Class Warfare a la Joe the Lip

July 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Class Warfare a la Joe the Lip

05 July 2011

George Rebane

This Sunday VP Joe Biden was speaking to fellow travelers at a Washington meeting of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union. He didn’t have to hold back on his deep-seated belief that more socialism is better, and he let it all hang out. To his audience our Vice President incredulously characterized the conservatives with –

They believe that one percent of the wage earners, controlling 24% of the wealth in this country, is a vehicle by which you can spur economic growth, because those with the wealth know the most and will know best what to do with that wealth.

Yes, the ones earning the wealth have always known what best to do with it. Our country has believed that for over two centuries. And now other countries are picking up on this principle of economic freedom, as our own memory of its blessings begins to fade. You bet your sweet butt Joe – you really nailed it with that little piece of class warfare demagoguery.

Posted in Current Affairs, Happenings, Our Country

157 responses to “Class Warfare a la Joe the Lip”

Paul Emery

07 July 2011

So Greg are you willing to give Bush a pass on his pathetic job creation record because of the Clinton “recession” and circumstances that followed? If so then why don’t you give Obama he same look? The fact is that historically tax cuts do not lead to job creation. I know you’ll turn to Reagan as an example but his tax cuts were accompanied by a tripling of the deficit meaning future generations will pay for the tax cuts to the affluent. Pretty simple math.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

Paul, regarding your colorful description of ‘trickle down economics’ “meaning the 1% rich peeing on the middle class”.
Talk about propaganda and demagoguery based in hatred!
Who creates jobs and pays wages?
Who produces the goods/services demanded by the world’s consumers?
Who’s spending spurs economic growth?
Who pays the majority of the taxes in America?!?
Who funds research and development to bring us medical cures/treatments?
Solutions will not come from hatred.

LikeLike
George Rebane

07 July 2011

PaulE, Great Society’s historical impact on America is axiomatic as to the course changes it gave to almost every dimension of the country’s life. Numerous authors from both sides have waxed eloquently about it effects, both vilifying and celebrating the new directions taken. It is hard for me to believe that this is all news to you. And since it is an axiomatic aspect of modern American life, I am not prepared to start debating with you the equivalent of the breathability of oxygen. But if you persist in your amazement, I will dig up a few references for you and anyone else who may cohabit that lonely corner of Neverland.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

Politician Emery, “Timber and all the other resources you mentioned will be harvested for who?” how about growing economies like China?
“1980 to present, we have implemented your policies”- stinky bullshit. Insane corporate tax rates, high tax rates, forced SS and Medicare taxes, Obamacare, bailouts, zero % interest rates at the FED, stimulus [to name a few] are all AGAINST our policies.
Never have Americans been taxed more, regulated more and ‘pissed on’ [to use Paul’s term] more by central planners than today.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

07 July 2011

The first two Obama years were just a continuation of the last two Bush years, except Pelosi and Reid were now guaranteed a signature and not a veto. Pelosi unleashed, we had an explosion of government spending which expanded government employment while productive private employment contracted.
We had our trillion+ in spending that Obama recently joked wasn’t quite “shovel ready”, and our infrastructure isn’t rebuilt.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

07 July 2011

“I know you’ll turn to Reagan as an example but his tax cuts were accompanied by a tripling of the deficit” – Paul E
I was happy not to have ever voted for Reagan, but revenues grew during his Presidency even as rates were cut. It’s just that spending, thanks to Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill, grew much faster.
Bush I made a no new taxes pledge, but in a spirit of bipartisanship he agreed to a tax increase with promises of spending cuts, which didn’t happen. The Speaker apparently had his fingers crossed when making that promise…

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

For Paul Emery: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/draghi/Middle%20Class%20Taxes.png
does not include 2010

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

07 July 2011

PaulE and BenE represent the people that are simply exhibiting the primal human emotion of jealousy (I do admit I am jealous of Paul’s musical ability though). They cloak their disdain in the hate of those that financially “make it” in America with a political ropa-dope technique and leftwing talking points. They are the victims of the evil capitalist, mainly the wascally republicans. In America we have succeeded up till about 1990 because people were competing with each other to gain perfection. When it became simply outcome based in America, ruined by all those rules and regulations to lower the playing field to the lowest common denominator, we became a failed state. The proof of all this is in our place in the economies of the planet.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

