Notices

View Poll Results: Extend the Bush tax cuts?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, all

    4 40.00%
  • yes, some

    4 40.00%
  • no, none

    2 20.00%
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Extend the bush tax cuts?

  1. #1 Extend the bush tax cuts? 
    Forum Freshman jduster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10
    Yes. It would be risky to hike taxes during a recession, a gamble we all shouldn't take.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i see that there has been at least one response for "yes, all" well, that person should have known this would be coming from someone:

    the bush tax cuts resulted in slight tax cuts for the middle 20% of americans (2.3% increase in after tax income), while those earning in the top one percent gained significantly (5.3% increased after tax income). and those earning over 1 million dollars gained extraordinarilly (6.4% increase in after tax income).

    this means that money from these tax cuts as a whole was given not to people who needed money, but to those who already earned millions upon millions of dollars. these are people who already spend all they need to and in tough economic times generally save their money rather than spend it. this type of "trickle down" tax system does not work (or at least works worse than a "bottom up" stimulus) you can ask any economist or read any macroeconomics textbook. demand is the key factor in making producers want to supply more and create new jobs (which in turn causes more demand and causes the chain reaction of growth in capitalism), and demand is most strongly increased by tax cuts to the lower income groups, not the top once percent, or those earning above one million dollars annually.

    in other words, the bush tax cuts screw the american public


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman jduster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10
    the bush tax cuts were enacted during the beginning of his term under the premise that economists were predicting a 5 trillion dollar surplus for the decade. of course, we all did not know that there was going to be a war on terror and a financial meltdown during the decade, so the surpluses vanished.

    letting them extend to the next decade may not be a good idea, since there isn't a surplus projected for the decade, but the tax cuts should be kept at least for now, since the economy is in a recession.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    The same argument was made in 1937. It was wrong then, and wrong now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Keeping the tax breaks for the rich will just reward them for not hiring anyone or keeping the money invested in their US businesses, and allow them to take the money to China where they can earn more profits.

    It will also allow them to further drive up the price of land, clean water, housing, etc, for everyone else, as they keep ever higher multiples of the median after tax income and use their increasing share of the nation's total wealth (double what it used to be during prosperous times) to control ever more of the landscape and infrastructure and government we live under.

    That's what happened with all the money the US didn't have to fight the Iraq war, causing borrowing, and there's no reason to believe the rich have changed their behavior recently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I think the idea that needs to be challenged here is whether or not the tax cuts actually worked. You can assert that letting them expire will hurt the economy until you're blue in the face, but until you back that up with some data your assertion is meaningless and hollow.

    Now, in support of my point, I will show that they did not work as sold... contrary to many assertions suggesting otherwise.

    Perhaps someone has numbers of their own which negate these?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...23krugman.html
    According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But thatís the least of it: the policy centerís estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; heís going to get the majority of that groupís tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few ó the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year ó would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

    How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits? Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

    So, for example, weíre told that itís all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

    Or weíre told that itís about helping the economy recover. But itís hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and arenít likely to spend a windfall.

    No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, itís about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress wonít take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

    http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/1...aised-revenue/
    In short, unless you think the economy was permanently damaged, all the way up until 2008, from the dot-com bubble in 2001 then you should expect tax receipts to return to the baseline.

    After all they are pretty smooth in the wake of the larger early 90s recessions. You should also note that there is no huge boom from the housing bubble. No, for the most part federal receipts track the long run trend growth in the economy.

    Lastly, the core argument here is that supply side didnít work. Are you really going to tell me that the mildest recession in post-war history was so bad that it lead to persistent underperformance of revenue even though in a counterfactual world revenue would have surged above trend growth?

    <...>

    At a minimum we should expect post dip revenue to grow faster as the economy tries to return to trend.

    We donít see that. We see a permanently lower trend.

    Given that this is exactly what you would expect from reducing the percentage of the economy which taxed, I think its pretty strong evidence that this is what happened.

    In short, the claim that the Bush tax cuts had such strong secondary effects of boosting GDP and tax compliance that they outweighed the primary effect of reducing taxable income is a complex one. Generally, in science we would expect someone to assemble a strong empirical case for such a claim.

    When the empirics match the much simpler, more basic, more parsimonious explanation, thatís pretty damning for the complex claim.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...cut-delusions/
    A number of people have reacted to Mitch McConnellís defense of Jon Kyl, with his remarkable claim that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. In a rational world, the failure of the economy to do anything special after those tax cuts, following a boom period after the Clinton tax hike, would have cast strong doubt on any claims about the favorable impacts of tax cuts on the economy, let alone on the claim that these effects are so strong as to generate more revenue than the losses from the cuts. As this nice chart shows, the actual path of revenue was pretty much what you would have expected if the Bush cuts had no supply-side effect at all.

    But judging from the reaction both to my post and to Menzie Chinnís, there are a lot of people who canít handle the truth.





    Here's more which debunks the strange claims being made about tax cut effectiveness:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ut-truthiness/









    As for the current plans... More here:

    http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedP...uts-debate.pdf
    The impact of the Obama proposal is virtually identical to that of extending all of the cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers. Sizable differences donít emerge until you hit the top 1 percent of taxpayersóthose households making at least $600,000. Even more striking is the finding that the majority of the savings accrues to the top 0.1 percent of taxpayersóthose 120,000 taxpayers with average annual income of about $8.4 million.

    <...>

    In other words, the heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000 taxpayers or whether we should instead make a relatively small down payment toward fiscal sustainability.




    Here's another rather interesting bit from that same report:

    From a budgetary perspective, the price of extending all of the cuts is steep; full extension would contribute $3.7 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years.
    Unfortunately, Obama's plan (while clearly better for the middle class) would still increase the deficit by 82% of that number.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1
    In America, there is no one stopping any of us from being successful. Naturally, some are going to be more successful than others. Contrary to progressive belief, the poor will always be with us... no matter how much is handed to them. Punishing the successful to avenge the poor is counter productive... but it does makes a good class-warfare scheme to garner votes. Surplus earnings are always re-invested. The "Ant and the Grasshopper" comes to mind.

    America was originally built on no income tax. Then we moved to reasonable income tax. We are now in a condition of government plunder. The next move could be to do away with income tax altogether and invoke slave labor.

    Mark
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark.Virginia
    Punishing the successful to avenge the poor is counter productive... but it does makes a good class-warfare scheme to garner votes. Surplus earnings are always re-invested. The "Ant and the Grasshopper" comes to mind.
    The goal isn't to avenge anything. A consumer economy runs best when you have the maximum number of individual consumers going to the store and buying stuff. If you allow wealth to become too concentrated, then the number of consumers who can afford to go shopping becomes fewer. On the other hand, people with 10 billion in the bank don't buy a lot more consumer goods than people with 100 million in the bank..

    That's why concentration of wealth slows down the economy. It's not just part of the economy that suffers. It's the whole economy. If those rich guys have nobody to sell stuff to, then they can't become richer.


    America was originally built on no income tax. Then we moved to reasonable income tax. We are now in a condition of government plunder. The next move could be to do away with income tax altogether and invoke slave labor.

    Mark
    Yeah. It was also built with no standing army. (No military industrial complex). That's why militias were considered essential to the security of a free state.

    If we really want to lower taxes, we're going to need to dump a lot of government projects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark.Virginia
    Contrary to progressive belief, the poor will always be with us... no matter how much is handed to them.
    It's important for you to remember that a progressive ideal is hardly the same as a progressive belief about reality.

    I also find it funny how you equate providing a basic minimum safety net for the entire populace as "punishing the rich for being successful." Well... not so much funny... What's the word I'm looking for? Ignorant... Yep... That's the one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Mark Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    35
    +5 internets for inow for awesome info on the subject, I will have to do some personal research on the manner to form a final opinion on the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    The recession is obviously caused by overproduction, not underproduction. Underproduction would manifest as lack of goods low unemployment and high inflation. We see the opposite.
    So instead of tax cuts and reducing spendings countries should do the opposite - increase spending, reduce or elliminate taxes for the poorest and compensate with higher taxes for companies and the rich.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    The recession is obviously caused by overproduction, not underproduction. Underproduction would manifest as lack of goods low unemployment and high inflation. We see the opposite.
    So instead of tax cuts and reducing spendings countries should do the opposite - increase spending, reduce or elliminate taxes for the poorest and compensate with higher taxes for companies and the rich.
    Actually... that makes a lot of sense. Concentration of wealth toward the wealthy == increased investment (where else would they put their money?) == greater productive potential. But all that potential is worthless if the largest group of people (the bottom level) don't have enough money to place orders.

    This is especially important in a modern industrial economy, because the greatest efficiencies happen when there's an economy of scale. Let only rich people be the consumers, and everything would be hand made. No assembly lines, because rich people don't buy that crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I also find it funny how you equate providing a basic minimum safety net for the entire populace as "punishing the rich for being successful." Well... not so much funny... What's the word I'm looking for? Ignorant... Yep... That's the one.
    Providing a safety net for the populace is a function of charitable organizations. It is not a legitimate function of the United States government. There is no such power in the United States Constitution. If you are feeling charitable, I would suggest being charitable with your own money, not someone else's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Providing a safety net for the populace is a function of charitable organizations. It is not a legitimate function of the United States government.
    Well, this is certainly debatable, but completely irrelevant to the point I made.

    It's hardly accurate to suggest that this safety net (regardless if you think it should be there or not) is there to "punish the rich simply for being successful." That's ignorant, and the validity of my response remains.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    There is no such power in the United States Constitution.
    Again, regardless of whether or not you think these safety nets should be offered by the government, the above comment is fully up for debate and not as resolved as your words suggest. The power to tax is in the constitution, as is the power of congress to write laws which benefit the citizens of the nation and assist with their general welfare.

    The Judicial Branch of our government, the branch expressly in place to rule on the constitutionality of our laws and the branch granted the authority to strike down those which are not constitutional, has ruled numerous times that this activity of congress is both within their power AND constitutional.

    See also:

    Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548
    Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S.

    ...plus the scores of others supporting the constitutionality of Medicare, social security, and even more recent rulings supporting the constitutionality of recent healthcare affordability act.


    Now, with the social security act came explicit protections for the following groups from the federal government, and all have consistently been ruled constitutional by the body in place to make those assessments (SCOTUS):

    * Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance
    * Unemployment benefits
    * Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    * Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
    * Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
    * State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
    * Supplemental Security Income (SSI)


    And, since it's original passing in 1935, it has been updated and amended on the order of 50 times, and those amendments too have survived constitutional challenge.


    In short, it's perfectly acceptable for you to be against the idea that our federal government should not provide a basic minimum safety net to its populace, but it's not acceptable for you to assert that their doing so is unconstitutional when all of the available evidence clearly suggest otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow

    In short, it's perfectly acceptable for you to be against the idea that our federal government should not provide a basic minimum safety net to its populace, but it's not acceptable for you to assert that their doing so is unconstitutional when all of the available evidence clearly suggest otherwise.
    I don't always agree with Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution is written in fairly plain language, so if you can show me where the powers are granted, I will happily concede the point. As a matter of fact, the tenth amendment pretty clearly says that if it's not explicitly in there, the federal government doesn't have it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
    So it all depends on the interpretation of "general welfare". This has been a debate ever since it was written. It is a matter of interpretation like much else in the Constitution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
    So it all depends on the interpretation of "general welfare". This has been a debate ever since it was written. It is a matter of interpretation like much else in the Constitution.
    Can Congress pass a law that is not intended to provide for the general welfare? If not, then what kind of legislation would be limited by the tenth amendment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I don't always agree with Supreme Court decisions.
    Here's the rub, Harold.

    You seem to respect the constitution. You seem to view it as a very important document worthy of being followed closely.

    In that constitution, checks and balances were established whereby the Judicial Branch was granted the authority to determine what laws are constitutional and which are not.

    That Judicial Branch, via the Supreme Court of the Unites States has deemed the social safety nets to be constitutional repeatedly, almost without fail, and as per the constitution which you seem to hold so sacred, that is their decision to make and nobody elses.

    The decision has been made, and that decision has been consistently upheld despite countless challenges. I understand that you disagree with those repeated decisions, but your disagreement alone does not mean the programs are unconstitutional.


    The power of the government to do this is plainly within the general welfare clause, and also since these programs (or their disappearance) impact interstate commerce, this is further evidence that congress has the power you claim they do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    what kind of legislation would be limited by the tenth amendment?
    Perhaps an earmark for a bridge in Alaska that 99.9% of the people will never see but we all pay for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    what kind of legislation would be limited by the tenth amendment?
    Well, an obvious example is the police powers.
    There are others, too...
    A federally mandated minimum or maximum wage.
    The age at which you can get your drivers license.
    The age at which you can get married.

    Those are just a few off the top of my head... There are certainly many others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    what kind of legislation would be limited by the tenth amendment?
    Well, an obvious example is the police powers.
    There are others, too...
    A federally mandated minimum or maximum wage.
    The age at which you can get your drivers license.
    The age at which you can get married.

    Those are just a few off the top of my head... There are certainly many others.
    I'm afraid I don't get the distinction. Police powers are surely related to the general welfare. Besides which, we already have federal police agencies like the FBI and the BTAF, as well as a federal minimum wage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Okay, but I still answered your question accurately. Regardless, I think part of the confusion you have may regard what constitutes a police power?


    From wiki:

    The exercise of police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal sanctions, physical means, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

    <...>

    Police powers include licensing, inspection, zoning, safety regulations (which cover a lot of territory), quarantines, and working conditions as well as law enforcement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I also find it funny how you equate providing a basic minimum safety net for the entire populace as "punishing the rich for being successful." Well... not so much funny... What's the word I'm looking for? Ignorant... Yep... That's the one.
    Providing a safety net for the populace is a function of charitable organizations. It is not a legitimate function of the United States government. There is no such power in the United States Constitution. If you are feeling charitable, I would suggest being charitable with your own money, not someone else's.
    Whereas private for-profit businesses are usually more frugal than government, private charities are almost always less so. The law right now is that they must pay out at least 5% assets every year to a final recipient, and very few charities do any better than that. Most of the money just goes into overhead and management costs. (I somewhat object to the rule being based on assets instead of income, since that could make quite a difference, but it suffices to just say it's a screwed up system.)

    http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/311...oundations.pdf
    http://www.futureofphilanthropy.org/...nking_incr.asp

    So, whether or not private charities "should" pick up the slack instead of government, I would say it is much better for society if they don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    very few charities do any better than that
    I don't know the factuality of the above statement, but you can check out your charities before giving using Charity Navigator, which I believe is fair and unbiased (although skepticism is alwyas lurking). I think a four star rating means the charity uses at least 85% of donations directly for the cause it supports.

    Whereas private for-profit businesses are usually more frugal than government
    Define frugal. If a health insurance company uises 30% of its income for marketing, advertising, and buying senators, while denying insurance to the people who need it the most is this frugality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    If an able bodied person or someone with some trivial medical condition finds a quack doctor who will declare them disabled, and then that person goes on social security disability and drains the money out of the system, so that there is nothing left for the people who actually paid into the system, would that count as a case where the funds went to the proper end user?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If an able bodied person or someone with some trivial medical condition finds a quack doctor who will declare them disabled, and then that person goes on social security disability and drains the money out of the system, so that there is nothing left for the people who actually paid into the system, would that count as a case where the funds went to the proper end user?
    No that would be fraud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Dilbert comics wouldn't be very funny if private enterprise were as efficient a people try and make it sound. The thing of it is that any very large organization is going to have a large bureaucracy, and large bureaucracies are never efficient. The government is just a very very large organization, with all the same problems any corporation of its size would have. Sometimes the economy of scale offsets the bureaucratic waste. Sometimes it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    very few charities do any better than that
    I don't know the factuality of the above statement, but you can check out your charities before giving using Charity Navigator, which I believe is fair and unbiased (although skepticism is alwyas lurking). I think a four star rating means the charity uses at least 85% of donations directly for the cause it supports.
    I think you're right. According to the second article I linked to, 5% is the norm, but for me to say "very few" probably was an exaggeration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Regarding taxation, I was mentally composing a post along the lines of how current Republican ideology is blind to the reality of budget balancing and was going to refer to Ronald Reaganís declared ideology versus the pragmatic reality of his enacting the biggest tax increase in history. He had his beliefs, and he had a goal of destroying social security and other safety nets, but he realized he could not undo these programs, and faced the reality that tax increases were essential to prevent a budget disaster. But then I read this which saved me the effort of writing it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11759960
    But the important point is this: Mrs Thatcher and Mr Reagan shared a governing philosophy: ideology and pragmatism. Ideology was great for speech-making and letting people know what you thought, pragmatism was necessary for governing. As American and British Conservatives drift apart, like Gondwana and Pangaea, it seems that American Republicans have let go of their pragmatic inheritance.
    Exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •