The big problem with having 7 billion people: They’re too old

The world’s population is expected to hit 7 billion sometime today. And the biggest part of the story, for me, is that we’ve reached this figure in large part by extending lifetimes rather than by having more babies.

Check out these two graphs — the first is from the Washington Post and depicts rising life expectancies at birth; the second is one I generated on Google with data from the World Bank, and it depicts falling birth rates:

Life expectancy at birth by region; graph produced by Washington Post with U.N. data

Life expectancy at birth by region; graph produced by Washington Post with U.N. data

Fertility rates world-wide and in top 5 economies; graph produced on Google Public Data Explorer with World Bank data

Fertility rates world-wide and in top 5 economies; graph produced on Google Public Data Explorer with World Bank data

These trends suggest some serious implications: for the use of resources, for the future strength of today’s strongest economies, etc. For today, I want to focus on what they mean for the systems the United States and other rich countries have built to redistribute wealth from the young to the old.

(And before someone objects, “Hey, I paid for my Social Security and Medicare! There’s no redistribution!” No, you didn’t; and yes, there is. You paid for your elders’ Social Security and Medicare, in exchange for the promise that future generations would pick up the tab for you. And that tab will be greater than the amount you paid in, just as your elders ran up a larger tab than they paid in. It is how the system was built, and the chief reason it is not wrong to liken it to a Ponzi scheme. How we reconcile past promises made and present/future financial realities is the question before us.)

The top five economies in the world are, in descending order: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany and France. In 1960, the fertility rates of all but Japan were above the so-called replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. In 2009, the latest year for which data are available, the closest any country comes is the American rate of 2.05. China is at 1.77. Japan and Germany are both below 1.4. For most of these countries, fertility rates have been below the replacement rate since the 1970s. World-wide, the fertility rate is 2.52 — about half the rate a half-century earlier.

The trend lines for the largest emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, aka the BRICS — are similar. Russia alone is experiencing a bit of a baby boom…all the way up to a fertility rate of 1.55.

Simply put, leading economic powers will be less able to direct their resources toward economic growth as their populations age and their pension systems are strained. Modern medicine has made great strides and is expected to continue doing so, but it has yet to enable 75-year-olds to be as productive as 35-year-olds.

Where’s the economic growth going to come from?

The irony is that our allocation of resources is getting out of whack in large part because of “population bomb” fears. Malthusians have long preached that the world’s growing population would sap the planet of resources. Societies have slowed their birth rates partly in response to such predictions, China’s one-child policy being the most dramatic example.

But it is more reasonable at this juncture to ask whether the problem isn’t that we will have too many people using up resources, but that we will have too few prime-age people working to produce innovations in the types of resources we use and the ways we use them. The trend for innovations in the energy sector, to name one example, is to make available resources more expensive in order to encourage the use of resources that are harder to harness. Working-age people stand to be ever-more burdened as they are asked to maintain old-age welfare systems built for a differently proportioned population.

In a way, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has cottoned onto this problem, with their emphasis on college debts (to the degree the OWS crowd can be said to have an emphasis, that is). But there’s no indication that they want to deal with this problem by making a college education cost less, only to make students less responsible for paying the cost of a college education. Nor is there any indication that they recognize the seriousness of the problem at the other end of the spectrum, that younger Americans will also be asked to pick up a larger and larger tab for their elders.

Speaking of Wall Street, it’s possible that the aging of the population will undermine equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth retirees need. If pensioners each consume less while, as a group, representing more of the population, it will be more difficult for companies to produce the profits needed to make investments in them pay off. That goes for private retirement accounts as well as public-sector pensions.

Absent a series of technological breakthroughs and/or a sudden, large uptick in birth rates, the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

90 comments Add your comment

Middle Man

October 31st, 2011
12:16 pm

Jefferson

October 31st, 2011
12:18 pm

You younger Americans need to step up and earn your keep, you have obligations (not entitlements) to keep. Move out and grow up.

carlosgvv

October 31st, 2011
12:24 pm

Kyle, common sense would tell you that this planet cannot keep adding people, young or old, and not eventually run out of resources. You are one of the few who would worry about “equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth we need”. And, which party is against abortions and planned parenthood? And, yes, I have paid for my Social Security, and no, I will never get back all that I paid in since, in the years I contributed, the dollar was worth much more than it is now.

Hillbilly D

October 31st, 2011
12:41 pm

One thing to think about, is that “people are living longer” is something of a misconception. If you walk through the graveyards up here in the Hills, (and a lot of other places, I would suspect) you’ll see a lot of 100-150 year old graves, of people who died in their 80’s and 90’s. You’ll also see a whole lot of children’s graves. It’s true that due to the drop in childhood mortality, and several other things, the average life expectancy is more than it was. People who lived to be old then, lived just as long as people who live to be old now, though. So people don’t live to be older, just more people live to be old.

Human population is like a lot of other things, you can’t stake your future on perpetual expansion. You have to figure out another way.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
12:41 pm

“You are one of the few who would worry about “equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth we need”
——–

Responsible people save and invest over their lifetime in preparation for retirement, so they are rightly concerned with the performance of equity markets.

ragnar danneskjold

October 31st, 2011
12:42 pm

Good essay. Not as sexy as calling socsec a Ponzi scheme, but argues the same with actuarial theory.

Southern Comfort

October 31st, 2011
12:42 pm

Absent a series of technological breakthroughs and/or a sudden, large uptick in birth rates, the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.

Sounds like another forthcoming installment of the unintended long term consequences of short term thinking/planning. With the current crop of politicians we have now, that does not surprise me at all.

saywhat?

October 31st, 2011
12:43 pm

One ray of sunshine in this doom and gloom scenario, at least in the U.S., is that the people getting on in years right now are the baby boomers, and they are the ones with most of the money. Of course that means less inheritance for their kids, but, oh well.

Brain

October 31st, 2011
1:06 pm

Kyle- I agree completely with your initial thesis, but you’re departure into the realm of partisanship again shows you’re no more serious about solving this than the Occupy crowds are. Nothing about tax policy, regulation, etc, deals with the challenge the growing, aging world population presents us. Nothing.

Yet, there you are again tossing out barbs at the OWS crowd, in particular, and dems in general.

Speak for your own gene pool, Kyle!

October 31st, 2011
1:10 pm

I take issue with your comment regarding 75 year olds not being able to work like 35 year olds. I see 75 year olds working circles around 35 year olds on a daily basis. My 90 year old uncle works part-time, my 84 year old mother works full-time. Both hold jobs that require college degrees and require problem solving skills–and they both still pay into social security.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
1:11 pm

“Nothing about tax policy, regulation, etc, deals with the challenge the growing, aging world population presents us.”
——

Nonsense. What we need to deal with an aging population is economic growth, which isn’t happening right now due in large part to tax policy and regulation.

Travis Tritt

October 31st, 2011
1:13 pm

The problem will eventually fix itself…. Not in a good way. For the old, just hope you don’t live to experience the crash. For the young…. Start studying foreign languages.

Kyle Wingfield

October 31st, 2011
1:14 pm

Speak: I have no doubt there are exceptions. But surely you’re not arguing this is true on the whole.

Kyle Wingfield

October 31st, 2011
1:17 pm

Brain: Of all the times I’ve been accused of partisanship, I must say I find this one the most puzzling. I’m not sure how what I wrote about OWS could be considered a “barb.” Are you aware of some over-arching mission statement from the group? Have you heard them calling for lower college costs, or only more subsidies for students?

And where do you find a barb directed at “dems in general”?

Hillbilly D

October 31st, 2011
1:23 pm

Speak for your own gene pool, Kyle!

That’s a valid point but what about the folks who have to do the physical labor? There will always be a need for those people doing those type of jobs. What becomes of them?

You folks are unbelievable!

October 31st, 2011
1:24 pm

@LBB: I’m so sorry you are so bent out of shape by a black man being elected president. Call us when you graduate from Harvard. And yes, if Obama had actually been a Kenyan socialist liberal Muslim, the vetting process would have told us. Ask Herman Cain. Today.

@@

October 31st, 2011
1:26 pm

…the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.

Our left-wing policy makers are. Abortion on demand and Obama”cares”.

schnirt

DixieDemons

October 31st, 2011
1:37 pm

@ Travis Tritt

I have to agree with you on this one. ……..no health insurance , no regulation by the FDA , high priced medication, sedentary lifestyle choices, obesity, pill popping, disdain for education and common sense ( too elitist ), no social welfare safety nets ( too expensive) I don’t know about the rest of the world , but the problem will correct itself in our country. Everyman for himself and Congress for the 1%.

Real Athens

October 31st, 2011
1:38 pm

Enter your comments here

Ayn Rant

October 31st, 2011
1:52 pm

Too many, too old, too fat, too ugly, too freaky!

Real Athens

October 31st, 2011
1:55 pm

Sorry about the double post folks.

Kyle, The first thing Congress (and you) need to learn is that Social Security and Medicare are not government funds. These entities are funded by the public for the benefit of the public with public funds directed specifically to those entities for allocation for specific purposes. They are not part of the federal general fund nor part of the federal budget and are not funded by citizen income tax dollars.

Every worker receiving a pay check since 1937 has contributed to Social Security with an equal amount coming from his/her employer. As a worker (since the age of 12) AND a business owner I have done both — gladly.

Social Security is not an entitlement it is the publics’ money. It does not belong to the government.

Every pay check and every Social Security check issued since 1966 has included a deduction to fund Medicare. Public contribution to a designated entity for a designated purpose for distribution back to the public as determined by the publics’ need at a later date. Again, the funds therefore are not part of the general fund or the federal budget. They are not federal income tax dollars paid to the government. Therefore, they are not entitlements.

Why is this so hard for to comprehend ?

As soon as the R’s and D’s get this through their thick heads perhaps they can move on to finding practical, implementable and legal solutions to the budget and debt issues.

First of all, it must be understood that Social Security has never increased the federal deficit by a single dime. “Unfunded obligations” are a sleight-of-hand in federal accounting. Social Security has always, every year since its inception, taken in more money than it paid out. The problem that arose was what to do with this surplus of money. The answer has been to “buy” U.S. Treasury bonds – which are, in essence, government IOUs that pay interest. In the meantime, the real excess dollars go into the general fund and the politicians spend the real money, leaving the Social Security program with the interest earning bonds – the so-called unfunded obligations.

Intelligent people realize that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have spent the excess Social Security money in the general fund on all sorts of things — you can pick the poison. Now SS is hamstringing business? Growth?

Please.

Currently, in a stroke of genius, the Congress, led at this time by Republicans, have seized on this accounting sleight-of-hand to try and renege on paying back the money to Social Security and end the whole program, as we know it, in one fell swoop, leaving America’s working people holding an empty bag in their old age. This is somewhat easier today as most of the people actively engaged in this argument have no memory of the Great Depression. Not coincidentally, the average American’s knowledge of U.S. History is at an all-time low. Talk to someone who lived through 1929 until the early 40’s in a major cities across this country. SS was designed as a failsafe to keep that misery from occurring again.

To continue to insist that Social Security is increasing the federal deficit and bankrupting the country is extremely naive in the least, and an outright lie at worst. It should be corrected, not perpetuated, by the press — Fourth Estate my a@# — on opinion pages, blogs and slanted news networks.

Real Athens

October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm

The latest lie being fed to the Republic by the partisan machinery is that regulation somehow stifles business growth. Consider the source(s) here:

“Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.”

“Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today,” writes Bruce Bartlett. He’s an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, “It’s just nonsense. It’s just made up.”

Government and industry studies support his view.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies’ reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor “business demand.”

Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.

The rating firm Moody’s says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That’s 11 percent more than a year earlier.

Small businesses rate “poor sales” as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the “political climate.”

We are our own worst enemy.

UGA 1999

October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm

The world is no where near being overcrowded…. all of that is nonsense.

The Truth

October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm

Let’s see… Republicans say that the ‘job creators’ will create jobs if we cut taxes. Bill Clinton raised taxes and 22 million jobs were created during his eight year term. On the other hand, George W. Bush cut taxes and only 2 million jobs were created during his eight year term AND he created huge deficits and got us into two unfunded wars. So regardless what Fox News says, the ‘job creators’ DON’T create jobs when their taxes are cut. That the truth, Ruth!

UGA 1999

October 31st, 2011
2:06 pm

The Truth….hmmmm lets see….so you believe if we raise taxes on large businesses, which means their overall expenses are going to increase….you believe that will make them want to hire employees? HAHAA WOW!

UGA 1999

October 31st, 2011
2:07 pm

The Truth….BTW ever hear of something call the “internet bubble”?

Not really an Entitlement

October 31st, 2011
2:31 pm

I went online and did a calculation one day – I took all the money I’ve ever put into Social Security, plus anticipated future contributions, plus calculated a “fair” rate of return. I then assumed that I would live 30 years past retirement and the estimated amount of social security that I would collect.

The amounts turned out to be roughly equal. However, the problems are this: 1. The retirement age will likely be raised past what I calculated. 2. 95 years old is well past my life expectancy. Therefore, in all likelihood, I will collect much LESS than what I put into social security. Especially considering I figured a modest 5-7% rate of return on the money. Teachers Retirement reported a 22% return on investment this year – more than three times what I calculated for my rate of return.

It is not my fault that Congress and the Presidents have raided the Social Security trust fund over the years. If they had left it alone, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

The Truth

October 31st, 2011
2:37 pm

@UGA 1999 OK, so let’s see… Does lowering taxes on large businesses result in more jobs? Apparently not, because the only thing corporations and large businesses do is keep the money, and they don’t reinvest it or pay dividends to their stock holders. Ask the stock-holders at Bank of America about that one… 22 million jobs versus the 2 million job pittance that the famous ‘Bush tax cuts’ created. You are dreaming if you think that trickle-down economics works to improve job creation. That’s a creation of Fox News and their cronies.

Please prove how many of the 22 million jobs created by Clinton were a result of the ‘internet bubble’ versus how many of the sorry amount of 2 million jobs that were created by the ’spectacular’ Bush tax cuts. Ever heard of the housing bubble that burst in 2008?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
2:41 pm

The job creators are fleeing the country because we regulate too little, don’t tax enough, and show an extreme reluctance to hassle business.

Does that make sense, even to you publicly educated libtards?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm

Do we really have slack demand for oil and gas? Why aren’t we creating more jobs in THAT industry?

Junior Samples

October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm

Props to Real Athens, very well stated.

UGA 1999

October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm

The Truth….Your comments hold not truth or validity. So you are saying that the economic times and intenret bubble had no bearing on the Clinton years? Even James Carville knows that fact. Bush suffered one of the most difficult presidencies of all time. Between 911, Iraq, Afganistan and the real estate collapse….there is NO way he could have raised taxes.

Even Obama admitted this fact. Obama said himself….”in hard times we cannot increase taxes”!

Not really an Entitlement

October 31st, 2011
2:49 pm

Just to give concrete numbers… I’m in my mid-30’s. Since I started working full-time twelve years ago, I’ve had approximately $45,000 contributed to the social security trust fund in my name. If I were to work the rest of my life with *ZERO* pay raises, I’d contribute $5,400 a year to social security. Assuming an average rate of return of 7% (which is entirely feasible with the right fund managers – and probably very conservative actually), I will have an ending balance of $1,029,027.68 dollars when I am eligible for retirement in 32 years at 67 years of age.

Do you know what the dollar return is on $1,029,027.68 at 7 percent? $72,031.89. They could keep my million dollars and pay me $72,031.89 per year on interest alone. Currently, social security tells me that I will earn about $36,000 dollars a year when I retire.

Please tell me again how this is an entitlement program and not a retirement program that I vastly overpay for?

The Truth

October 31st, 2011
2:55 pm

@UGA 1999 They must have not taught you critical thinking at UGA. I gave you facts and figures and asked you to prove your point, and instead you change the subject. Are you sure you graduated at UGA in 1999? Now you’re an apologist for Georgie pooh?

Please bring some facts if you’re going to troll this blog. You’re a joke! No wonder Georgia is ranked at the bottom half in education in this country!

Marsten12

October 31st, 2011
3:01 pm

If Social Security were a private retirement fund, where the managers of the fund were bound in a fiduciary relationship to investors, there would be nothing to worry about. But with Social Security, there is no such fiduciary relationship. We were forced into a relationship with a public entity. They rewrote the contract without notifying the taxpayers and we let them slide.

UGA 1999

October 31st, 2011
3:02 pm

The Truth….apologist? No. Realist, yes.

Please explain how raising taxes on corporations will force them to hire more people. Once you do that I will tell you why it will simply force more jobs to go overseas. Waiting…….

Politi Cal

October 31st, 2011
3:04 pm

Got more than a few Malthusians here on thois blog. Unfortunately, that theory was debunked decades and decades ago. What we need to do is more research/work in improving agricultural yield per acre cultivated. There is more than enough land avaiable in the U.S. alomne to fee several times seven billion. The very people who object to such research are know-it-all Leftists to want a return to the garden of Eden, spelling doom to milloions they CLAIM to speak for. Criminals!

The Truth

October 31st, 2011
3:23 pm

@UGA 1999 How weak… You keep turning the question on me and changing the subject when I asked you at 2:37 pm to prove how lowering taxes on large businesses resulted in more jobs for hard-working Americans. George Bush did a great job of exporting jobs overseas by giving companies tax-breaks for doing so. Did you forget about that one?

I’ve been waiting since 2:37 PM for your answer, but you’re obviously one of those Fox News know-nothing trolls. Still waiting…

1961_Boomer

October 31st, 2011
3:24 pm

“Not really an entitlement” is correct. Those figures are very similar to my own. The amount that I receive from SS won’t approach what I paid in until I live well past 100. If my parents/grandparents are any indication. I won’t make it to 80. This is not an “entitlement”. I am OWED this pittance for what was involuntarily taken from me for my entire life.

Hillbilly D

October 31st, 2011
3:42 pm

Real Athens

GMO’s are basically a scheme to control the world’s seed supply, in my opinion.

jconservative

October 31st, 2011
3:43 pm

Net Jobs Created in the US(by decade)

1960’s – 31%
1970′a – 27%
1980’s – 20%
1990’s – 20%
2000’s – 0%
(from BLS)

Anyway you spin the numbers the numbers are what they are.

In the 60’s and 70’s corporate taxes were out of sight high. And net jobs created were trending down.
In the 80’s we cut taxes and the net jobs created continued to trend down.
In the 2000’s we cut taxes again and net jobs created fell off the table.

Has it occured to anyone that taxes have nothing to do with job creation?

Jobs are not being created because with better technology you need less people to make widgets.

Jobs are not being created in the US because 95% of the market for products and services is outside the United States. Seven trillion people in the world and only 310 million in the US. Why would anyone build a factory to make widgets in the US when 95% of the market is outside the US?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
3:44 pm

unfortunately the research/work done at Monsanto, Con Agra, etc. today is more geared toward increasing profit
———–

Ignorance is such a sad thing when it’s intentional. Anyone with a functioning brain stem understands that product development is only successful if it results in a product someone, a farmer for example, wants to buy.

And where does your loathing of profit spring from?

Kyle Wingfield

October 31st, 2011
3:49 pm

Real Athens:

1. SS went “cash negative” last year. This year, it will cost $46B in general revenues to pay SS obligations, plus another $105B due to the payroll tax holiday. If the payroll tax holiday is kept next year, the bill will be $267B. None of those figures include Medicare costs.

2. The trust fund, for the most part, comprises debts that the federal government owes to the SS trust fund. One way to look at it is that taxpayers will have to come up with an extra few trillion dollars in the coming years to pay those debts. Another way to look at is that the federal government chose to spend that money in a way other than on SS (since Congress determines SS benefits). Or you can split the difference. Any way you slice it, we’re in a heap of fiscal trouble.

3. The Urban Institute this summer published a study of FICA taxes paid vs. expected benefits, for various scenarios (singles, married-one-worker, married-two-workers, average income, low income, high income). In every scenario, no matter which year someone turned 65, the expected benefits were higher than the accumulated taxes paid (which were adjusted for inflation and interest).

We’re no closer to a solution.

Kyle Wingfield

October 31st, 2011
3:56 pm

Also, Real Athens: Long cut-and-pastes from other publications (e.g., your GMO article) are not allowed on this blog. Please re-post with a link, attribution and a short excerpt. Thanks.

Real Athens

October 31st, 2011
4:23 pm

Kyle:

Will do — aka cut and paste.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

“For most of its 75-year history, the program had paid its own way through a dedicated stream of payroll taxes, even generating huge surpluses for the past two decades. But in 2010, under the strain of a recession that caused tax revenue to plummet, the cost of benefits outstripped tax collections for the first time since the early 1980s.”

Your Post article basically states the same thing I wrote earlier — regarding the congressional stewardship of the program. Funny, the program becomes insolvent in the 80’s (Reagan tax cuts) and the 90’s (extension of the Bush tax cuts by Obama). Hmmm.

Hillbilly: You think? Profit at the expense of the health of mankind.

LBB: I corrected your post. (My) sic “Ignorance is such a sad thing when it’s intentional. Anyone with a functioning brain stem understands that product development is only successful if it results in a product someone, a farmer for example, wants to buy.”

Read the damn article. Farmers don’t “have a choice”.

MarkV

October 31st, 2011
4:24 pm

Kyle: “Hey, I paid for my Social Security and Medicare! There’s no redistribution!” No, you didn’t; and yes, there is. You paid for your elders’ Social Security and Medicare, in exchange for the promise that future generations would pick up the tab for you. It is how the system was built, and the chief reason it is not wrong to liken it to a Ponzi scheme.

Kyle, this is mostly a falsehood, which has been repeated so much that many people accept it as truth. The only tab the future generations pick up are the difference between benefits paid out and the money that will have been paid into the trust fund. While this is becoming a problem if no changes in SS are made, any comparison with a Ponzi scheme is offensive and has no basis in truth.
The fact that the SS trust fund money has become part of the national debt is a completely different issue, which does not alter any of the above.

@@

October 31st, 2011
4:24 pm

In a way, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has cottoned onto this problem, with their emphasis on college debts (to the degree the OWS crowd can be said to have an emphasis, that is). But there’s no indication that they want to deal with this problem by making a college education cost less, only to make students less responsible for paying the cost of a college education. Nor is there any indication that they recognize the seriousness of the problem at the other end of the spectrum, that younger Americans will also be asked to pick up a larger and larger tab for their elders.

I couldn’t help but laugh when I read ^^^ that. The OWS crowd is squabbling over how they should spend their $500,000 stash (donations).

Should they buy warm socks or repair their drums and build a shed where they can be stored.

I suppose it would be kind if they died none the wiser. Ignorance IS bliss…or so I’ve heard.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

October 31st, 2011
4:38 pm

“Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to trademark name”
———–

I’m guessing that a majority of these (literally) jerkoffs think it’s OK to share pirated music files though.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

October 31st, 2011
4:42 pm

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s campaign denied allegations Sunday that he was twice accused of sexual harassment while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.-Urinal 12:46 a.m. Monday, October 31, 2011

A Monday morning first of the week news dump coordinated among all of the White House stooges, the AJC/ Politico/ CNN obozo propaganda crew, a thoroughly racist attack without any evidence, proof or basis in reality and it’s blowing up in their goony little lib faces.

You hacks just elected our nation’s first black president and I’m not talking about obozo.

Thank you very much, AJC/ White House.

Mental Floss

October 31st, 2011
4:49 pm

The right people aren’t have enough kids and the wrong ones are having too many!