What about a national lottery?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

Something with better odds than PowerBall or Mega- Millions.

A lottery designed to pay out and help people while making money for the government.

The corps running PB and MM probably would complain that it takes away from their games. But

it might force them to lower their odds.

[Posteritatis]

1. Lotteries being a tax on people who don't understand probability, I don't see how it'd help. (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

15. Lotteries are not tax; cute sayings don't dictate truth. A lottery would help by raising money. nt

[Posteritatis]

24. Just as regressive as raising sales taxes would be. (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

26. How so?

Are you using some weird definition for the word "regressive?" Is this a metaphorical regress, or perhaps a moral regress?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regressive

[DrunkenBoat]

62. Because those who buy lottery tickets are disproportionately lower income.

http://stoppredatorygambling.org/category/research-center/lotteries-who-really-plays/

[ZombieHorde]

95. A product being more popular with the poor does not make it regressive.

Similarly, a product being more popular with the wealthy does not make it progressive.

[DrunkenBoat]

96. lotteries aren't a "product". It's a game of chance. The rich play the market, the poor the

lottery.

Odds are better on the market.

And the lottery *is* a tax insofar as its purpose is to generate funds for the state. A disguised tax, but a tax nevertheless. There is no 'product'. The state simply collects money & redistributes it while pocketing a large fee.

[ZombieHorde]

121. Really? Just replace "product" with "service" or whatever.

They're like stamps or vanity plates.

A lottery can be taxed, but lotteries are not taxes; like you said, it is a game of chance.

[Hippo_Tron]

114. No they're not, they're a tax on people who are addicted to gambling

And don't have enough money to get their fix via other means. One doesn't need to understand probability to understand that it's not likely they will win the lottery.

[obxhead]

2. no.

I'm not against gambling. I am against what would eventually happen with the lottery.

As one example, in NC they have the "NC education lottery." The profits are intended to expand education spending. What happens in reality is they slash the education budget and let the lottery take up the slack.

If you want to tax millionaires to pay for the things we need then we should just tax millionaires.

[csziggy]

3. No, lotteries are a really, really stupid way for governments to raise money

They cost more to administer than simple taxes and encourage people to make stupid decisions.

[sad sally]

13. In 1732 Henry Fielding wrote the following:

A Lottery is a Taxation,
Upon all the Fools in Creation;
And Heav’n be prais’d,
It is easily rais’d,
Credulity’s always in Fashion;
For, Folly’s a Fund,
Will never lose Ground;
While Fools are so rife in the Nation.

[demwing]

18. So he thought it would work then?

that's what he's saying....

[ZombieHorde]

16. Lotteries can be easier to pass than new taxes and/or raising taxes.

Raising taxes, or creating new taxes, can be very difficult in some parts of the country.

[csziggy]

44. I know that - here in Florida the companies that now run the lotteries

Lobbied to get them passed. Those corporations clear more money on the lotteries than the state does.

For profit taxation - I guess it's the wave of the future.

[ZombieHorde]

46. "For profit taxation?" What does that mean?

Are you saying the lottery is a tax?

I don't understand how people confuse taxes with lotteries. The two are so obviously different.

[csziggy]

49. In effect, the lottery is a form of taxation

It's voluntary, but it replaces traditional taxation. In many states, the lottery ends up being run by for profit corporations, which means that for the amount of money drawn out of the economy, very little actually goes to the benefit of the citizens.

My husband considers the lottery to be a tax on stupid. I just think lotteries are as stupid as any other form of gambling. :shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

59. Vanity plates generate revenue, but I never hear/read anyone claiming the plates

are a tax on the vain. Extra money for a little fun.

Gambling is not stupid for those who enjoy it. I spend money on movies; I don't see why that is different than gambling. You spend some money, and have an enjoyable time.

Calling a lottery a "bad-math tax" is cute, but doing so ignores the fun people receive when they play.

eta: Just because lotteries have implemented poorly in some states does not mean the idea is bad, it just means there are known pitfalls to watch out for.

[demwing]

111. +100 /nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. I remember the scifi story on PBS .. The lathes of heaven

There was a national lottery but for a chance for free 20 year lease on a cabin/home that overlooked the ocean in a national park type setting which I still think is a cool idea.

It allowed common citizens the chance to be on property that only the rich could afford.

The story was from the early 80s and took place 20 years or so in the future and was very interesting and thought provoking. The film was not seen in until 5 years ago because of a copywrite music problem.... check it out.

[Snotcicles]

5. Delete. nt

[Snotcicles]

6. They say the Lottery here in Michigan is to go toward education. Heck

I get smarter every time I buy a ticket.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. A lottery that paid for your family's healtcare for life

that's worth millions these days.

[Shagbark Hickory]

8. Not "no". Hell fucking no.

There's lots of businesses that the government can get into to make money. IT's already figured out how to monopolize the sale of alcohol in some states for example. IT doesn't need to take more money from the poor with yet another gambling scheme

[Odin2005]

9. lotteries are immoral kind of regressive tax.

[Stuart G]

10. Plus 1

[ZombieHorde]

14. Lotteries and taxes are two completely different things. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

31. No they aren't. Both are revenue generators for the government.

Lotteries just happen to hit the people who can least afford it.

[ZombieHorde]

32. Lotteries are voluntary, so they don't really hit anyone.

I am not a gambler, but I know lots of people who love to gamble. Why not use gambling profits for good?

[demwing]

58. exactly

thank you, up and down thread...

[demwing]

20. Immoral? Hardly...

If it's a tax, its a tax on foolishness, and there's enough of that around to keep the country in black forever...

[Shagbark Hickory]

27. Nope. People that play the lottery are not fools. They're victims.

See lottery schemes are heavily marketed. The executives the run the lotteries for the states get paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars each year, as a salary, to come up with colorful, appetizing and appealing cutesy games and a plan to con people into buying the tickets.

People who play the lottery aren't fools, they're victims of this con.

[Igel]

37. They're still mostly fools.

Look at the winners--presumably a fairly random, representative cross section. Even those who are lucky fools tend to quickly become, once again, poor fools.

However, you did add another negative quality to the mix. Many of them are weak willed, and can't resist advertising.

I'd add that many are also uneducated, not understanding simple probabilities, and more than a few are greedy.

[Shagbark Hickory]

43. I actually know someone who won the lottery.

I was kinda surprised they played the lottery when they won it. He doesn't fit the assumed profile of a lotto player.

[ZombieHorde]

60. What are basing this "profile" on?

Your own bias?

[Shagbark Hickory]

68. The last line in #37. nt

[ZombieHorde]

90. "I'd add that many are also uneducated, not understanding simple probabilities, and more than a few"

"I'd add that many are also uneducated, not understanding simple probabilities, and more than a few are greedy."

Is this profile based on actual research, or do you just make stuff up and believe it?

[demwing]

56. Better call the FBI then, there's a conspiracy to defraud

good luck with that...

[ZombieHorde]

61. The people I know who gamble enjoy it.

What is so wrong about spending money on something you enjoy? Are you surrounded by gambling addicts?

[WinkyDink]

67. I gamble on bingo and the occasional Lottery. But your argument is specious, as I'm sure alcoholics

like to drink, too.

[ZombieHorde]

89. What is your interpretation of my argument?

Reword it for me.

I am asking because I don't think you understand what I am saying.

[Shagbark Hickory]

74. Not everyone should be gambling.

Lotto is gambling. And it's marketed to the people most likely to fall for it. The most vulnerable, if you will. These are the people that can least afford to gamble.

[demwing]

110. Says who?

You? Me? who decides who gambles?

[Recovered Repug]

11. There's always this for an option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFyVs_766S4

[doc03]

12. How about a telethon for the national debt,

like the movie Americathon.

[Buns_of_Fire]

36. I think Jerry Lewis is available, now that he's no longer hosting the MDA Telethon...

Alex Trebek might be available. Get Sean Connery to co-host. Offer a prize to one lucky contributor -- the winner gets to give Eric Cantor a surprise atomic wedgie during the last hour.

It has possibilities.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I think a national lottery is a good idea. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

19. Lotteries take money from the people who can least afford it.

Forget the probabilities, the people who pin their hopes on lotteries are people who have no other hopes. Many of these lottery players do realize the odds are against them, but there is no other possibility for them to escape their conditions.

I am disgusted that there are any government sponsored lotteries. I will not advocate this...ever.

[demwing]

21. You're wrong

they don't "Take" money from anybody.

Lottery participation is 100% voluntary

[Curmudgeoness]

22. A small point but I concede it. Let us just say that they offer dreams and hopes

to people who have neither. Yes, it is voluntary. But trying to fund your government on these peoples' backs is poor judgment.

[Shagbark Hickory]

29. Don't concede. You were mostly correct.

These lottery schemes are heavily marketed. The execs that run these get paid hundreds of thousands a year as a salary to keep coming up with appealing new games and a plan to con people into buying the tickets. They're about as voluntary as trying smoking or weed was in high school.

[InvisibleTouch]

48. Funny how so many kids refuse to smoke in high school, then.

It's entirely voluntary, peer pressure or no peer pressure. By the same token no one is holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to buy a lottery ticket. You complain of slick marketing as though it were a crime, but every store and every product utilizes as slick and tempting an advertising campaign as it possibly can, relying on every psychological trick they can muster - but still nobody is *forcing* anybody to buy anything. People will sometimes make bad choices, will give in and try that cigarette or buy that item they can't really afford - but then they've hopefully learned something from it and come away wiser. It's still their own responsibility to make a better choice next time.

I don't see anything awful about a lottery. Let people spend a few dollars to have some hopes and dreams, even if they never win.

[Shagbark Hickory]

70. You bring up an excellent point. Regulation on tobacco marketing has led to a dramatic decrease in

youth smoking.

The same would happen if lottery scams marketing was regulated.

[InvisibleTouch]

83. That's surely true, but actually...

...I wasn't even thinking of the marketing angle with regards to tobacco. I was saying that many - most - kids turn down the peer pressure to smoke, just like many - most - people gamble responsibly or not at all.

Advertising is a fascinating subject, though, and if you know about the psychological tricks that are used in everything from grocery stores to Big Pharma ads, it's easier to see through them and resist them. There's a fine line between truth in advertising and making unfounded claims, and certainly many products and services cross that line regularly.

[Shagbark Hickory]

88. Ill tell you what. Let's put every single american through college for free.

That way they can take a few courses in logic and marketing and learn how to resist advertising .

Then I'll be ok with the lotto schemes.

[demwing]

53. Thank you, that underscores my point

smoking weed in High School is 100% voluntary.

[COLGATE4]

97. You're espousing a particularly paternistic argument

here, although you jump when another poster calls lottery buyers 'fools'. You believe that lottery purchasers are so dumb that they are easily 'conned' by the people that make/market lotteries, so the state has a duty to protect them against themselves, much as if they were special needs children. I submit the vast majority of lottery purchasers do so with a full comprehension of the extremely high degree of probability that they will never win anything beyond the $5 'match three numbers' type of payout.

[madmom]

78. " But trying to fund your government on these peoples' backs is poor judgment".....

and they're not doing that now?

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. handing your wallet to an armed robber is voluntary too. n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

30. Thanks, that is an excellent point. nt

[ZombieHorde]

34. No, the point is grounded in fallacious thinking.

I explain here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1875743&mesg_id=1877015

[demwing]

55. Actually, it's an awful point.

not a bit of it applies...

[ZombieHorde]

33. Your argument is fallacious for two main reasons.

1) With this argument, we could say taxes are voluntary. This is not what people really mean when they use the word.

2) People are not coerced into buying lottery tickets.

[Shagbark Hickory]

41. I wasn't using the armed robbery example to argue against lotteries.

[ZombieHorde]

45. Then what was the armed robbery example for?

Demwing posted, "lottery participation is 100% voluntary," then you posted, "handing your wallet to an armed robber is voluntary too."

[Shagbark Hickory]

69. I just used it to demonstrate their fallacious argument.

By using an equally fallacious argument.

It's the same line used by people in favor of keeping smoking tobbacco legal and cheap.
Go to any 7-11 and ask someone who buys cigarettes how voluntary that purchase was.

[ZombieHorde]

93. I used to be a pack-a-day smoker, and I considered my purchases to be voluntary.

If I didn't, I don't think I would have been able to quit smoking.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

54. That's true, I better call the cops and report the lottery

There's an armed lottery going on! Oh NOES!

:rofl:

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. Tobacco marketing was regulated.

And by regulated, I mean it was pretty much banned everywhere but in the movies.

And look at the dramatic decrease in smoking.

LEt's call it what it is. Lotto is gambling. And it's marketed to the people most likely to fall for it. The most vulnerable, if you will. These are the people that can least afford to gamble.

[demwing]

76. Playing lotto won't kill you. Smoking cigarettes will.

There is just no comparison.

[Shagbark Hickory]

82. You should be nominated for fallacious argument of the year award.

What on earth does the mortality rate of either have to do with anything?!

Does something have to be deadly in order for it to be bad?

Are you saying that as long as people don't die, it's OK that they use their child support money to gamble?

[demwing]

84. I don't think you understand what a "fallacious argument" is

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. You should be nominated for change the subject and abandon the discussion of the year award.

:-)

[demwing]

94. I also don't think you understand what "change the subject" means

why are you so antagonistic?

[madmom]

80. No, not really, you have a choice between handing it over or being shot, nothing too

voluntary about that IMO.

[COLGATE4]

98. How on earth can you argue that that is voluntary?????????????

[former9thward]

115. Don't go into the legal field. You would be a fail.

[jberryhill]

40. Participation in scams is voluntary too

In fact, the people who run Nigerian 419 scams believe they are only taking money from people who are greedy, and thus deserve it.

[demwing]

52. but scams are based on a lie - The lottery is based on facts.

The odds are posted, the rules are regulated by law, and someone wins, eventually.

[Shagbark Hickory]

73. It's gambling. And not everyone should be gambling.

LEt's call it what it is. Lotto is gambling. And it's marketed to the people most likely to fall for it. The most vulnerable, if you will. These are the people that can least afford to gamble.

[demwing]

75. I don't disagree with the underlying desire to protect the poor

but I do disagree with you conclusion that the lottery, or gambling, is somehow involuntary. It seems that what you're saying is that the poor have no self control, and therefore we must protect them by limiting their choices.

[Shagbark Hickory]

81. I haven't made that conclusion though.

How many times must I repeat myself?

And I'm not saying the "poor have no self control" either. Those are your words.

In fact I didn't say anything at all about specific income levels.

What I said is that lotto marketing targets people who shouldn't be gambling or who could least afford to gamble.

PErhaps you're confusing my replies with others who have brought up the poor?

[COLGATE4]

100. Aren;'t the people who 'can least afford to gamble' the poor, by defintion?

[COLGATE4]

101. "What I said is that ...

What I said is that lotto marketing targets people who ... could least afford to gamble." Isn't that poor people, by definition?

[raccoon]

120. Thank you! nt

[sarcasmo]

23. For a job?

[Morning Dew]

25. How 'bout a Shirley Jackson style lottery for teabaggers?

"People at first were not so much concerned with what the story meant; what they wanted to know was where these lotteries were held, and whether they could go there and watch."

- Shirley Jackson


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery

[Raine]

35. Lotterys are an immoral way to raise money

the people who can least afford are the ones who get hooked into it. I absolutely HATE them! :grr:

[Zanzoobar]

42. Certainly, morality is a relative proposition.

No person is compelled to wager against odds better than 50 million to one.

[demwing]

57. just because you hate them doesn't make them immoral /nt

[WinkyDink]

66. They are when you know full well who would and do buy the tickets. Hint: Not Bill Gates.

[demwing]

77. Well, the person that I know that plays the lotto most often

is my Aunt. She owns 25 acres outside of Orlando, and was left a multi-millionaire when her husband passed some years back. She's in her 70's, but still works full time, and even owns her own plane (which she doesn't fly, but keeps for sentimental reasons). In short, she's freaking rich.

And she drops $20 a week on the lottery. Every week, same numbers.

Anecdotal evidence? Yeah...

[WinkyDink]

91. Yes, some rich people are still greedy.

[COLGATE4]

103. So, you admit that rich people as well as poor people buy lottery.

[jberryhill]

117. Oh, now THERE is a statistically valid sample

From now on, no public policy analysis will be complete without checking with your aunt.

[COLGATE4]

102. +1

[bluestateguy]

39. States would oppose it

For fear it would hurt their lottery.

[ZombieHorde]

112. Your scenario is likely. nt

[begin_within]

47. Don't we already have it?

We all pay in our hard-earned money, and a select group hits the jackpot: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, SAIC, Hewlett-Packard, L-3, KBR, DynCorp, Fluor, Blackwater/Xe, IBM, Honeywell, Rockwell, GE, Bechtel, Unisys, General Atomics, Qwest, Cubic, Oracle, etc.

[defendandprotect]

50. Lottery is everyone's Plan B for surviving this depression --- !!

TPB want only one very wealthy winner vs 200 winners ---

We should all pressure states to change that -- there should be a winner for

every drawing.

But I like your idea -- how do we begin to work on it and who controls it?

[Drew Richards]

51. LOL Ok my head is Wacked wacked wacked...my first thought was

You were going to say..win a million dollars or get stoned to death to decrease the surplus population...

You know kinda like ensuring a good harvest in the short story classic The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson...

Ok I guess I am little weird.

[msanthrope]

63. Shirley Jackson's version was the first thing in my head, too. You are not alone. nt

[quaker bill]

64. A corporate only lottery

where the winner does not have their taxes raised to 50 percent....

[WinkyDink]

65. Yeah, like the wealthy would play this game. TAX THEM NOW.

[Fearless]

71. No. This creates a regressive tax... which is even worse than a flat tax...

In that it is only paid by the poor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

[COLGATE4]

99. Once again slowly. Repeat after me: "It is NOT a tax" "It is NOT a tax"

[Fearless]

113. No. It is a voluntary tax ONLY paid by the poor.

[demwing]

127. Why cant you make this point without exagerration?

Of course its not ONLY the poor, why would you even claim something that is so easily proven wrong?

[Broderick]

79. Let's rape the poor

with more inane taxes under the guise of hope.

[demwing]

109. Better yet, lets just engage in hyperbole.

wait, I'm late, looks like we're there already.

[Broderick]

118. Hyperbole?

LOL. That is what lotteries are. A tax on the poor under the guise of hope.

[demwing]

122. Unbelievable

you have NO facts, so you resort to the rhetorical equivalent of "I know you are but what am I"...

[Broderick]

125. Who buys lottery tickets?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14945786/Lottery-Demographics


Do your own damn research. Google is easy. It's not too easy to find.


There are plenty more that verify that as a percentage of income, lotteries hurt the poor the most - totally couched in the audacity of "hope".


Good grief.

[demwing]

126. It isn't up to me to prove your point, so do the research yourself!

and "raping the poor" is still hyperbole, nothing has changed.

[DCBob]

85. just one more way to drain cash from those who dont have it.

bad idea.

[GSLevel9]

87. another tax on the stupid and the poor...

bad idea

[ZombieHorde]

105. Lotteries and taxes are two completely different things. nt

[FreeJoe]

92. Count me way out

First "designed to pay out and help people while making money for the government" does't make sense. The odds are either for the players (in which case the lottery loses money for the government) or against them (in which case it doesn't help them).

I won't pile on with all the arguments about how lotteries disproportionately take money from the poor (even if it is voluntary for the ones without gambling addictions). You've already heard enough of those. I have other objections.

My main objection is how it affects the psychology of the poor. It gives them the thought that there is a good chance that they'll be rich someday. I think the hope of winning lotteries has significant negative impacts on them. It causes them to be resistant to taxes on the wealthy because they worry about losing their future lottery winnings. It also twists their view of financial planning. Instead of working on a slow, steady plan to save and invest (including investing in education) their way out of poverty, they set that aside and waste money on "get rich quick" schemes like lotto.

My other objection is that it puts the government in the ugly position of trying to convince people to do things against their interest. We have a lotto here and the commercials for it always make me cringe. I know that they are run by the lotto company contracted by the government, but I still hear it as an official government message trying to tell me to be stupid.

I wouldn't be bothered by lotteries if they were restricted to something like a ticket or two a week. For people that want the occasional escapist fantasy of winning big, there is no harm. What sickens me is seeing what a huge percentage of income some poor families spend on the lottery in a mistaken and desperate way attempt to get out of poverty.

[COLGATE4]

104. I'm always amazed to see Democrats who vigorously decry

government intervention in our private lives jump at the chance to intervene in the lives of the less fortunate among us. 'The Lottery disproportionately takes money from the poor' - 'It negatively affects their psychology'. - 'It causes them to be resistant to taxes on the wealthy'?????????? Doesn't this whole line of thinking just reek of paternalism? I don't find much difference between 'let's keep the poor from buying more than one lottery ticket a week, for their own good, of course' and 'Let's make a woman get intrusive sonograms and fetal heart traces of her fetus before she can get an abortion - for her own good, of course'.

[FreeJoe]

106. I see quite a difference

In the case of government run gambling, we are preying on undereducated people to con money out of them. While I do lean libertarian, I have limits. Setting up a government run con game to rook the uneducated out of their money just doesn't strike me as the right thing to do.

[demwing]

107. It's NOT a con game

You can write that all you like, but it isn't true.

Everybody gets exactly what the rules state - an insignificant chance to win a significant amount of money, for a mere $1 investment.

Either somebody (or many somebodies) wins, or the pot progresses till somebody does.

What's the con?

[jberryhill]

116. The con is that the state provides piss-poor math education

...for starters.

And number two is something that intelligent people don't get - not everyone understands the rules or the odds. In fact, quite a lot of people, educated or otherwise, have the irrational belief they are "lucky".

The con is that the state is playing to that irrational belief or lack of intelligence. The same state whom people are supposed to trust, sometimes with their lives. If private entities run casinos, that's their business. But the state has more important duties than running a three-card-monte game on the corner.

[demwing]

123. You can't win at Three Card Monte - its a con.

You can win the Lottery. The numbers are against you individually, but there is a 100% chance that the game will continue till SOMEONE wins, and they always have, without fail - it's not a con. It's not even dishonest.

What it DOES do is play on the all too human desire to get rich quick - and I don't think that's the exclusive domain of the poor.

[jberryhill]

128. It's not the exclusive domain of the poor

And I didn't say it was. There is, however, a correlation between poverty and poor reasoning skills, as people like you think everything is "fair" as long as it is explained in the fine print somewhere, in contrast to billboards and TV commercials proclaiming the marvelous opportunity to get rich provided by lotteries.

Not everyone is smart or even moderately bright. That's just a fact of existence. Half of the population has below average intelligence. That is tautologically true.

Smart people have a HUGE blind spot about that fact, and while they pat themselves on the back constantly for being smart, they don't seem to realize they didn't endow themselves with their superior mental faculties. The problem is that we put smart people in charge of running all kinds of things, and these people think that as long as something is clear to a smart person, then it is "fair".

The state is in a different position than other businesses when it comes to taking advantage of people who are not rational.

[demwing]

129. Ok, let me take a few steps back...

Because I am finding myself in the position of defending the lottery, which was never my true intent. My real goal in this thread was to support the position that a national lottery would not be a tax.

I stand by that statement. A lottery would not be a tax.

Further, a lottery would be 100% voluntary. I don't buy into the hype that advertising is somehow equivalent to overwhelming compulsion.

Whether a lottery would be a good measure (or even an effective measure) is academic, in my opinion, because I don't believe a National Lottery will ever happen.

I cede the point that the lottery is played mostly (but not exclusively) by the people who can least afford it, though I do not believe those people are targeted. I also wonder whether the lottery chicken or the poverty egg came first... are the poor more likely to play lotto, or are the people who choose to do things like play lottery just less money-wise, and therefore more likely to end up under the poverty line?

[jberryhill]

130. "I do not believe those people are targeted"

Follow the billboards.

[demwing]

132. You believe it, I dont

that's all

[demwing]

108. +100 /nt

[Creideiki]

119. Seriously. Does the Obama Administration and the DLC send people over here to try floating idiotic

trial balloons?

This is among the dumbest. Please include that in a report back to your superiors.

[lonestarnot]

124. Isn't that called a pension plan?

[Ferricadouzer]

131. Ages Old Scam

That's it! Pay another buck to another dumb government fuck.

[bluestate10]

133. FOOL'S gold. nt