07 July 2011

D.K. – You had better stop digging the hole you’re in. You were arguing that the wealthy do not pay their fair share for infrastructure and that was why all of the wealthy should have their taxes raised. When I pointed out that to be factually inaccurate, you countered with an example of the wealthy (they generally aren’t) general aviation owners getting a free ride at the Nevada County airport with a re-paved runway at the general population’s expense. I assumed you were ignorant of the real reason there was a need for re-paving. So now you are crowing about how you know all about why they had the general population pay for the re-paving. What am I left to think? I don’t like name calling but it seems to me that you deliberately presented a false argument to prop up your side of the argument. We can have an honest disagreement and a lively back and forth, but trying to “win” by those means is just sad. I’d appreciate your side of this issue.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

07 July 2011

Scott, you broke Keachie’s code, but I think you have it wrong in an important detail. It may be that when he sees an argument to be made that fits what he wants to believe, he just forgets the contrary evidence.
The biggest single subsidy to the local airport was from the donation of the land by Charles Litton Sr, who had a lot of money he earned the old fashioned way, and believed an airport was important to the community.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

07 July 2011

George
Which of these do you feel are the culprit? I assume you are referring to negative impacts. I was expecting you to produce some examples of programs or legislation, Medicare for example or the Civil Rights Act or:
“War on Poverty: forty programs that were intended to eliminate poverty by improving living conditions and enabling people to lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty.
Education: sixty separate bills that provided for new and better-equipped classrooms, minority scholarships, and low-interest student loans.
Medicare & Medicaid: guaranteed health care to every American over sixty-five.
The Environment: introduced measures to reclaim our heritage of clean air and water.
National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities: created with the philosophy that artists, performers, and writers were a priceless part of our heritage and deserve support.
Job Corps: provided enabling skills for young men and women.
Head Start: program for four- and five-year-old children from disadvantaged families that gave them a chance to start school on an even basis with other youngsters.”
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/gresoc.htm

LikeLike
Paul Emery

07 July 2011

Todd
You are so dramatic! I am only proposing we return to the tax rates of the Clinton-Gingrich years. That’s hardly draconian and is proven to be sustainable and capable of producing a balanced budget. Yes, I believe trickle down is a deception and a casual look at history proves my argument. Reagan knowingly spent more than we earned leaving the debt for future generations. He was a failed President that tripled the deficit with help from Bush Sr. This is an indisputable fact. If he were hired to run a business he would have been fired.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

07 July 2011

Paul, trickle down worked and Clinton/Gingrich proved it.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

07 July 2011

Then you must agree with the tax rate they had. If they would have had todays tax rate we would have run a deficit rather than a surplus that actually paid down the debt before Bush came in and lowered taxes causing massive debt.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

Todd, I agree (“primal human emotion of jealousy… They cloak their disdain in the hate of those that financially “make it” in America”). The class warfare promoted by the progressives is based on envy, jealousy and hatred against those who have succeeded.
How would Paul E like it if ‘society’ voted to steal his ability to play music in order to give such an ability to someone such as you or I that felt that playing music was a ‘right’ promised to us by “pursuit of happiness?”
Check this out (2081): http://vimeo.com/7898284

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

07 July 2011

Paul, make that a return to the rates and the budgets of the Gingrich years and you have a deal.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

Paul, are you aware that we could make Federal Income Taxes ZERO today and still have the same income/budget we had 12 years ago!?! Income is NOT THE PROBLEM, SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
Don’t forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
What did Clinton have that Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 did not?
A booming economy (thanks to the tech revolution).

LikeLike
Mikey McD

07 July 2011

Without taking on $1 of more debt…
FACT: The United States Of America could make Federal Income Tax rates ZERO for all US Citizens and still have the same budget as 1996 WITHOUT USING ANY DEBT.
1996 US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET (EXPENSES) WERE $1.5 TRILLION.
2010 (ESTIMATED) US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCOME WITHOUT INCOME TAXES IS EXPECTED TO BE $1.5 TRILLION.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

07 July 2011

“Who creates jobs and pays wages?”
The consumers who pay for goods and services offered.
“Who produces the goods/services demanded by the world’s consumers?”
The employees of the capitalists.
“Who’s spending spurs economic growth?”
The consumers.
“Who pays the majority of the taxes in America?!?”
The consumers who put their money in the hands of capitalists in exchange for goods and services provided by the employees.
“Who funds research and development to bring us medical cures/treatments?”
The consumers who brought earlier drugs and hospital services, etc.
It’s all how you look at it.
No consumers and the capitalists would be digging for grubs.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

07 July 2011

‘ “Who creates jobs and pays wages?”
The consumers who pay for goods and services offered.’
Not in this universe, unless you are using definitions of “creates”, “pays” and “wages” that aren’t in the dictionary.

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

07 July 2011

How many jobs can a capitalist create without consumers?
The answer is ZERO (0) null nada nothin.
How can a capitalist pay wages with consumers paying money?
HE CAN’T!
and so on.

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

07 July 2011

“How can a capitalist pay wages with consumers paying money?”
should be:
“How can a capitalist pay wages without consumers paying money?”
Wifey Poo interrupted me with discussion of gardening.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Keachie, it would be extremely tormenting to live in your world (ignorance of economic laws and common sense logic coupled with undeserved confidence).
p.s. I would strongly suggest Peter Schiff’s “How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes” as a pseudo econ101 tutorial.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

08 July 2011

Douglas does exist in a different world. Nowhere in his “circle of capital” does he acknowledge that the capitalists produce anything of value. His view of life and commerce is controlled by his prejudice and hatred. Capitalists are just like you and I, with the exception that they work harder and take more risks. Most of the time, they make more money. Some times they lose a lot of money. Some times they are greedy and stupid and lose a great deal of money. But if the greedy and stupid ones are politically connected, left wing politicians give them our money. I suppose it’s only fair, as the left wing politicians also give our money to greedy and stupid people of all walks of life, here and all over the world. Is this a great country or what?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

Greg
Sure Greg, let’s return to the Newt-Clinton budget . However, how do you propose we pay for Bush’s trillion dollar war in Iraq? War tax ?
Oh I forgot, mission accomplished.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

08 July 2011

Paul, if my chosen candidate had won in ’88, we’d never have sent troops to the middle east.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

08 July 2011

Paul, if my chosen candidate had won in ’88, we’d never have sent troops to the middle east.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

’88? I didn’t know you were a Dukakis guy?

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Dear Paul,
Our records show that you spend a considerable amount of time entertaining both yourself and crowds via playing guitar. As you are aware their are millions of Americans who are entitled to play guitar who, through no fault of their own, cannot carry a tune. In light of this injustice we are requiring you to decrease the amount of music you play (leisure and otherwise) by 45% in order to equalize the inequalities in the United States arts community. You are required to spend the 45% of would-be guitar time tutoring a struggling guitarist. Furthermore, you must now report how many hours you play (leisure and otherwise) to the Board of Art Equalization for annual review. Should the Board of Art Equalization deem your abilities and time allotted to guitar as excessive you will be reprimanded.
We understand that you may believe that your years of practice may entitle you to your musical gifts, the Board of Art Equalization does not agree. Protest of this law is futile. Punishments for knowingly breaking the aforementioned law is punishable by further decreases in your guitar playing allotment time, confiscation of your guitar(s) and prison time.
The Board of Art Equalization thanks you for your helping to equalize the injustices inherent in the art community.
Thank you,
Loot Mooch
Board of Art Equalization Czar

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

Todd, Mikey
Just because I believe in a progressive income tax doesn’t mean I hate or envy wealthy people. That’s such a silly diversion from meaningful discussion it makes me wonder if you have anything better to say. Most of the best managed nations in the world have progressive taxes. In fact, show me a modern nation that doesn’t. I keep looking for current examples of what you espouse but you offer none so it seems like a fairy tale to me with no substance.

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2011

PaulE, all of your responses assume as an article of faith that the “best managed nations” are some kind of templates of stability, goodness, and light for the United States. They are not, and that is a tenuous assumption.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Paul, to accept and promote a system whereby the property of one class of people is targeted differently than that of another class is founded in hate [envy, jealousy, discrimination]. Discussion on a Flat or Fair Tax have permeated this blog (and others). It is hypocritical to espouse a philosophy of discrimination against some in the name of equality or justice. You are sincerely lucky to not be discriminated against in the manner which you push on others. The debate starts with personal liberty (private property) and no progressive wants to ‘go there.’

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Are a man’s wages/income his property or The States? Who do you trust to draw the line between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ when ‘the dues of society’ are invoiced?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

Okay Mikey, please show me some contemporary countries that have the tax systems you prefer.

LikeLike
Greg Goodknight

08 July 2011

Dukakis?
Shirley, you jest! 😉 He would have been the same, love those tanker hats.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

George
Let’s start with infant mortality, crime, education, infrastructure, stability, freedom, equal opportunity, lack of racism, environment, workplace safety, transportation, affordable health care, home ownership opportunity, low crime rate….
I will advance the discussion with examples being Scandinavia, New Zealand Switzerland and Canada. All have progressive income taxes.
Come on guys, you spout all this rhetoric about how things should be without any examples. I do my best to document what I offer.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Paul, no other country in the world has a constitutional republic which defends a man’s right to private property. I am talking about the USA which has a culture based on individual liberty (private property). Your dodging my questions shows (again) that progressives ‘don’t want to go there.’
Are a man’s wages/income his property or The States? Who do you trust to draw the line between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ when ‘the dues of society’ are invoiced?

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Imagine if the writers of the US constitution were forced to use systems already in place around the world circa 1776- we would most likely have a monarchy (or worse). America LEADS, she does not follow.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

USA 1912 (before the plague of collectivism spread).
“Okay Mikey, …tax systems you prefer.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:04 PM “

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

Mikey
Are you sure the countries that I mentioned don’t defend the right to own property? I’d appreciate it if you did a little research before stating that as a fact. I don’t have time to do your research.
I was hoping for contemporary examples of admirable tax systems not those 100 years old. Todd will be angry at you for dwelling on the past.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

I couldn’t help but look it up
Home ownership
Ireland 82% Japan 60
Spain 80 Portugal 59
Luxembourg 77 United States 59
Norway 73 Finland 58
Belgium 72 Sweden 55
Greece 72 France 54
Italy 68 Netherlands 46
United Kingdom 67 Germany 40
Canada 64 Switzerland 29
Denmark 60

LikeLike
Mikey McD

08 July 2011

Strike three Paul! Again you ignore my simple, yet foundational questions. Taxes paid were once private property. Any country with the tax structure you promote [those listed above] doesn’t value/honor personal liberty (private property).
BTW, the majority of the countries you cite for ‘home ownership’ (which be definition does not equate to private property) are defaulting on their debts! Foreshadowing for the US…

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2011

PaulE, what if we posit all the positives that you present for your favorite socialist countries. Their overarching problem still remains that no one from an advanced country wants to go there, and no one from an underdeveloped country that has the US as an alternative. And that entrepreneurs who can liberate their money leave in droves. And since none of them have a sustainable system – as you have ignored countless times – they are all attempting to liberalize their economies and personal liberties in order to keep their wealth creating talents at home.
This is the 47th circuit of the same old barn – we are not making progress in this discussion. But we are underlining the growing interest in the Great Divide.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

Mikey
The countries that I cited as prime examples of well run countries that have a progressive income tax are Norway, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand not the general list of percentages of home ownership. The burden is on you to show me they (well run countries) are defaulting on their debts as you claim. Norway has the best credit rating of any country in the world. Give me some contemporary examples of countries that do not have progressive tax structures that you admire. Please, no 100 year old examples.
George
I gave you examples of what I thought were “well managed countries” that have progressive income taxes. Before you dismiss my efforts with the same old response you could at least make an effort to give me some living examples of countries that you admire that do not have a progressive tax system. I feel I’m the only one here that is in the real world. George, earlier in this post you weren’t sure if Norway and Denmark were socialist countries but now you say they are. Can you explain your change of opinion? When asked if you thought they were socialistic you responded
“PaulE, I have no idea. But their state run programs seem to be gobbling up an ever greater fraction of their GDP. As the song says, ‘Something’s gotta give.’

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2011

PaulE, I can’t find that quote of mine in this comment stream. Please help.
Regardless, Norway and Denmark are markedly more socialist than yet is America. What I can’t communicate to you is that I and others like me are not searching for other countries that we want America to be like or for America to emulate. We are an idealistic bunch, with a heritage that goes back to colonial times (e.g. as observed by de Tocqueville), who believe that America is exquisitely unique, warts and all, and already on a path on which we have a myriad of followers but no leaders. You seem to belong to the cohort who see better countries dot the horizon and after which we should strive, even as you cherry pick their (unsustainable) attributes and ask ‘Why can’t we do that?’
I see no such countries, and know that I can’t even replicate your cherry picks in the US because of unnumbered linkages that will not fit into the simple unlinked worldview so dear to socialists. We have no model to follow, but must instead continue to better ourselves within the framework of our destiny.

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2011

PaulE, I did a more comprehensive search with Google, and found the quote you cited under my post ‘Democracy Bound …’
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/06/democracy-bound-on-the-ship-of-fools-.html
You committed an uncharacteristic boo-boo, one that I’m at a loss to explain, other than perhaps your succumbing to the stress of a debate that seems to be slipping away. In the comment stream you ask me – “So George under your definition (are) Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland Socialist countries on the path to Communism?”
To which I answered, “PaulE, I have no idea. But their state run programs seem to be gobbling up an ever greater fraction of their GDP. As the song says, ‘Something’s gotta give.’”
And from my not knowing the surety of their path to communism, you cobbled together the claim that I changed my mind about the named countries being socialistic. This is something I would expect from Messrs Keachie, Ben Emery, and Thornton. Et tu Paulus?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

08 July 2011

My mistake. I stand corrected George. I understand now that you always considered those, and all EU countries as well as New Zealand to be Socialistic so you did not contradict yourself. Also you do not necessarily see Socialism as a sure path to Communism.
Why shouldn’t we say ‘why can’t we do that?’ In many areas the quality of life in cited countries far surpasses ours in areas I’ve already documented such as education, crime rates, home ownership, gender equality, health care on and on… If you had a business and you saw a similar venture surpassing you in many functional areas I’m sure you would give a hard look at the reasons and try to incorporate those practices in your operation. I doubt you would say “Back in 1914 we used to do it this way and we need to go back to those practices. The overall imminent collapse of cited Socialistic countries is only a theory at this point and is not embraced by the vast majority of worldwide economic observers.
Idealism will only get you so far. Trying to emulate an economic situation of 100 years ago and saying that’s the way it should be today without any details or current examples will only attract the interest of like minded “ideologues” and will have no chance of ever being adopted. From my observations I see that the push and pull of the Right and Left is healthy and productive without either side having total control. That’s why the Clinton-Gingrich years produced a balanced budget. Bush Jr ignored even his chief economic advisors and led us down the dark path of massive debt by not correcting his decision to cut taxes which in no way has proven to be a job creator. That’s why the TP’s are in my opinion ready for the history books because they will undermine any potential for compromise and will soon be marginalized by the more pragmatic elements of the Republican party.
You and your buglers always come up short when asked for examples preferring to to chant dogma. As Reagan would say “Where’s the beef?”
On a slightly different topic, immigration rules in Europe are very strict and if you don’t bring it with you ((money) you can’t stay legally. They did get flooded with cheap labor workers in the 70’s and 80’s and are now suffering the consequences. I knew many Americans who wanted to immigrate legally to Denmark but did not qualify. They were attracted to a system that did not allow them to go bankrupt and lose their home if they had a heart attack.

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 July 2011

Your points about innovation in governance are valid PaulE. My disappointment is that I and my “buglers” come across to you as Neanderthals who want to go back in every aspect to the dim dark distant past (another oversimplification). As a lifelong entrepreneur and certified innovator I am not like that, nor have I ever witnessed my peers over a long professional career to be so afflicted.
Instead, we have always invented, developed, and built new things and approaches that society embraced to its benefit, and that includes socialization processes like group innovation and conflict resolution.
The only thing that we yearn for from yesteryear is the individual liberties people had under a much smaller and less intrusive government. Returning to that is very much the “meat” of what we preach today. What we can do when turned loose has blown away the innovative approaches and products of the left, and are guaranteed to continue doing so.
It really seems that you have little idea from where bright futures for mankind come. But your first clue should be that since at least the French Revolution, they have not come from the broad brush of collectivism.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

09 July 2011

I’d like top know what “liberties” other that the ability to keep more of your earnings you are referring to. I never heard any complaints from the people I knew in Scandinavia about a lack of liberty. The historical reference of pre 1912 or whatever close date somewhat coincides with the beginning of income tax so I assume that is your main concern. There are more liberties when you have small populations and lots of land that are inherited in the lifestyles of the times. I am very concerned about the electronic surveillance authorized by the Bush Admin that your side was very quiet about. Also, look into the government intrusion into the lives of those who grow illegal foliage, something that has not raised the concerns of most Conservatives, true Libertarians excepted.
Since you consider all of Europe to be socialist and collectivist, I assume you do not consider the contributions of those cultures in Science, Art and Academics to be significant.

LikeLike
George Rebane

09 July 2011

Wow PaulE, that’s quite a mouthful of propositions in just one comment. It looks like once you got on a roll, your brakes gave out.
For liberties, yes keeping more of one’s earnings is one, but only a matter of degree. The one that we can start with is freedom of speech. Most EU countries constrain it in more ways than you can count. All the way from denying the Holocaust to various types of loosie-goosie libel laws to not saying anything that might unravel a turban here or there. And then we can go on to starting a business, renting a house, entering a market, … .
Re electronic surveillance – you have not paid much attention to the pieces here in RR about that. I continually point out not only the steps that government has already taken here in America, but also the support of tyranny that almost all of our modern warfare systems enable once a perverse government points them inward toward us. You may remember, I helped design many of those systems and know precisely how they can be used to invoke a 3am knock at your door. (Also, stay tuned for my tomorrow’s post.)
BTW, the government is not using even its little finger to nail “illegal foliage” growers for reasons which we have discussed before. But they could any time they wanted to.
Have no idea how came up with your last assumption. I’ll just attribute it to brake failure and say a little prayer for a soft landing.

LikeLike