Mitt Romney, Tulsi Gabbard Agree: The Federal Government Should Give Everyone $1,000—or More

Politicians across the political spectrum embrace UBI-style relief to ease the pain of the coming coronavirus-induced recession.


To ease the economic pain of the coming coronavirus-induced economic contraction, a growing and eclectic group of politicians are floating the idea of an emergency universal basic income (UBI), arguing that it's the fastest, easiest way to get people immediate relief.

On Friday, gadfly anti-war presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for every American to receive $1,000 a month indefinitely until the current pandemic has passed.

"Too much attention has been focused here in Washington on bailing out Wall Street banks and corporate industries, as people are making the same old tired argument of how trickle-down economics will eventually help the American people," Gabbard said in a video announcing her proposal. "Now is the time for action, to provide direct assistance and emergency relief to every single American through a universal basic payment of $1,000 a month to every American during this crisis."

Today, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) endorsed the similar if less open-ended idea of sending Americans a one-time check of $1,000.

Romney had already signed onto bipartisan legislation Thursday that would expand disaster unemployment benefits for those who have lost income because of coronavirus, including the self-employed and individual contractors. But targeted relief programs would still be difficult for many to navigate, said Romney today, arguing that direct, universal infusion of cash would be the best way to get people immediate aid.

"While expansions of paid leave, unemployment insurance, and SNAP benefits are crucial, the check will help fill the gaps for Americans that may not quickly navigate different government options," reads a press release from Romney's office.

The senator is also calling for emergency grants to small businesses, an expansion of Pell grants for some students, deferrals of loan payments for others, and a requirement that insurance companies cover telemedicine costs.

The House passed an emergency economic relief package on Saturday. The Senate is currently working on its own version of that legislation.

Naturally, CNN contributor Andrew Yang, who ran a whole presidential campaign around the idea of giving every adult American a "Freedom Divided" of $1,000 a month, has been talking up the idea.

Seeing as the entire public health response is centered around getting people to stay at home and not go to work, cutting checks to people to do just that could seem like a good idea. It's also true that many workers in the economy, including gig workers and the self-employed, will be ill-served by existing relief programs like unemployment insurance.

A UBI could also help forestall the need for more invasive policy interventions. If laid-off workers are getting $1,000 a month to make ends meet, ideas like eviction moratoriums, debt forgiveness, and corporate bailouts become less attractive.

It's true that there are people suffering financially from the coronavirus who aren't covered by standard government relief programs, says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who agrees that a UBI would cut through existing bureaucracies to get these people needed relief.

That said, he thinks there's still "something of a tail wagging a dog here. The number of people who don't require this influx of cash greatly outweighs the number of people who do."

"People who have unemployment insurance, people who have their jobs still, salaried people who are being paid. Those people don't need a UBI," he tells Reason. The more money you spend on people who are still pulling paychecks or who are covered by existing programs, the less cash you have for the people who really need it, says Tanner.

And make no mistake, a UBI would be seriously expensive.

A Tax Foundation analysis of Andrew Yang's $1,000-a-month proposal found that it would cost $2.8 trillion per year. A temporary proposal, limited to the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, would be cheaper. But even Romney's plan to cut a one-time $1,000 check to every adult American would cost roughly $230 billion.

There's also a possibility that it could undermine public health as well. If people are flush with cash, they might decide to go out and spend that money when they should be at home, practicing social distance. (Granted, they could just order more deliveries too.)

We're living in extraordinary times. Economic relief as part of a concerned public health response is not an ideal free market policy, but it's probably necessary. But there's a trade-off. A UBI would spend a lot of money on people who don't require it, while leaving fewer resources for the people and programs that are being seriously impacted by the current pandemic.

NEXT: Biden Says High-Speed Rail Will Get Millions of Cars Off the Road. That's Malarkey.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wonderful!
    That Big Mac? New pricing: $68/ea

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everryone… Work for three to eight hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…Weekly payments……

    1. The only way they deal with the impending Medicare/SS fiasco is massive inflation.

      So for them this is a twofer.

      1. Bingo. It’s been obvious for a while we’re not going to pay back the $23 trillion, we’re going to inflate it away.

    2. It isn’t the BigMac that will reprice. It’s the landlord.

      1. Then, no Big Macs at any price.

        1. Big Mac equality in our lifetime(s)!

      2. “It isn’t the BigMac that will reprice. It’s the landlord.”

        In some twisted universe, I guess that makes sense, but not on planet Earth.
        Do you start drinking early?

        1. You’ve long proven that you don’t understand land and don’t want to because you’re a teat-sucking distempered old pig. Not that you can read – or would be so inclined – or would remotely understand it – but hey Ricardo, Mill, Henry George and even Smith wrote about it.

        2. No he’s right.
          My sister and brother-in-law are barely squeaking by, by being slumlords in Ohio. They would love to have renters who could afford to let them break-even on damages and repairs for a change. The second this happens, I suspect they’ll be raising their rents by $150.

          (Woah, I just agreed with JFree and disagreed with Sevo. This virus’s turned everything Topsy-turvy)

          1. As in all things, renters and services: you get what you pay for. If your siblings want better renters, maybe they should spruce up the property they rent.

            1. They don’t have the money for it, which is why they’ll jack the rent the second they smell the opportunity. But yeah, nicer houses would indeed mean better renters.
              Frankly its my idiot brother-in-law’s dreams of being a land baron, that put them in this mess.

              1. Yeah, too many prospective landlords think quantity over quality. Buy a good property to start out, then you can probably keep more of the rent money instead of having to rehab every year when a tenant leaves, then you buy more good properties with the profits.

                Buying 2 to 3 shitty properties means you spend all your profit fixing up what the tenants destroy every year

    3. Hypothesis 1 – These clowns do not understand basic math and honestly do not realize that giving everyone $1k will just drive up inflation and won’t solve the problem. In which case, why are we voting for such incompetents?

      Hypothesis 2 – They do realize that it will cause inflation, won’t solve the problem and don’t care. In which case, why are we voting for such evil?

      If the old quote is true (that democracy ensures you get the government you deserve), I want to know what we did to deserve these people. Did I desecrate a shrine in a prior life?

      1. This is fantastic- send $1000 to people who are locked down and cannot buy anything since our governments are shutting down all small business.

        1. “our governments are shutting down all small business”

          Never fear, they’ll make sure global multinationals are compensated enough so that they can pick up the slack instead. Putting the corporate in corporatism to help battle plague.

      2. If you look at the earliest yellowest riots in France, they were protesting taxes and (climate mandate) hyperinflation. Then, somehow, the socialists came out and went off on the french revolution and more socialism. Nothing like making the problem worse. I don’t why people flee taxes, corruption and climate hyperinflation to vote for it all over again…its a mystery.

        1. No mystery at all anymore than why people take out loans: they haven’t got the entitlement of a sewer rat.

          We’re not here because we don’t want stuff.

          I presume most reading this forum simply don’t want to lose the dream of winning their bread by earning a decent living and hope the incentive is not taken out of the opportunity.

          Because you know, you can’t get something you need by doing nothing.

    4. Insight into life under the “Green New Deal”.

  2. I’m not sure if that’s necessary. We already know exactly what to do to promote a strong economy: (1) allow unlimited, unrestricted immigration, and (2) abolish the minimum wage. The Koch / Reason economic program doesn’t suddenly change because of the #TrumpVirus.


    1. I find it hilarious that Conservatives are anti-socialism up until a little virus crashes the party and then they are not!

      1. How?

    2. Wrong. We don’t need any more landscapers.
      And the low IQ, low-skilled invasion of third-worlders is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be positive economically.
      Avg. cost of a third-world immigrant to US taxpayers is $200,000.

      1. Source please on the 200K? It would be a good one to have on hand.

  3. Gabbard (D–Hawaii) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for every American to receive $1,000 a month indefinitely until the current pandemic has passed.

    “Oh, what the heck! Make it *$2,000* *forever*!”

    1. What is $330 billion/month between friends.

      1. Exactly! We owe it to ourselves!

    2. I’ll see your $2000 and raise you a million. Everyone is a multi-millionaire.

      1. Then everybody will have money to burn — because that’s all it’ll be good for. The Long Green solution to global warming.

  4. I love the nitpicking around the edges. Aside from the fact that a government-enforced shutdown is the impetus for the government purchasing the labor force (means of production) out from under the market… there could be nasty consequences if people, flush with their $1K check, suddenly started disregarding ‘social distancing’.

    It’s like hearing about how babies are delivered by stork from a 30-yr.-old. Every time a libertarian claps their hands, a UBI fairy gets its wings.

  5. How can these idiots actually claim that giving every adult in the country a thousand bucks is some kind of UBI? The whole idea of a UBI is that it REPLACES government programs — such as food stamps, housing, etc. — NOT that it is piled on top of existing programs. Some relief for those who actually lose their jobs, such as restaurant employees in specific areas, as a for instance, doesn’t seem out-of-line, but that can be handled through existing channels. Most people are NOT going to “need” an extra thousand dollars. And no, “WANT” is not a need.

    1. Why restaurant employees in certain areas? Are those people somehow worse off than restaurant employees that lose their jobs elsewhere? And why just restaurant employees? Pretty soon you’re into giving EVERYONE $1,000. Oh, wait….

      1. Good point. When I said “specific areas” I was referring to those areas like the State of Washington, where the government has closed and/or strictly limited the hours of restaurants. It is quite possible that the existing unemployment insurance funds will, if the “scare” doesn’t last too long, be adequate. If such closure lasts for many months, it might not. Since the government is mandating these closures, it makes sense for those effected, at least seriously effected, to have some relief by extending unemployment benefits. I do believe the House bill does that. but I am unsure of the details.

    2. The whole idea of a UBI is that it REPLACES government programs — such as food stamps, housing, etc. — NOT that it is piled on top of existing programs.

      That’s how us libertarians usually think of it, but unfortunately it seems that term has been redefined recently. When politicians talk about a UBI or any other new government freebie they never even entertain the possibility of ending any existing program. It’s how we ended up with something like 80 different means tested welfare programs, many of which overlap.

        1. +? Hell, +++++

    3. Watching the UBI advocates shit themselves as they realize the truth of their own dream is delicious. You fuckers actually thought, you believed, for a hot second that they would reduce other sorts of welfare and this wouldn’t just be tossed on top of the pile of FREE STUFF paid for with printing presses.

      The cardinal sin of UBI though has never been that it can’t be cheaper than current welfare status quo, that it couldn’t be some sort of “least bad” version of government welfare, at least fiscally. It’s that it fully removes any pretense of clothing from the emperor. He might have always been naked, but UBI is the tailor admitting he had nothing to with it and the big man proudly wagging it in the wind and daring someone to object.

      1. The UBI has always been a replacement for welfare programs. It’s being twisted into something else by the people purporting to champion it, because the elites really don’t want a UBI. Even if it did save money and did make everyone richer, they would hate it, as it places all the purchasing power in the hand of the recipient.

        Government won’t trust the proles to make decisions for themselves.

        1. This is my take on it, too. The majority of my “conservative” friends, as well as the more “liberal” ones seem to want to keep a stranglehold on these folks, no matter what the cost. That extra cost, if one includes all such government programs, is well over a half-trillion dollars each and every year. And, of course, those programs do next-to-nothing to reduce the overall poverty rate.

          1. Reduce the poverty rate? How can they, when they’re never figured into income? Meanwhile, everyone above the poverty level pays for it, the better-off by paying taxes, the less well off by having their income chiseled away by inflation.

            1. The idea is that, with more control over how to spend the money, and no restrictions on how they spend it, that, at the very least, SOME current welfare recipients would use the opportunity to better themselves and get off the public dole.

              Just an FYI — since the actual amount of money in the economy doesn’t change at all, it isn’t inflationary. All we would be doing is replacing a couple of million government employees, whose only function is redistributing money, with a few thousand who help generate checks. The money supply stays the same, the taxpayers save a half-trillion dollars, and a couple of million people are free to get jobs which actually provide needed goods or services. Smaller government (at least in the number of “wage slaves”) and an increase in the work force.

              1. the taxpayers save a half-trillion dollars, and a couple of million people are free to get jobs which actually provide needed goods or services.
                Who exactly is not free to get a job which “actually” provides needed goods or services? Which are these “actually” needed goods or services for which no producers can be found? Apparently they must be so necessary that no one is willing to pay for them. Also, the amount of money “saved” is completely arbitrary (especially when the government has long since given up on the most threadbare illusion of paying for what it spends). Instead of just saving half the money spent on welfare why not save all of it by having zero welfare?

  6. Has anyone ever done any studies on how efficient government redistribution actually is?

    How much does SS take in vs give out, and who pay for the bureaucracy to do so?

    If the government sends everybody a check for $1000, how much will that cost?

    And don’t count government jobs as part of the product. They are pure overhead.

    Cuz I sure as shit know it’s not nothing.

    1. I have it on good authority that Bloomberg could’ve given every American $1M at the actual cost of only $1.

    2. Well, SS, itself, if one doesn’t count the disability programs, is quite efficient — something around 97%, since hey, basically, just write checks.

      The other bureaucracies — food stamps, housing, etc, just on the local level run around 70% efficiency, based on my investigation of several county budgets.

      1. A big difference is overhead.

        SS has very little, because all it really needs is how much people paid in, where they live now, and if they’re claiming benefits.

        The other programs you mentioned are needs-based. So not only do they have to track who is/isn’t on the program, they have a ton of stuff to establish the “need”. It eats into things.

        That’s one of the reasons folks push UBI vs. traditional welfare, because by eliminating the “needs-based” you make it more efficient.

        1. Exactly. The (smallish) County in which I used to live had several hundred people employed in three separate locations. As of a a few years ago, the total monies given the County to distribute in welfare programs, housing, etc., was right at $71 million. Just over $22 million of that was spent in administering those programs. That’s a hair over 30%. I am assuming larger Counties might be a bit more efficient.

          1. Exactly. I think there is so much being spent on administering the programs that UBI could almost pay for itself by getting rid of those feather-bedding BUREAUCRATS.

            1. Well, not quite pay for itself, but saving a minimum of more than a half-trillion dollars every year is nothing to sneeze at.

    3. It could be done as direct deposit, just like a tax refund. In fact, the whole UBI could be a de facto refundable tax credit like the ObamaRomneyHeritageCare premium tax credit. Everyone would need to file the 1040 form to officially get it, so tax compliance would go to 99.99%.

      1. That’s what Friedman had in mind. Basically, a “negative income tax” which would replace all – ALL – current programs.

        1. But it won’t replace all current programs, because there will still somewhere be one child who will look good on a soundbite to prove that we’re still not doing everything we can.

          At the end of the day, all the left wants is total control. No more, no less.

          1. You are correct, but 90% those programs could be handled by the States, as they see fit. No doubt the “welfare” state left would look a lot different in California than, say, in Texas or Vermont.

  7. I’m starting to think fucken retards rule over North America.

    Shut it all down. Everything. Everyone stay home and we’ll pay YOU $3000 a month to fulfill whatever dreams you had that was denied.

    Why take a risk on anything? Just vote for us and all will be a-otay.

    There. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Starting to…..

      1. Touche…but this has flushed it out quite a bit.

  8. Do people realize this is one way to pull the rug right from under the capitalist system and with it our FREEDOM?

    What the fuck?

    1. Capitalism is sooo last century.

  9. The more they talk the more I realize we are going to have to shoot our way out of this mess.

    1. Don’t think of it as shooting your proggie neighbors. Think of it as performing the end result of their communistic support, without all the extra steps.

      And yes, this is a joke.

      1. If every single proggie revolution ever has taught us anything, it’s that they all end up dead anyway at the hands of their own strongmen.

        1. Yes, but not without a terrible cost in terms of the stacked corpses of non-progressives.

          1. Aye, there’s the rub!

    2. No lie. Every pipsqueak politician has gotten a taste of “Emergency Powers”. They’ll have to be put down when this mess is over.

  10. $1million. Every month to everyone who passe Go. That makes me 1000 times better than Tulsi.

    1. 999. Tulsi has one thing you don’t.

      1. My dick is bigger and I have a better drop-knee cutback.

        1. Is it really bigger though?
          *rubs chin thoughtfully*

      2. Presumably. Tom could be “transitioning”.

    2. vote Bombadil!

  11. “On Friday, gadfly anti-war presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for every American to receive $1,000 a month indefinitely until the current pandemic has passed.”

    If we’re lucky, it’ll last as long as the Iraq War. right Tusli?

  12. That is too expensive. Only give the money to republicans.

  13. This is absurd. It should be $1,131.45 to everyone. What cheapskates.

  14. In other news. Taxes on half of the country to go up $2000/month.

  15. As a child I remember seeing old film clips of bankers jumping out of buildings. The Fed needs to keep pumping so these guy don’t have to jump and can get stocks at bargain basement prices.

    1. are you being sarcastic? Fuck wall st.

  16. What exactly is the political downside of putting money into people’s hands? Get your shit together Congress and do the right thing.

    — Andrew Yang???? (@AndrewYang) March 16, 2020

    Where do you think that money comes from, you stupid fuck?

    How about letting me keep the money I already have coming to me?

    1. Remember this is a Silicon Valley BUSINESSMAN apparently speaking this way.

      1. He got his start as a corporate lawyer. So just like every other politician, he’s got a legal background to help him get through the loopholes

    2. There’s not a “political” downside, people love free shit.

      The economic downside is gonna smack them in the face like a bitch.

  17. “If laid off workers are getting $1000 a month……. ideas like eviction moratoriums, debt forgiveness, and corporate bailouts become less attractive”.

    Wait, what? You can’t really believe that? Are you not paying attention at all?


  18. Mitt Romney, Tulsi Gabbard Agree: The Federal Government Should Give Everyone $1,000—or More
    Politicians across the political spectrum embrace UBI-style relief to ease the pain of the coming coronavirus-induced recession

    Politicians across the political spectrum are clearly idiots.

    Not only would that fail, it would greatly exacerbate the damage done by corona virus.

    You want to help the economy? Massively cut government spending and taxation.

    1. Funny thing is that it isn’t across the political spectrum. Fact is ol’ Mitt isn’t that far off the Tulsi view in a lot of areas.

  19. Sigh… we’re all Keynesians now…

    1. Speak for yourself.

      As for me, this is all just one more time that it would be great if we had a hard currency that people could save for times like this. Something that wouldn’t be chewed up by inflation. Gold would be nice, but platinum or silver aren’t bad either.

    2. Charmin and Purell would beg to differ.

  20. Hyperinflations (since 1900) have all included some other severe exogenous event besides high government debt. Obviously, even with a temporary $1,000 a month UBI benefit for this crisis, federal debt will go up substantially. My concern is that we end up with a collapse in production. We’re certainly going to see a collapse in the airline industry, bars, restaurants, etc. — and it’s too soon to know how long that will last.

  21. Markets Imploding!!

    Hopefully you clowns have some dry powder, it’s time to buy!

  22. Mitt has switched from real math to Democratic math. 520 million at a $1000 a piece, that would come to, let me see, yep, $520,000 dollars!

  23. I guarantee that the IRS will consider this free money income and tax the shit out of it. teh government gives with one hand while taking with the other

    1. Gonna fuck up a lot of Obamacare subsidies. You’ll get a grand taxable but have to pay back 800 if you bust the cap. Almost not worth doing the paperwork.

  24. Somebody save us from politicians that want to “do something”. You’re telling us not to gather in groups, what in the world will I do with $1000 (after taxes, about $600, probably less) if I can’t go out and spend it? Watch as the Progressive Leftist Collectivists use this crisis (don’t let a good one go to waste) to try and push several of their agenda items they could never get past us under normal circumstances.

    1. I have a bunch of crap for sale on eBay that you could buy.

    2. I know an Amazon driver that compared the past few days to Christmas. They are out in full force.

      If stuff on Steam that I want goes on sale I’m buying.

      Not only are people not getting paid, but they’re not buying and they’re not paying sales tax. Those selling aren’t paying income tax. What I think they are expecting is once it is over people will spend to make up for it.

  25. I knew Mitt was rich but does he have enough for that?

  26. Reason seems oddly lukewarm to borderline intrigued about the temp universal income but openly hostile to Trump’s payroll tax cut.

    1. Well, whatever the case, you would be deciding how it should best be spent rather than those elected by the political bias system.

      In that sense, it would bring a little political equity unavailable any other way.

      Just cancel the federal welfare programs and decide how to do them locally or statewide.

      I can’t bear to give this one my support, but it would certainly be no more experimental than the national income tax. It could also encourage people to be at ease about paying their taxes and mitigate inequity and doubt.

  27. Here comes the money (here we go, money talk)
    Here comes the money
    Money, money, money, money
    Money, money, money, money, money

    Ching ching, bling bling, cut the chatter
    You ain’t talking money, then your talking don’t matter
    Ching ching, bling bling, pattin’ pockets
    You make the dolla dolla, can’t a damn soul stop it
    Shock it (uhhh)

  28. I do NOT want any handouts from Government. I intend to subsidize my sister if she needs it. If I get it, I will send it to her. But I would anyway, even without the Government.

    That’s what families do.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  29. What? No government cheese?

    1. Stand downwind from Bernie.

  30. The good news, $1000 for everyone.
    The bad news, The Tooth Fairy will be in charge of distributions, Gumby.

  31. Great Information, and Amazing article but We should also talk about coronavirus and we should all take precautions to beat Coronavirus

  32. She’s hot, how in the world isn’t she winning the D nomination? And she is also relatively more sane than the two “Grumpy Old Men” running who look like the Muppet guys.

    1. Liberals reflexively dislike her, probably something to do with being a soldier and proud of it.

  33. One-time disbursement – Yes, helpful and appropriate. UBI – A big fat NO, as price increases, by rental property owners and others who exploit others who pay for essentials would exceed the value of the UBI. Money straight down the drain, or better said, enhancing the gushing-up economy.

    1. UBI as replacement to existing social welfare: Yes.

      UBI in addition to existing social welfare: No.

  34. Y’all we need to be nicer to each other going forward.

  35. And nobody’s going to comment on the subhead of the story, ostensibly from a libertarian perspective, that refers to Mitt Romney and Tulsi Gabbard as “across the political spectrum”? I suppose if your spectrum range is from #ff0001 to #ff0010, but to most of us they’re all just red.

  36. Politicians are all the same. Didn’t Bush the Younger do something similar in the name of “economic stimulus”? I remember Mrs. RotI and I getting $800 each. And they were tone-deaf to the obvious inflation arguments back then, too.

    Any there was Quantitative Easing (QE) by Obama. Or was that the same thing? It’s been a long time.

  37. As long as they tie it directly to the measures being taken that restrict our rights. Can’t gather in groups, eat at a restaurant of your choosing, or go to work? $1000 a month per person until the rights are restored. Think of it as renumeration for the government actually harming your ability to earn income and exercise your 1st amendment rights.

    Of course some ass-hat socialists would only see that as an excuse to keep infringing on rights.

  38. We could always close a few hundred of our foreign military installations!

  39. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop…… Read more

  40. OK, folks! You don’t want to listen to Tulsi. So what about Justin Amash:
    “The next round of legislation must not be laden with corporate welfare. Let’s ensure all Americans get relief to maintain stability during this pandemic, but taxpayers should not be on the hook to benefit specific industries. Everyone is hurting, not just a few big companies.”

  41. Jesus, Amazon is hiring 100,000 people. Most grocery stores are hiring, and delivery services. And restaurants still need food prep, front end service for pick ups, cleaning, etc.

  42. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this…………………..HERE══════►     Read More

  43. “The number of people who don’t require this influx of cash greatly outweighs the number of people who do.”

    Is there any proof of this?

  44. The problem with all of these panicky responses to Coronavirus is that there will be little incentive to stop them when the crisis has passed.

  45. Do children/dependents count? Because I have a handful and would love a few extra thousand per month

  46. PumaToto | Agen Togel Terpercaya
    PumaToto merupakan Togel Online | Togel Terpercaya dengan Prediksi Togel Akurat | Prediksi Angka Jitu
    Bagi kalian yang suka bermain Togel Singapore | Togel HK bisa untuk bergabung dengan PumaToto

    Cara Main Togel | Cara Pasang Togel | Pasang Togel Online di PumaToto, dengan Discount dan Hadiah Menarik Tentunya

    Daftarkan diri Anda bersama PumaToto

  47. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop…… Read more

  48. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh….. This is why Mitt Romney didn’t win over Obama… Heck – they’re almost the same person.

  49. Funny part to this would be that the federal government can achieve similar effect by increasing the value of existing money, printing fewer dollars, and waiving tax obligations for the coming year across the board.

    1. How will they steal all the wealth if the representation of wealth doesn’t loose all it’s value? 🙂

  50. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this…… Read more  

  51. Thanks for sharing such a great information with us. Your Post is very unique and all information is reliable for new readers. Keep it up in future, thanks for sharing such a useful post. click

  52. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…. Read more  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.