Redistribution of wealth: Obama vs. McCain

Before I start, I’m going to remind everyone of something said by George H. Bush that helped him win an election: “Read my lips, No new taxes.” It was a lie.

So before you get caught up with “Obama is a socialist” or “McCain is better for business because he won’t “redistribute your wealth” remember, campaign rhetoric has very little to do with the real world.

The real world has already redistributed wealth. It’s been happening progressively for the last 150 years- since the birth of the Industrial Revolution and the entity known as the Corporation. Even Henry Ford who was an iconic figure in this transformation of society from agrarian to industrial, understood that it didn’t do any good to build cars that cost so much his workers couldn’t afford, so he had two options- make his cars cheaper or pay his employees more. Ford did both and was one of the engines that started to create the “richest nation in the world.”

And, while we still live in splendor compared to many countries, over the last 30 years, we’ve been doing it on borrowed money. Credit cards, second mortgages (marketed as “Home equity lines”) and negative savings (where we borrow more, and save less) have transformed us from powerful world beaters, to a nation of deadbeats. In the rush to feed our insatiable quest for more right now for less, we’ve traded our great manufacturing engine started by Henry Ford in for a “service and information economy” where we don’t make things anymore or worry about our employees ability to buy the products that we now outsource the labor from third world nations.

So, what this really means is that we’ve been redistributing wealth all along. Your money has been either siphoned off by the billionaires of Wall Street, CEO’s of huge corporations that forgot Henry Ford’s lessons, or by third world nations like China who makes everything sold at WalMart.

Your wealth has been redistributed, only you weren’t paying attention. The media, the government and those who’ve had their hands in your pockets have had no interest in telling you this, because media and government have been getting bigger and the people who’ve been digging in your pocket have gotten insanely rich. The gap between rich and poor today in the United States is exponentially larger than it was in feudal times when Kings demanded servitude. We can only continue on this path for a short while longer before we will have a revolution- just like the Boston Tea Party.

John McCain is not one of us little people by any stretch of the imagination. The grandson and son of Navy 4 star admirals, he’s led a life of privilege along with his service. In his campaign for the presidency he has looked for any number of attacks to sway the public, the great number of us who are suffering the worst through this pillaging of our great nation. McCain’s last stand is that Barack Obama, the candidate with the funny name, different skin color and a true American dream story of rising above our circumstances to achieve greatness- is somehow going to take more away from the people who’ve already lost it all in some stunning sleight-of-hand, where you can squeeze more money out of a nation that is teetering on the verge of financial ruin. This is pure, unadulterated B.S.

The wealth is, for the most part, gone, and we’re already going to pay for the greed of those who’ve already stolen our future for years to come. That’s what this bailout was- socialism for the rich. Every American has already committed to bailing out the very bad business decisions of the super-rich, while watching their home values plummet as the foreclosure rates skyrocket.

We, the taxpayers have been funneling money into the largest banks for virtually free, while they continue to raise rates on credit cards, bank fees, and refuse to renegotiate terms.

Before you vote on Tuesday, think twice before you believe that either politician can really change anything, but know that at least one of the two hasn’t tried to scare you into believing that wealth redistribution is something new. We’ve been doing it quite effectively for years, and that’s why so many of us are hurting right now.

I believe that we have to change our system and that voting for Barack Obama is the only true chance at seeing this through. We’ve suffered through eight years of a child of priviledge in the White House, it’s time to see what a true self-made American success story can do.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

29 Responses

  1. Gene November 2, 2008 / 12:40 pm
    My only thought is on redistribution of wealth is that I must have missed the day they distributed money in the first place. I don’t know about most of you but the money I have I earned, it was not distributed to me in anyway. When I made money, I made money off of my money and more off my work. Please give me the information I need so I can get the first distribution of money, bc I missed out.

    Once we understand that there was not distribution of money to begin with then we will understand that the terms and ideas of redistribution are a big frickin joke. I know you hand holders want my money, bc I have it and I have a lot of it, and I know you want to redistribute it. But, to be honest, this is socialism, or certainly going in that direction. I have no problem with it, but shit goes down hill and this applies to all area of life, not just money. We can redistribute many things. Buyer beware. Things like this tend to snowball, and we all will be left holding the bag.

  2. Jim Crotty November 2, 2008 / 4:38 pm
    Um I don’t know. I’m just a spoiled rich kid like John McCain. No matter what we do or accomplish, we’re just spoiled rich kids that our fellow boomers hate, hate, hate. You would think surviving five years in a North Vietnamese POW camp would erase that label, but I guess not. My point proven.

    Said it before and I will say it again gang. From the greatest generation comes the most pathetic, and now they are about to accomplish what the terrorists could not – the destruction of America. All great nations are eventually destroyed from within. You should all be very proud of yourselves. Sure, for the first few months we will join hands and bast in the glow of an Obama victory and all that liberal white guilt that’s ingrained in the boomer self-conscious will just melt away.

    And then reality will begin to set in.

    Here’s a little hint of what’s to come. You thought W’s Patriot Act was an attack on your personal “freedoms” and rights as Americans ?

    You ain’t seen nothing yet. You betcha !

  3. Gene November 2, 2008 / 6:04 pm
    They took away certain parts of Dayton in the name of white guilt – and those parts of Dayton are now trash.

    This is what happens when you give the keys to the car to a drunk,never driven before, blind teenager. Then you act surprised when the car is wrecked.

    Many Americans think it will be cool to have a black president. Cool to share the wealth. But when the real movers and shakers, those with REAL MONEY decide they no longer want to provide jobs to the middle class then you will see the shit hit the fan. It all seems great but those with the cash will bail on this country, and we will have the minorities rule this country. Yeah, it works so well for Dayton Public Schools or any other city school system. Here is a GD novel idea, how about put people in power who don’t fuck things up, who actually run things to make most everyone better – or we can do it your way, the “fair” and “sensitive” way. Just wait and see. I think it is important to elect hand holders, non-qualified people in the name of “change.” Yes, there will be change, and the change will be NO JOBS. Good luck!

  4. J.R. Locke November 2, 2008 / 6:17 pm
    If you think the stratification of America is a good thing fine. Enjoy your money. But don’t be surprised when your house burns….unless you want to pay your money to protect that.

    Money equality makes America stronger. I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Redistribute money no job is worth more than any other.

  5. Eric November 2, 2008 / 9:11 pm
    David:
    You overlook a significant bit of information when evaluating the distribution of wealth issue. You equate a consumers use of credit cards and borrowed home equity without saving as ultimately enriching the billionaires of Wall Street. The bit you miss is that this decision to borrow is made by the individual with a promise to repay. The individaul also has the option not to borrow! Mr. Obama does not offer the individual a choice. If you fall into his definition of wealthy, you will be made to pay up!!!!!
    That is where Socialism enters the discourse…
  6. Gene November 2, 2008 / 10:53 pm
    My house is in order. I will be fine. The question is will most of you be fine? And the answer I have is no.

    You can’t redistribute something that was not distributed in the first place. Call it what it is – theft. Keep your hand off my wallet. I made it, you should not get it. If you want to share I will be happy then to come to your house and use your toilet. Don’t get mad when I forget to flush.

    You can redistribute a lot of things, including the bullets I have in my gun. I will be happy to give (shot) them at some of you frickin socialist thieves. Of course I am kidding.

  7. pizzabill November 3, 2008 / 8:52 am
    Democratic win = “Atlas Shrugged”
  8. Greg Hunter November 3, 2008 / 8:59 am
    I know it when I see it but I cannot write it :(

    This isn’t meant to be a political comment. However, I think we need to accept that we live in a society where the ‘market’ is sovereign and effectively rules and controls the direction and allocation of resources.

    I don’t believe we have a ‘free market’ system at all. The state and the market have effectively merged. The ‘bailout’ to save financial capitalism from total collapse, leading to a Great Depression, illustrates this forcefully.

    What is the market for exactly? The market is there to control and channel profits/power from the majority to a minority who disproportionally benefit from this misallocation of societies resources. The very essence of the market is not to respond to the needs and interests of society, but to exploit society for the benefit of the minority, those at the apex of the market pyramid.

    The mechanisms, flows, signals and dispositions of the market, now more than ever, not only don’t reflect the desire or interests of society as a whole, they actually work in oppostion and are contradictory to the interests of society.

    Before this goes completely off the edge into esoterica and philosophy, I’ll put the breaks on, as this is really only scractching the surface of large and very complex issues.

    Simply put, I believe we need to find a way to ‘reform’ the market fundamentally, to ‘democratize’ it, so that it functions for the benefit of the majority of citizens over the long term – let’s call it ‘neo-merchantilism’ shall we?

    It’s not as if the ‘free market’ really exists, or existed. It’s over. That period is over. Today the state has become part of the market system for everyone to see. But is this intervention for the benefit of ordinary people or for the ‘financial aristocracy? We are putting the financial elite on taxpayer welfare for billions, but what about the poor and those who are losing their homes and jobs?

    The current ‘financial crisis’ is analogous to the peak oil crisis and the environmental crisis, in many ways, they are both part of the economic/civilizational crisis we face. Attending to these challenges, put simply, requires us to confront and control the ‘dictatorship of the market’ and, unfortunately, its servant/protector/enabler, the State. Obviously forcing through real democratic control of these institutions isn’t going to be as easy task. I suppose I’m taking about a form of social revolution here, given our limited timescale, as the challenges we face as a society grow bigger with each passing day.

    http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4714#comment-428664

  9. David Esrati November 3, 2008 / 10:49 am

    I highly recommend reading this post by John Cusack, yes, the actor, about this “redistribution of wealth”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/no-currency-left-to-buy-t_b_140250.html
    Thanks to TeresaLea for bringing it to my attention.
    And welcome to Eric- who I’ve known since Junior High.
    PizzaBill- Atlas Shrugged needed a good editor. It reads like the tax code- only accessible by those who have too much time on their hands and an ability to twist things by repeated nuances on a flawed principle.

  10. Gene November 3, 2008 / 11:06 am
    But how do you redistribute wealth when it was not distributed in the first place. I have a lot of money – all of which I earned. Nobody gave it to me, so why is it all right to just give money to people. A tax break is great, which I am for. But to tax the hell out of the rich will just piss off those who have the money to create real, good jobs. Simply put, you are fucking yourself. Call it what it is, and that is a tax break for some and theft of the rich. Why is this so hard to communicate. Someone came up with this bull shit notion of redistribution – ahhhhhhhh, again, it was never distributed in the first place.
  11. J.R. Locke November 3, 2008 / 12:04 pm
    Gene what does a Christian man own? This is the sole (or is it soul….) question of life.
  12. Gene November 3, 2008 / 12:15 pm
    You say that bc you can’t answer my question.

    How can you redistribute wealth when it was never distributed in the first place?

    A blind dog eats a squirrel’s nuts on a snow day, but when you can’t answer the simple question, it proves that once again I am right. I am right 98% or the time, and almost right 2% of the time.

    A blind cat can run over a squirrel only if it could drive the car I am paying for.

  13. J.R. Locke November 3, 2008 / 12:44 pm
    Your logic is astounding but I will bite.

    Land was “acquired”, land was distributed, land = wealth. Codified in law was who this land could be acquired by and who this land could be owned by. It isn’t hard to draw how the acquisition of land equated to the distribution of income and wealth as America changed from agricultural to industrial to subservant economy with the “family” being the neccesary ties to how this wealth was originally distributed (and re-distributed through generations).

    Plus God does have a hand in all this right? I thought you were a Christian. Isn’t that fundamental in all understanding in the world….or does it go out of vogue when it comes to wealth and money?

    I think all wealth that a someone has should be redistributed once they die….seems simple enough doesn’t? Wouldn’t that insure everyone in America actually works for their wealth and isn’t just handed it like those trust fund kids….damn welfare.

  14. In the 'burg November 3, 2008 / 1:27 pm
    I kind of like JR’s “death tax”.

    It’s nice to know that when I die my kid (who is 12) will be provided for until he’s an adult, my brother will be able to quit risking his life on the job every day, and a good friend will be able to pay off his AmEx bill. But you can have the rest.

  15. Gene November 3, 2008 / 2:08 pm
    But MOST of that original land has been sold since, bought by people who never received any original land, and the % of people whose wealth is in direct correlation with such system is less than 1%. Sure, many families have benefited overtime, but I did not receive anything yet became wealthy (or damn close) because I worked for it – as with most people. This notion of “trust fund baby” is so small that it is not worth mentioning. Your jealousy of such wealth is causing more problems than the wealth itself. Over 90% of millionaires in the United States are self made millionaires, never receiving anything from anybody. And besides, when I die I want MY HARD EARNED MONEY TO GO TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING I LOVE, why the F*$^ do you want to put government hands on it. Why do they have the right? It has already been taxed, many many times over. Take your greedy dirty little hands off my cash……… MY CASH, MY WORK, MY TIME. Once you have earned some money maybe you would know. Or better yet, tell me when you earn it and send it to me. But your ideas of earning are holding out your hand for you government checks. While I sip on White Star and eat Kobe Beef, have fun smoking your Merits and eating left over taco bell. Poor people kill me. Grow up, grow some balls and go work. It ain’t that hard folks, you just make it that hard.
  16. J.R. Locke November 3, 2008 / 3:40 pm
    The land was sold yes but who made profit from it? What did they do with it? Did they sell farms to move into towns and become business owners? I don’t see how you can’t follow the lines….You can go into any town where I am from and trace the relationship from family farm to occupations. That is wealth some people were restricted from obtaining BY LAW!

    Gene what you fail to understand is not everyone wants your wealth or your life. I am quite happy living the way I do. But your notion that 90% of millionaires are selfmade is based on your belief of what it is to be rich….I would love to you to define what rich is?

    Trust funds and that mentality is not reserved for the super elite (which you seem to be apart of or aspire to) it is as simple as given a kid a car to get to school/work or get laid. Those are handouts no different than what tax welfare is. The kid did not work for it, the kid did not earn it any way except being born into the family. You give your money to someone or something you love….that is welfare, a handout, just admit that and this whole debate is over. You want to give handouts to your people and I want to give handouts to all people….because I believe in a great morality….some call it God.

  17. John Ise November 3, 2008 / 3:44 pm
    From Robert Reich:

    “Don’t Redistribute Income, Redistribute Capital”

    Here’s an idea for helping the bottom half share in the nation’s prosperity. Give them, literally, a share in America. Spread capitalism by spreading capital. Rather than just redistribute income to people after they’ve become poor, give them capital up front to build their fortunes. Give a young family a starter nest egg. Give young adults a capital stake.

    …Here’s how it would work. Families earning under $40,000 would get an annual $600 tax credit, plus another $700 if they deposited $700 of their own money into their account. This adds up to an annual nest egg of $2,000. If they continue saving in this way for forty years, assuming a modest 5% rate of return, their nest egg would accumulate into a brontosaurus egg of over $250,000. Higher income families would get a smaller subsidy. Total cost to taxpayers: about $30 billion a year, most of which would go to poorer families.

    Or consider former Senator Bob Kerrey’s “Kid Saves” plan. Here, the government would give every newborn a $1,000 savings account, to which $500 would be added every year until the child’s fifth birthday. The money accumulates and interest compounds until the child reaches twenty-one, and – presto! – the child has a cool $20,000 to start his or her adult life. The tab: about $15 billion a year.

    There are other variations, but you get the point. Instead of redistributing income, redistribute capital. Encourage people to save and depend on their personal choices about how to invest money. This is the way we get the efficiency benefits of a market economy and also the social benefits of a more egalitarian society. It’s a twofer…

  18. John Ise November 3, 2008 / 3:48 pm
    One more. Since some are tying wealth and religion together, here’s a really interesting and provocotive article by Peter Wehner, which appeared a few years ago on the Washington Post’s op-ed page. I wonder if McCain and the right (religious or otherwise) would call Christ a “socialist” if he appeared today.

    “WOE TO YOU WHO ARE RICH”

    Assume that you had never read the New Testament and were given a quiz with the following question: “During His ministry, Christ spoke out most often about (a) the evils of sexuality, (b) the merits of democracy, (c) family-friendly tax cuts or (d) the danger of riches.” It turns out that Christ said nothing about the first three and a lot about the last one. But you would never know it based on the rhetoric of many modern-day Christians–particularly politically active ones.

    Christ was quite pointed when he talked about riches. Christ issued this warning to His 12 disciples: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.” When a rich young man came to Jesus and asked what thing he must do to receive eternal life, Jesus told him that he must sell his possessions and give to the poor. But the young man was unwilling to part with his great wealth. Christ then declared: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

    When Jesus delivered His most famous mountainside sermon, He warned that we ought not to store up for ourselves treasures on earth. “No one can serve two masters,” He said. “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.” In the parable of the sower, Jesus said the seed that fell among thorns stood for those who hear God’s word but are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures. Saint Paul tells us that people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap that plunges men into “ruin and destruction.” All of which led G.K. Chesterton to write: “There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.”

    Now tie this in to politics. Many Christians explain their involvement in politics as a way to advance Biblical principles in the public arena. Well and good. But there is reason to wonder whether politically active Christians are bending Scripture to conform to their political predispositions. The New Testament says much more about the dangers riches pose to one’s soul than it does about many well-publicized issues about which many Christians feel so strongly. Yet you would never know this by the agenda advanced by America’s most prominent and politically active Christian organizations, magazines and radio talk shows. My point is not that their concerns are without basis; some of them (but not all) are. Rather, the debate is radically and wrongly skewed in favor of some issues and not others, and it’s unwise for Christians to keep averting our gaze from warnings that Christ placed in bright neon lights.

    What’s going on here? Justifying our acquisitiveness is undoubtedly part of it. Plus, most of us tend to read the Bible through a lens tinted by personal experience, acquaintances, ideology and the times in which we live.

    Regardless of the cause, this appears to be a case of selective moral concern. Why else do those who insist that Biblical Christianity ought to be a guide to our political involvement become (relatively) silent on an issue of such obvious concern to Christ–and one that has political as well as personal implications? In our headlong pursuit to acquire wealth and worldly pleasures, Christians have become virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the world. We have bought into non-Christian precepts. Note the irony: Christians seeking and encouraging others to seek that which our Lord repeatedly warned against.

    Make the Scriptural case warning about riches to a group of Christians (of any political persuasion) and see how long it takes them to say, “Yes, but…” My guess is that the rest of the remarks will focus almost entirely on the “but” clause. The justification employed is Saint Paul’s observation that the love of money, and not money itself, is the root of all kinds of evil. The problem is that we Christians living in the late 20th century America have built a convenient firewall between the subject (“love”) and the modifier (“of money”). But if money and riches have so little hold on us, then why do we work so hard to accumulate more of both? And why are we so reluctant to part with each? Christ knew the insidiously strong pull that riches exert on our heart and affections. He was much less a defender of riches than we are precisely because of His intimate concern for our spiritual well-being.

    I understand why it is tempting to avoid this debate. The demands Christ places on our lives are far more radical than most of us–certainly I–want to admit. We resist lifestyle changes that would push us out of our “comfort zone”; we want Christ to be an appendage to our relatively prosperous lives. In this, as in so many areas, we ignore the real cost of discipleship. So we opt for cheap grace, and easy targets, instead.

    There are still important issues that need to be clarified: what constitutes riches; how much is “too much”; the meaning of being good stewards and responsible providers; and the merits of capitalism as a means of lifting people out of poverty. But if we are uncertain about the particulars, we have been offered explicit guidance on the principle. What is troubling today is how easily we dismiss that principle–both in our private lives and in our political pursuits.

  19. Teresa Lea November 3, 2008 / 4:52 pm
    It is conversations like these that remind me how happy I am I only live 3.5 hours away from Canada.

    Oh and that I wanted on In the ‘burg’s list before JR got the rest… damn.

  20. In the 'burg November 3, 2008 / 6:20 pm
    OK, T. Would you like that in Canadian or US currency?
    And do you need it right away?
    Hate to make you wait, but the oncologist says I might be here for a while yet.
  21. Gene November 3, 2008 / 6:27 pm
    I just want to keep more of my money and give it to who I chose rather than spend it on people who do not want to work, programs that are not necessary and all the other bull shit in between. Actually, I want MOST programs to end and use worthy tax dollars towards health care rather than museums and testing the flow rate of ketchup. I do have a heart.

    Me giving my hard working nephew a car would not be welfare – he works and has a car, I just want to be nice, bc I can afford it, and he appreciated the new ride. Hell, I probably got the lad laid more often, so he probably thinks I am God.

    Most people do not inherit any meaningful/life changing money. That is a fact. People may have profited over the years, but why penalize me, I have received nothing. I suppose if we could do it the FAIR way then I would be good with it. Tax those who did not earn it and leave me alone. I made my money with NO HELP from anyone, I have never received any cash or large gift to get me over the top. F$@%, I will let the Crying Handout Losers and the Trust Fund Babies duke it out – but leave me out of it, I am neither.

    JR, if you don’t care about wealth then why do you care if it is distributed throughout society. You are the one who says you don’t need a lot (and I agree you don’t) so why take MY MONEY to give to others.

    I donate more money in a year to people and charities than you make. I pay more taxes in a year then you make. Maybe you should be mowing my lawn for free.

  22. J.R. Locke November 3, 2008 / 7:39 pm
    Gene I believe in the American Dream that is why I want wealth to be redistributed once every 40 years. It would make life more fun.

    Gene working hard does not equate to wealth. Having capital and prior wealth will create more wealth (quickly and efficiently). The same argument conservatives use (trickle down) is exactly what keeps the wage workers working but not earning wealth….the more the top earns the more the start up cost costs to enter certain industries increase. The rich get richer the poor get poorer (real wages have decreased despite an increase in the uppermost incomes….same thing happened during the depression).

    I think you might have me confused with someone who thinks I have a problem with America….I think America’s government is working exactly like it should. A direct representation of the citizens beliefs. I have life insurance when I die I leave an empty slate as far as money goes….everyone lives happily ever after.

  23. Drexel Dave November 3, 2008 / 7:42 pm
    You sure do use the word “I” a lot Gene.
  24. Gene November 3, 2008 / 8:17 pm
    I am great. I pay more taxes than you clowns. I love the Buckeyes.I am sick of picking up the bill for dead beat losers (aka Daytonians or ‘Mericans) I love eye glasses. I love casinos. I eye eyes every time I see the letter “I.”

    But my Dad is great, he gives us chocolate cake!

    I am number ONE!

  25. Gene November 4, 2008 / 11:41 am
    First off – why would you have life insurance, it goes against your argument. Or do you make exceptions like the rest of the world.

    I agree with you JR about the USA – it works the way it is intended to, and it represents the people very well.

    Also, DD, I use the word “I” bc unlike most of you hand holding know-it-alls “I” do not speak for other people, “I” speak only for myself.

    BTW, people are prohibiting other people to vote, as reported on a radio station, and it was happening on Salem Ave by Obama supporter. But TV will not pick that up bc they love Mr. Obama. This could be an Obamanation, both ways if you know what I mean.

  26. J.R. Locke November 4, 2008 / 12:03 pm
    I have to pay back my school loans therefore I have life insurance. I leave nothing to my family except enough money to be burned and pay back my school debt. Thanks for playing.

    Gene you constantly tell us “liberals” what we think….it is always funny to hear the conservatives whine and whine and whine….it seems that is all they do. Besides telling the world how great this nations is….kind of paradoxical. This is the greatest nation but there are so many problems….the evil free market tv favors the liberals….whine and whine and whine….is that why they will lose?

  27. Gene November 4, 2008 / 2:36 pm
    I REPORT on what liberals thinks – and I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, so you can call me conservative, but only in the sense that I hate our government fleecing our cash to use for bull shit programs.

    You don’t need life insurance to pay back school loans – you need a job. But at least you don’t want to stiff them, so I like you for that!

    I just want to keep, drum roll please………… MY MONEY. I don’t want your money or anyone else’s money, so why do people want my money?

    Liberals are just thieves with smiles on their faces. Republicans are just as bad – They are all crooks and I rather stay out of all the BS and keep us much cash on hand for when the times get even worse, bc after all it was my time and energy that earned me my money, something many liberals don’t know about. Why are so many liberals unemployed? BC they a losers? I don’t know but it seems to me it is going in that direction. Keep holding out you hand, bc one day i will fill it with a pile of dog shit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *