Everybody hates everybody

Gravel for President?

It's like getting into the senate, a first you're like wow how did I get here?  then you're there for a few years and its like how did they rest of these people get here?

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1387

http://www.gravel2008.us/

The War in Iraq
Immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops followed by aggressive diplomacy

A Fair Tax
Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a progressive national sales tax - Fair Tax.
National Initiative for Democ

National Healthcare
Enact a national, universal, single-payer, not-for-profit U.S. healthcare system.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 12:56pm
The "fair tax" targets the poor moreso than a progressive income tax. It targets most the people who live hand to mouth.

The richer you are the more you invest, save and keep tucked away.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 1:07pm
To the first point, about hurting the poor, under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

To the second point, the rich generally buy more stuff and to the extent they buy more stuff, they will pay taxes on it.  If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 1:13pm
>To the first point, about hurting the poor, under the
>FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to
>the poverty level!

Same deal with income tax. Why are you trying to imply that this is somehow unique to "fairtax"?
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 1:29pm
>To the second point, the rich generally buy more stuff and
>to the extent they buy more stuff

Again, that's not the point - they spend a lower proportion of what they earn, and the richer you get the lower that proportion gets.

This tax unfairly impacts upon the poor.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 1:30pm
>If, however, they use their money to build job-creating
>factories, finance research and development to create new
>products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help
>improve the standard of living of others),

i.e. if they invest their money in order to create more unearned income (capital gains) then they should be rewarded for trying to accrue more unearned income.

The rich/poor divide is bad enough in America as it is, and getting worse. This will only serve to make it much worse than it already is.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 1:32pm
Oh, and the same thing applies to buying a house and having it appreciate in value. Nobody gains except you, but you aren't taxed under this plan, are you?

Renters are fucked though.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 1:37pm
People living at twice the poverty level are still pretty darn poor.

If I was queen of the world, I'd decree that the richest person could only have X times more wealth than the poorest person.  Any extra money would go into the common kitty for education, medical care, transportation infrastructure, recreation, etc.

This wouldn't kill incentive, since the top percentage would be generous enough to make the rich still be rich compared to the poor, but the current system of disgusting wealth vs. bone crushing poverty has got to go.

As Pearl S. Buck said in "The Good Earth", there will be a revolution when "the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich."  We seem to be heading that way again.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 1:40pm
Since the people promoting the "fair" or "flat" tax are millionaires, billionaires and their minions; a resonable person would conclude that such a tax would only benefit the ultra wealthy.
Permalink Peter 
April 29th, 2007 2:09pm
If you don't want to get into the nitty gritty, then yeah, that's a pretty reasonable way of looking at it.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 2:10pm
Are you kidding me?

Poverty in the United States is some paradise compared to *real* flies-on-eyelids-Hepatitis-A-causing water-in-warlord-torn-country poverty.

The baseline level of wealth that any individual can enjoy in our economy is so huge even the most worthless ass loser with the most menial job can  get housing, eat enough that he can be as fat as muppet (if they so choose), get basic medical care and have enough left over to own a big stack of xbox games and buy some good weed on a weekly basis.

The only reason we don't have the level of care that say, Sweden does, is because they don't have as diverse a population as we do.(Capitalism doesn't care what your skin color is.  But public policy makers sure do.)
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 2:17pm
"The baseline level of wealth that any individual can enjoy in our economy is so huge even the most worthless ass loser with the most menial job can  get housing, eat enough that he can be as fat as muppet (if they so choose), get basic medical care and have enough left over to own a big stack of xbox games and buy some good weed on a weekly basis."


Michael, what country are you living in?  Our poorest people don't have houses full of XBoxes.  A lot of them are fat because the food they can afford is all carbohydrates.  And you wouldn't want the crapppy housing or medical care that they have to endure.

Just because our poorest people don't suffer quite as much as those in 3rd world countries shouldn't give our billionaires license to accumulate all the money for themselves.  No one needs more than a million dollars, I'm sorry.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 2:23pm
"The only reason we don't have the level of care that say, Sweden does, is because they don't have as diverse a population as we do."

Diversity is not the reason we have lousy levels of care.  We have them because our government would rather spend money on the war in Iraq and the War Against Drugs.  And because America has this misplaced fear of socialism and providing services through government.  "Every man for himself!".

Sweden actually understands that providing a basic quality of life for everyone, benefits everyone.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 2:25pm
>The only reason we don't have the level of care that say,
>Sweden does, is because they don't have as diverse a
>population as we do.

Actually it's entirely due to your policymakers.

I'm not sure where diversity comes into it, but it sounds worryingly like tacit support for racism to me (blame the Mexicans perhaps?).
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 2:29pm
>Poverty in the United States is some paradise compared to
>*real* flies-on-eyelids-Hepatitis-A-causing
>water-in-warlord-torn-country poverty.

And poverty in Western European countries (the nicer ones anyway) is some paradise compared to America.

Your point being?
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 2:30pm
Incidentally, there are *extremely* poor towns and cities in America which really are every bit as bad as the third world.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 2:30pm
Michael B lives in New York City or thereabouts, I beleive.  I'm sure he's never driven through the garden spots of Mississippi and Lousiana to see people living in shacks with no plumbing.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 2:33pm
> Sweden actually understands that providing a basic quality of life for everyone, benefits everyone.


I agree with the rest of your points, but the Socialism pill is hard to get a country to swallow when their society is so fragmented.  It's hard enough to convince someone to help a total stranger by forcibly taxing them, but if the total stranger had a totally different skin color, religion, lifestyle, political belief?  Smelled different?

It's a goddamn miracle we have any social welfare at all. 

Sweden is extremely protective of its socialist state and has a huge problem with other races and immigrants.
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 2:35pm
> I'm not sure where diversity comes into it, but it sounds worryingly like tacit support for racism to me (blame the Mexicans perhaps?).

1) Diverse population causes problems in that 2) policymakers tend to implement racist policies.

Does that sound like tacit support for racism?  You asshole?
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 2:38pm
I sure hope that people aren't looking at the differently colored people around the country and not wanting to let their tax dollars benefit them.

Taxes should benefit everyone, regardless of who they are.  I would cheerfully pay more in taxes if that's what it took to provide the services that everyone needs.

However, since I know that most of the taxes I pay are wasted on war and corruption, I am currently unwilling to pay one penny more.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 2:41pm
> Michael, what country are you living in?  Our poorest people don't have houses full of XBoxes.  A lot of them are fat because the food they can afford is all carbohydrates.  And you wouldn't want the crapppy housing or medical care that they have to endure.

I live in awesome New York City.  I was describing someone I know (he's not fat at all, btw)
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 2:42pm
> I sure hope that people aren't looking at the differently colored people around the country and not wanting to let their tax dollars benefit them.

Well, even in my NYC paradise, I still run into more racist morons than I'm comfortable with and even in our enlightened and harmonious micro-society is has a dramatic impact on public policy.

The rest of the country must be some god-forsaken shithole by comparison.  I try not to look.
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 2:47pm
Even if my tax dollars benefit some poor assholes, it still sits better than the tax breaks being given to rich corporations who in turn oppress the poor people while pocketing the profits.

Enough with the tax breaks already.  If a company wants to build something, let them get private venture capital.  It's not the government's business to be building stadiums for sports teams.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 2:56pm
> Even if my tax dollars benefit some poor assholes, it still sits better than the tax breaks being given to rich corporations who in turn oppress the poor people while pocketing the profits.

Let me guess, you're anti-rape as well?  Not me, I think if a woman is raped it's her own fault.*

Seriously, who do you believe is against the position you're taking?




* In case you couldn't tell, I'm being sarcastic.
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 3:02pm
What position?  A lot of people do not believe that tax dollars should be used to help people get medical care or child care.  They believe in the private sector and capitalism as the vehicles to take care of society.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 3:05pm
> What position?  A lot of people do not believe that tax dollars should be used to help people get medical care or child care.  They believe in the private sector and capitalism as the vehicles to take care of society.

Does anyone here?  I haven't noticed.  Certainly not in this thread.
Permalink Michael B 
April 29th, 2007 3:06pm
No, not people here.  Some conservative sites. 

With a few exceptions, the people here seem to lean to the left.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 3:15pm
>To the first point, about hurting the poor, under the
>FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up
>to the poverty level!

>>Same deal with income tax. Why are you trying to imply >>that this is somehow unique to "fairtax"?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml

2007 poverty level for a family of four is $20,650

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

$1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650

So, $2300 of tax.

Where do you get the no tax to the poverty level calculation?  Some refund program?
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 4:52pm
>To the second point, the rich generally buy more stuff and
>to the extent they buy more stuff

>> Again, that's not the point - they spend a lower
>> proportion of what they earn, and the richer you get the >> lower that proportion gets.

Two points to this. 

One, the fair tax aims to encourage savings and investment.  If you think that is a bad idea and savings and investment should be taxed, then you can argue against the fairtax.

Two, the fair tax brings down the marginal rate for everyone including those with low incomes.  It does this by broading the tax base to include anyone who spends moeny in the country.  This effectively raises the tax rate on those who generate and spend large amounts of income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at lower rates then income.  It also includes those who don't file in the tax base.

Incidentally, to point one, cap gains and investments are taxed at lower rates to encourage savings and investment. Or, alternatively, they are taxed at lower rates because the super rich control the government and set it up that way

Data on the marginal rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Effectiverate.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FairTax_single.png
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 5:06pm
"If I was queen of the world, I'd decree that the richest person could only have X times more wealth than the poorest person.  Any extra money would go into the common kitty for education, medical care, transportation infrastructure, recreation, etc. "

What value for X are you planning on?

A few data points ...

Last year, James Simons earned $1.7, Kenneth Griffin made $1.4 billion and Edward Lamper made $1.3 billion.

Bill Gates owns 917,499,336 shares of Microsoft.  This represents 8% of Microsoft. 

The top 5% in the US make a minimum of $157,176 a year. (on a household basis with a median of 2 earners.)  The bottom 20% earn less than $18,500.

Nearly 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day on a PPP basis.

Again, what value for X are you planning on?
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 5:23pm
Sweden is a nice place, but

I. No jobs on net have been produced in the private sector

II. None of the top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock
started since 1970.

III. Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002
countries in terms of GDP per capita since 1970.4

http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/nk_dignity.pdf
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 5:28pm
I don't know what value of X.  I'm not an economist.  And it's theoretical, since I'm unfortunately never going to be queen of the world.

Maybe the biggest income can be 200 times the poverty level.  How's that?
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 6:01pm
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf

The poverty level is 10,000 for a single person.  200 times that is 2 million dollars.

From Table 1 in the pdf above, the top 99.9% of earners made an average of 1.49 million. There were 117,900 of them.  The top 99.99% made an average of 9,970,000.  There were 13,100 at this level.

Imagine you could take all that income (1.49 is close to 2 million) and put it in your health care fund.  It would come to 300 billion dollars. 

In 2001, Americans spent 1.42 trillion on health care.  The 2008 budget for Social Security administration is $657 billion.

My point is you can't fix the problems in the US by soaking the rich.  It simply isn't the case that a bunch of super rich people have so much that if we just stole all their money and handed it out everyone would be fine. 

The way to fix the problems of the US is to increase labor productivity at all levels.  I don't think an income cap serves that purpose at all.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 6:42pm
>Sweden is a nice place, but

I can vouch for that personally. Nicer than most places in the USA.

>I. No jobs on net have been produced in the private sector

I'm not even sure what that means.

>II. None of the top 50 companies on the Stockholm
>stock started since 1970.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

>III. Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in
>2002 countries in terms of GDP per capita since 1970.4

Not relevant to standard of living. You can double your country's GDP by getting each housewife to do paid housework for a friend and vice versa. No real difference to the amount of work done but GDP has increased significantly.

And expensive lawsuits, unnecessary surgery and useless adverts for drugs on TV are all GREAT for GDP. They have  a negative impact upon standard of living though.

Don't get me wrong - it's generally better to have a higher rather than a lower GDP, but a higher GDP doesn't necessarily mean that anything about a country is better.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 7:56pm
>One, the fair tax aims to encourage savings and investment.
>If you think that is a bad idea and savings and investment
>should be taxed, then you can argue against the fairtax.

I was saying that savings and investment SHOULD be taxed, something that the "fairtax" doesn't seem to do.

I'm all for encouraging socking away a grand or three a year. Families need to save for the future - bends in the road, etc. Make that tax free.

I'm all AGAINST letting people invest and save a lot more than that without being taxed, since it just increases the propensity for the rich to get richer and the poor to get increasingly poorer.

I mean, if you want the landlords to make lots of money on the appreciating value of their house while their tenants pay lots of tax while renting it then yeah, you can be all for the "fair tax". Don't pretend that it's actually fair though.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:01pm
>Where do you get the no tax to the poverty level
>calculation?  Some refund program?

Of course. Families of four would get tax breaks/welfare on 20 grand that would more than make up for the 4 grand they lost to the government.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:03pm
>If you think that is a bad idea and savings and investment
>should be taxed, then you can argue against the fairtax.

>>I was saying that savings and investment SHOULD be taxed, >>something that the "fairtax" doesn't seem to do.

Yes, exactly what I wrote.  If you think people who go out and save should be taxed then oppose the fair tax.

"since it just increases the propensity for the rich to get richer and the poor to get increasingly poorer. "

Just?  Investment is the engine of job creation and produtivity increases.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 8:05pm
"Families of four would get tax breaks/welfare on 20 grand that would more than make up for the 4 grand they lost to the government"

What tax break?  Fairtax doesn't eliminate welfare and that's not a tax program. Your statement was that under the current system poor people pay no net tax.  What break makes that true?  Also consider the payroll tax for social security at 6% is regressive.  6% on all income up to 96k.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 8:08pm
>Just?  Investment is the engine of job creation and
>produtivity increases.

Don't pretend that they do it out of the goodness of their heart. If it makes them money they will do it, and we can RELY on them doing it. We don't even need to encourage it.

"Encouraging investment" is an overused phrase, particularly in Washington where it is used by lobbyists on behalf of corporations/individuals and just directly translates into "give me money".

It makes people very rich without them having to do a stroke of work, and I'm keen on taxing that kind of behavior a lot. When you're investing, you're making money off the backs of others and I have *NO* problem engaging in a little redistribution of wealth to counteract that.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:11pm
The whole "investment" obsession becomes suspect when the mission of the corporation is devoted to pleasing the stockholders at the expense of the general public, the employees, and the health of the corporation itself.  A few people become seriously rich while others lose their jobs or their lifetime savings.  Look at Enron.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 8:14pm
The people take the money and build a business.  If the businees is successful people are employed.  You would have the government take 15% of that business investment and do what?

The government will get plenty of money from consumption tax.

Why do you expect the government will spend that X% investment tax better than the private sector?
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 8:15pm
The point on Sweden, to quote Tyler Cowen: "how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States?"
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 8:15pm
>What tax break?  Fairtax doesn't eliminate welfare and
>that's not a tax program. Your statement was that under
>the current system poor people pay no net tax.

I don't remember saying that they paid no net tax.

Still, we can adjust the scales of income tax to ensure that people below the poverty level pay no net tax.

There's no need to scrap the entire tax system in order to do that. No inherent benefit in "fair tax" that makes it feasible - you're just saying "I want this theoretical tax to start at X level of income instead of Y", therefore it's better than the current system which starts at Y.

Doesn't hold water. Crappy argument.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:16pm
>The point on Sweden, to quote Tyler Cowen: "how attractive
>will this model remain when it offers only half of the per
>capita income of the United States?"

Keep dreaming.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:17pm
Because a good government (don't say it) is accountable to all of the people, while a corporation is only accountable to its stockholders.

Some things serve the public better when they're run by the government and not for profit.  There's a reason why highways aren't privatized, or the armed forces, although with Blackwater, etc. we seem to be moving towards that.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 29th, 2007 8:17pm
>The people take the money and build a business.  If the
>businees is successful people are employed.  You would have
>the government take 15% of that business investment and do
>what?

Fund schools, hospitals, etc. All the good stuff.

Why? Are you against educating children or something?

>The government will get plenty of money from
>consumption tax.

Yup, but from different people. I'm rather intent on having the treasury's cash come from RICHER people who intend to have their money make them money, rather than the POORER people who have to rely on their LABOR making them money.

Do you see the difference here?

>Why do you expect the government will spend that X%
>investment tax better than the private sector?

Different argument. Start a new thread if you want to discuss that. I'm just assuming here that Government has to provide a certain level of services (including welfare/wealth redistribution) and it somehow has to pay for that.

For the record, there are certain things which the private sector is APPALLING at and the ABSOLUTELY HAVE to be run by the Government.

But like I said, start a new thread to discuss this.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:20pm
>From Table 1 in the pdf above, the top 99.9% of earners
>made an average of 1.49 million. There were 117,900 of them.
>The top 99.99% made an average of 9,970,000.  There were
>13,100 at this level.
>
>Imagine you could take all that income (1.49 is close to 2
>million) and put it in your health care fund.  It would
>come to 300 billion dollars.

Once you get to that level, people get very good at hiding their income and most of their wealth is in their assets which are conveniently not mentioned in that PDF you cited.

Also, if you took the top 99.9% instaed of the top 99.99% the figures look very different.
Permalink Colm 
April 29th, 2007 8:24pm
"Also, if you took the top 99.9% instaed of the top 99.99% the figures look very different."

I took the top 99.9% and the top 99.99%. The 117k in the 99.9% earned an average of 1.49 million.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 10:30pm
"I'm just assuming here that Government has to provide a certain level of services (including welfare/wealth redistribution) and it somehow has to pay for that. "

The fairtax is revenue equivilent with the current system, so everything the government does now it can keep doing.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 10:31pm
">The government will get plenty of money from
>consumption tax.

Yup, but from different people. I'm rather intent on having the treasury's cash come from RICHER people who intend to have their money make them money, rather than the POORER people who have to rely on their LABOR making them money. "

Look at the graph, everyone's marginal rates go down.  The very poor pay less.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 11:01pm
>To the first point, about hurting the poor, under the
>FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to
>the poverty level!

: Same deal with income tax. Why are you trying to imply
: that this is somehow unique to "fairtax"?

>> I don't remember saying that they paid no net tax.

I've quoted it for you.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 11:03pm
"Once you get to that level, people get very good at hiding their income and most of their wealth is in their assets which are conveniently not mentioned in that PDF you cited. "

So you want some sort of asset tax?  How would that work? Interesting idea. 50% tax on esate inheritence above 1,000,000? I support that.
Permalink bob 
April 29th, 2007 11:06pm
Gini coefficient measures disparity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

While comparing different nations' scores should be done with care, note that the USA score has increased monotonically  since the 70's.
Permalink Gotta go 
April 29th, 2007 11:35pm
>So you want some sort of asset tax?  How would that work?
>Interesting idea. 50% tax on esate inheritence above
>1,000,000? I support that.

Personally I'd go with 100% after seeing what people who inherit that much wealth do with it. Let's just say that a few more hospitals is worth denying a trust fundy of a lifetime of leisure.

This isn't a particularly new idea.
Permalink Colm 
April 30th, 2007 6:53am
>I've quoted it for you.

Same deal, not meaning "the exact same thing".

You still haven't addressed the fact that it's just a matter of scaling and nothing really to do with the system. I'm assuming that you cede that point too.
Permalink Colm 
April 30th, 2007 6:59am
None of this would be necessary if human beings weren't selfish bitches who keep all their money for themselves even when they have hundreds of times as much as they need.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 30th, 2007 7:30am
"You still haven't addressed the fact that it's just a matter of scaling and nothing really to do with the system. I'm assuming that you cede that point too."

Sure.  It's just a matter of who gets taxed on what income. The major differences are more people get taxed, existing tax payers pay less, very poor get taxed not at all, investment isn't taxed, and the system is vastly simpler. 

I also thought the point on renting was good.  That said, existing mortgage subsidies are problematic already.
Permalink bob 
April 30th, 2007 7:32am
The fundamental problem with all of this is that the tax system evolved slowly over a long time with slight changes here and slight changes there to make the system more fair.

Scrapping the system entirely and going with something else would effectively start that process all over again. Meantime a lot of people would be screwed out of a lot of money unfairly and a lot of people would keep a lot of money also unfairly. I'd estimate that with the legislative wheels working the speed at which they do it'd take many decades before the mess sorted itself out, and it wouldn't be pretty.

It's sort of akin to just scrapping your code which has been QA'd and bugfixed for 10 years and rewriting it all over again introducing the same old bugs you had 10 years ago.

That's why any changes to the system have to be gradual, and just scrapping one tax system and replacing it with another would be pretty disastrous.
Permalink Colm 
April 30th, 2007 7:38am
>Sure.  It's just a matter of who gets taxed on what income.
>The major differences are more people get taxed, existing
>tax payers pay less, very poor get taxed not at all,
>investment isn't taxed, and the system is vastly simpler.

Like any tax reform it just shifts the burden. In this case it would either shift the burden from the rich to the middle class and poor, or the rich the middle class and the very poor, depending upon how you scaled it.

However you scale it, though, the richer you are the better this tax system is for you.
Permalink Colm 
April 30th, 2007 7:41am
"In this case it would either shift the burden from the rich to the middle class and poor, or the rich the middle class and the very poor, depending upon how you scaled it. "

Can you explain to me how a tax that lowers the rate for everyone in the middle class and doesn't tax the very poor at all including the removal of regressive payroll taxes shifts a burden to the middle class and poor?
Permalink bob 
April 30th, 2007 6:18pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics