What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | Right Wing News

Home | About Us | Writers | Contact Us

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Advertisement

Permalinks

What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth?

Written By : TrogloPundit

What if we quit playing at redistribution, and actually redistribute? Take all the wealth in America, and divvy it up. Everybody gets the same, as close as we can make it.

Imagine! No more rich and poor; no more “haves” and “have-nots.” No more Two Americas. No more half the nation struggling to make ends meet while two percent just can’t seem to find enough help to clean the toilets in their second summer home.

An economic paradise!

Let me admit up front, this is a bit of a straw man. While there may be – in fact, probably are – plenty of liberal “progressive” socialists radical enough to like this idea, nobody’s actually suggesting that we pursue it in any serious way.

This is really more of an academic exercise, because I think it’ll be fun.

The socialist – actually, more of a Communist – ideal. Everybody gets the exact same amount. Nobody has any more than anybody else.

Then what?

Brace yourself: by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking. Crap. I thought we had it this time. Fairness! And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people will still have more than others. And they’ll keep it.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not – can not – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard. Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.

(The TrogloPundit would really appreciate it if you would click this link. And the little thumbs-up icon, below. Thanks.)

-1

http://twitter.com/meanolmeany paul mitchell

I do agree with your concept, but to make it more fun, do away with everything. Everyone starts with NOTHING. Within a DAY, there will be some folks with more. By the end of the year, there will be wealthy folks and some folks still with nothing.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Have everyone start with nothing (and I mean NOTHING) and I'd be ahead in two hours because I've done some studying into wilderness survival. Heck, because I'd have basic tools and clean water, I'd start my own kingdom before long.

And yes, I do have a post-Western Civilization survival plan.

tblrk2006

Well, Ive got lots of weapons and ammo and lots of family and friends that share the same. We will make sure that those that hammered their guns into plows, plow for us(and all obama voters.)
T.L. Davis

Linked at http://teaparty-editor.blogspot.com
Spiralsofwhite

Like you said I don't think anyone would want to make everyone have the same amount of money but a lot of us libs think there should be things you should not have to do without in a place as rich as our country. I think basic health care should be given to those who can't provide it for themselves. I think everyone should have basic food items to keep from starving and help with houses. (there are other things but I won't list the rest) If this was being done without the government I am all for it. If people gave and took care of each other and nation wide every town and city had people taking care of these things then I would be happy for the government to stay out of my life. That does not happen enough, people work hard for their money and therefore few give it away. It is very late and I am very sleepy so I am sorry for any typos.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

…people work hard for their money and therefore few give it away.

There you go – I knew you could do it if you just tried! You finally got past your wispy redistributionist fantasies to come around to that annoying quirk of human nature which causes the disparity in wealth to occur in the first place – people, after working hard to attain something, are loathe to simply give it away. Most of us are born with ingrained evolutionary imperatives, instincts if you will, which guide us to amass that which we produce and use it for the benefit of ourselves, our families and those non-family who we find deserving.

Now the next step is for you to apply that knowledge to the real world. In so doing, you'll eventually realise that a society which takes the wealth earned by those who work harder/smarter and gives it to those who don't work as hard/smart, will only be able to retain those higher earners by force over time. Without coercion of some sort, those higher earners will self-select out of your redistributionist fantasy-land and find somewhere to settle where they can keep most of what they earn.

Which is why every attempt at a redistributionist fantasy-land such as you propose has been accompanied by a forceful regime which kept its people locked up by limiting travel or emigration. Those redistributionist fantasy-lands which haven't employed force to keep their citizens from leaving have witnessed a steady loss of the most productive members of their societies over time.

Of course, it's typical of your ilk to propose that all nations be exactly the same with respect to this redistributionism. In essence, that there's nowhere left to run, nowhere to hide. It's the 'paradise' of world-wide collectivism to which so many redistributionist thugs aspire.
When you progressives figure out how to change an evolutionary imperative which has been part of our species for as long as we've been a species, then get back to us, because then, and only then, will you have something worth discussing.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Most of us are born with ingrained evolutionary imperatives, instincts if you will, which guide us to amass that which we produce and use it for the benefit of ourselves, our families and those non-family who we find deserving.

I can't imagine a single reason why you'd insert evolutionary theory into that, other than sheer proselytism.
Spiralsofwhite

I hope we never see the Government you want in less people take over its role.

There would be no disability safe guards so anyone who could not work would be dieing in the street with no way to pay for care or living.

There would be no welfare so poor family and kids would be dieing from lack of resources (I do think there are problems with welfare but you can't do away with it).

There would be no social security so minimum wage workers would have no way to retire and there would be no minimum wage so in poor areas rich companies could have basically near slave labor (like they do with the illegals aliens).

We would have no one stopping pollution so rivers and soil would become more poisoned then they already are. I could go on and on. I hate how the Government works as well but until you address these issues without the Government I don't think you have a leg to stand on and I am forced to pay taxes to a corrupt government who waste a lot of it so we can have a safety net.

mightysamurai

Your blatant strawman argument is acknowledged and dismissed.
UFKA_Smithwick

Why stop there? Certainly the rich will begin eating the poor, whites will re-enslave blacks, women will be forced back in to the kitchens and lobotomized to keep them servile, companies will dedicate themselves to doing nothing but dumping toxic waste in to our drinking water, children will work 28 hour days in the poison mines (how else are we going to get enough to dump in to the rivers?). And so on.

Any person who criticizes social spending in the least way literally wants all these things to happen and worse (I have spared you the truly horrible things they want so you can still sleep at night).

Good thing we are kept safe from such things by the ever vigilant Obama and congressional democrats.

Spiralsofwhite

I listed things the government stops, you are listing crazy stuff.

Now you said “Any person who criticizes social spending” I am all for that they waste so much money its mind boggling but I never hear logic being used. Its all about lets get rid of this and that because the government is evil and hates freedom.

Where would the poison come from? factories, mountain top removal mining, waste dumping. Unregulated city dumps. Look and the recent oil spill and pipe leak. Do you think BP would of done as much if they were not required too? Look at those poor miners who died in that mine because the company ignored all the warnings. Tons of things. You did list something the government did do and that is child labour laws. I am sure somewhere in the usa children would be put back to work if we got rid of all (or most) state and government regulations and control like a lot of people want. I keep hearing the government is for roads and to protect us from war and anything else is too much. I also bet minorities and poorer people would have less chances to learn and get jobs that come with higher education. Gays would be banned from teaching school and other jobs.
mightysamurai

I listed things the government stops

No, son, you indulged in a blatant series of strawman fallacies. You clearly have little or no idea what you're talking about. Presumably you're just repeating a list of talking points you acquired from some college professor or somesuch.

If you want to have a serious debate, fine. Go out into the world and learn a little bit more about how it actually works first. Then come back when you've rid yourself of these naive and childish notions.
Spiralsofwhite

Okay explain I am willing to learn. Point out with facts or sites if you don't want to explain in comments. Use facts to show I am wrong. Misrepresentation of an opponent's position would be a straw man. So far I have not seen a fact based argument on how things the government gets done now would be done if there was no government control.
mightysamurai

So far I have not seen a fact based argument on how things the government gets done now would be done if there was no government control.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Who here has said anything about “no government control”? Certainly not me, and certainly not MartinHale, the person you were originally responding to. This idea that there would be “no government control” (what does that even mean BTW?) is a strawman argument. It's nothing but a cartoonish distortion of what we're actually saying that you concocted because it's easier for you to refute.
Spiralsofwhite

Its not completely basic less. A lot of people want to get rid of the most government programs. I live in Oklahoma and have spoken to a lot of people that want the government out of everything. Building codes. Farming, Health care, Education, Banking, Housing assistance, gun control etc.. That's what I mean by no government control.
UFKA_Smithwick

Hyperbole to counter hyperbole.

I pitted my strawman v. yours and I think mine came out a winner.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

I hope we never see the Government you want in less people take over its role.

What government do I want, SoW? How do you know what government I want when I've not shared any thoughts with you about that subject? Are you some sort of mind reader? Are you frikkin' clairvoyant? Or is it that you just “know my type”?

You've dreamed up a whole scenario based solely on what you imagine I would want government to do or not do. But it has no basis in reality. You don't know me. You and I have never engaged in any discussion of what the proper roles of government should be. We have never talked before. And yet according to you, you know the kind of world I want and you think it's just awful.

Tell me, do you rely on predetermined stereotypes to guide you in all matters, or do you just rely on them when you're attempting to debate politics?

Folks, I'm guessing this one's a college student, or a recent college grad. Full of theoretical idealism; no apparent understanding of human nature under the pressures of survival; trades in stereotypes and broad brush prejudices.

It's like talking to my daughter's boyfriend.

Spiralsofwhite

“Tell me, do you rely on predetermined stereotypes to guide you in all matters, or do you just rely on them when you're attempting to debate politics”

I use stereotypes when debating most people in politics on the internet because so far I met very few people who use any logic on the net. In person I can make my point with less extreme black and white arguments.

I guess I was wrong to say the grovrement you want. I was basing my guess on
“When you progressives figure out how to change an evolutionary imperative which has been part of our species for as long as we've been a species, then get back to us, because then, and only then, will you have something worth discussing. ”

Which to me is only the strong survive so if you don't have enough to feed,heal and shelter yourself tuff luck that's life sucker more for me. I guess you don't feel that way?

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“a lot of us libs think there should be things you should not have to do without in a place as rich as our country”

So get off your asses, quit whining, and WORK FOR THEM like the rest of us.

Mahatma

WORK FOR THEM *

*10% unemployment.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“*10% unemployment. “

You Libs were crying the same way when it was 4%. Maybe you should tell your Dear Leader Obama to stop crushing the people who do the hiring around here — that is, businesses and those hated, despised rich people who own them. The reason for 10% unemployment is ridiculous corporate taxation and massive uncertainty about the future of business in this country. Get Obama off the necks of those who really create jobs and watch that number drop to under 5% again.
UFKA_Smithwick

“*10% unemployment. “

*completely democrat monopoly on government for the last 2 years.

It's a bit awkward to complain about how terrible this country is being run when people you support are in charge.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

a lot of us libs think there should be things you should not have to do without in a place as rich as our country.<?i>

You are free to give these people anything you wish to of your own goods and earnings.
billdalasio

Try to understand something, Spiralsofwhite. Society is not rich. Individuals within society are rich. Society is just a useful fiction to describe a set of human interactions. The wealth held by individual members of society isn't society's wealth, but their own. Likewise, neither healthcare nor food is society's to distribute. It is the product of some person's individual effort. If they choose to give it away, good for them. If not, that's perfectly well their right, as well. As you yourself note, “people work hard for their money”. What, then, do you call taking the product of that work and giving it to someone else?
mightysamurai

That does not happen enough

So you admit that it happens, it just doesn't happen “enough” for your tastes.

Fair enough. But what, to your mind, is “enough”? At what point do we say “Awesome, everyone has given enough that we no longer need all these government welfare programs”?

Is it when no person in the nation is ever without food, shelter, or medical care at any time in their lives? Well good luck with that because it's never gonna happen. Even in countries that do have government programs that provide all the things you listed (and more) there are still people who don't have food, don't have shelter, and otherwise can't take care of themselves.

If you think you can wipe out poverty by government fiat you are simply wrong. It can't happen.

Spiralsofwhite

“enough” would be as much as the government does now or more. More would be better but that's something we have to strive for. I do think its Possible to feed everyone in this nation and give everyone basic medical care. Preventive and low cost medical treatments. Shelter is another story I am not sure if that is possible or not.

mightysamurai

“enough” would be as much as the government does now or more.

Except what the government's already doing is also doing incalculable damage to the country and has been for decades. Welfare alone has destroyed the inner cities and the African-American community in specific. Entire generations have spent their lives living off the state. Does that sound like a good thing to you? Is that something you want to see more of?

Spiralsofwhite

Then make jobs for them. require them to work if the government or some other private company gives them a job. I am fine with denying welfare if you give those people a chance to work and they decline it.
mightysamurai

require them to work

Republicans tried that once back in the 90s. You know what happened? People like you opposed it. And Obama has mostly undone it in the short time he's been in office.

Don't you see, kid? That's the nature of a welfare state. When people know that they'll get money from the government whether they work or not, they stop working.
Spiralsofwhite

People like me? I just said I would be fine with denying them welfare. I don't speak for anyone other then myself really or my point of view of what other people think.
mightysamurai

People like me?

Yes, people like you. People who went on camera back in the 90s saying they supported “welfare reform” and then opposed every attempt to do so. (I guess you must be really young if you don't remember that.) Not to mention the people who claimed they supported “Social Security reform” back in the early 2000s and then opposed any effort by President Bush to do so (even stooping so low as to lie about Bush's plan, claiming it would “destroy” or “dismantle” Social Security and leave grandmas and grandpas eating dogfood).

It's all well and good to say you support reforming the welfare state. It's backing those words up with actions that liberals seem to have a problem with. That's why I don't believe for a second that you'd actually do what you claim.

For example: You say you would support a system where anyone receiving welfare from the government must find a job so they aren't supporting themselves solely on welfare checks. Okay, so what happens to people who still refuse to find a job? Will they be cut off and forced to survive on their own without help from the government? If so, what happens when we have dozens or hundreds of people in every metropolitan area who get kicked off welfare and now have no job, no income, and no way to take care of themselves? I guess we leave them to, in your words, “die in the streets”.

Can you honestly say you would be okay with that? You, the person who thinks we need a welfare state to take care of people who can't or won't take care of themselves, would be okay with letting people “die in the streets”? I don't think so.

And that is why I don't believe you when you say you would support denying people welfare. That is why I say “people like you” and group you in with the hypocrites who claimed to support welfare reform but opposed every significant attempt to do so. If I honestly thought you would be okay with cutting people off the government tit if they refused to find work, I would be ecstatic. That kind of policy would be a dream for people who oppose the current welfare state. We would love to see it actually happen. But we don't believe for one single second that someone like you would actually support such a policy if push came to shove.
SpiralsOfWhite

Yes. If it is a job they can do and they are GIVEN it. Not just told to go out and find something after years of no job training. So some one provides a job and they say no thank you then I would support them being left to “die in the streets”. I think I was mistaken with a few of you and am used to having to defend myself with broad over over statements to get my point across to the normal Glen Beck Crazies.

I am used to having to defend my views from people like the first comment that you guys seem not to attack. “Well, Ive got lots of weapons and ammo and lots of family and friends that share the same. We will make sure that those that hammered their guns into plows, plow for us(and all obama voters.)”

I support lower government spending as long as its logical.
UFKA_Smithwick

You want to force people to work against their will? People who are mostly minorities and single mothers?

So basically you favor slavery and returning women to domestic drudgery.

Way to go bigot.

Oh and why do you want to force their kids to starve in the streets? What did those kids do to you? You're just a typical rich, fat spoiled racist.

/this is exactly how any welfare reform debate goes.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Wow, you're just making it up as you go along, aren't you? Every criticism met with a snappy “well, just do X”. Absolutely no thought to the consequences of “X” at the mid- and long-terms. No thought about the internal consistency of your argument.

See in this comment alone, you've apparently flip-flopped on that “everyone deserves the basics” argument and you're now prepared to cut people who won't work off from those basics. Which is it, mate? Do they deserve support just because they're alive, or not? Or is it a matter that the real world is just too complex to address with the simplistic bromides you learned on campus?
Spiralsofwhite

“everyone deserves the basics” Again I am used to defending myself against people who don't understand me if I go into details.
I guess a better way of putting it would be everyone deserves to have a way to provide themselves with the basics. I think what you would say is that is how it already is but I disagree with that. There is not enough to go around or there would be no need to those corrupt social programs. I want another option and so far I have not seen one.

I do not like how the government is run but its the lesser of two evils.

All I hear from “conservatives” is how gays want to rape and ruin the world and how if someone disagrees with me I am going to beat them up and shoot them, that blacks all have a chip on their shoulder etc…. Listen to some of the people who speak at these rallies.

You most likely know more then me at your age. That does not make my point of view totally wrong or invalid.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Have you ever noticed that the US constitution does not permit congress to pass such laws? Or does that even matter to you?

TrogloPundit

“…people work hard for their money and therefore few give it away.”

Odd, then, that so many billions go to charity. And anyway: do people who don't work hard for their money give more of it away? We already know that those who don't have money don't, since they can't.

Mazen

Yeah, it is a straw-man

“Brace yourself: by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others”
But you're forgetting that they all have equal financial opportunities, so no-one had an unfair advantage. This is not the case in most societies.
“some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can't be redistributed”
But given the same financial footing, you'll no longer have people who have the talent but lack the means to succeed. Sound familiar?
“Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills?”
Now you're just twisting the 'welfare makes people lazy' argument. You're really standing on nothing here, and speculating that people will refuse to prosper as they do all over the world in Socialist democracies.

Stop recycling arguments please

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So what you're saying is “yes, you're right in every aspect of this intellectual exercise but I still want it to happen because it would fit my ideology,” then? Thank you.

The fact is, he's right, your redistribution schemes would end up with the poor being poor and the rich being rich, and the only difference would be a gutted economy and a very large section of the public even angrier than before.
UFKA_Smithwick

“Now you're just twisting the 'welfare makes people lazy' argument.”

Which do suppose provides the greater incentive to work: starvation, or a monthly check?
Ruralcounsel

Unfortunately for your scenario, Mazen, most socioeconomic differences aren't because of lack of equal opportunities, so much as due to lack of taking adavantage of the opportunities that are available.

In other words, people being too risk adverse, or being risk-takers with inferior ideas. Stupidity in some is an “unfair advantage” to the rest of us.

You're living in a dream world. Stop recycling those foolish utopian concepts.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Exactly, Mazen's unstated presupposition is that everyone is equally capable and ambitious, but some are held back by cruel society and the more successful. The truth is, some aren't as ambitious, capable, or inclined to success. Some just can't make it far in society due to personal inability, personality disorder, or even physical limitations.

You can tell the left actually knows this by the fact that they fight so hard to make things equal despite these plain differences in humanity, but their rhetoric and policy usually tries to pretend its not reality.

That's why he thinks pointing out that some people are simply more likely to enjoy material, temporal success than others is “the poor are lazy.” Well, that and ad hominem attacks are cheap and easy when you can't counter your opponent's actual argument

TrogloPundit

It's not that “welfare makes people lazy.” Welfare creates incentives against work. Welfare makes it more profitable to rely on welfare, rather than join the free market. People who choose welfare over work are making a rational economic decision based on their own situations. Of course, if they come from a “tradition” of welfare-dependency – that is, if they are second or third-generation welfare recipients – they may not really be aware that other economic choices even exist.

UFKA_Smithwick

People in general are rational animals and make rational decisions based on incentives/costs. Ok, not always but on average.

Most people don't see work as a reward in itself and do it merely for money. So the reward (cash) outweighs the cost (giving up your time/labor for something you don't really enjoy).

Welfare changes that equation. The costs of labor and rewards remain the same, but now there's a way to get the rewards and do less work.

It would be irrational for people to not take advantage of this.

Likewise politicians behave according to these same rules. The benefits of handing out other peoples money to get more votes makes it a very appealing prospect.
mightysamurai

It's not that “welfare makes people lazy.”

On the contrary, that's exactly what welfare does.

You said it yourself. Welfare creates incentives against work. And incentivizing a certain behavior turns that behavior into a habit, which turns into a compulsion. QED, welfare makes people lazy.

UFKA_Smithwick

It would be a fun experiment just to collect empirical evidence as to why these policies are such a bad idea.

True equality should mean giving everyone the opportunity for a top notch education regardless of their status in life and fostering the conditions for sustained economic growth and entrepreneurial success.
UFKA_Smithwick

The problem of course is that history has shown the people doing the redistributing will tend to keep the majority of wealth.

So your wealth in such a society will be based not on hard work, intelligence, or creativity. But merely by your ability to climb the government ladder.

http://troglopundit.wordpress.com TrogloPundit

“The problem of course is that history has shown the people doing the redistributing will tend to keep the majority of wealth.”

That's an excellent way to put that.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Indeed, and that's what we see now: government is suffering a recession, government can't see any problems with its policies, government thinks things are going great.

Choey

I don't remember all the details since it's been years since I read about it but this was tried by a Chinese emperor a couple thousand years ago. The net result was that within five years, most of those who had been wealthy were once again wealthy and those who had been poor were once again poor. Something about attitude, aptitude and personal initiative…
http://www.facebook.com/Jerminator77 Jeremy Austin

The redistributive concept makes a huge mistake, it confuses 'wealth' with 'value'.

Almost every argument that libs make: haves vs have nots, soak the rich, consider the poor etc, can be traced to this difference in philosophy.
kantian

The appeal of meritocracy is that people are in positions based not on their wealth, or family connections but by there hardwork.
that is one of the main aims of socialism.
in a completley free market or libertarian society this is very hard. say youre a bright kid from a poor family. you wouldnt be able to afford a education, even if you did you might not get the job because some guy whose dad is friends with the boss gets it. this is why goverments introduced schools and foodstamps ect. i'm not saying i neccesarily agree with it but thats socialism.

Advertisement

Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know

Politically Correct Fairy Tales

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

Advertisement

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN