, our property is really not our own, our savings is simply what the apparatus has allowed us to keep – temporarily. It will be debased away or outright confiscated eventually. We have a political system made of two parties who concentrate on controlling/yielding (as it suits) the productive sector, not giving a damn about consumers or individuals as other than cattle to be milked. Once “too big to fail” was floated and not challenged, we clicked once and for all into the corporo-fascistic model. Now the only question is will the oligarchy of the few actual controllers of the means of production prevail, or those who control the labor (private or public – unionized or quazi-unionized).

          But we haven’t been capitalist for nearly a century. Perhaps for fifty years, or so, a “good fight” was made, and maybe the Republicans actually were principled. But for the last fifty years or so we’ve been riding the Welfare/Warfare roller coaster to the logical end.

    2. “Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. The aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because ‘the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.'”

  19. I believe in a society where all people have equal chance to become a billionaire if they want to do the hard work. If I have an idea to sell that could make me billions and other millions of dollars and enrich billions of lives, trust there will be plenty of takers and backers. Bernie takes just way too many happy pills.

  20. Point distorted or just missed. Capitalism was nowhere derided by either Clinton or Sanders. But the abuses thereof – the distortion of the economy, the destruction of lives caused by the rigging of the system in favor of the wealthy – was emphasized accurately and appropriately.
    Millions of lost homes and jobs, millions of families fractured in 2007/2008. That is not the fault of capitalism but in large part of the greed and abuse of the system by some capitalists.
    Why are you afraid to say it?

    1. You mean the same people that were occupying the stage that night?

    2. System is rigged….so lets give govt more power and money!!!!!!

  21. Hillary-Bernie in 2016!

    Cloward-Priven in 2020!

    Woo-hoo!

    1. No way Bernie is running with her. She is antithetical to everything he stands for.

      1. Let’s hope!

        As much as I disagree with Bernie, he does seem to be legitimate in his beliefs rather than a mere cynical patrician. Even if he is economically something to be desired, he does actually seem to be able to compromise and negotiate, something our current Dear Leader doth not allow.

        1. I dont know…he thinks the gender pay gap is based on discrimination, wants to reverse climate change and private prisons are reason for mass incarceration

          1. Haha, true. I didn’t say he was *correct*, just that he doesn’t seem to be as cynical as Hillary.

            That doesn’t mean he isn’t dangerous – he is, just in a different way than the Hills or Premier Obama. With that, governmental loggerheads would be favorable. Somebody like Clinton would just dispense with the legislative branch altogether. Comrade Bernie *may not. We’ll see.

  22. Bernie’s a socialist and Clinton’s a power hungry despot-wannabe who views socialism, much like any socialist, as a means to absolute power.

    They simply want to rile the masses to support the elimination of the 1st and 2nd Amendments (the amendment to revoke Citizens United guts the 1st Amendment; they both believe in gun confiscation) and bring in the State to rule.

    On the ignorance/mendacity scale, I’d say Bern’s a good 2/3 ignorant, 1/3 mendacious. Hill’s a 3/3 on the mendacity scale.

    All the class/race warfare stuff is to raise an army of brownshirts.

    In either case, they both desire power above all else, and only wish to favor their mob armies (the people loyal to them) rather than the people as a whole. We assume too much of their intentions.

  23. A typo: You wrote “Neither seem to realize” instead of “Neither seems to realize”.

  24. One uses slot machines for all banking needs, the other prefers ATM’s.

  25. Reason gets worse and worse, the more it gets mindlessly, reflexively partisan.

    ” They came to deplore the evils of capitalism.”

    They didn’t, of course. Both (Sanders more than Clinton, and Clinton largely for show here) do understand that capitalism, especially corporate-capitalism, requires substantial oversight. Even Teddy Roosevelt understood this. In all seriousness, can you not understand how closely bankers must be watched?

    1. Um what? Isn’t the government the reason for corporate capitalism and cronyism…so let’s give the political class more power? That makes total sense!!

      What about the monopoly that is government? Does this ever concern you?

  26. Just face it, liberals and progressives are fucking retards and they’ll never change. Their infantile, whining, crybaby assholes who are the most intolerant people around. Fuck them.

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  28. The comments are not relevant.
    Clinton & Sanders Do Not Care about reality.
    They only want to spend even more taxpayer money to buy votes for their Lifestyle & Power, just like Obama.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.