PDA

View Full Version : Two countries-Same pitfalls?



signgirl
10-31-2009, 10:53 AM
For the record, I was born in Canada but a lot of my family is in the U.S. I have been a life long political junkie.

For my whole adult life Canada has been politically to the left of the U.S. Not any more.

Starting in 1968, we elected an intellectual, youthful, handsome, Kensyian, powerfully erudite and 'charismatic' Liberal named Pierre Trudeau. We can thank him for increasing our National Debt by 85% when he left office for the last time in 1984..(no term limits here). He was divisive and was either loved or despised. He grew social programs, legislated forced bilingualism, created many Crown Corporations which competed (with gov't funded pockets) with Private Companies, expanded hugely and mandated socialized health care, (by outlawing Private Medicine) spent money like it fell from the sky and left our small economy in a quagmire. After 25 years of fiscal frugality and repayment, our debt is manageable and shrinking. There is a blip this year during this world recession, but it should only be a one year negative flow.

The U.S. seems to do things in Spades. What mistakes we made 40+ years ago, you are repeating and compounding. Watch out is all I can say. Mr. Trudeau was a Silk Stocking Socialist...a wealthy Jesuit educated Law Professor, insulated, brilliant but imbued with the theories of Mao, Marks, Castro, Che...Although perfectly bilingual, he despised and turned his back to our British roots and traditions. He embraced and legislated a cultural 'mosaic' which now has the tail wagging the dog. Much of his legacy lives on still...Human Rights tribunals who have huge powers but no accountability, political correctness gone mad, a National Healthcare system on the verge of bankruptcy where 12 hour Emergency room waits aren't abnormal and 18 month waits for scarce Medical Specialists aren't either.
A huge percentage of Canadians do not have a family Physician and many rural areas have no M.D.s. At least 4 small Community hospitals in my area have been legislated to close their E.R.s and emergencies are being sent up to 40 miles away.

What you see or think you see is not always what you get.

The following is from a respected publication...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11002

M&K's Retrievers
10-31-2009, 11:19 AM
I afraid you are right on with your evaulation :(

dnf777
10-31-2009, 11:32 AM
signgirl,
I share many of your concerns. I am NOT just trying to bring up the distant, remote past, (you know, 10 months to 8 years ago! :rolleyes:) but to simplify the debt issue to saying it's because a leftist president I think is dangerous. It would lead on to believe that voting a conservative will solve the problem. I urge you to google our national debt that is portrayed as a red/blue pie chart of the $11 trillion, and you will see, it is not a "liberal" issue. In fact, the last president to have a balanced budget, let alone surplus, was Bill Clinton. Several have posted a chart with a presidential time line as the x-axis, and it its amazing how the curve shot upwards in 2003!

Pete
10-31-2009, 12:07 PM
share many of your concerns. I am NOT just trying to bring up the distant, remote past, (you know, 10 months to 8 years ago! :rolleyes:) but to simplify the debt issue to saying it's because a leftist president I think is dangerous. It would lead on to believe that voting a conservative will solve the problem. I urge you to google our national debt that is portrayed as a red/blue pie chart of the $11 trillion, and you will see, it is not a "liberal" issue. In fact, the last president to have a balanced budget, let alone surplus, was Bill Clinton. Several have posted a chart with a presidential time line as the x-axis, and it its amazing how the curve shot upwards in

It has nothing to do with weather you call yourself a lefty or a righty . It has everything you do with weather you act like a lefty or a righty.
Bush acted like a lefty so its time you ignored the labeling and open up the jar.



Pete

dnf777
10-31-2009, 12:29 PM
It has nothing to do with weather you call yourself a lefty or a righty . It has everything you do with weather you act like a lefty or a righty.
Bush acted like a lefty so its time you ignored the labeling and open up the jar.
Pete

If Bush acted like a lefty, then so did his dad, and so did Reagan. That's the problem with labels. The get very confusing. If every republican president in my lifetime ran up billion or trillion dollar deficits, and the two democrats in my lifetime remained budget neutral or ran surplus, isn't time to re-affix the labels appropriately, rather than saying "one is acting like the other"? Maybe it should be "balance budget democrats" and "borrow and spend republicans"?? Then they wouldn't have to exchange name-tags. ;)

Now of course, Obama may change all that.

