Jump to content

Bush's Tax Cuts, & Bush's War Costs Did Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook


Recommended Posts

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits.  Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.

 

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion).  By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half— over $8 trillion — of the $19 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[7]   (See Figure 2.)  These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (just over 10 percent) of the debt at that time.  Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies do not fade away as the economy recovers.[8]

 

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the bush Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance in this decade.  Even if we regard the economic downturn as unavoidable, we would have entered it with a much smaller debt — allowing us to absorb the recession’s damage to the budget and the cost of economic recovery measures, while keeping debt comfortably below 50 percent of GDP, as Figure 2 suggests.  That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

 

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f1.jpg

 

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So....what do the republiKans do while Corporations and the TOP 1% are experiencing RECORD PROFITS?????

 

Give them more Tax Cuts of course!!

 

Senate Republicans Embrace Plan for $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut - The...

www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/us/politics/senate-republicans-tax-cut.html

Senate Republicans Embrace Plan for $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut ... The federal debttopped $20 trillion earlier this month and is projected to grow by ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Massa Johnson's

"Great Democrat National Socialist Vote-n!gger Plantation"

 

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed,

“This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on [The Black Family] in America.”

In the 50 years since that time,

 

U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion

on anti-Black Family programs.

 

Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is

 

three times the cost of all U.S. military wars

since the American Revolution.

 

Now,

...Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers.

 

Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

 

lbj-racist2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOW THE DEMOCRAT NATIONAL SOCIALIST WELFARE STATE

HAS DEVASTATED AFRICAN AMERICANS

 

The rise of Lyndon Massa Johnson's Democrat National Socialist welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

 

Quote

 

April 27, 2012

 

"When asked for evidence that Obama’s parents were communists, Wurzelbacher’s campaign spokesman Reece Collins supplied a 2007 Chicago Tribune article about Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

 

Claims that Obama’s estranged father was a communist are more widespread on conservative websites. Collins forwarded a profile of Obama from DiscoverLinks which describes the senior Obama as "a communist who had left his rural Luo-speaking village and his own Muslim father to become an agnostic and study economics abroad." Several editorials in the conservative Investor’s Business Daily also call Obama’s father a "communist."

tom-false.png

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/27/samuel-wurzelbacher/samuel-joe-plumber-wurzelbacher-says-barack-obamas/

 

 

kids+laughing.jpg

"DISCOVER THE NETWORKS!!!!!"

 

 

abbie_hoffman.jpg?w=600

 

"NICE TRY, BLEW DEVIL!!!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...When President Lyndon Massa Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on the Black Family, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antiresponsability legislation and added a new American Vote-n!gger welfare Plantation, he explained that his objective was to increase dependency, “break the cycle of liberty,” and make “taxpayers pay for Democrat National Socialist Plantation Vote-n!ggers.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed self-sufficiency and success,” those being “education, work ethic, home ownership, wealth, health, not enough hours in the work day.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black upptity-ness. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that his problems plaguing black Americans could only be solved by equality: “You do not take an uppity n!gger who, for years, has broken the chains and liberated himself, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete against whites,'” said Johnson.

 

lbj-racist2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We said we didn't want it. Most people didn't even vote for it. In survey after survey, public opinion polls rank a large tax cut as one the least desirable uses of the federal budget surplus. And Republican and Democratic leaders alike have warned the President-select that his tax cut package will never emerge whole from Congress.

 

 

But all to no avail. George W. Bush has yet to back off from the monstrous, surplus-draining tax cut proposal that was the cornerstone of his campaign. Now he's even telling us that it's for our own good: His tax cut will cure our softening economy and stave off the threat of recession by "encouraging capital formation, economic growth, and job creation." Even Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve Board and a debt-reduction hawk, is prepared to accommodate the Bush plan.

 

 

At least one group has always happy to swallow the Bush tax cut medicine—"the haves and the haves-more," as Bush referred to his supporters during a fundraiser last year. After all, it is their taxes he will cut. Together, lower income tax rates (with the biggest drop at the top) and the repeal of the estate tax account for nearly three-quarters of the Bush tax cut. Nearly three-fifths of the total benefits of the tax cut package will go to the richest 10% of all taxpayers, and some 43% will go just to the top 1%, those who make more than $319,000 a year and showed average income of $915,000 in 1999.

 

 

But no matter what Bush says, his tax giveaway to the wealthy will not inoculate us against recession. Nor are well-to-do taxpayers suffering from over-taxation, as the Bush team insists. One thing is sure. If the Bush tax cut goes through, social programs that have already been neglected for more than two decades will continue to suffer.

 

Defending the Indefensible

The editors of the Wall Street Journal never met a pro-rich tax cut they didn't like. And the Bush tax cut is much to their liking. Last December, they argued the case for a massive tax cut on three grounds:

  • "Taxes are too high. Last year [1999], federal tax revenue as a percentage of the economy reached an historic peak—20.4% of GDP."
  • "For the past couple of years, our tax overpayments have put the federal budget in surplus. And Congress, incited by this surplus, has exceeded its own budget caps and increased its spending beyond the rate of inflation. And they've just done it again, passing a humongous budget."
  • "The economy is beginning to wobble. Economic forecasters are sniffing a recession; they are busily lowering growth projections for next year. And for good reason; some of the data are starting to look scary." 

On closer inspection, none of these arguments holds up. First, let's look at what the Journal editors had to say about government being too large and taxes too high.

Federal tax revenues—as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or national output—are currently, as the editors suggest, at their highest levels since World War II. But that is not because government got bigger during the 1990s or because today's federal budget is "humongous" in historical terms.

 

The economic boom of the 1990s—faster economic growth and a skyrocketing stock market—did enlarge the tax base and allow the federal government to collect more tax revenues. Those added tax dollars closed a $300 billion deficit in the federal budget and then generated the current surplus. But that surplus hasn't translated into bigger government, as the Journal editors claim.

 

During the 1990s, federal spending as a share of GDP actually got smaller, not bigger, slipping below 20%. In 2000, it reached just 18.2%, the lowest mark in 35 years. 

Even some conservatives, if not the Journal's editorial writers, noticed the drop. "The good news of the Clinton presidency," says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, is that "the federal government is getting smaller, at least relative to the size of the economy."

 

So much for the government being too big by historical standards. But what about the beef about "over-taxation"? It misses the mark as well.

The Journal editors are fond of pointing out, in their paeans to the "New Economy," that any serious assessment of the 1990s should take into account the wealth amassed through the stock market boom and other investments. But tax revenue as a share of GDP is a misleading measure of the decade's tax burden precisely because it fails to do this.

 

Here's how. According to economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale, about one-third of the surge in tax revenues during the 1990s came from taxes on the capital gains realized when stockholders and other investors cashed in their holdings. The calculation of taxes as a share of GDP counts capital gains tax revenues but ignores gains in wealth that have not been cashed in. From 1989 to 1999, the total wealth or net worth of households (their total assets minus debt) more than doubled. Had all of that new wealth been included in the Journal's calculation, then taxes as a share of economic activity would have shown a decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

...When President Lyndon Massa Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on the Black Family, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antiresponsability legislation and added a new American Vote-n!gger welfare Plantation, he explained that his objective was to increase dependency, “break the cycle of liberty,” and make “taxpayers pay for Democrat National Socialist Plantation Vote-n!ggers.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed self-sufficiency and success,” those being “education, work ethic, home ownership, wealth, health, not enough hours in the work day.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black upptity-ness. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that his problems plaguing black Americans could only be solved by equality: “You do not take an uppity n!gger who, for years, has broken the chains and liberated himself, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete against whites,'” said Johnson.

 

lbj-racist2.jpeg

 

 

 

kids+laughing.jpg

"DISCOVER THE NETWORKS!!!!!"

 

 

abbie_hoffman.jpg?w=600

 

"NICE TRY, BLEW DEVIL!!!!!!"

  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Massa Johnson's

"Great Democrat National Socialist Vote-n!gger Plantation"

 

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed,

“This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on [The Black Family] in America.”

In the 50 years since that time,

 

U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion

on anti-Black Family programs.

 

Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is

 

three times the cost of all U.S. military wars

since the American Revolution.

 

Now,

...Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers.

 

Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

 

lbj-racist2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, benson13 said:

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits.  Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.

 

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion).  By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half— over $8 trillion — of the $19 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[7]   (See Figure 2.)  These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (just over 10 percent) of the debt at that time.  Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies do not fade away as the economy recovers.[8]

 

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the bush Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance in this decade.  Even if we regard the economic downturn as unavoidable, we would have entered it with a much smaller debt — allowing us to absorb the recession’s damage to the budget and the cost of economic recovery measures, while keeping debt comfortably below 50 percent of GDP, as Figure 2 suggests.  That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

 

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f1.jpg

 

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f2.jpg

 

How many times have I seen this ridiculous CBPP graphic recycled over and over again?  It's probably been hundreds.  I'm pretty sure I've seen reference to it hundreds of times.  These graphs are pure fabricated partisanship.  They're utter junk.  And no, that isn't a defense of George W. Bush. 

 

First of all, the layers are based on pure hypotheticals that aren't even federal budget categories, and are not objectively quantifiable.  Second, these policies were part of a standard Keynesian response to the recession of the early 2000s.  Any Democrat would have done taken similar deficit-expanding measures, because that is modern Keynesian orthodoxy.  Democrats just would have had different PR spin around it to sell it to the public, namely they would have majorly downplayed the military interventionism whereas Bush & Co. went full-blown propaganda, but otherwise there would have been "stimulus" measures that would have been achieved in large part by tax reductions and there most certainly would have been the exploitation of housing credit to trigger a rebound, as Paul Krugman predicted and as the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve would have advised.

 

Lastly, these graphs play pretend that we need to be very concerned about federal deficits and debt.  A partisan liberal source like CBPP does not honestly believe that.  The federal budget is not like great-aunt Janet's budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, merrill said:

We said we didn't want it. Most people didn't even vote for it. In survey after survey, public opinion polls rank a large tax cut as one the least desirable uses of the federal budget surplus. And Republican and Democratic leaders alike have warned the President-select that his tax cut package will never emerge whole from Congress.

 

 

But all to no avail. George W. Bush has yet to back off from the monstrous, surplus-draining tax cut proposal that was the cornerstone of his campaign. Now he's even telling us that it's for our own good: His tax cut will cure our softening economy and stave off the threat of recession by "encouraging capital formation, economic growth, and job creation." Even Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve Board and a debt-reduction hawk, is prepared to accommodate the Bush plan.

 

 

At least one group has always happy to swallow the Bush tax cut medicine—"the haves and the haves-more," as Bush referred to his supporters during a fundraiser last year. After all, it is their taxes he will cut. Together, lower income tax rates (with the biggest drop at the top) and the repeal of the estate tax account for nearly three-quarters of the Bush tax cut. Nearly three-fifths of the total benefits of the tax cut package will go to the richest 10% of all taxpayers, and some 43% will go just to the top 1%, those who make more than $319,000 a year and showed average income of $915,000 in 1999.

 

 

But no matter what Bush says, his tax giveaway to the wealthy will not inoculate us against recession. Nor are well-to-do taxpayers suffering from over-taxation, as the Bush team insists. One thing is sure. If the Bush tax cut goes through, social programs that have already been neglected for more than two decades will continue to suffer.

 

Defending the Indefensible

The editors of the Wall Street Journal never met a pro-rich tax cut they didn't like. And the Bush tax cut is much to their liking. Last December, they argued the case for a massive tax cut on three grounds:

  • "Taxes are too high. Last year [1999], federal tax revenue as a percentage of the economy reached an historic peak—20.4% of GDP."
  • "For the past couple of years, our tax overpayments have put the federal budget in surplus. And Congress, incited by this surplus, has exceeded its own budget caps and increased its spending beyond the rate of inflation. And they've just done it again, passing a humongous budget."
  • "The economy is beginning to wobble. Economic forecasters are sniffing a recession; they are busily lowering growth projections for next year. And for good reason; some of the data are starting to look scary." 

On closer inspection, none of these arguments holds up. First, let's look at what the Journal editors had to say about government being too large and taxes too high.

Federal tax revenues—as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or national output—are currently, as the editors suggest, at their highest levels since World War II. But that is not because government got bigger during the 1990s or because today's federal budget is "humongous" in historical terms.

 

The economic boom of the 1990s—faster economic growth and a skyrocketing stock market—did enlarge the tax base and allow the federal government to collect more tax revenues. Those added tax dollars closed a $300 billion deficit in the federal budget and then generated the current surplus. But that surplus hasn't translated into bigger government, as the Journal editors claim.

 

During the 1990s, federal spending as a share of GDP actually got smaller, not bigger, slipping below 20%. In 2000, it reached just 18.2%, the lowest mark in 35 years. 

Even some conservatives, if not the Journal's editorial writers, noticed the drop. "The good news of the Clinton presidency," says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, is that "the federal government is getting smaller, at least relative to the size of the economy."

 

So much for the government being too big by historical standards. But what about the beef about "over-taxation"? It misses the mark as well.

The Journal editors are fond of pointing out, in their paeans to the "New Economy," that any serious assessment of the 1990s should take into account the wealth amassed through the stock market boom and other investments. But tax revenue as a share of GDP is a misleading measure of the decade's tax burden precisely because it fails to do this.

 

Here's how. According to economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale, about one-third of the surge in tax revenues during the 1990s came from taxes on the capital gains realized when stockholders and other investors cashed in their holdings. The calculation of taxes as a share of GDP counts capital gains tax revenues but ignores gains in wealth that have not been cashed in. From 1989 to 1999, the total wealth or net worth of households (their total assets minus debt) more than doubled. Had all of that new wealth been included in the Journal's calculation, then taxes as a share of economic activity would have shown a decline.

 

No Recession Fighter

Crying recession is the Journal editors' and the Bush team's latest attempt to resuscitate the tax revolt. The threat of recession is genuine enough. Slower economic growth abroad, higher oil prices, stagnating stock prices, and jacked-up interest rates have already damped down U.S. economic growth and surely could bring the current expansion to an end. Still, that is no reason to give in to the chicanery that we must bribe the rich with a tax cut if we want to forestall a recession.

 

The Bush tax cut is no recession fighter. First off, it will do little to combat slower growth in a timely way. Even if Congress passes the proposal intact, none of the cuts would be enacted before 2002. In truth, much of the Bush proposal would be slowly phased in over ten years, with just 11% of the tax cut coming in the first three years. Worse yet, the later and larger tax cuts would take place regardless of economic conditions—and in all likelihood well after the end of the next recession.

 

Aside from its poor timing, the Bush tax cut is ill-designed to jumpstart the economy. The immediate effect of lower taxes comes from increasing consumer spending. But by targeting the rich, who consume less of their income than others, the Bush tax cut will offer little of this stimulus. That holds for both the repeal of the estate tax—whose benefits will go exclusively to the richest 2% of the population—and the across-the-board cut in income tax rates, which is weighted heavily in favor of the wealthiest taxpayers.

 

 

Nor are repealing the estate tax and cutting income taxes likely to provide the long-term stimulus to capital formation and job creation that Bush promises. Tax-cut backers can't point to a single credible economic study showing that eliminating the estate tax will boost investment. The track record of cutting income taxes is problematic as well.

 

The Reagan administration reduced income tax rates across the board and lowered capital gains taxes—cuts that supply-side economists claimed would encourage people to work, save, and invest. But when mainstream economists, such as Barry Bosworth and Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution, checked out the effects of the '80s tax cut, they found quite different results. Male workers put in about the same number of hours after the tax cut as before it, and while women did work more hours, their earnings failed to improve. Not only that, relative to the size of the economy, savings plummeted and net investment declined. That hardly fits with the claims of the Bush team.

 

 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal budget (except for Social Security) will run a surplus of $3.1 trillion over the period 2002 to 2011. The CBO projection assumes brisk economic growth averaging 3.1% over those ten years (comparable to that of the 1990s), no recession this year, a continuation of the rapid productivity gains of the last five years, and a hot stock market. But deteriorating economic conditions, let alone a prolonged recession, could compromise each of those assumptions and leave a surplus far smaller than the amount of the Bush tax cut, pushing the budget back into deficit.

 

Even if the CBO projections hold up, financing the Bush tax cut out of the surplus will be difficult. A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank, found that much of the surplus was unavailable for a tax cut. Some $400 billion of the projected surplus comes from the Medicare Hospital Insurance Fund, and there is overwhelming bipartisan consensus that those funds, along with the Social Security surpluses, should be set aside, not used for tax initiatives. Another $600 billion of the projected surplus disappears if current spending policies are maintained; the bulk of that would go to adjust discretionary spending for inflation and changes in the U.S. population. That still leaves about $2 trillion unallocated. But at least $500 billion, according to the CBPP, would be needed to help restore the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, if Bush intends to keep that campaign promise.

 

Finally, an honest accounting of the cost of the Bush tax cut reveals that it will drain at least $1.9 trillion from the projected surplus, not $1.3 trillion, as his campaign claimed. According to Citizens for Tax Justice director Robert McIntyre, the Bush figure is based on nine years, not ten, because it starts its projection in 2001, a year before the tax cut would go into effect. On top of that, the government would have to borrow money to finance the Bush tax cut in its first years (before the larger surpluses kick in), but the Bush calculation doesn't include the cost of the interest on that borrowing. Those interest payments will be even larger if the economy slows, drying up projected tax revenues.

 

Not only that, McIntyre now estimates that the total cost of the tax cut could be as high as $2.5 trillion, due to a quicker phase-in of the proposed cuts, new CBO revenue projections, and a likely reduction in the 26% minimum tax that upper-income taxpayers are now required to pay on their taxable income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "Second, these policies were part of a standard Keynesian response to the recession of the early 2000s.  Any Democrat would have done taken similar measures"

 

 

so,.....you're saying any Dem would have given Tax Cuts HEAVILY FAVORED towards the Top 1% as bush/cheney did????

 

No, you're mistaken

 

And....they wouldn't have allowed 9-11 to happen with all the LOUD Warnings coming in daily...(ask Richard Clarke and others)..just to lie us into Iraq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

Second, these policies were part of a standard Keynesian response to the recession of the early 2000s.  Any Democrat would have done taken similar deficit-expanding measures, because that is modern Keynesian orthodoxy.

 

 

6 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 so,.....you're saying any Dem would have given Tax Cuts HEAVILY FAVORED towards the Top 1% as bush/cheney did????

 

No, you're mistaken

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/bush-s-tax-cuts-sounded-too-good-to-be-true-for-democrats-1.286029

 

http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/dec_2007/tax_cuts_dont_boost_revenue.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...