jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 11, 2015 18:04:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 2:26:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 18:17:20 GMT -5
What percentage of our spending goes to these programs? What percentage of the recipients actually aren't working ?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 11, 2015 19:46:58 GMT -5
I'm enjoying watching Europe go down in flames. So busy being PC that they're selling out their constituents, just like ours do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 2:26:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 20:29:00 GMT -5
The problem with "listening to the TEA Party" is all the religious baggage that went along with the fairly decent fiscal ideas.
If we could only have a Party that had the good fiscal qualities of the TEA Party... but without the religious garbage.
ETA: Ohhh... wait. We do. It's called the Libertarian Party.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 11, 2015 22:04:58 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 11, 2015 23:05:42 GMT -5
If you go to the original article from the Street it does link to the article you found. When you actually read the CBO report it kind of makes this article look like a joke. According to the report spending will be up, wages will be up, unemployment will be down, debt as a percent of GDP is lower than last year, the deficit is 60 billion lower than projected for this year, US interest payments are expected to drop 5%, the GDP is expected to continue growing. Overall the news seems very positive considering we just dug out of a massive recession. But I guess some just really, really want to believe the country is going down the crapper and will twist even positive news to their liking.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 12, 2015 0:35:38 GMT -5
I'm enjoying watching Europe go down in flames. So busy being PC that they're selling out their constituents, just like ours do. You're ENJOYING seeing countries go down in flames? Wow. You're all heart.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2015 7:00:06 GMT -5
They're doing it to themselves. No sympathy. One day their people will wake up just like ours and throw out the shit leaders who sold out their country and their people for thirty pieces of silver. Hopefully before it's too late. Australia and New Zealand look better all the time.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Sept 12, 2015 7:28:56 GMT -5
All this screaming and yelling about "the welfare programs" and " entitlements"
Are we talking about the welfare programs to big corporations and bankers and the fact that they feel entitled to it or about the chump change spent on supporting a single mother with 2-3 kids and no job prospects and poor old Joe that lost his pension in 2008? Because numbers don't lie!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2015 7:53:13 GMT -5
All this screaming and yelling about "the welfare programs" and " entitlements" Are we talking about the welfare programs to big corporations and bankers and the fact that they feel entitled to it or about the chump change spent on supporting a single mother with 2-3 kids and no job prospects and poor old Joe that lost his pension in 2008? Because numbers don't lie! Check the budget sometime:
Healthcare Spending $900B (and growing fast)
Pensions $750B
Welfare $450B
Corporate Subsidies... $100B
So which ones are busting the budget?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2015 7:55:51 GMT -5
If you go to the original article from the Street it does link to the article you found. When you actually read the CBO report it kind of makes this article look like a joke. According to the report spending will be up, wages will be up, unemployment will be down, debt as a percent of GDP is lower than last year, the deficit is 60 billion lower than projected for this year, US interest payments are expected to drop 5%, the GDP is expected to continue growing. Overall the news seems very positive considering we just dug out of a massive recession. But I guess some just really, really want to believe the country is going down the crapper and will twist even positive news to their liking. Oh, and the rise in national debt will stagnate economic growth within 10 years.
And the CBO blames the bleak long-term economic outlook on large deficits that occurred under Obama's stimulus, as well as the many Americans leaving the labor force and taking refuge under the government's umbrella instead of making their own.
And also, the retirement of the baby boomers and the lack of motivation in the workforce will also hike up the debt burden by causing future deficits.
And don't forget to mention, the CBO believes that we'll see deficits as high as $1 trillion by 2025.
But, yeah, total rosey outlook ahead huh? Liberal paradise, apparently
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 12, 2015 8:10:45 GMT -5
Why do you keep not posting the first part of the paragraph?
"Although we should see slight improvement over the next couple of years as we climb out of the crater-sized hole George W. Bush left in his wake, ..."
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 12, 2015 8:21:04 GMT -5
Not a paradise, but we've also endured some expensive war spending and TARP which was originally $700 Billion by itself. Some did get repaid, but it looks like the losses were balanced out by dividends received and fees.
projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
Some very large companies do double dipping on welfare and SNAP. It allows them to hire people PT and feel good about it as they provide the government resource handout plus if you are places like Walmart or a grocery store lot of that SNAP and Welfare money gets spent in your store as well. Win win for them.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2015 8:34:45 GMT -5
You don't like working for Walmart? Get an education, stop committing crimes, and don't have babies you can't afford to feed. Just like not giving handouts and jobs to illegals will make them self deport, there are answers.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Sept 12, 2015 9:07:54 GMT -5
"...get an education...stop having babies..." How? It is engrained in people minds that going to school means taking loans backed up by government. Education funding won't make the list under a Tea Party leadership. Stop having babies- is that even an option for some? Considering the latest developments with Planed Parenthood and so on, there won't be any choice. Education and having babies are very much related to each other but if there is no funding for neither how do you achieve that? Acording to most of conservative agenda, pregnancy termination or birth control for that matter would be illegal as in " murder" classified.
We do need to keep people having babies! We need those babies to grow up and not follow their dreams of becoming architects and engineers and doctors but join the ranks of our military and fight unwarranted wars because that's where the money is. You grow up and open your hardware store and sell the 1/2 " bolt for $1/ piece. Now if you'd get a defense contract, that same bolt would bring you $10-12/ piece.
Thats where the money is, that's where the drain is not in providing Jill with $500/ month with food stamps or grandma Jane with Medicare!
Why is it that when people talk about budgets and deficits nobody dare touches the defense budget? So we don't want to provide people with a decent education or health care but we want people to be able to shoot at each other. We don't want people to have more babies because they are a burden to the budget to raise the kids but once they are grown we want them to become soldiers or allow us to use them as cheap labor since we refuse to fund a decent education for them.
Is there a problem with the budget? You bet your ass there is! Forever growing debt and deficits and so on but the problem is not poor uneducated people but smart, well educated and well dressed individuals who made and still make decisions that are to their own advantage. None of them has the interests of the country as a whole at heart or its future but the growth of their own wealth!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 12, 2015 9:24:24 GMT -5
If you go to the original article from the Street it does link to the article you found. When you actually read the CBO report it kind of makes this article look like a joke. According to the report spending will be up, wages will be up, unemployment will be down, debt as a percent of GDP is lower than last year, the deficit is 60 billion lower than projected for this year, US interest payments are expected to drop 5%, the GDP is expected to continue growing. Overall the news seems very positive considering we just dug out of a massive recession. But I guess some just really, really want to believe the country is going down the crapper and will twist even positive news to their liking. Oh, and the rise in national debt will stagnate economic growth within 10 years.
And the CBO blames the bleak long-term economic outlook on large deficits that occurred under Obama's stimulus, as well as the many Americans leaving the labor force and taking refuge under the government's umbrella instead of making their own.
And also, the retirement of the baby boomers and the lack of motivation in the workforce will also hike up the debt burden by causing future deficits.
And don't forget to mention, the CBO believes that we'll see deficits as high as $1 trillion by 2025.
But, yeah, total rosey outlook ahead huh? Liberal paradise, apparently
Your quoting the totally misleading article again. Read what the cbo put out and try to actually find where they said all that. I looked and couldn't. Like the part about Americans leaving the workforce - it is people retiring...is that suddenly a bad thing?. Unemployment is actually projected to drop, which seems like a good thing. Your article is crap as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 12, 2015 9:26:37 GMT -5
And if you already have an education, haven't committed any crimes, have no children or they are launched what is your answer then? Not all of these folks are old enough to settle for early retirement. That does leave more possibilities for the rest, but as I read your post it reminds me of a guy in his fifties who died in his sleep of a heart attack while looking for work. He was a dedicated volunteer and was married.
Not everyone working at your Walmart or grocery store is a loser.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2015 10:53:30 GMT -5
Nope but it's one thing to work there bcuz you're bored or need a part time job. It's another to think it should be a salary you can live on and reproduce as well. That's ludicrous. You don't need to go hugely in debt to get job training. Phlebotomist s. CNA's. There's other options.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 2:26:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2015 10:54:12 GMT -5
How much do you think CNA's make? ... You know how many Military families qualify for food stamps, etc?...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 12, 2015 11:01:18 GMT -5
I think CNA is a young person's job and not that well paid. Its $1K or more for training and many start at $10/hr. or lower in CNJ. Not sure about the other, but neither appeal to me. (After quite a few years of experience, a CNA can work privately for $16 to $18/hr., however, in CNJ that qualifies them for mid-level affordable housing.)
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2015 11:16:32 GMT -5
Oh, and the rise in national debt will stagnate economic growth within 10 years.
And the CBO blames the bleak long-term economic outlook on large deficits that occurred under Obama's stimulus, as well as the many Americans leaving the labor force and taking refuge under the government's umbrella instead of making their own.
And also, the retirement of the baby boomers and the lack of motivation in the workforce will also hike up the debt burden by causing future deficits.
And don't forget to mention, the CBO believes that we'll see deficits as high as $1 trillion by 2025.
But, yeah, total rosey outlook ahead huh? Liberal paradise, apparently
Your quoting the totally misleading article again. Read what the cbo put out and try to actually find where they said all that. I looked and couldn't. Like the part about Americans leaving the workforce - it is people retiring...is that suddenly a bad thing?. Unemployment is actually projected to drop, which seems like a good thing. Your article is crap as far as I'm concerned. Really? Because this article pretty much says the same: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/government-debt-threatens-to-send-us-economy-into-/?page=all
Rising federal debt threatens to choke economic growth within a decade, beginning a death spiral that will sap revenue from government programs even as demands grow, forcing the government to borrow even more, Congress‘ budget watchdog said in a frightening report Tuesday.
Budget cuts or tax increases now would help avert that scary scenario, leaving the economy far stronger than it otherwise would be, the Congressional Budget Office said in the starkest warning yet by the independent agency that putting off tough decisions will only make things worse.
The report — the first major one under new CBO Director Keith Hall — also takes aim at some traditional liberal arguments, finding that government investment yields only half the return on investment compared with the private sector and that money transfers to the poor act as “implicit taxes,” keeping them out of the labor force and depressing the economy further
And I don't quite see the rosy picture you see in this report: www.cbo.gov/publication/50250
Short-term, yes it will be okay, but long term we're f'ed.
The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years, in the wake of the 2007–2009 recession and slow recovery. Between 2008 and 2012, financial turmoil and a severe drop in economic activity, combined with various policies implemented in response to those conditions, sharply reduced federal revenues and increased spending. As a result, budget deficits rose: They totaled $5.6 trillion in those five years, and in four of the five years, they were larger relative to the size of the economy than they had been in any year since 1946. Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period. It is now equivalent to about 74 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP)—a higher percentage than at any point in U.S. history except a seven-year period around World War II.
The economy’s gradual recovery from the recession, the waning budgetary effects of policies enacted in response to the weak economy, and other changes to tax and spending laws will cause the deficit to shrink in 2015 to its smallest percentage of GDP since 2007, CBO projects—2.7 percent, a much smaller percentage than the recent peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009. Throughout the next decade, however, an aging population, rising health care costs per person, and an increasing number of recipients of exchange subsidies and Medicaid benefits attributable to the Affordable Care Act would push up spending for some of the largest federal programs if current laws governing those programs remained unchanged.
And I believe you are only looking at that one page - that is just the summary page. You have to look at individual chapters to see the rest of what the articles are repeating. Try Chapter 6, for example, in which it states "Increases in transfer payments to working-age people discourage work by increasing the amount of resources avalable to those people and by making work less attractive than other uses of their time." (Page 78)
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 12, 2015 11:29:17 GMT -5
Maybe the man is a conservative and remains so. It does not mean his arguments are truth and 100% full of merit.
Hall was nominated by President George W. Bush to the position of Commissioner of the BLS in September 2007 and was confirmed by the Senate in December. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hall_(economist)
money transfers to the poor act as “implicit taxes,” keeping them out of the labor force and depressing the economy furtherThe only people who get cash have children. If they are single fathers or mothers they need childcare to be in the workforce which is expensive. That's why occasionally we have those horrible stories of kids left in cars at night while it is freezing or being left home alone. I would posit it is somewhat childcare costs compared to entry level wages that help cause this scenario.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 12, 2015 15:08:26 GMT -5
Your quoting the totally misleading article again. Read what the cbo put out and try to actually find where they said all that. I looked and couldn't. Like the part about Americans leaving the workforce - it is people retiring...is that suddenly a bad thing?. Unemployment is actually projected to drop, which seems like a good thing. Your article is crap as far as I'm concerned. Really? Because this article pretty much says the same: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/government-debt-threatens-to-send-us-economy-into-/?page=all
Rising federal debt threatens to choke economic growth within a decade, beginning a death spiral that will sap revenue from government programs even as demands grow, forcing the government to borrow even more, Congress‘ budget watchdog said in a frightening report Tuesday.
Budget cuts or tax increases now would help avert that scary scenario, leaving the economy far stronger than it otherwise would be, the Congressional Budget Office said in the starkest warning yet by the independent agency that putting off tough decisions will only make things worse.
The report — the first major one under new CBO Director Keith Hall — also takes aim at some traditional liberal arguments, finding that government investment yields only half the return on investment compared with the private sector and that money transfers to the poor act as “implicit taxes,” keeping them out of the labor force and depressing the economy further
And I don't quite see the rosy picture you see in this report: www.cbo.gov/publication/50250
Short-term, yes it will be okay, but long term we're f'ed.
The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years, in the wake of the 2007–2009 recession and slow recovery. Between 2008 and 2012, financial turmoil and a severe drop in economic activity, combined with various policies implemented in response to those conditions, sharply reduced federal revenues and increased spending. As a result, budget deficits rose: They totaled $5.6 trillion in those five years, and in four of the five years, they were larger relative to the size of the economy than they had been in any year since 1946. Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period. It is now equivalent to about 74 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP)—a higher percentage than at any point in U.S. history except a seven-year period around World War II.
The economy’s gradual recovery from the recession, the waning budgetary effects of policies enacted in response to the weak economy, and other changes to tax and spending laws will cause the deficit to shrink in 2015 to its smallest percentage of GDP since 2007, CBO projects—2.7 percent, a much smaller percentage than the recent peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009. Throughout the next decade, however, an aging population, rising health care costs per person, and an increasing number of recipients of exchange subsidies and Medicaid benefits attributable to the Affordable Care Act would push up spending for some of the largest federal programs if current laws governing those programs remained unchanged.
And I believe you are only looking at that one page - that is just the summary page. You have to look at individual chapters to see the rest of what the articles are repeating. Try Chapter 6, for example, in which it states "Increases in transfer payments to working-age people discourage work by increasing the amount of resources avalable to those people and by making work less attractive than other uses of their time." (Page 78)
That's not the CBO report quoted in the article. Both of your links are old. The newest report is more positive. Try reading the newest report which indicates the deficit is 13% lower than anticipated and other positive indicators. Plus you have to remember CBO can only go off existing laws. Forecast running out 10+ years that are only good if nothing changes don't really tell us what will happen because laws never stay constant for that amount of time. These reports are mostly good for telling us what needs to be changed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2015 19:34:19 GMT -5
huh? financial aid to the poor does not create debt for the poor. it actually attenuates debt, by relieving the necessity to accumulate it.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2015 22:08:17 GMT -5
Really? Because this article pretty much says the same: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/government-debt-threatens-to-send-us-economy-into-/?page=all
Rising federal debt threatens to choke economic growth within a decade, beginning a death spiral that will sap revenue from government programs even as demands grow, forcing the government to borrow even more, Congress‘ budget watchdog said in a frightening report Tuesday.
Budget cuts or tax increases now would help avert that scary scenario, leaving the economy far stronger than it otherwise would be, the Congressional Budget Office said in the starkest warning yet by the independent agency that putting off tough decisions will only make things worse.
The report — the first major one under new CBO Director Keith Hall — also takes aim at some traditional liberal arguments, finding that government investment yields only half the return on investment compared with the private sector and that money transfers to the poor act as “implicit taxes,” keeping them out of the labor force and depressing the economy further
And I don't quite see the rosy picture you see in this report: www.cbo.gov/publication/50250
Short-term, yes it will be okay, but long term we're f'ed.
The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years, in the wake of the 2007–2009 recession and slow recovery. Between 2008 and 2012, financial turmoil and a severe drop in economic activity, combined with various policies implemented in response to those conditions, sharply reduced federal revenues and increased spending. As a result, budget deficits rose: They totaled $5.6 trillion in those five years, and in four of the five years, they were larger relative to the size of the economy than they had been in any year since 1946. Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period. It is now equivalent to about 74 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP)—a higher percentage than at any point in U.S. history except a seven-year period around World War II.
The economy’s gradual recovery from the recession, the waning budgetary effects of policies enacted in response to the weak economy, and other changes to tax and spending laws will cause the deficit to shrink in 2015 to its smallest percentage of GDP since 2007, CBO projects—2.7 percent, a much smaller percentage than the recent peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009. Throughout the next decade, however, an aging population, rising health care costs per person, and an increasing number of recipients of exchange subsidies and Medicaid benefits attributable to the Affordable Care Act would push up spending for some of the largest federal programs if current laws governing those programs remained unchanged.
And I believe you are only looking at that one page - that is just the summary page. You have to look at individual chapters to see the rest of what the articles are repeating. Try Chapter 6, for example, in which it states "Increases in transfer payments to working-age people discourage work by increasing the amount of resources avalable to those people and by making work less attractive than other uses of their time." (Page 78)
That's not the CBO report quoted in the article. Both of your links are old. The newest report is more positive. Try reading the newest report which indicates the deficit is 13% lower than anticipated and other positive indicators. Plus you have to remember CBO can only go off existing laws. Forecast running out 10+ years that are only good if nothing changes don't really tell us what will happen because laws never stay constant for that amount of time. These reports are mostly good for telling us what needs to be changed. Which new report are you speaking of? The latest long term outlook is from June 2015 (linked above)...there was an update for the years of 2015-2025 in Aug, but the long term outlook is still the one from June. The base issues stated in the June report (quoted above) are still valid and part of the CBO's analysis.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Sept 13, 2015 16:28:12 GMT -5
You don't like working for Walmart? Get an education, stop committing crimes, and don't have babies you can't afford to feed. Just like not giving handouts and jobs to illegals will make them self deport, there are answers. Is that your take on Walmart employees? That they are uneducated criminals with too many babies? Walmart is in the clear though for paying so low the only way they can get those cheap employees is because of welfare? Who is really getting the larger government handout?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Sept 13, 2015 16:34:18 GMT -5
If anything, we are corporate welfare country! Let's see who's arguing that?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 13, 2015 17:07:41 GMT -5
You don't like working for Walmart? Get an education, stop committing crimes, and don't have babies you can't afford to feed. Just like not giving handouts and jobs to illegals will make them self deport, there are answers. Is that your take on Walmart employees? That they are uneducated criminals with too many babies? Walmart is in the clear though for paying so low the only way they can get those cheap employees is because of welfare? Who is really getting the larger government handout? Another, my take on Walmart employees is that no minimum wage job, and why we just pick on Walmart when there's plenty of other retailers that pay minimum wage, is that no one is forced to, except by their own poor choices, to work there.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 13, 2015 19:27:25 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 14, 2015 11:29:10 GMT -5
Be a Petsmart animal groomer. How much training can that be? I just tipped $10. Worth every penny on a $51 cat bath and furminating.
|
|