's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Well they did it!(117 posts)

Well they did it!Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 5:11 AM
The Dumocrats expanded welfare again. They also lost all credibility when it comes to their ranting about fiscal responsibility concerning the federal budget deficit. Their plan was self serving and pandering to their constituency and has nothing to do with principals. I wonder how much of that money is actually going to be spent toward the benefit of the children it is targeted for?

What I can't stand is how they portray the who thing. The Domos make it appear as if the families in the higher tax brackets are getting something for nothing and the families in the lower brackets are being left out. The families in the higher bracket are just getting some of the taxes back in the form of a credit. The 6.5 million families that will benefit from this new addition to the bill will be gattin another handout from Uncle Sam. Where will the money come from? Won't this increase the deficit? Blah, blah,blah, blah, blah!!!

Look at these three. Quite a scary site! The three faces of evil! :O)
Daschle is a dishonest idiot. Period.DougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:15 AM
To think that someone who pays no taxes should get a tax credit is just plain stupid or dishonest.

If you want to take a position that poor children need (more) welfare, then be honest and just come out and say so.

God, I go on an after-primary, no-computer, no-politicsOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 6:30 AM
vacation for two weeks and the board goes to hell in a handcart, with nutty right wingers spouting their Imperial nonsense unchallenged right here at the top of the board!


I could as easily say George Bush is a dishonest idiot, and probably we closer to telling a truth than Counselor Sloan just did.

Of COURSE the working poor pay taxes, Doug. They pay a pretty damn significant percentage of their pitiful gainful-employment incomes in taxes. Maybe it's not 'income' taxes -- LISTEN TO THE HAIRS SPLITTING! -- but it's taxes just the same. They are certainly paying payroll taxes. While we're doling out much-needed 'tax relief' to zillionaires, can't we find some mechanism to give the Lower Depths some tax relief too? Four hundred lousy goddamned dollars?? I KNOW this is not on your/Bush's radar screen, because after all these folks aren't in your Club, but c'mon, give 'em a crumb!

I say again: Sheesh.
But it's not THEIR MONEY ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2003 6:38 AM
Hey ....Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 6:44 AM
you Ol' panty waste! :O) I've been wonderin' where you've been. Now let me learn ya' somethin'. The payroll taxes you say these poor people pay they already get back. It's called EITC. Anyone earning under $27,000/yr. get it. I believe they do get it in varying percentages based on some stipulations, but they do get it back.

It is not the amount or the fact that they are getting the money. What I can't stand is how it is portrayed. "Tax relief should leave no child behind". Pulleezzzz! Dear Ol' Charlie Rangel from my home city was cryin' on TV for the "po childen" left behind. This is what Cory blasted me for a few days ago. He tells me that the tax cut was going to "hurt" 12 million children. How was it going to hurt them?

This is welfare and should be administered as such. The way these svengalis portrayed this is just disgraceful. I guess they really don't care about the budget deficit. They just care about getting re-elected.

Oh, welcome back :O)
Steam, I see you've been in full cry the last two weeks.OldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 7:00 AM
I'm back to shoot your specious posts full of buckshot, so be steady, my friend. Think before you hit that button!
Yeah CZAR lacks any real challenge. He is too ...Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 7:13 AM
green me thinks. He usually doesn't post until late afternoon. I figure he's just getting back from high school :O) Hey the sun is shinin' in NYC. I must get some miles in. It's going to rain again all weekend :O( I'll check back later to see how well you are doing. Doug is more than competent to hold the fort :O)
Well, at least I have the decency to insult you. . .czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 11:32 AM
. . .to your :O)

You should know that us folks in Berkeley, in addition to being 3 hours behind time-zone wise, tend not to be the types who are up at the crack of dawn.
I knew it! I just knew it!Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 12:55 PM
Academia. Say when's the prom? :O)

Hey living in Berkeley is no excuse for being a liberal panty waste. One of my cycling buddies, an attorney who grew up in the Bay area in the 50s and graduated from UCB in the 60s, is even more conservative than me :o)

So what are you doing at Berkeley pray tell?
Who said anything about academia?czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 1:04 PM
My degree was in East Asian Languages. Japanese, specifically.
Japanese. Very cool. I love sushi. That's about the ...Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 1:19 PM
only Japanes I know. So what are you doing in Berkeley? You live in the city? Not affiliated with U of C?
Live in Albany, work in Berekely, in book distribution. (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 1:25 PM
Albany?! You a New Yorker? Say what ..Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 1:33 PM
kind of books are you distributing. Prolly some commie pinko stuff hey :O) I guess you love our state senator Hillary. I almost moved because she won. But I figured Alec Baldwin is still here, so I can tough it out too.

My cousin went to state college in Albany. I used to visit once in a while. I got plenty stinking drunk in that town.
Pardon my provincialism. Albany, CA 94706. (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:05 PM
Oh yeah. And lots of pinko stuff, among many other things. (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:06 PM
You do have a sense of humor I hope! :O) nmLive Steam
Jun 7, 2003 7:08 AM
welcome back from the benderDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:44 AM
That partially makes sense, but it's still not honest they way they are portraying it. I don't have so much of a quarrel with lowering taxes for everyone (fine with me), but the dishonesty and class warefare character of the Democrats' strategy.

To be more honest about it, why don't they introduce a threshold to SS taxes or Medicare, ban sales tax on food (like California), etc. An "income tax credit" only makes sense if you otherwise owe income tax.

Only a slight bender, lots of seafoot, and FLATOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 6:52 AM
bike riding. Interesting fact: If you ride in hills all the time, you figure you'll be Speedy Gonzales if you ever get a chance to put together more than one consecutive mile in the flats. Wrong. If you ride in hills all the time, you never develop speed. I averaged 13 mph on the pancake flats of Florida just like I average 13 mph in the steep nasty knobs of Kentucky. Damndest thing.

Say what you will about the tax cut, argue it semantically, whatever, you guys have really stepped in it this time. Simple fact is, zillionaires get their child credit, poor people don't, and it just looks SKANKY to the average person out there. Unlike the RBR Millionaires Club.
what, down there rigging elections?DougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 7:03 AM
Vacation, right.

Where in Florida? Great vacation areas. My parents are in Saint Pete.

Don't understand the 13 mph thing on flats. Must have been some killer headwinds.

HA HA HA! Naw, we've ceded Florida.OldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 7:11 AM
Hillary won't need it anyway.

I can only figure all I've developed is power -- no fast twitch or whatever. I don't know. It was really odd. Actually my average down there was a little more than 13, but not much. I expected to just FLY, and didn't at all.

I honestly do ride nothing but hills at home. My longest 'flat' in a one-mile roller.

Destin, by the way. We have a condo there.
Let's stay on topic here, pleasemoneyman
Jun 6, 2003 7:19 AM
This is the "Non-Cycling" discussion board. Lets keep the subject to political haranguing and urine introspection. Take that cycling stuff elsewhere.

Ed, Ed, Ed. Where did you vacation?moneyman
Jun 6, 2003 6:52 AM
Berkely? Madison? Boulder? Havana?

To help you catch up on the tax discussion, I am putting some helpful links so you don't have to scroll through all the fluff.

moneyman "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/3/03 7:33am

MJ "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/4/03 9:11am

moneyman "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/4/03 9:53am

MJ "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/4/03 10:09am

moneyman "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/4/03 1:39pm

rufus "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/4/03 5:55pm

moneyman "Why is everyone so surprised?" 6/5/03 8:37am

I believe that should about cover it. A fine summation of the problem, I must say.

Please advise us when you go on vacation next time so we can archive this material for your reading on your return. It slows us all down when you have to start from scratch.

$$ (always helpful)
Not starting from scratch! I'm in fifth gear, redlined!OldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 6:55 AM
You Imperial Repubs have finally uncloaked your class warfare act for all to see, and we're about to skewer you good! Hee hee!
class warfare?DougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 7:00 AM
Let me ask you this, sincerely. Do the poor already receive any type of assistance that helps with children that the rich do not? (we better define "rich", I suppose)

That's like askingOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 7:05 AM
"Do the rich already have plenty of money that the poor people don't?" Absolutely specious.

The issue IS, if the the Imperial Right is so concerned with giving people a tax break, WHY does it not occur to them that the WORKING poor could use a break too, and absolutely need it more?

It doesn't even OCCUR to them, is the answer.

And yes, class warfare. Dems have ducked this for too long, allowing Repubs to tar US with the term. Bullsh!t. It is the Repubs who have declared class warfare, and it's time for us to simply point that out. I'm not at all scared to do so.
Jun 6, 2003 7:20 AM
I'd be for revising the entire tax scheme. Graduated flat tax. Under $30,000, no taxes (they don't may much, anyway), then 10%, 15%, etc. No deductions. No credits. Still have to define what is "income," though, which is a mess.

No matter what plan for tax relief is proposed, the rich will ALWAYS benefit more in absolute dollars than everyone else. It's a mathematical fact, unless you are intentionally dening the rich relief. They make more to begin with. Heck, even a 1% drop for someone making a million a year is more than a 10% drop for someone making $30,000 a year, right? If that were proposed, the Left would STILL cry class warfare, the same as here.

The Left loves to make everything about the children, don't they? Pure emotionalism. Fact is, while you refuse to acknowledge it, there are many federal, state, and local means for assisting families with children. All ignored for convenient volleys of "class warefare" now. Face it, the Democrats cannot succeed with their present team of weak candidates or platform, so they are desparately attempting to create an issue out of emotional vapor. Nice try, but too transparent.

Grant you the weak candidates and the lackOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 7:32 AM
of a coherent platform. We're working on it.

Sorry, but facts are facts: You're gonna get $400 for having Luke, I'm gonna get $400 for having Jennifer, and we both make way yonder into six digits. George Lewis, a tenant of mine in the West End of Louisville who picks up garbage all day in all weathers for Metro government, won't get one dime for having Shanika. That's not 'emotional vapor' to him. The fact that you call it such indicates how out of touch you and your Imperial friends really are, why you're going to overreach, and why in 2008 we will whip your asses (politically speaking).

Your 'emotional vapor' comment reminds me of Bush the First and his 'I don't understand your question' response to the woman who asked him how the poor economy had affected him. That out-of-touch answer cost him the election, and 'emotional vapor' will cost you ... uh ... the one after next.
Already given up on 2004? (nm)TJeanloz
Jun 6, 2003 7:39 AM
Well, I wouldn't go on Hannity and Combs andOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 8:02 AM
say so, but, yeah, our candidates are so piss poor I don't hold out any hope.
focusing on legislature, no doubt nmDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 8:07 AM
Sounds eerily like late 1991...TJeanloz
Jun 9, 2003 6:40 AM
Remember when Bill Clinton was a womanizing redneck who was an unelectable joke...
Sort of, butOldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 7:55 AM
no one who KNEW Clinton thought he was an unelectable joke. He was always seen by those familiar with his career as a transcendent politician -- a real wizard at getting votes.

The difference this year is, we really don't have that kind of politician in the field.
too transparentDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 8:06 AM
I'd bet anything that there is some party position paper circulating indicating that "the children" and "class warefare" are the big issues for the next 12 years. Even if they have given up the presidency, I assume they are full guns to get the legislature so as to impede everything Bush wants over his next term, from tax relief to judicial appointments.

Just because it is your only issue, really, doesn't make it a good one. Nice try, though.

Yep. It's just 'emotional vapor." I'll tell George Lewis. nmOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 8:09 AM
Well theyr're trying to formulate a plan. Say Ed ....Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 12:45 PM
have they asked you to contribute some brain activity to this effort?;f=8;t=3938

Just got back from a nice 40 mile ride out of Sandy Hook, NJ. What a nice day. I can't believe it's going to be a sh!ty weekend again, with rain forecast for both days :O( I may as well be living in Seattle. At least there I can fish for Steelhead.
Ed, why not lower your rental rates?94Nole
Jun 6, 2003 11:02 AM
Just peel $33.34 per month off the rent for your tenant and Shanika's (mom, grandmother, aunt, etc.) will get her $400.

That's what kills me about libs...liberalism stops at the driveway. You know the deal. Take all the wealth, redistribute equally and within a short time the world would look very similar to the way it looks now.

You hear the Hollywood types, crying this and that, homeless this and homeless that, etc. Open the dadgum mansions and house the homeless. Heck there are enough large mansions to probably remove all of the homeless from the streets of LA. Just one simple example. And it really is this simple.
I guess when you aren't a Liberal. . .czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 12:03 PM
. . .you don't have to worry about chipping in to better our community. You can simply dump your share of everyone's responsibility to the community that supports your ability to be a self-indulgent ingrate on those bleeding-hearts. There's no hypocrisy (sp) in turning your back on the poor if you never pretend to care about them in the first place.
How about you CZAR, what are you doing to better society?94Nole
Jun 6, 2003 12:54 PM
Not groups that you choose to associate with, but you, personally.

How much time do you spend each month serving those less fortunate than you? Not time spent holding a sign protesting this or that.

How much were your charitable contributions on your tax return last year as a percentage of your income?

Your answers will likely prove my point.
Voting for people who will take YOUR money. . .czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 1:02 PM
. . .and give it to the needy. And I am a very generous tipper.

That's about all I can swing at this point, as a person who works but is not wealthy.
Generous tipper!!!???!!!??? There you have it...94Nole
Jun 6, 2003 1:13 PM
typical lib, nothing given without something in return. Tip given in return for someone who served you a meal or a drink or both.

Czar, you couldn't have made my point better.
And it's a heck of point too!czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 1:16 PM
I'm sure somebody knows what you are talking about, and really appreciates your wit.
Well, not to pile on here :O) but ... <I>CZAR EXPOSED!</I>Live Steam
Jun 7, 2003 7:43 AM
two things do come to mind:

1. you seem to be saying that you want/need to get your own little piece if the American pie before you are willing to help others "less fortunate" - what ever that means. Sacrifice isn't in your vocabulary at this time. You need to keep what you earn, but expect the rest of us to pick up the slack where you believe it is required.

2. one needs not give only monetarily to help social welfare. One can donate time and skills to "worthy causes" - again what ever that means. However since you didn't state such, we must assume you do not volunteer at the local soup kitchen or at other local community programs. Evidently you only provide lip service for social reform as you believe it should be, but aren't willing to get your hands dirty.

This is not a very charitable a socially conscious way to act :O) You should lead by example. CZAR I am very surprised here!

I did a little research on Albany, CA, by the way, and it appears to be a shishi little place to live. Not quite like the inner city - not many homeless there I would guess. However, one could certainly leave the lily white confines of Albany and get across the bridge to the city of San Fran where the homeless problem is endemic and reaching tragic proportions. One could certainly volunteer a lot of time to help better our society :O)
But don'tcha see?czardonic
Jun 7, 2003 11:29 AM
I don't believe that the communitiy's problems should or can depend on the sacrifice of the few willing to recognize them. I believe that each member of the community has a share of responsibility towards its maintenance, and that this maintenance requires the contributions of all.

Moreover, I see the government, the combined power and resources of the entire community, as the sensible approach towards marshalling this responsibility. Just like you might see the government as the logical insturment for protecting the country, policing the streets and putting out fires, I see it as the logical insturment for providing health care, education and basic necessities where needed.

True, I could volunteer a lot of time. You got me there! But I am the lazy type how likes to put in his 40-50 hours a week at the office and then go ride, read a book, watch TV, sleep, pontificate over the internet, whatever. Does that mean that I keep what I earn and expect everyone else to solve the problems that I see? Hardly. I pay my taxes without complaint. I vote for politicians who will take that tax money, MY money, and distribute it to those who need it. As modest an effort as that may seem, that is all that I would ask of anyone else. I believe that the combined modest efforts of the entire community are more than sufficient to solve its problems.

It may seem unfair to you for someone like me to demand YOUR money for programs that only I see the value in. Now you know how I feel when MY tax money is spent on bloated military initiatives. But in reality, these are different sides of the same coin. Universal healthcare and public schools can't protect us from terrorism, but neither can the military protect us from epidemics caused by poor healthcare or economic decline caused by an uneducated populace.
Copout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jun 7, 2003 5:17 PM
Very typical attitude of a Kennedy Dumocrat. Do as I say not as I do. Kind of like Barbara Streisand demanding that we all be environmentally responsible as she defines it, by not driving SUVs, while she is traveling the globe in a private jet and air conditioning over 300,000 sq. ft. of living space around the country, 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

You believe that not complaining about the tax Uncle Sam takes out of your pay check each week is doing your part for the good of society. That is as socially irresponsible as you say us conservatives are, but at least we admit to our apathy for those that do not contribute positively to society. No offense, but you are just lying to yourself about your social consciousness. You haven't fooled us.
Your accusation plainly contradicts what I just outlined.czardonic
Jun 8, 2003 11:32 AM
I said:
    "As modest an effort as that may seem, that is all that I would ask of anyone else."

Yet you read that as:
    "Do as I say not as I do."

Is this kind of "Kennedy Dumocrat" boilerplate all that you've got?
You contradicted yourself!Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 12:26 PM
"I guess when you aren't a Liberal you don't have to worry about chipping in to better our community. You can simply dump your share of everyone's responsibility to the community that supports your ability to be a self-indulgent ingrate on those bleeding-hearts. There's no hypocrisy (sp) in turning your back on the poor if you never pretend to care about them in the first place.

These are your words which imply that you shoulder responsibility and pitch in to help the community. You have now admitted you do not. You admitted that you just pay you taxes like every other good American. However your words are duplicitous just like most other liberals!
Can't you do better than this?czardonic
Jun 9, 2003 12:43 PM
How does "chipping in" imply "shoulder(ing) responsibility"?
I already provide incredibly affordable housing, dude.OldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 5:26 AM
You'd probably be amazed.
government subsidized non-profit, I assume? ;-) nmDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 8:49 AM
Nope. Straight from me to The People.OldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 9:00 AM
I DO take a tax deduction for my hideous yearly losses, though, as a good capitalist should.
ah, the real motivationDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 9:11 AM
Rather than being purely philanthropic, the venture is really just a tax shelter. We're on to you...

Never claimed philanthropy.OldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 9:22 AM
Never denied wanting to make money, either. You guys have a skewed image of liberals. OBVIOUSLY I want to make money. Why else bust my ass running a political consulting business, a 200-acre farm and a dozen or so rental units?

Liberals like money too. They just don't mind chipping in some of it to help have a civilization. Some goes to taxes, some goes to charities, some goes to less rent than I could get away with charging. We can't all be social Darwinists.
I know. I'm just trolling. ;-)DougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 9:26 AM
Yes, I realize that Liberals (e.g., Hillary) obviously do want to make money. They just want everyone making more than them to foot the bill for excessive government programs that allow them to keep making money and in power.

Troll later, when czar's here!OldEdScott
Jun 9, 2003 9:35 AM
Oh, posh. I benefit more than most from Bush's tax scheme. It's insane on its face though, and I oppose it. It it were repealed, I would pay more taxes. Big whoop. Again, it's a small price to pay to have a civilization. I just don't grasp this ... tightwaddery ... about paying for America.
on that topicDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 9:41 AM
If America were a corporation and you owned stock in it, would you be upset about it's spending (not limited to military spending, before you even begin...)?

For the 1,000th time, conservatives are not opposed to taxation. They are opposed to excessive taxation to pay for excessive spending. We are more than happy to "pay for America" as it should be.

no, they are opposed to spendingrufus
Jun 9, 2003 10:42 AM
on things that are intended to help the poor, sick, mentally ill, or other needy members of society. they don't mind at all spending for some pork barrel project back home, the military(although they do resent having to pay benefits to veterans, big contracts to private companies, or corporate welfare.
I am willing to bet that ....Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 7:40 AM
many who are in the category that will benefit from this, actually make much more money. First to qualify for this you have to file a return. That is a good thing. You also must be within the threshold set of $27k. However I would bet than many people who fall into this area are service people - waiters and waitresses, hair stylists, manicurists and others who's main source of income are gratuities. There has to be a few million of them. Most if not all more than likely do not report every cent to Uncle Sam. So this is like the icing on the cake for them. Another windfall from the government at the expense of other taxpayers.
In contrast to ...sacheson
Jun 8, 2003 7:35 PM
... the wealthy that can skirt their responsibilities by hiding or reallocating their monies?

Yeah, the downfall of our society is service personnel.
I didn't say that. I just pointed out that ....Live Steam
Jun 9, 2003 6:44 AM
in my opinion many that fall on the borderline of the tax code, are this type of earner and generally fudge their returns probably because they don't keep very good records more than trying to cheat Uncle Sam. They take cash home every night and some may get spent on the ride home. I know a lot of people in this category and I know they don't keep good records of what they earn. The credit they will get under the new bill is just icing on the cake for them.

I just resent they way it was portrayed by the Dumocrats. To the illiterate who do not read the newspaper and who cannot for an informed opinion on their own, it sounded like they were getting cheated out of something they were due. That is a lie, but fully expected by Daschle et all.
Payroll taxesCurtSD
Jun 6, 2003 8:26 AM
The purpose of the Earned Income Tax credit is to rebate the payroll taxes payed by those who pay no income taxes. If you give a refund to those who pay no taxes, why not be honest and call it what it really is: welfare.
Who pays no taxes?filtersweep
Jun 6, 2003 11:02 AM
Ever heard of sales tax? Property tax embedded in rent? Business tax imbedded in retail prices? Cigarette tax? Gasoline and alchol tax?

The principle is that income is used to determine who is eligible for the "refunds" which is why they are tied to income tax.

Personally, I am NOT defending the practice when it does exist in any manner. In fact I find it offensive that those who pay NO income tax can even receive refunds (which DOES occur at the state level where I live). I am merely stating that I "understand" it.

I find it equally odd that "rent rebates" are tied to income. I paid the same percentage of property tax in my rent in my $1000+ rent as I would if I were unemployed. My income disqualified me from any rebates. If I were without income I would have received thousands in rebates. I finally "had to" buy a house.

I won't even talk about the HUGE marriage penalty. My wife and I each made about the same income, receive the same level of government services. We get married and suddenly we own thousands of dollars more than when we were single. I just don't understand it. "They" and I will blame the Republicans) apparently want us to hatch a bunch of lilly-white tax deductions. It was lucrative "living in sin" (something that is still against the law in many municipalities).

Frankly, my idea of "welfare reform" involves voluntary monetary incentives for sterilization, birth control and abortion. I've never understood this "god-given right" to have as many children as you CAN'T afford. Children are considered an entitlement- and like it or not, it is the conservatives who are behind this idea. They are aligned with the religious right who decry abortion, birth control, sex ed, etc...

Hey- I had to throw some jabs in there ;)
Who pays no taxes?CurtSD
Jun 6, 2003 11:43 AM
Last time I checked sales taxes were state/local/etc. If you have a problem with state and local taxes you need to address your complaints to those governments. If you're looking for any excuse for the federal government giving someone a handout, why not just be honest about it and call it a handout/income redistribution/socialism. You won't get my support, but at least you'll be honest about it.
Who pays no taxes?filtersweep
Jun 6, 2003 1:04 PM
Yeah, and no federal money EVER makes it to the local level? Tax is tax. Is it an accident that property tax is deductible from federal income tax? How are those concepts related? There are all sorts of strange bedfellows when it comes to taxes of all flavors.

Hey, I'm not defending the practice one bit. I find it reprehensible. But far more money leaks out of tax loopholes for the wealthy- and I'm talking about wealth mere mortals can only dream of.
Who pays no taxes?Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 1:40 PM
The tax deductability of RE taxes is an incentive to invest. You invest in a home and that is an investment in a community. Hey I rented for years and never received the benefits of ownership. I had the same probelm with the tax issue then, but if you are not paying something directly, you can't deduct it. The owner of the apartment has assumed all the burden and responsibility associated with it and should be entitled to it.
Who pays no taxes?CurtSD
Jun 6, 2003 2:20 PM
I'm afraid you lost me - are you saying that because some states tax people who don't pay federal taxes, that it's the federal government's responsibility to reemburse them for it? I don't see any logic there. If your state's taxes are too high, then lobby your representatives for a state tax cut, no sales tax on food, etc. I don't see how a tax cut for those who pay federal income taxes in any way harms those who don't pay income taxes even if they don't get a benefit. As Doug Sloan already pointed out, it's natural that the wealthy receive most of the benefit from a tax cut, since they pay most of the taxes. But us non-wealthy average tax-paying people will get some benefit too. And the working poor will benefit when they make their way up to the tax-paying income levels (unless the Democrats block the renewal of the tax cuts when they sunset).
Who pays no taxes?filtersweep
Jun 6, 2003 2:42 PM
I'm not suggesting it is anyone's responsibility to reimburse them. Frankly, a refund to someone who had no income IS an "entitlement program" (ie. welfare).

To suggest that someone paid NO taxes is as absurd as saying bicyclists shouldn't ride the roads because they don't pay vehicle taxes. Lets face it- not every cyclist actually owns a car.

Regardless of "state taxes" (in ANY form), there are all sorts of embedded federal taxes. Any service involves generating income for those providing the service, and one might assume that income is subject to federal income tax. Any goods created in the US that involves US labor, or goods imported that involve federal tariffs.

Again, I'm not defending the practice or the principle. It drives me crazy that it even exists (like all the "income credit" provisions that still exist that allow some people to receive MORE money back from the feds than they ever paid it- I still think it is wrong).
Wait, are you saying thatpurplepaul
Jun 6, 2003 4:18 PM
society should expect absolutely nothing from people who are poor? Yeah, I know, you can't get blood from a stone. However, it sounds like you're suggesting that ANY taxes at all would be unfair simply because a person or family is poor.

Or, did I get that wrong and you're just pointing out that there are other taxes than income and payroll?

Either way, I just don't understand why no one is discouraging poor people from having children. How loving is it to bring a child into poverty? Being financially unable to care for a child should be considered a form of child abuse, IMO, if the parents were poor, are poor and look to be poor indefinitely.

And don't get me started about those who are financially able but emotionally unable to care for their kids. But at least we're not asked to pay for their brats.
well lemme see......rufus
Jun 6, 2003 5:30 PM
conservatives don't want to teach sexual education in schools, or allow schools or government health services to provide birth control, nor do they want these services to offer abortion services or counselling. better yet, they want to repeal roe v. wade so even if someone can afford an abortion they won't be legally allowed to have one.

and yet, once the poor child is born, they do everything in their power to eliminate support and aid programs for them.
well lemme see......purplepaul
Jun 7, 2003 12:57 PM
I entirely agree with your statements regarding the traditional conservative attitudes towards sex and children. However, even though I want women to have abortion on demand, I think Roe V. Wade is weak. Right to privacy indeed! At some point, Roe V. Wade is bound to be overturned simply because it is based on such flimsy reasoning. It is my fear, though, that there is no way to constitutionally guarantee the right to abortion. It would be far stronger to have an amendment written for that purpose.

Although I can't legally justify my positions, here's what I consider to be most fair and best for society:

Individuals taking responsibility for their own sexual conduct. If they want a child, they pay for it. If they want to have sex, but don't want a child, they pay for the contraception. If I were too poor to afford a condom, I sure as hell wouldn't be in any mood to shtup anyone.

Conversely, any woman who wanted an abortion could get one, provided she could pay for it, the consequences of sex would be mandatory education and perhaps a limited fund would be established for the truly needy who made ONE mistake, and needed an abortion.

There would be no government support for children born into poverty or their parents. The only recipients of government aid would be the mentally or physically disabled. And if they had a child while receiving aid, that aid would be cut off. Harsh? Yes. But how fast would we get this problem under control!
misguided assumptionDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 12:25 PM
Conservatives are only for *other conservatives* having more children. Need to replace aging voters.

serious responseDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 12:33 PM
Can't necessarily assume that rent pays property tax. Having been a developer of rental units and representing owners of them, I know that frequently you are lucky if rent covers your principal/interest payments alone, especially in more urban areas with economy problems, exacerbated by very low mortgage rates for single family homes (renters are buying like crazy). Just an aside...

WOW! You sound more concervative than me!Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 1:14 PM
I haven't read the responses from Doug, et al, but the point I made about taxes, not just federal income taxes, a few weeks ago was that we are paying taxes through the nose, in the form of sales and use tax, RE tax, state and local tax and surcharges for who knows what, because government doesn't know how to budget and act responsibly with the money they collect.

The marriage tax you are referring to comes to you courtesy of the Dumocratic party. The Republicans in Congress have been trying to kill that for years. Bush had abolishing that in his platform. He may still get to do it.

Wow, if the ACLU ever heard you say "Frankly, my idea of "welfare reform" involves voluntary monetary incentives for sterilization, birth control and abortion. I've never understood this "god-given right" to have as many children as you CAN'T afford. Children are considered an entitlement- and like it or not, it is the conservatives who are behind this idea. They are aligned with the religious right who decry abortion, birth control, sex ed, etc..." they'd be all over your case! Someone here might think your an Nazi or something. Me I think it makes some sense.
I'm so liberal I'm conservativefiltersweep
Jun 6, 2003 2:59 PM
It's a circular continuum-

I actually do some moonlighting for a metropolitan county- and you'd be amazed to know that your tax dollars, through medical assistance, actually pay for gender reassignment surgery, stapling stomaches, etc... but won't pay a nickel for an abortion.

Regarding "kids"- if I want a high-end luxury car, or bike, or whatever, I am expected to PAY for it. With kids, the attitude seems to be that kids just happen, that they fall out of the sky for no apparent reason, OR- that someone willfully chose to have kids- but regardless, whether they can afford them or not, there is a big pot of money available to pay for them. Granted, no one is "getting rich" while on entitlement programs (except many of the privatized providers of services).

I've seen horrible child protection cases where the families are reunified. Single mothers who have permanently lost custody of each of several children due to horrific abuse and neglect issues- yet who continue to have MORE. Past history of abuse is irrelevent- she gets to keep the newborn until something terrible happens (again). Never mind that most of these kids are so messed up that the government will be providing some form of (expensive) custodial care at least until the child is 18- and beyond if the kid ends up in prison or another generation of the "welfare system."

Regardless of where I sit on the political spectrum, I've never been a proponent of socially engineering solutions to problems (which is what entitlement programs are all about). The government might as well as for something in return. It isn't about being a Nazi. There would be a choice.

Conversely, I've entertained the idea of letting "social darwinism" sort things out. If there were NO entitlement programs at all- if we did not court-order drug offenders into rehab, if we decriminalized "morality laws" (drugs, prostitution, etc.) and just let nature take its course... would it be any worse? You make a stupid decision, you live with it. Sure, kids would grow up to kill their parents, or more kids would die before reproducing, but life is already rather cheap, and there are plenty of spots in the US that closely resemble 3rd-world nations... just an idea.
WOW again! You are a ...Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 3:15 PM
true dichotomy of existence. On one hand you work in social services, which would suggest social consciousness and tolerance (liber ideals), yet you see and understand the harmful effects of entitlements, which is very conservative minded. Hmmm, berry intorwesting!

I have to say that you idea of social Darwinism is an "Archie Bunker" approach to the problem, but not necessarily without merits, but certainly without compassion. Old Ed may stop calling me Archie Bunker and place that honor upon you :O)
Without compassion?filtersweep
Jun 6, 2003 7:54 PM
Like institutionalizing poverty is compassion?

Conservatives like to keep the government out of their lives, which is easy if you have the means. It seems in the US people need to reach a certain "class" before that can ever approach reality (when social services, the police, special school programs, economic assistance, etc. are part of everyday life for so many people). Maybe the compassionate thing to do is to leave these people alone and stop using money to leverage them into making decisions the government deems appropriate?

Or maybe not? I know from experience that the only things in life I value are things I had to work for. BTW- where I work, I'm the young guy who is NOT jaded ;)
Without compassion?Live Steam
Jun 7, 2003 7:00 AM
My grandmother, God rest her soul, used to tell me about my family well before I was born. She told me of how my great grandparents came to the US in the late 1800s and of how they were treated (Italians) by the Germans and Irish and how it was difficult for them to get jobs because of the discrimination against Italians.

They lived in a real working class neighborhood mixed with every ethnic and cultural group - Italians, Irish, Jews, Blacks and even the poorer Germans and Irish. The neighborhood was certainly wholy comprised of lower income bracketed workers - laborers, etc. One point she always impressed upon me was that everyone there had very little money, but they had a lot of pride. They all worked hard, accepted no handouts and kept everything they owned in pristine condition because it may be all they ever would have. The blacks in the neighborhood would keep their houses and yards up as well as the Europeans (most of the Europeans were farm workers - gardening and home repair was second nature because of the work they performed "on the other side"). She said she never viewed anyone in the neighborhood differently and took comfort in the feeling of community. She said she became very disheartened by the changes that occurred during the 50s and the 60s. She couldn't understand why the Black culture had changed so much. Why many of the new black residents of the neighborhood did not take the same pride in their homes and in their lives. She believed that social welfare, or the ease in getting social welfare compared to previously, was the cause.

Now this is just one woman's perception of what was her reality. She lived through it in a micro-environment. She was very wise for an 8th grade graduate. She handled all of the business for the family even though she was 3rd oldest and the two older were brothers (7 siblings). She would go to the bank with her father and translate for him even though he did learn to speak English (I am guessing enough to get by at work - he was the night watchman at the local reservoir, probably not much conversation going on there). She eventually got married to my grandfather who came to the US alone at age 16. He worked as a painter for Proctor & Gamble. Unfortunately he passed away at age 60 in 1960. Fortunately for her, through the years prior, she made small investments in RE with my grandfather - purchasing small multiple family units and some vacant land. These became her source of income for many years after my grandfather passed. RE and land in the area was almost "dirt cheap" back then. She told me that their first hor cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000. She said they bought a second house when the party who was going to buy it couldn't for some reason. All she had to do at the time was sign a note and give the bank a nominal deposit - like 50 bucks. This was the start of her little RE empire, but truly even she would have told you, anyone could have done the same if they had a little forsight and the ability to save a dollar.

Well I guess I went off on somewhat of a tangent, but as you can see I am very proud of my family and my heritage. I guess the moral here for me is that something changed in our country a while back and obviously not for the better. There were always poor people, but there were very few slums. People took more pride in their existence even though they had little means and money. How do we fix it? I don't think it can be fixed. It is probably broken forever and the distribution of wealth the liberals have in mind will not work. It will only create more dependency on one side and resentment on the other.
The sky didn't fallfiltersweep
Jun 7, 2003 12:06 PM
I'm at work at the County right now (being highly productive on the taxpayers' dime, no less... but I more than make my salary by denying services (money) to liars and cheats- but I digress). Anyway, I was speaking with a coworker earlier in the day- he's he sort of liberal who thought Paul Wellstone was a moderate. Anyway, he was talking about the early phases of "welfare reform" at both the state and federal level, and how "everyone" (ie. liberals) thought the sky would fall- that poverty would increase, crime would be worse, etc. Of course that did not happen.

I think you have a very good point. Unfortunately, there is an enormous confluence of social forces that occurred in the 1960s that muddy the waters. There were enormous demographic shifts as the middle class migrated to the suburbs after the freeways were created. There was the various civil rights movements and the ensuing ramping up of the welfare system to assuage "white guilt." There was the dilution of the "working man's dollar" as it became prohibitively difficult to maintain a middle-class existence with a single-income household.

I don't know how to "fix" the problem. There are a few odd-ball possibilities. In many northern European countries (which you may well regard as socialist) such as Norway, EVERYONE benefits from the social welfare system- not just the poor. If a mother wants to stay home with the kids for a few years, she will receive 70% of her previous income while at home AND be guaranteed her job back. Education through college is free for everyone, as is health insurance. Taxs are very high, but unemployment is almost nonexistent. Of course, the culture is much more homogenous than in the US, but there isn't a welfare class, nor is there any resentment.

Contrast this to the dual reality that exists in the US- while as a kid I watched my father put on a suit and tie every morning, and at the end of every month he received his paycheck (there was no direct deposit back then), there are countless kids who have no father, and who wait all month for the welfare check to come in the mail.

The older I get, the more I believe everyone makes choices that determine their existence. As an example, in working with "homeless" mothers of kids, it typically works like this: a woman with kids lives in some subsidized housing, and she is using drugs or has an abusive boyfriend stay with her, or whatever, but she gets evicted. She and her kids stay with friends, but she pees on the shoes of everyone who helps her- including immediate family members (like her own mother). Next thing you know, I'm dealing with the situation. If I suddenly became "homeless" I'd be the best house guest anyone ever saw. How people in need can burn so many bridges is beyond comprehension.

Likewise, there are a ton of self-defeating beliefs that keep people in poverty. Unfortunately, nobody can sensibly discuss these issues because it is not "politically correct."
"not politically correct"Live Steam
Jun 7, 2003 4:09 PM
The crux of the matter! The liberals would have us believe that more money is the answer, but I think you can attest to the fact that money is not going to fix broken people, destructive habits and irresponsible lifestyles. These are issues that must be dealt with from within the community and by the people who are adversely effected by them. People in the community must put their collective feet down and demand change from their neighbors. Demand that male residents of the community accept responsibility for their promiscuous behavior. Demand that the streets are free from drugs and crime which emanate from their own sons. They must take pride in what they have and work hard to better themselves and their situations as my great grandparents did. Handouts will just keep them needy and wanting more.

The social welfare system you say is employed in Europe is not practical here. The population, as you said, is too diversified. It is also much larger and migration is much greater, than it is in Norway. Our permissiveness has been our downfall as far as I am concerned. This is where the ACLU has hurt the greater good. Yes they are protecting individual rights, but this only provides opportunity for abuse of the system and of one another. Chris Mathews did a piece on how we have become a nation of cheaters and liars. It had to do with the Sosa bat corking, Martha Stewart and the Jason Blair stories. How 75% of high school students and 50 % of college students have admitted to cheating. Most people are not afraid of the consequences of their actions any more. They view the risks small compared to the rewards. The see Monica Lewinski with a TV show. One of the guests attributed it to everyone feeling that they are entitled to a piece of the American pie, but that they want to take the easy root to get it. He is probably correct about that.

Who knows what the answer is. But as I said before, I don't believe that distribution of wealth and throwing more money out there will change one iota of the problems we face.
and HillaryDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:23 AM
"This administration is waging war on poor children," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

You know what? If she ever runs for President, I will take time off and campaign against her. She is evil, plain and simple. To make a statement like that shows that she's either severely warped or engaged in a sinister class-warfare battle herself. "War on poor children?" It is really hard not to hate her. I think the American people will see her for who she is, though, a power-mongering socialistic pandering evil liar. The more I think about it, the more I think she deserves Bill Clinton.

Tell us how you really feel Doug. :-) nmKristin
Jun 6, 2003 6:26 AM
actually, I'm really holding back... :-| nmDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:29 AM
I hear ya'. I would love to tell her where to get off!Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 6:46 AM
And she had to come to New York. Tooy!
Ah, so the 'kinder, gentler' right wingOldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 6:33 AM
really is full of hate and bile eh? Interesting. Doug, I can tell you've missed me. You need my incisive criticism to moderate your worst instincts!

Hey, if I sign Hillary up as a member of RBR, would that mean no more personal attacks?
Jun 6, 2003 6:47 AM
If Hillary becomes a cyclists and starts participating here, I'll hold off on personal attacks, and only attack what she says. I promise.

Politicians and other public figures are fair game, aren't they? How many times has someone here called GW, Rush, etc., an evil idiot?

You "hate" Hillary and like Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfie?cory
Jun 6, 2003 9:05 AM
Doug, we've had our differences, and always will. But as a fellow human, I urge you to look into your heart. I'm telling you, man, you can be helped. You're too young to be so bitter.
oh, CoryDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 9:33 AM
I'm reluctant to even respond to you, as usually you take your shots at me and then disengage, never following up. Leaves me with a big empty feeling. ;-)

This has nothing to do with bitter. Actually, there is nothing to be bitter about. Hillary made senator, but thankfully she's only one of 100. No big deal, really.

I've seen plenty of bitterness and hatred from you and others here directed at conservatives, some of whom you mentioned. Plenty of it from the younger crowd, like czar, too. Are you all claiming a monopoly on bitterness and hatred, along with free speech and dissention?

To my core I dislike socialism. I believe that while some might understanding think that it is good for people, I believe that in the long run handouts and income redistribution encourage dependency and less productivity in society, which is not a good thing. Some politicians may support such policies because they sincerely (if not misguidedly) want to help people immediately on an emotional level; others, however, I believe do it intentionally to create political and economic dependency. I include Hillary in the latter category.

I believe it is a more humanistic policy to encourage people, if not force them, to help themselves as much as possible, versus keeping them on the dole or creating disincentives to personal productivity. People feel more self-worth, have more self-esteem, and engender the same values in their children when they do. While at first blush it seems harsh, in the long run everyone is better off. I think if most people really did truly care about others, such as parents care for their children, they would have that attitude. So, contrary to what you think, these positions are not at all bitter, but really are caring.

It's called tough love. Parents who never discipline ...Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 2:18 PM
their children when they do something wrong and who hand everything to them without the child earning it, can create an adult who lacks values and is disrespectful to others in the outside world. The people that develop based on the rearing I mentioned, usually have trouble in life and never amount to much because everything was handed to them. The same applies in general society. It is far easier to receive financial assistance from the government than it is to get up early every morning and join the daily grind.
How does that relate to Chelsea vs. the Bush Twins?czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:28 PM
Seems like that would be a clear example of how libertine parents raise immoral children, while "family values" types raise straight-laced model citizens.
switched at birth nmDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 2:34 PM
Actually Chelsea's "drinking problem" has ...Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 2:41 PM
been taboo for the media to report on. Hillary put her foot down about allowing Chelsea to be used for political fidder. That is about the only thing I respect her for. Again there goes your intolerance. I would think you would have compassion for a troubled children and not denigrating them.
I wasn't denigrating them. They seem like all-American kids. .czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:48 PM
. . .and I have compassion for for Jeb's daughter too.

But as far as their self-righteous parents, either they don't practice what they preach, or what they preach is bogus.
You called them <I>"immoral children"</I> nmLive Steam
Jun 6, 2003 3:01 PM
I called them no such thing.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 3:06 PM
I posited that if your theory was true, Chelsea would be an immoral child.
I think your post above was ....Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 3:36 PM
a backhanded way of doing that. Or you think that the Bush's are libertine and the Clinton's are reserved.
Does being convicted for drunk driving make you a libertine? nmczardonic
Jun 6, 2003 4:34 PM
the lady on the right looks like a wrinkled apple doll (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2003 6:35 AM
Does this suprise you?Softrider
Jun 6, 2003 6:38 AM
The democrats power is slipping away, and they are grasping at any opportunity to try to hold on to it. They just don't realize how stupid it makes them look.

We have a republican president in office who is popular and actually doing what he promised, the democrats just don't know how to respond.

P.S. Who is that stunning beauty in black? She really looks thrilled to be part of that dog and pony show.
All all you people millionaires?OldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 6:41 AM
For the life of me, I can't see why you're just SO DAMN PLEASED that the Upper Crust has declared class warfare on the middle and lower classes. You're virtually slapping each other on the backs. It just puzzles me.
you don't get itDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:50 AM
An across the board tax cut for those who pay taxes is not class warefare. That's the Left's spin, but it is completely class-neutral.

If the "rich" were not already paying 95% of all income taxes, you might have a point.

As I have said before, with median family income around $40,000 a year, and therefore with most voters making under that, I'm amazed they don't place ALL the tax burden on the "rich." They could.

Oh I get it.OldEdScott
Jun 6, 2003 7:06 AM
Not between the buns like some poor sap struggling to support his kids on 25K a year. He gets it good. But I DO get it.
ROTFLMAO...quote of the month here! (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2003 8:17 AM
the "rich" do not pay 95% of income taxes.rufus
Jun 6, 2003 5:41 PM
again, i don't have the exact figure, but the stat is that the top 50% of wage earners pay 94% of the income taxes. that 50% mark, in terms of dollars, is approximately $28,000.

so yeah, if you consider $28,000 to be rich, then you're right.
Your numbers are all wrong. nmLive Steam
Jun 6, 2003 6:26 PM
you're right.rufus
Jun 6, 2003 7:23 PM
according to this chart, based on 1999 figures, those making $40,000+ paid approximately 95% of all income taxes. i have no idea what the tax rate changes over the past few years have affected these numbers, but it still doesn't change the gist of the argument. if you believe that $40,000 constiutes wealthy, then doug's statement is correct.
I think you are still misinterpreting the numbersLive Steam
Jun 7, 2003 7:07 AM
This will explain some of it.
no, the chart says pretty much what your article says.rufus
Jun 7, 2003 9:23 AM
that the top income earners pay about 55% of all taxes. however, even in the article you cited, those earners begin at about $120,000. even that i don't consider wealthy, although they are doing pretty well by my standards.

but doug said that the "rich" pay 95% of all income taxes. for that to be true, then the definition of "rich" is those earning $40,000 or more. again, if you consider that to be rich, then his statement was accurate. i don't.

unfortunately, the site seems to be down today, but another chart there shjowed that the top 1% of income earners earned about 17% of all income, and their share of the total tax burden was 19%. hardly seems to be socking it to the rich as so many of those on the right claim.
Jun 7, 2003 8:30 PM
could have been wrong

fyi: DougSloan "looks like syria's next" 4/14/03 2:08pm
and just how much income did those 87 people have?rufus
Jun 8, 2003 7:08 AM
AGI of $423 billionDougSloan
Jun 8, 2003 7:50 PM
Those were the good days.

AGI of $227 billionDougSloan
Jun 8, 2003 7:52 PM
Those were the good days.

so they still kept over $100 billion.rufus
Jun 9, 2003 6:24 AM
i hope they were able to get by on that. maybe had to pass on buying the fourth home in switzerland.
hope they could still employ thousands of peopleDougSloan
Jun 9, 2003 8:37 AM
So we judge fairness of taxation by how much the taxpayer has left to live on? If that's the case, why not tax everything over $1 million at 100%?

Incentive, motivation, even greed -- concepts that cause some people to desire to make a lot of money -- incidentally or consequently also cause a lot of people to be employed, too.

as i linked to earlier.rufus
Jun 9, 2003 10:34 AM
one of the charts i linked to showed that the richest 1% earned 17% of all total income earned by american taxpayers. their taxes accounted for 19% of all taxes collected.

hardly unfairly punishing the rich, is it. they pay a share of taxes roughly proportional to the share of income they earn. boo hoo hoo, cry me a river.

and BTW, i thought small business was responsible for the creation of most new jobs in america.
All all you people millionaires?BikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 10:00 AM
The money that is given to the "working poor" comes from somewhere. That somewhere is pockets of people who do pay taxes. To give these people this "refund" the gov't takes money from those of us who pay taxes to give to these "working poor" people.

It's either thievery or welfare, take your ain't no "tax refund".
they are taking YOUR MONEY!!! oh the humanity! ;) (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2003 10:22 AM
they are taking YOUR MONEY!!! oh the humanity! ;) (nm)BikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 11:58 AM
It's one of those things that will never change...politicians I don't agree with buying votes with the money that we all pay to the gov't in taxes.

However, I do retain my right to b!tch!! Ha HA
Yes he's doing what he help us all (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2003 6:42 AM