Gerry Clinchy
10-31-2009, 12:59 PM
The core of the discussion really seems to be fiscal responsibility more than any attendant ideology.

When times are good, Reagan was able to reduce taxes and have it result in an increase in revenue. When times are bad, if you increase taxes your revenue can decrease. A business that is already struggling, if hit with higher taxing, can go under, with an ultimate result of zero tax revenue.

Few commented on the Chilean leader who saved copper revenues when they were abundant, invested them wisely and can now draw on that compounded revenue to fund social programs, like education & childcare, that can further grow their economy.

Our govt, OTOH, is following the pattern of all those people who bought houses they couldn't afford during the housing frenzy ... i.e. borrowing to fund a lifestyle for which they had not saved.

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 01:17 PM
The core of the discussion really seems to be fiscal responsibility more than any attendant ideology.

When times are good, Reagan was able to reduce taxes and have it result in an increase in revenue. When times are bad, if you increase taxes your revenue can decrease. A business that is already struggling, if hit with higher taxing, can go under, with an ultimate result of zero tax revenue.

Few commented on the Chilean leader who saved copper revenues when they were abundant, invested them wisely and can now draw on that compounded revenue to fund social programs, like education & childcare, that can further grow their economy.

Our govt, OTOH, is following the pattern of all those people who bought houses they couldn't afford during the housing frenzy ... i.e. borrowing to fund a lifestyle for which they had not saved.
Unfortunately, Reagan not only cut taxes but increased spending dramatically resulting in a massive deficit and the largest growth in the national debt since WWII. He was very popular, but that is not to hard when you buy happiness by maxing out yur credit cards.

Hoosier
10-31-2009, 01:34 PM
Unfortunately, Reagan not only cut taxes but increased spending dramatically resulting in a massive deficit and the largest growth in the national debt since WWII. He was very popular, but that is not to hard when you buy happiness by maxing out yur credit cards.

Sounds a lot like the current administration, but without the manufacturing base and jobs.

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 01:48 PM
Sounds a lot like the current administration, but without the manufacturing base and jobs.
At the moment, this administration is definitely continuing the destructive deficit policies of Reagan and GWB. Hopefully it will not continue as the economy recovers, but I am afraid it will.

signgirl
10-31-2009, 02:08 PM
It matters not one whit which party overspent to balloon the debt..What matters is that such out of control spending, dependency on higher and higher taxes and creation of a cradle to grave nanny state are dreadfully hard policies to reverse or even to moderate. I think that the British National Health Service is something crazy like the 12th largest corporation in the world. Why would an American one be any different? Bureaucrats worldwide are the same. Their solution to any problem is hire more people and throw money at it.

Universal health care in Canada is a sacred cow and woe betide any politician who challenges it or tries to reform it by introducing competition, or a user fee, or co-pay or anything that may make individuals more prudent in their use or abuse of the system. The mantra is 'one tier health care'.. ..no queue jumping or special treatment for the rich. Well, guess what? The rich in Canada have private clinics. They just travel to the U.S. Perhaps in a short time they will have to find an alternate.

A little Civics lesson. Canada has 4 main political parties....Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat ( union based) and Bloc Quebecois (separatist). In the last 20 or so years, they have all stampeded to the middle of the road and knock into each other trying to be all things to all people. Currently we have a Conservative Prime Minister who is NOT a lawyer...but an economist. How refreshing. He has a minority Parliament and his Gov't could be defeated at any time if the opposition were organized enough and committed enough to band together. Any non confidence vote would have to be over something very contentious or they would pay at the polls....

It is an interesting system and though frustrating, a minority Government has very strong checks and balances.

Think back on the great leaders of this Century and what they had in common....Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Churchill, Regan, Thatcher, Trudeau..(my list)... like them or revile them, they all had amazingly strong convictions, stuck with them, made a distinct mark and made a difference. Today's leaders seem to govern by polls...a sure road to the proverbial dog's breakfast where no one will end up happy. Media rules.....gonads don't.

road kill
10-31-2009, 03:18 PM
Unfortunately, Reagan not only cut taxes but increased spending dramatically resulting in a massive deficit and the largest growth in the national debt since WWII. He was very popular, but that is not to hard when you buy happiness by maxing out yur credit cards.
Puhlease.......:rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
10-31-2009, 03:30 PM
Today's leaders seem to govern by polls...a sure road to the proverbial dog's breakfast where no one will end up happy.

Now that's a very interesting discussion point!


Unfortunately, Reagan not only cut taxes but increased spending dramatically resulting in a massive deficit and the largest growth in the national debt since WWII.

Unfortunately, he didn't "save" the increased revenue, rather spent it immediately. If the increased revenue had been applied to the deficit that would have been more sensible.

Lest we forget, the first illegal immigrant amnesty also occurred under Reagan. Look where it got us? Starting over from square one.

I come from an immigrant family myself, and I believe our immigration laws should be reasonable as is our national heritage. OTOH, while some wait patiently in line for their opportunity, I have a distinct dislike for those who push/bully their way to the head of the line. In the past it was a downright priority for immigrants to want to assimilate into American culture, and they were still able to enrich the culture by carrying on their own ethnic traditions. The newer generation seems to be more intent on turning the US into the countries they left. Perhaps they don't realize that the strength of the US comes at least in part from its ability to bring different cultures together into a blend that makes the cumulative culture stronger than the individual ones if they remain un-blended.

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 03:59 PM
It matters not one whit which party overspent to balloon the debt..What matters is that such out of control spending, dependency on higher and higher taxes and creation of a cradle to grave nanny state are dreadfully hard policies to reverse or even to moderate. ....
I assume that you know that US Federal taxes as a percentage of income for middle and upper income people have been declining for decades. The same cannot be said for lower income people because of the impact of social security taxes. Part of our problem is that taxes were decreased without parallel cuts in spending, resulting in growing deficits. Almost 80% of our total national debt is attributable to deficits under two Presidents: Reagan and GWB. With the exception of Obama, who still has a few years to show what he will do, the level of national debt as a percentage of GDP has gone down under every Democratic President since the end of WWII. The myth of rising taxes at the Federal level is just that: a myth.

M&K's Retrievers
10-31-2009, 06:02 PM
signgirl, welcome to the world according to yardley. He knows all and will dazzel you with facts and data based on government "studies" and then adds his spin to clarify it for the rest of us idiots. You will be so relieved that you can now rely on his vast experience to straighten out your misguided opinions (which I thought were excellent so they must be wrong) :rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 06:09 PM
signgirl, welcome to the world according to yardley. He knows all and will dazzel you with facts and data based on government "studies" and then adds his spin to clarify it for the rest of us idiots. You will be so relieved that you can now rely on his vast experience to straighten out your misguided opinions (which I thought were excellent so they must be wrong) :rolleyes:
Of course, everyone is also free to follow the established tradition of no facts or even made up ones as long as they support your positions.:rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
10-31-2009, 06:34 PM
Of course, everyone is also free to follow the established tradition of no facts or even made up ones as long as they support your positions.:rolleyes:

The term " as full of ... as a Christmas Turkey" comes to mind....

road kill
10-31-2009, 06:42 PM
Of course, everyone is also free to follow the established tradition of no facts or even made up ones as long as they support your positions.:rolleyes:


The "Sole Posseser of the Truth!!":p

code3retrievers
10-31-2009, 06:43 PM
I assume that you know that US Federal taxes as a percentage of income for middle and upper income people have been declining for decades. The same cannot be said for lower income people because of the impact of social security taxes. Part of our problem is that taxes were decreased without parallel cuts in spending, resulting in growing deficits. Almost 80% of our total national debt is attributable to deficits under two Presidents: Reagan and GWB. With the exception of Obama, who still has a few years to show what he will do, the level of national debt as a percentage of GDP has gone down under every Democratic President since the end of WWII. The myth of rising taxes at the Federal level is just that: a myth.

It was my understanding that as much as 50% of the US citizens do not pay federal income taxes. Is this not the case? So with a social security rate of around 7% how have the taxes on the lower income people increased as a total percentage?

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 06:48 PM
It was my understanding that as much as 50% of the US citizens do not pay federal income taxes. Is this not the case? So with a social security rate of around 7% how have the taxes on the lower income people increased as a total percentage?
The amount of the social security tax doubled under Reagan and went up again with the addition of a Medicare tax.

M&K's Retrievers
10-31-2009, 06:52 PM
The amount of the social security tax doubled under Reagan and went up again with the addition of a Medicare tax.

Explain please

Buzz
10-31-2009, 07:03 PM
signgirl, welcome to the world according to yardley. He knows all and will dazzel you with facts and data based on government "studies" and then adds his spin to clarify it for the rest of us idiots. You will be so relieved that you can now rely on his vast experience to straighten out your misguided opinions (which I thought were excellent so they must be wrong) :rolleyes:

What has been the trend in taxes since Eisenhower was president?

dback
10-31-2009, 07:07 PM
signgirl, welcome to the world according to yardley. He knows all and will dazzel you with facts and data based on government "studies" and then adds his spin to clarify it for the rest of us idiots. You will be so relieved that you can now rely on his vast experience to straighten out your misguided opinions (which I thought were excellent so they must be wrong) :rolleyes:

You guys ease up on Yardley....his posts today have been down right tolerable, fair and objective ..... not to say that I'm not having some problems with this one but hell 1 for 5-6 is a damn good batting average. I know you did it just for me Jeff ;-) Carry on!

M&K's Retrievers
10-31-2009, 07:11 PM
What has been the trend in taxes since Eisenhower was president?

Duh!! What's the trend been since Washington?

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 07:13 PM
Explain please
The employee share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes was 4.8% in 1970, 6.13& in 1980, and 7.65% beginning in 1990 and continuing through today (For the self employed, double these rates). In 1970, this tax was only paid on the first $7000 in income. In 1980, it was applied to the first $25,900, in 1990 to the first $51,300, and today it applies to the first $106,800. The Medicare component of the tax has consistently been applied to the first $125,000, although this is now increasing.

Looking only at the Reagan period, the rate pre-Reagan (1980) was $1316/year for someone with an income of $45,000. In 1988, that same person with the same income would have paid $2727/year, or an increase of 107%.

EDIT: I left out the Medicare tax, which is on top of Social Security and Disability and is currently 1.45%, which is reached under Reagan. At the beginning of Reagan's terms, it was 1.05%, for a 40% increase.

zeus3925
10-31-2009, 07:14 PM
It was my understanding that as much as 50% of the US citizens do not pay federal income taxes. Is this not theO case? So with a social security rate of around 7% how have the taxes on the lower income people increased as a total percentage?

Then there are those who belong to the Leona Helmsley Society that believes the rich should be exempt from income tax. Just one Swiss bank had 42000 accounts from American tax dodgers.

signgirl
10-31-2009, 08:23 PM
I love it...I watch you all lob bombs at each other, looking at the opposing opinion as fodder for your rebuttal. Do you honestly believe you will change any minds on this forum? Everyone here is already committed. No party is that good or that bad. I admire all of you for being informed...but holy cow...talk about closed minds!

The reason I commented here was because no matter what the topic, the thread goes back to the 'inept/evil' Dems or the equally 'inept/evil' Republicans.

This is my theory...I never expect to persuade anyone to see the world from my eyes. This does not mean you won't get an opinion from me...Lord knows, I have a lot of those. What I want is for folks to be informed...to read...to interact...to listen to more than a 10 second sound bite. It does not matter if you agree with me or not as long as you have thought it through. What drives me wild is people who vote or 'opine' based on what their parents did or said, what Larry King said, or Oprah, or their preacher/teacher, or their next door neighbour, or their horiscope.

If we could teach our kids nothing else, it should be to think critically and independently and to question anything that sounds too good to be true. Go for it.

wayne anderson
10-31-2009, 10:16 PM
Medie: At last, a level-headed comment on POTUS Place. I'm pretty much middle-of-road politically, and am really tired of the minorities on BOTH the Left and Right who seem to see it as their duty to "educate" those of us in the majority on how to think and act. We in the middle need to stop being the "silent majority" and speak up. The apparent hatred I see coming from both the left and right wings against the opposing side really concerns me about this nation's future. When is the last time anyone remembers voting FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST a candidate, for president or otherwise?

Marvin S
10-31-2009, 10:29 PM
When is the last time anyone remembers voting FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST a candidate, for president or otherwise?

I voted for Goldwater, :) & I voted for Dino Rossi twice for governor, :) & they both lost - :(

BTW - Don't give Reagan too much credit for lowering taxes - a very good argument could be mounted that he increased them.

Gerry Clinchy
10-31-2009, 10:29 PM
The employee share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes was 4.8% in 1970, 6.13& in 1980, and 7.65% beginning in 1990 and continuing through today (For the self employed, double these rates). In 1970, this tax was only paid on the first $7000 in income. In 1980, it was applied to the first $25,900, in 1990 to the first $51,300, and today it applies to the first $106,800. The Medicare component of the tax has consistently been applied to the first $125,000, although this is now increasing.

Looking only at the Reagan period, the rate pre-Reagan (1980) was $1316/year for someone with an income of $45,000. In 1988, that same person with the same income would have paid $2727/year, or an increase of 107%.

EDIT: I left out the Medicare tax, which is on top of Social Security and Disability and is currently 1.45%, which is reached under Reagan. At the beginning of Reagan's terms, it was 1.05%, for a 40% increase.

So, while Reagan may have decreased income taxes, he increased the SS & Medicare taxes. Since they're mandatory, I see no way not to call them taxes. Those two programs would have been in a state of collapse even sooner, it would appear, had he not done that.

dnf777
11-01-2009, 04:30 AM
If we could teach our kids nothing else, it should be to think critically and independently and to question anything that sounds too good to be true. Go for it.

AMEN!!!!

That, and how to be good bird throwers, I would add. ;-)

YardleyLabs
11-01-2009, 06:23 AM
So, while Reagan may have decreased income taxes, he increased the SS & Medicare taxes. Since they're mandatory, I see no way not to call them taxes. Those two programs would have been in a state of collapse even sooner, it would appear, had he not done that.
I agree both on the point that the increases were needed and that these are taxes. They are also the only taxes that are regressive in their impact -- that is, they cost lower income people a larger percentage of their incomes than higher income people. I'm sure that it was a coincidence that Reagan favored increases in these taxes while working hard to reduce taxes that primarily affected higher income earners.:rolleyes: BTW, the purpose of the SS and Medicare tax increases was to generate surpluses that would be available to fund future benefits. In fact, Reagan promptly spent this surplus to increase military expenditures while cutting income taxes, cementing a pattern that only Clinton has attempted to reverse since then. This is actually important becuase the real "crisis" in social security is not when the "fund" runs out of money based on a true accounting of its reserves. It comes much sooner when current benefit payments exceed current social security tax receipts. Until now, SS tax receipts have generated a surplus every year and this surplus has been spent immediately to fund current operations. When the surplus runs out, the cash flow impact will be severe.

subroc
11-01-2009, 06:53 AM
the real "crisis" in social security is not when the "fund" runs out of money based on a true accounting of its reserves. It comes much sooner when current benefit payments exceed current social security tax receipts.


The real crisis came when SS receipts were considered part of the general fund and no longer a trust fund. If those "taxes" were saved in some manner to pay future generations retirement benefits the program wouldn't be in the problem it is now.

A real case for private accounts...

Gerry Clinchy
11-01-2009, 06:58 AM
Agreed, the SS & Medicare taxes are regressive.

In fact, though, the lower income individuals are more in need of those benefits than those who are more wealthy. So maybe there is some value in accepting the regressiveness in those assessments.

I've never understood, however, why there should be a cap on the deductions. I have to admit that you get used to the deductions, and if they did not "disappear" at a certain level, it would probably not be very much noticed; especially with Medicare since the deduction is rather low.

O promised that he would only raise taxes on those above a certain income level (although that level kept decreasing as time went on). He could have gone a long way to helping out Medicare and SS by simply raising the caps on those deductions! Doing so would impact none of those people in lower income tiers.

I guess that would have been too simple for such a brilliant mind to accept. Or is it that our legislators are paid in excess of those caps & didn't want to be subjected to those additional taxes?

Have we noticed that our legislators will incur zero effect from the health care proposals suggested? I hope so. OTOH, if the caps on SS & MC deductions were raised, Almost ALL of them would have been impacted, with no loopholes to slither through. (I said "almost" because I'm not sure if House members exceed the present cap of $125,000 for MC).

YardleyLabs
11-01-2009, 07:16 AM
Agreed, the SS & Medicare taxes are regressive.

In fact, though, the lower income individuals are more in need of those benefits than those who are more wealthy. So maybe there is some value in accepting the regressiveness in those assessments.

I've never understood, however, why there should be a cap on the deductions. I have to admit that you get used to the deductions, and if they did not "disappear" at a certain level, it would probably not be very much noticed; especially with Medicare since the deduction is rather low.

O promised that he would only raise taxes on those above a certain income level (although that level kept decreasing as time went on). He could have gone a long way to helping out Medicare and SS by simply raising the caps on those deductions! Doing so would impact none of those people in lower income tiers.

I guess that would have been too simple for such a brilliant mind to accept. Or is it that our legislators are paid in excess of those caps & didn't want to be subjected to those additional taxes?

Have we noticed that our legislators will incur zero effect from the health care proposals suggested? I hope so. OTOH, if the caps on SS & MC deductions were raised, Almost ALL of them would have been impacted, with no loopholes to slither through. (I said "almost" because I'm not sure if House members exceed the present cap of $125,000 for MC).
In fact, raising the cap on social security taxes has been an Obama proposal since the earliest stages of the campaign.

subroc
11-01-2009, 07:50 AM
Agreed, the SS & Medicare taxes are regressive.

In fact, though, the lower income individuals are more in need of those benefits than those who are more wealthy. So maybe there is some value in accepting the regressiveness in those assessments.

I've never understood, however, why there should be a cap on the deductions. I have to admit that you get used to the deductions, and if they did not "disappear" at a certain level, it would probably not be very much noticed; especially with Medicare since the deduction is rather low.

O promised that he would only raise taxes on those above a certain income level (although that level kept decreasing as time went on). He could have gone a long way to helping out Medicare and SS by simply raising the caps on those deductions! Doing so would impact none of those people in lower income tiers.

I guess that would have been too simple for such a brilliant mind to accept. Or is it that our legislators are paid in excess of those caps & didn't want to be subjected to those additional taxes?

Have we noticed that our legislators will incur zero effect from the health care proposals suggested? I hope so. OTOH, if the caps on SS & MC deductions were raised, Almost ALL of them would have been impacted, with no loopholes to slither through. (I said "almost" because I'm not sure if House members exceed the present cap of $125,000 for MC).

Gerry

I believe the theory is that at some point the maximum benefit is funded. If you earn X you are entitled to the maximum benefit, beyond that exceeds the maximum benefit so in reality there is a lack of fairness in increased SS taxes. If you donít believe in fairness, I expect having high earners pay for a benefit they are not receiving would be appealing to you. If we go on the assumption that we need to remove the cap are we going to increase the benefit to those earners (essentially getting into the high earner retirement system) or do they max out at the current maximum?

Gerry Clinchy
11-01-2009, 08:35 AM
In fact, raising the cap on social security taxes has been an Obama proposal since the earliest stages of the campaign.

I don't recall that from the campaign, but I'll take your word for it. My question would then be why such a simple idea disappeared into the morass of the proposed legislation. At the very least, that could have bought some time for crafting a health care bill. Better than rushing through a monumental overhaul that is poorly done.


If you don’t believe in fairness, I expect having high earners pay for a benefit they are not receiving would be appealing to you.

Wrong there, subroc. I do believe in fairness. In this case, I simply see it as the leeat of the evils. I just can't see it as being worse than the health care overhaul that is now being proposed.

One way or the other, those who earn end up being taxed for those who do not earn in the way our govt is now being run.

At least in this case, the high earners would get something back in return. At least it would be clear exactly what they were getting back ... and what they weren't :-) When the $ goes into FIT it is much less clear what the "return" or non-return may be.

There is also an unfairness in a regressive tax when a tax is based on income. So, again, I see it as just the least of the evils. There is also an unfairness in those that are allowed to not participate in SS. We could fix that, too ... but there are 535 people in DC who won't.

Also, agree with you that "stealing" from the trust funds was plain dumb.

subroc
11-01-2009, 08:43 AM
Yeh, I expect reining in government largess is out of the question.

The 535 again...

Your plain dumb comment sounds good. How will that translate to the government promising healthcare to all with money they do not have?

code3retrievers
11-01-2009, 10:00 PM
Just one Swiss bank had 42000 accounts from American tax dodgers.

I wonder if Timothy Geithner had an account?