It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

page: 28
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Oddly enough, you wear Jealousy and Envy quite well.




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





Originally posted by doobydoll No I don't work, and I don't claim any government assistance either because I have an income.


So, you have no income, yet have access to the internet?? Now that is an interesting situation.

See underlined in my post. I HAVE an income, but I don't work, and I am not claiming government assistance.




Oh boo hoo. You don't believe me. What ever shall I do.

Keep lying to yourself and others.




Don't worry, as I am not late, because I don't depend on a Govt to steal from others, to provide for me.

Neither do I.

And I think ALL working people should be better off for having a job, unlike you.




Every wonder why your on the bottom. Probably not, as I am sure it is the fault of the Rich, and the Govt will be right along to help you out.

In the eyes of the gov and corporations, subsidising the underpaid working poor is your only worth as an overpaid taxpayer. Don't like it? Tough titties pal, you gotta lump it.




Um, maybe you missed the whole conversation, but, Govt is coming after people like me. And I still don't see how the "working poor" are getting squeezed, as anyone below $30k a year isn't paying much in income taxes. But, you go ahead and march on with that banter, of tax the upper middle class and wealthy, as we will just continue to find the loop holes, not hire people and raise prices.

That's right, more taxes for you.
They can't get anything from the working poor which is why they've moved on to those on the next rung up - you!


Corporations love people like you - if it weren't for dopey people like you, they'd be forced to pay decent wages.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Jeez, this thread is still going on, was hoping it would by gone on Monday ...

macman, no offense brother but the only angle I see you fighting for here is a selfish one.

Before you call me a progressive, I actually have my views more aligned with Libertarians, minus the whole Free Trade thing, free trade is destructive to this country as a whole and only benefits the few, instead of the many.

Before you label me jealous and envious, you should know I am a member of the 6 figure club, I work a full time job and also have a business license I use for a side business, as well.

One thing I have noticed is your not paying attention to my or other people's posts, your passion is blinding you. In one particular post you quote a guy then totally say something opposite of what he said, I don't know if your purposely twisting words or if you are honestly missing it.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt ...

I can't speak for everyone in this thread but you have assumed I want people who do nothing to get a free ride.

You couldn't be more wrong.

On the contrary, I want money from my check to stop being taken to support people who are applying themselves that have a job.

I REPEAT ...

I want money from my check to stop being taken to support people who are applying themselves that have a job.

I do not buy the bull that someone who works 30 to 40 hours a week is "just a school kid" who is "living at home". School kids work 15 to 20 hours a week for spending money. People working full time hours are trying to support families.

These people MUST be paid enough by the company they are working for to keep them off of Government assistance and out of MY check.

There will always be a hierarchy to things in life. Someone will always be there to bag your food, ring up your groceries, sweep the floors and stock the shelves. Not everyone can have a college education. Not everyone can own a home. There will always be people above AND below you. ALways.

Your argument, really makes no sense and is certainly not based in reality. What you want to do, is have people work slave labor wages, with no assistance and be at the total mercy of those above them. It will never happen. It's a dream. macman's dream.

What you propose, and the other people in this thread speaking of "economics" are saying is that unskilled workers, working full time jobs, Should be paid less than what it takes to survive.

Right?

Well, you just made triple the amount of people that have full time jobs OUR burden as taxpayers and raised our taxes as workers AND as business owners because the Companies these people work for refuse to pay these people a living wage.

Then you ask, What is a living wage? That would be a wage an average family would need to survive without being assisted. Sorry, I don't have a number for you but it is obvious the number we are using now isn't working. I know because the money is still coming out of my check to support these people, what you refer to as stealing


I am done going round and round in this thread with people, you either get it or you do not. One word of advice though, be careful what you are wishing for, I guarantee in the end, you will not like the outcome.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

See underlined in my post. I HAVE an income, but I don't work, and I am not claiming government assistance.

You have an income, but don't work??? Hmmm. Oh, so your spouse works, and you stay home. Okay then.



Originally posted by doobydoll
Keep lying to yourself and others.




Originally posted by doobydoll
Neither do I.

And I think ALL working people should be better off for having a job, unlike you.

Now you are just living in a dramatic reactionary fantasy world.
I believe everyone should work, to get what they want in this world.
You want everyone else to pay for those that don't have a better job.



Originally posted by doobydoll
In the eyes of the gov and corporations, subsidising the underpaid working poor is your only worth as an overpaid taxpayer. Don't like it? Tough titties pal, you gotta lump it.

Not really, as I have my appointment with that CPA I stated before. My taxes should be cut from around 30%ish to the high teens.
So, you were saying what again?



Originally posted by doobydoll
That's right, more taxes for you.
[/quoet]
See above


Originally posted by doobydoll
They can't get anything from the working poor which is why they've moved on to those on the next rung up - you!


Not really, as again, my taxes will go down, and being an LLC, I will be able to write off more this year and the following years.
That new Honda Pilot I have been looking at, guess what.. My company will buy it, and write it off. Thus, removing a decent chunk of taxable income.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Corporations love people like you - if it weren't for dopey people like you, they'd be forced to pay decent wages.

Oh, you are correct. I should quit my job, close up my business and go on the Govt handout, and force others to make up the difference.

And I fail to see where I am the reason why Walmart doesn't pay above the going market rate for a Greeter or Cashier. Nice try though.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





You have an income, but don't work??? Hmmm. Oh, so your spouse works, and you stay home. Okay then

Yes I have an income. No I don't work. No I don't have a spouse, or a any partner.




Now you are just living in a dramatic reactionary fantasy world. I believe everyone should work, to get what they want in this world. You want everyone else to pay for those that don't have a better job.

But many ARE working, and they still can't get a basic living let alone anything more. No I don't want everyone else to pay for those who are underpaid, I just expect their bosses to pay them, not you.




My taxes should be cut from around 30%ish to the high teens.

Not for long. It is governments job to find more ways of taxing you, one way or another, to pay it's various obligations. And you can't ever escape it.




And I fail to see where I am the reason why Walmart doesn't pay above the going market rate for a Greeter or Cashier. Nice try though.

You're not the reason why, Walmart is.

If Walmart needs a greeter or a cashier then it should pay them a proper wage. If it did, they'd be off benefits and you wouldn't have to look for ways to dodge your taxes.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
Jeez, this thread is still going on, was hoping it would by gone on Monday ...
macman, no offense brother but the only angle I see you fighting for here is a selfish one.
Before you call me a progressive, I actually have my views more aligned with Libertarians, minus the whole Free Trade thing, free trade is destructive to this country as a whole and only benefits the few, instead of the many.

Sorry, but all of your backing is not what a Libertarian stands for.
You may want to either rethink what you identify with, or research what Libertarians stand for. A living wage, or even minimum wage is not aligned with the Libertarian viewpoints, as it goes directly against the idea of small and limited Govt.


Originally posted by Tazkven
Before you label me jealous and envious, you should know I am a member of the 6 figure club, I work a full time job and also have a business license I use for a side business, as well.

And that means what to me? It is great that you are successful. Rich, poor, middle can all be envious and jealous of someone and something.


Originally posted by Tazkven
One thing I have noticed is your not paying attention to my or other people's posts, your passion is blinding you. In one particular post you quote a guy then totally say something opposite of what he said, I don't know if your purposely twisting words or if you are honestly missing it.

No, as I am reading things. I am tired of people thinking they get to dictate to others, how to run their life or business. Don't like what your job pays? Go somewhere else. Don't like what a company pays its workers? Shop somewhere else. Stop being butt hurt for others.


Originally posted by Tazkven
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt ...

Do as you like.


Originally posted by Tazkven
I can't speak for everyone in this thread but you have assumed I want people who do nothing to get a free ride.

It contradicts people being fine with the Govt stealing from me, to give to others.


Originally posted by Tazkven
You couldn't be more wrong.

Okay then. So, let Walmart run their company, let the people who want to work there work there. And, stop being butt hurt for others. If someone wants more pay, let them do the work to earn it.


Originally posted by Tazkven
On the contrary, I want money from my check to stop being taken to support people who are applying themselves that have a job.

Great. So we are in agreement. I want a flat/fair tax for everyone. No write offs for people or companies.


Originally posted by Tazkven
I REPEAT ...
I want money from my check to stop being taken to support people who are applying themselves that have a job.

Great.


Originally posted by Tazkven
I do not buy the bull that someone who works 30 to 40 hours a week is "just a school kid" who is "living at home". School kids work 15 to 20 hours a week for spending money. People working full time hours are trying to support families.

Not my problem. As in above, if I earned my pay, I should get to keep it. Not have a portion of it stolen, to make up the difference for those people.
I worked my way up in pay and position, without complaining about pay either.
I started at $7 an hour, as the youngest person in Ohio to perform pager and cell phone repairs. I worked my way up in the Telecom world.
If I can do it, so can everyone else.


Originally posted by Tazkven
These people MUST be paid enough by the company they are working for to keep them off of Government assistance and out of MY check.

No, you are not applying the stated Libertarian thought process.
The Govt shouldn't be dipping into our paycheck in the first place.
If they want more pay, work more and do something to increase your position and pay.


Originally posted by Tazkven
There will always be a hierarchy to things in life. Someone will always be there to bag your food, ring up your groceries, sweep the floors and stock the shelves. Not everyone can have a college education. Not everyone can own a home. There will always be people above AND below you. ALways.

Yes, i understand that. And those jobs should be paid, as the market dictates and those people should not receive the difference from the Govt.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
Your argument, really makes no sense and is certainly not based in reality. What you want to do, is have people work slave labor wages, with no assistance and be at the total mercy of those above them. It will never happen. It's a dream. macman's dream.

No, being dependent on yourself is how this country started and is the Libertarian philosophy you stated you are aligned with.
So, which is it? Are you Libertarian or Progressive?
And as more people suck away more of my pay, I will do more to reduce that impact. So, either way, they may get some, but I will pay someone to find ll and every loophole there is to lessen it.


Originally posted by Tazkven
What you propose, and the other people in this thread speaking of "economics" are saying is that unskilled workers, working full time jobs, Should be paid less than what it takes to survive.

Their pay is not my concern, nor is it my business nor should it be my problem.
My pay is not anyone else's concern either.
If they want more money, they need to earn it.


Originally posted by Tazkven
Well, you just made triple the amount of people that have full time jobs OUR burden as taxpayers and raised our taxes as workers AND as business owners because the Companies these people work for refuse to pay these people a living wage.

No, that is only because the Govt is allowed now, championed by many here, to steal that money from taxpayers to give to others.
If there was not the Unconstitutional mechanism in place, to steal from me to give to others, then the companies and people would not be subsidizing certain people.
If we all paid a flat 15% for sake of argument, EVERYONE paid this on income, then there would be no write off of Walmart, thus creating a level playing field for everyone, rich or poor. We would all pay the same percentage.

Now, you need to come to terms with the idea that the current structure of taxing people is grossly misaligned with how the Country was founded.
Companies, should not have greater tax write offs over people, and vice versa.
The idea of taxation was for business, not on income.
My pay, should not be pilfered to give to others because they can't get a job that pays what mine does.


Originally posted by Tazkven
Then you ask, What is a living wage? That would be a wage an average family would need to survive without being assisted. Sorry, I don't have a number for you but it is obvious the number we are using now isn't working. I know because the money is still coming out of my check to support these people, what you refer to as stealing


Yes, it is stealing, Any other instance in the world, except taxes, the act is theft and punished.
It is not the job of the company to pay a living wage. The market sets the pay for people.
Now, if a company wants to pay more, then that is their business. Same goes if they want to pay less.
Hire pay to employees, means higher overhead costs, which means a higher price of a good and/or service.
Lower pay, lower overhead, lower price.
Can companies run on a high cost business model? Sure.
But, that is their business. Not mine. Nor anyone else's.


Originally posted by Tazkven
I am done going round and round in this thread with people, you either get it or you do not. One word of advice though, be careful what you are wishing for, I guarantee in the end,

Ta-ta then.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

Yes I have an income. No I don't work. No I don't have a spouse, or a any partner.

So, either from investments, retirement and/or some form of social security.
May I ask which?




Originally posted by doobydoll
But many ARE working, and they still can't get a basic living let alone anything more. No I don't want everyone else to pay for those who are underpaid, I just expect their bosses to pay them, not you.

It is not my problem, nor is it the burden of the tax payer.
Now, I want everyone to earn as much as they can, and then some. But, it doesn't always happen like that.
It is not my responsibility, as a tax payer.
I, believe it is my duty to help my fellow man, but that is my choice. Not dictated by the Govt, nor you, nor my neighbor. I help on my terms.
10% each month is given to charity. Roughly around $900 or so. MY choice.




Originally posted by doobydoll
Not for long. It is governments job to find more ways of taxing you, one way or another, to pay it's various obligations. And you can't ever escape it.

So long as people lobby for such loopholes, I will be able to use them.



Originally posted by doobydoll
You're not the reason why, Walmart is.

No, the Govt is the one stealing my money, not Walmart.
Just because Walmart doesn't pay a certain amount, doesn't in turn mean the Govt is good to steal from me.


Originally posted by doobydoll
If Walmart needs a greeter or a cashier then it should pay them a proper wage. If it did, they'd be off benefits and you wouldn't have to look for ways to dodge your taxes.

They do pay them the proper wage. As dictated by the market. The market being comparative positions at other businesses.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

If we all paid a flat 15% for sake of argument, EVERYONE paid this on income, then there would be no write off of Walmart, thus creating a level playing field for everyone, rich or poor. We would all pay the same percentage.

Now, you need to come to terms with the idea that the current structure of taxing people is grossly misaligned with how the Country was founded.
Companies, should not have greater tax write offs over people, and vice versa.
The idea of taxation was for business, not on income.
My pay, should not be pilfered to give to others because they can't get a job that pays what mine does.


Best thing I have seen you write, I knew we could find something we agreed on!

About your other question ...

I am not Libertarian, Democrat or Republican. I hold no allegiance to any party.

Other than their FREE TRADE views, I agree most with Libertarians. They of course took many points from both major parties and incorporated into theirs. But that is another thread.

Lastly, the reality of the situation is that our tax money will always be used to feed and house the less fortunate around the world and here at home. Good luck lobbying against that.

In my mind, a good first step towards reducing it would be making sure that those that have jobs don't need our support in the first place, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





So, either from investments, retirement and/or some form of social security. May I ask which?

No social security, no benefits.

Occupational pension.




It is not my problem, nor is it the burden of the tax payer.

I agree. It should be the burden of the employer. They profit from the work their employees do for them, the gov doesn't profit from it and the taxpayer most certainly doesn't.




Just because Walmart doesn't pay a certain amount, doesn't in turn mean the Govt is good to steal from me.

People need to afford to live and it's gov's fault for allowing companies to pay less than their workers need to live on. Gov has to do whatever corporations have paid them to do, and because poor people vote too and it needs their votes, it has to sub their bad pay with taxpayer money.

If working people can't live on their pay and you also snatch away assistance, people will just TAKE what they need. No-one wants that, especially gov.




They do pay them the proper wage. As dictated by the market. The market being comparative positions at other businesses.

Obviously they don't pay a proper wage or their employees wouldn't be claiming benefits.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven


Best thing I have seen you write, I knew we could find something we agreed on!

Great.


Originally posted by Tazkven
About your other question ...

I am not Libertarian, Democrat or Republican. I hold no allegiance to any party.

Other than their FREE TRADE views, I agree most with Libertarians. They of course took many points from both major parties and incorporated into theirs. But that is another thread.

Not really, as the Libertarian mindset was well established before the Dems and Reps came into town.


Originally posted by Tazkven
Lastly, the reality of the situation is that our tax money will always be used to feed and house the less fortunate around the world and here at home. Good luck lobbying against that.

It shouldn't. Taxes were set to provide for defense, Govt in the limited aspect and that was really it.


Originally posted by Tazkven
In my mind, a good first step towards reducing it would be making sure that those that have jobs don't need our support in the first place, wouldn't you agree?

But that is where everyone looses the fact that once the bottom pay is forced by the Govt to be raised, Unconstitutionally I may add, the overhead costs for business goes up, thus driving the price for goods/service up, thus making it more expensive to purchase items, thus making it to people need more pay and then all we have is a cycle that is just as maddening as what we have now.

Here is what it all comes down to. The Govt has no business forcing a company to pay people a certain wage. That is tyranny in its most basic form.
Just like the Govt has no business in forcing citizens to pay for goods or service.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Fact: Wal-Mart increases taxes in every state they operate. $900,000.00 is added to
that state's taxes per store, leaving the average State paying $45-50 million.

Fact: Wal-Mart puts more people out of work than they actually hire, increasing the
national unemployment rate.

Fact: Wal-Mart's insistence on pushing manufacturing jobs overseas raises our trade deficit.

Fact: Wal-Mart syphons money out of local economies, which robs communities of much needed revenue.

Fact: Every Wal-Mart puts between 10-15 "Main St." stores out of business

Sorry, but your arguement is weak. If a company can't operate without paying a living wage to
all of its employees, it's a failure. China is a nation full of failed business models, and
Wal-Mart is looking to follow suit.



edit on 5-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

No social security, no benefits.

Occupational pension.

So, should someone that worked in a lower paid job, get as much as you do, after they work said job for 20+ years, having never moved upwards?



Originally posted by doobydoll
I agree. It should be the burden of the employer.

The company's only burden is to compensate someone for work performed. It is not the job of the company to compensate someone that matches the area average.
Now, if a company wants to attract good employees, then they offer better pay or better something then the competition.
If the company doesn't care, and just wants a warm body, then they are free to offer compensation as they see fit.
It is the responsibility of the person, the worker, to make sure they are paid what they feel they are worth. If they don't get paid what they want, go somewhere else.



Originally posted by doobydoll
They profit from the work their employees do for them, the gov doesn't profit from it and the taxpayer most certainly doesn't.

Yes, as that is the relationship of work to company. The worker has no say in the company, it is not theirs to dictate such things.
As yes the Govt does profit, as they steal money from the company, the owner and the worker.
The worker profits by having a job that compensates for work performed.




Originally posted by doobydoll
People need to afford to live and it's gov's fault for allowing companies to pay less than their workers need to live on.

Govt's fault???
Look, things where you live, under a Monarchy, is not like it is here.
We are granted freedom of choice, basic freedoms.
Govt has no business in dictating what a company pays someone for a job.
Sorry, but OUR country was created as such.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Gov has to do whatever corporations have paid them to do, and because poor people vote too and it needs their votes, it has to sub their bad pay with taxpayer money.

Yeah, so 2 wrongs equal right in your book???
Not so much mine.


Originally posted by doobydoll
If working people can't live on their pay and you also snatch away assistance, people will just TAKE what they need. No-one wants that, especially gov.

Assistance should be very limited in nature and not for an extended period of time.
People taking?? OH, like the Govt taking from me.
Again, 2 wrongs.




Originally posted by doobydoll
Obviously they don't pay a proper wage or their employees wouldn't be claiming benefits.

No, People claim benefits because they are taught here, by people of your mindset that it isn't fair that someone else has more then them.
Has nothing to do with a "proper" wage.

Want more money??? Get a better paying job.
Very simple.
Stop looking for Govt and everyone else to provide for you.


edit on 5-8-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 





That is business, free will and free market applications being applied.

But, that falls on deaf ears, as your Progressive statements show that you want More and Bigger Govt controlling more aspects of life.

And no, the success of a company is shown by profits, not what they provide for workers.
That is a simple as it gets.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


That is business, free will and free market applications being applied.

But, that falls on deaf ears, as your Progressive statements show that you want More and Bigger Govt controlling more aspects of life.

And no, the success of a company is shown by profits, not what they provide for workers.
That is a simple as it gets.


I don't want the Government to have to intervene with business, but I do want a little corporate responsibilty.

If a business cuts every corner in the book, negates the environment, forces taxes to go, adds to the deficit, and after allllllll that STILL can't afford to pay a living wage, it's a failure.

Sorry, but the freemarket fails when it drags down a country in the process.





edit on 5-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
I'm fine with raising the minimum wage to a (reasonable) living wage, but to single out one company like they have here is ridiculous. I have big problems with Wal Mart, but what they've done is single out one company and forced them to adhere to laws that don't apply to others, which is ludicrous.

Seattle Mayor just got caught making an ass out of himself for something similar with Whole Foods, claiming they payed workers too low. Turns out they actually pay higher. It was pretty obvious he was trying to garner support from the unions.


I have a buddy who works at whole foods in the produce department.... he has been there for 2 years and is making over $18/hr and gets full benefits. I agree with you, if they want to raise minimum wage then raise it, and singling out one employer is crazy and in my opinion highly illegal. The only problem with raising minimum wage is going to be the inflation that goes along with it so someone making a minimum wage of $12/hr at the end of the day will still feel like they are making $8/hr after they pay rent & utilities, buy gas and food and then maybe hit one night out on the own every month or so.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


I don't want the Government to have to intervene with business, but I do want a little corporate responsibilty.

What a fantastic contradiction, all within a single sentence.
You either believe in people and business being free, or you don't.
Sounds like the moronic statement of "common sense gun control".
You either believe in rights, or you don't.
Forcing a business to act in a way, that you and people in Govt see as more responsible is more akin to stating giant shrimp.




Originally posted by Garkiniss
If a business cuts every corner in the book, negates the environment, forces taxes to go, adds to the deficit, and after allllllll that STILL can't afford to pay a living wage, it's a failure.

Again, you are fine with people and business doing what they want, so long as they do what they want, under your wants and needs.
Sounds about right, when dealing with the Progressive mindset.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
Sorry, but the freemarket fails when it drags down a country in the process.

No, that is the free market. Good or bad, this country was designed to allow for both.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

You either believe in people and business being free, or you don't.
Sounds like the moronic statement of "common sense gun control".
You either believe in rights, or you don't.
Forcing a business to act in a way, that you and people in Govt see as more responsible is more akin to stating giant shrimp.


The simplest concepts really do escape you, don't they? Believing in freedom doesn't mean you can't support consequences. The consequence in this case is regulation as a result of unethical and damaging business practices.



Again, you are fine with people and business doing what they want, so long as they do what they want, under your wants and needs.
Sounds about right, when dealing with the Progressive mindset.


And you're promoting slavery. Guess who maintains the moral high ground?



No, that is the free market. Good or bad, this country was designed to allow for both.


So you admit it's a failed business model. Glad we can agree on something.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

No, that is the free market. Good or bad, this country was designed to allow for both.




How to spot dishonesty: when someone refers to what we have going on here in the United States as a "free market", and then supports deplorable actions and behaviors from corporate entities.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by supremecommander
 


What we have currently is not a free market, but a bastardized version of it.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join