Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#461 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2011 - 10:41 PM

as to the stimulous
http://www.washingto...onomy-long-run/
yes short term it could provide some help but long term as i said over and over again it is a detriment to the economy
Reps came up with a plan including tax hikes that dems wouldnt look at so screw them they are a bigger problem than the reps ATM

I know fed is independant but as i understand it the chairman of the fed is appointed by the govt. therefore they have some control. if i am mistaken then well There is no blame to be laid at the politicians feet.

Again here in canada we went through this in the 90's and the govt did slash and burn and that is why we have weathered this storm soo soo much better than you guys. The solution is to slash and burn, yes taxes must go up but ya gotta kill a large number of useless govt jobs.
I am going to make assumptions here but as far as i can tell ALL govt orginizations are the same, I work for a private not for profit corporation that used to be govt. We went from 7 levels of management to 3 i have no doubt you could do the same to most govt depts. Problem is the govt usually leaves it to the beaurocrats to decide on where to cut and they never cut their management staff just the people providing services and that is done on purpose as a way of getting any politician in trouble with the public when he/she proposes govt cuts

So once again slash and burn the beaurocrats stop stimulous spending as it does/has and always will hurt the economy in the long run! get your financial house in order and the economy will pick up. continue to spend and its just gonna get worse down the road.
  • 0

#462 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 28 November 2011 - 05:04 PM

There's more that I want to say, but just quickly, I wouldn't be opposed to turning over some government work to Not-For-Profit corporations, but the Republicans only want to turn government services over to the private, For-Profit sector, so that's one reason I could never even consider supporting the Republicans. Some things need to be done by government and others need to be done without a profit motive.

The private prison industry is the prime example, but Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona made up a budget shortfall last year by selling the state prisons to private companies (which just happen to be among her largest donors :dry: ), and now they are in a fiscal hole because they are "renting" the buildings they formerly owned in order to send criminals to these private institutions. Private prisons get money from the government per person incarcerated, so the more people arrested and locked up, the more money they make from the taxpayers. It's a huge scam and it is an example of something should never be privatized and monetized. If it's a government service that isn't being done by the government, it needs to be Not-For-Profit. But you'll never hear that argument made by the Republicans. They only want these done for profit, period. "The Market will solve everything."

No, it won't.
  • 0

#463 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2011 - 07:28 PM

I agree with you some things should be in govt hands some, not for profit private companies, but there are some things that can just be privatized straight out. You give prisons as examples, I personally dont even think a private not for profit would be a good idea here. On the other side of the coin we have public and private daycare here. it is almost all subsidized by the govt. (7$/day) but there are 100% private ones that charge more, very few left. The WORST daycares are the CPE`s "Centre de petitis enfants", they are the 100% govt ones and the govt subsidized home daycares (*note the home ones can be very good too, they are all different). Basically this is something the govt should get out of. It is a disaster all around. Many people have a near impossible time finding a daycare because the cheap govt subsidized ones forced most private ones to close, but they get same $$ whether regardless of where they are situated. So if you are in a rural area or small town real estate/rent is cheap if you are in the city/well off suburb it is $$. Now the more the over head the closer they need to be near 100% capacity to break even. Leaving many areas short on daycare. Other areas are running at 60% NP. typical govt square peg/round hole problem.

But you'll never hear that argument made by the Republicans. They only want these done for profit, period. "The Market will solve everything."

No, it won't.


You are right the markets will not/cannot solve everything.
Problem is the Dems are the polar opposite they want govt to do everything
"The govt will solve everything" is their mantra
NO IT WONT!

dang you guys are screwed down there!
  • 0

#464 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2011 - 11:50 PM

OK, a few things.

1. The head of the fed is indeed appointed, but he acts privately, and (before now) hasn't had to explain what or how they were doing it. So yes, its a problem because no one passed a law to get this done. So it's half and half: No one asked the fed about anything, probably because they were afraid that doing so would prevent the fed from carrying out necessary policies, but also no one knew what they were doing. I dunno. All i know is that it is a private bank, and whatever they lend to anyone but the US government has nothing to do with our debt. (Here's the current head: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ben_Bernanke)

2. That thing you linked says .2 off long term. That doesn't sound horrible when you consider that the stimulus stopped it from all going to hell (it slowed down the down part of the business cycle, so obviously it'd make the upper part moderated a bit. But the fact that it's only .2... that isn't so bad. Another is a no go, though, but i still say Obama's stimulus was necessary).

3. Yes, managerial cutting would be great, but Washington is so goddamn full of lobbyists that that wouldn't happen. But obviously cuts need to come in, I never said they didn't, but slash and burn with a weak economy wouldn't be too good (especially if the situation in Europe goes to hell). The 90's wasn't a time of economic downturn, right? So the slash and burn wasn't as detrimental. Different situation. We should start now, and ease into it: cuts to military, other things, some taxes, etc. But nothing too horrid.

Oh, and yes, those democrats are idiots. Which is why no one likes them actually, and congress has an approval rating of 9% or something like that.

Edited by gvg, 28 November 2011 - 11:51 PM.

  • 0

#465 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 06:25 PM

You are right the markets will not/cannot solve everything.
Problem is the Dems are the polar opposite they want govt to do everything
"The govt will solve everything" is their mantra
NO IT WONT!

dang you guys are screwed down there!

Oh, and yes, those democrats are idiots. Which is why no one likes them actually, and congress has an approval rating of 9% or something like that.

I don't think that the Democrats are really saying that "The govt will solve everything." Bernie Sanders could be construed as saying that, but he's considered the left-wing fringe of the spectrum of electable candidates. Most Democrats are just as corporate-controlled as the Republicans and that's the real problem. They are so beholden to corporate cash that they cannot, or will not, listen to constituent interests since constituents can't afford to give them the amount of cash that corporations can. To clean up politics in the United States, you really need to take the money factor out. If candidates aren't beholden to campaign funding, they can focus on the issues and they are less likely to be swayed by lobbyists, since they don't need the money from them to win another election.

Politics in the US has been twisted over the last 30 years to be extremely right-wing. Bernie Sanders is as close as a politician can be to being a left-wing radical, and he's generally marginalized and ignored by the Democrats, while the right-wing fringe is given center stage in the Republican party. It's the Far-Right party against the Center-Right (with a smidgen of Center-Left) party. But all major solutions offered by either party have a rightward slant.

Obamacare is based off a conservative idea that was floated in the '90s (and more recently from Gov. Romney's Massachusetts' Health care law). Most of the stuff in it was A-OK as far the the Republicans were concerned, until Obama proposed it. The same was true with Cap and Trade legislation. The Left wanted a straight Carbon Tax, so the conservatives offered Cap and Trade as an alternative. When Obama and the Left accepted it, it became an evil, Lefty idea.

Based on their constant moving of the goalposts, I really don't see how you can call the majority of the Republican field anything other than "two-faced," "duplicitous" or "hypocritical" at the very least. Most of the ideas that President Obama and the Democrats have offered to the Republicans were their own ideas, which were perfectly acceptable when the Republicans suggested them, but as soon as they were rebranded by the Democrats, they became persona non grata to the conservatives.

The same thing happened with the Super Committee. Every offer from the Democrats was rejected, no matter how acceptable it had been in the past to both parties. Eugene Robinson, who does political analysis for the Washington Post, wrote about the Super Committee's failure, and he pointed out how the Republican's positions on the committee were unrealistic and how they refused to compromise in any meaningful way.

That's why it failed, not because the Democrats refused to budge. They budged an awful lot, but the Republicans refused to move an inch. When they moved a millimeter, they wanted to be congratulated. That can hardly be considered a reasonable way to govern. If you really want to govern, you work to change the policies to your goals by degrees, not sitting by there holding your breath until you get exactly what you want. The Republicans want the Obama administration to fail. If Obama were to succeed, people might question certain Republican dogma and that would hurt their electoral prospects. So their best chance to win back the presidency (as they see it) is to scuttle the economic recovery and blame the Obama Administration and the Democrats. They aren't interested in actually governing. Like I said, they'd rather see the "Invisible Hand of the Market" do everything. And they see the best chance for that to happen is to stop Obama from doing anything. Which is not at all how the government is supposed to work.
  • 0

#466 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:20 PM

Dawh: Yep, i agree with you (although I do think there are some democrats who are as dawh described (they're in the minority though), and others, not for nothing, that have been given a hell of a lot of union money (im not anti-union per-say, just pointing it out) like pelosi apparently,and they only serve them. But again, thats a minority.)

But, there are many a democrat who refuses to give up their sacred cows like SS age, Medicare, etc. Why do you think Obama's 4.6 trillion idea was rejected outright by both sides? For the republicans, the blasphemous idea was tax raises (aka letting the bush era cuts expire), for some dems (enough to screw his idea), cutting Medicare/Medicaid. These things have to be done. SS and Medicare age must be raised, the ceiling of income that is taxed for SS must be raised, a deal must be made with Big Pharma to reduce the costs of drugs (which is quite possible, and is championed by Bernie Sanders). All these thing must occur, and this is just the start.

What is going to happen now (automatic cuts due to their failure) is actually a good start. It cuts several hundred billion in costs from defense and medicare, 1.2 trillion total, which is a nice start. Couple that with letting the Bush cuts expire (which will probably happen unless the repubs win congress), and that's a GREAT start. Also coupled with the end of the Iraq war on the date Bush set several years ago (Dec 31 of this year, which Obama is following), and the situation is not nearly as bleak. Of course, there are already pushes to reverse the first thing (the automatic cuts) and the second thing (the expiration of the bush tax cuts) and the third thing (for random fears of Iran, which really is kinda dumb cause we'd blow them to hell with half our current military capability). But i doubt theyll get it. Itll be blocked in one way or the other, all these movements.

And if we can get the freakin moderates of the republican party (Huntsman, Gingrich (this dudes smart, but war-hawkish, but hes still moderate elsewhere) to do some more talking, we can get some s*** done.

Anyway, back to the whole thing with campaign money: I say a law should be passed saying that:

1. Campaign contributions are not to come from corporations or unions. it just isn't fair, no one can give more then them.
2. Contributions are limited to, say, 10k per person, so that those who are quite well to do cannot do ask corporations do now.
3. This one i've debated in my head a bit, but I've settled on it: No using one's own money. it isn't fair, for instance, that someone like, say, Reagan, who was an actor and made quite a bit of cash, can go ahead and give more to his campaign then joe shmoe who wants reform. (I think people are allowed right now, correct me if I'm wrong.)
4. Make all contributions to all campaigns available on the internet or in print on request.

These things are a great start no? And it'd cause politicians to pay attention.

Of course, those will never be passed. Ever. Well, not with these a**holes anyway.
  • 0

#467 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:47 AM

Dawh: Yep, i agree with you (although I do think there are some democrats who are as dawh described (they're in the minority though), and others, not for nothing, that have been given a hell of a lot of union money (im not anti-union per-say, just pointing it out) like pelosi apparently,and they only serve them. But again, thats a minority.)

I think that the union thing is a smear (in part a smear against unions as well) for the most part. I don't think that many Democrats (and Pelosi in particular) are beholden to the Unions and Union money. I can't find an example, but considering we have an all-time low in union membership across the country now, large corporations have far more money available to spend on campaigns than do unions. So with unlimited donations, corporations get the most benefit, then unions, then individuals.

But, there are many a democrat who refuses to give up their sacred cows like SS age, Medicare, etc. Why do you think Obama's 4.6 trillion idea was rejected outright by both sides? For the republicans, the blasphemous idea was tax raises (aka letting the bush era cuts expire), for some dems (enough to screw his idea), cutting Medicare/Medicaid. These things have to be done. SS and Medicare age must be raised, the ceiling of income that is taxed for SS must be raised, a deal must be made with Big Pharma to reduce the costs of drugs (which is quite possible, and is championed by Bernie Sanders). All these thing must occur, and this is just the start.

The problem I have with your statements here is that you use the word "must" a lot. As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. SS is supposedly solvent for another 20-30 years if we do nothing. In order to ensure it remains solvent for the long-term we do need to do something, but the things you listed above are not things we "must" do to keep it solvent. There are numerous smaller tweaks that we can apply that will help the problem. But SS isn't even the problem when you want to talk about the deficit.

Medicare is the problem because of ballooning healthcare costs. If healthcare costs came down, then the problems with Medicare would be greatly reduced as well. Ostensibly, Obamacare was supposed to help with costs, but as many of its left-wing critics like to state, it's more health insurance reform than healthcare reform. But that's all they could get through Congress with no help from the Republicans whatsoever. It could have been better, but I think it was a good first step. Once all the litigation subsides, people will be able to improve on it and maybe they would even be able to help bring down costs.

So as it stands, Medicare is the biggest entitlement that is a deficit problem, but there's no one way to fix it. We don't have to raise the eligibility age, though it is one possible way to do it. It's not one I'm found of and I'm sure that there are better ways to keep costs down, but Republicans are blocking most of them. One thing that could have helped that was originally in the healthcare bill would be to test the efficacy of different medical procedures to determine cost-effectiveness to try to phase out expensive, unnecessary procedures, but the conservatives derided that as "Death Panels" and the Democrats had to cut it from the final bill to get enough support to get it out of committee.

What is going to happen now (automatic cuts due to their failure) is actually a good start. It cuts several hundred billion in costs from defense and medicare, 1.2 trillion total, which is a nice start. Couple that with letting the Bush cuts expire (which will probably happen unless the repubs win congress), and that's a GREAT start. Also coupled with the end of the Iraq war on the date Bush set several years ago (Dec 31 of this year, which Obama is following), and the situation is not nearly as bleak. Of course, there are already pushes to reverse the first thing (the automatic cuts) and the second thing (the expiration of the bush tax cuts) and the third thing (for random fears of Iran, which really is kinda dumb cause we'd blow them to hell with half our current military capability). But i doubt theyll get it. Itll be blocked in one way or the other, all these movements.

Obama has promised to veto any bill that comes across his desk that removes the automatic cuts without providing a replacement for those cuts. So he intends to force Congress to accept that pain.

The Bush Tax cuts will expire as of Jan 1, 2013, if I remember correctly. So even if the Republicans win big in the 2012 elections, they won't take power until after they expire. So if they wanted to get the taxes back, they would have to write a new bill and pass it again, instead of just renewing the one they have. As long as enough Democrats run out the clock, the Republicans can't reinstate the Bush tax cuts until after they are gone, if nothing else gets done. But Obama and some Democrats want to keep the Bush rates for the lower categories and let the rates expire for the higher brackets. It wouldn't reduce the deficit as much as letting them all go, but it wouldn't be as big a damper on the economy either.

The poorest people in the country spend the largest percentage of their paychecks each month, while the richest take a higher percent out of the economy. So giving money back to poorer people has a much more stimulative effect than giving it to the richest groups (who just reinvest it in things like the stock market, which doesn't help small and local businesses). The poor and middle class are buying food and visiting local restaurants and buying merchandise with their money, so it immediately is going back into the economy and helping the community.

The neo-cons (and some neo-liberals) have always been salivating over war in the Middle East. They feel (for one reason or another) that the US has to interfere to stabilize the region (some do it for Israel, some do it for the "End Times" and some do it just to get themselves and their friends rich off the spoils). I don't foresee Obama ever intervening, but if you let Gingrich get in there, beware.

And if we can get the freakin moderates of the republican party (Huntsman, Gingrich (this dudes smart, but war-hawkish, but hes still moderate elsewhere) to do some more talking, we can get some s*** done.

Gingrich can bloviate on most any subject and "sound good," but he's a pathological liar who says whatever he thinks the listener wants to hear. As recently as 2005 and 2008, he was a champion of the health insurance mandate. Only now that it's a negative among the GOP electorate is he reneging his support. He was intensely disliked by Right and Left when he was Speaker of the House and many people think that the Republicans made gains in the '90s in spite of Gingrich, rather than because of him. He was fined $300,000 in an ethics probe and he resigned in disgrace as Speaker after the House impeached President Clinton. in my opinion, he is one of the last people you want as Commander-in-Chief.

Anyway, back to the whole thing with campaign money: I say a law should be passed saying that:

1. Campaign contributions are not to come from corporations or unions. it just isn't fair, no one can give more then them.
2. Contributions are limited to, say, 10k per person, so that those who are quite well to do cannot do ask corporations do now.
3. This one i've debated in my head a bit, but I've settled on it: No using one's own money. it isn't fair, for instance, that someone like, say, Reagan, who was an actor and made quite a bit of cash, can go ahead and give more to his campaign then joe shmoe who wants reform. (I think people are allowed right now, correct me if I'm wrong.)
4. Make all contributions to all campaigns available on the internet or in print on request.

These things are a great start no? And it'd cause politicians to pay attention.

Of course, those will never be passed. Ever. Well, not with these a**holes anyway.

Well, it sounds nice and simple, but lawyers excel at taking nice, simple rules and running loopholes right through and around them. With the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, it allowed the formation of Super PACs which can accept unlimited donations (displayed publicly), but they can't coordinate with a candidate. However what's happening now is they are forming a separate group that can accept unlimited donations, but doesn't have to release it's donor list, and then they funnel the money from the new group to the Super PAC. So the Super PAC lists the second group as a donor, but the people who contributed to the second group remain secret.

Second, now the Super PACs are trying to allow "uncoordinated coordination." If that's not twisted, I don't know what is. It would allow them to run ads for a candidate, featuring the candidate, just so long as the candidate doesn't ask for your vote and the ad doesn't either. Stephen Colbert thinks this "uncoordinated coordination" should be allowed, so long as you kidnap the candidate, blindfold them, drag them off somewhere, hand them a script and force them to read it. That's the only way that you could feature a candidate in a Super PAC ad and still call it "uncoordinated."

So while your ideas sound good, there are myriad ways that corporations and people could run around the rules you list, while still obeying the letter of the law, even if that isn't the intent of the law. Unfortunately, I don't know what the right answer is in terms of Campaign Finance Reform. :(
  • 0

#468 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:44 AM

I'm going to reply more in length later, but I think you should see this:

http://www.outsideth...nt-than-unions/
http://blog.heritage...e-or-shut-down/
http://brianekoenig....ould-shut-down/
http://www.theblaze....esn’t-go-union/

Yeah, i have a feeling her and union bosses have a special relationship there. but again, that's just her, and of course Corporations have more money available.

http://www.aier.org/...d-union-support
Ignoring the obvious conservative rhetoric, the numbers are real. I can't find a corporate one, but I am going to look.

Ill make a larger response later.
  • 0

#469 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 06:34 PM

I'm going to reply more in length later, but I think you should see this:

http://www.outsideth...nt-than-unions/
http://blog.heritage...e-or-shut-down/
http://brianekoenig....ould-shut-down/
http://www.theblaze....0%99t-go-union/

Yeah, i have a feeling her and union bosses have a special relationship there. but again, that's just her, and of course Corporations have more money available.

http://www.aier.org/...d-union-support
Ignoring the obvious conservative rhetoric, the numbers are real. I can't find a corporate one, but I am going to look.

Ill make a larger response later.

All of those are from conservative sources. OutsideTheBeltway clearly has a conservative bias, the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank, Brian Koenig is a conservative blogger and the Blaze is Glenn Beck's blog. And so far as I can see, they are all referring to the same incident. I don't know much about the American Institute for Economic Research, but the rhetoric was slanted to the right. School vouchers and "school choice" are just bad ideas, plain and simple. So who cares if the Democrats get support from the NEA?

There's a lot more nuance in the situation with the Boeing factory in South Carolina than just what they posted. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), filed suit against Boeing for moving production of a certain part from Washington state to South Carolina. Normally, this would be perfectly legal for them to do, but there are emails that state that they moved the operation specifically to retaliate against strikes at the Washington plant. As I understand it, had they not said it was retaliation, it would have been legal, but it breaks their contract with the union if they did it for the reasons they've been accused.

So Pelosi supports moving the manufacturing back to the Washington plant to fulfill Boeing's obligation to the union there. It sounds like she in-artfully answered the question about what should happen to the SC plant if the part does move back to Wash. Based on current law and Boeing's contract with the union, the right thing to do might require the SC plant to close (though Boeing should have an incentive to keep it open doing something else since they already have the plant anyway).

She's not saying the plant should close because it's non-union. She's saying it might need to close because the NLRB says that Boeing violated their contract with the union in Wash. None of those sources were providing the context of her comments (and I'm sure they all disagree with the NLRB's suit).
  • 0

#470 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 December 2011 - 02:47 AM

gvg this is in reply to your previous post

1. I knew it was private, i thought that the president chose the chairman, seems i was wrong

2. surprise surprise i disagree with you here, The positive effects are minor compared to the long term negative effects. I do not believe that the workd would have imploded if there had been no first stimulous. There is no way to prove this but historically recessions have come and gone with or without govt interference. The great depression was the first massive attempt at stimulous and ended up being one of the longest and deepest recessions ever. In fact hte US came out of it pretty much after the rest of the world did despite the govt spending.
Clear cut case of stimulous failure!

3. early 90s was am economic downturn and that is when we started the cutting, so nope gotta disagree with you here again. Instead of wasting $$$ on stimulous that has negigible short term and negative long term effects you should be cutting govt, this causes negligible short term andf positive long term effects on the economy. Of course ya gotta do it smart and well that is the challenge!

lets do simple math to show you how stimulous fails. Govt creates a job at say 100k/year. This returns roughly 21600$, see my previous post.
Now that leaves a shortfall of 78400$ or roughly 3.5 more people need ot make 100k each to have the govt break even. Everywhere i looked online suggest that every 10-20 jobs created create 1 more spinoff job but lets use the 10 or be generous and say 5. (note these are usually lower paying jobs but for maths sake lets say they all earn 100k) so govt spends 500k and creats 5 jobs (truth we know is its more like 1.5kk to create 5 100k jobs cause govt wastes $ like a drunken sailor in las vegas) so they get back 108k$ but only 1 job is created giving the govt another 21.6k or a total of 129.6k and it cost them 500k (again really 1.5kk) thus govt is farther in the hole than before there is less money circulating due to fears of govt overspending making it harder to start/improve/maintain buisnesses.
This is why i say the short term is negligible and long term is negative. worse thing is after 2-3 years those govt jobs are gone along with any SLIGHT boost they may have given but the nation as a whole is more in debt and spening an even larger % of their $ on servicing that debt leading to a downward spiral, think greece here. The only way the govt can help the economy is for there to be 3.5 jobs created for every govt job. It is actually worse as the stimulous jobs arent usually 100k but much less giving even less in terms of % return in taxes.

sorry it that is kinda convoluted but read it a few times im sure you will get the gist.

4. those dems being idiots, which ones arent? same can be said for reps i agree but since you and Dawh seem to have taken the democrat side i feel obliged tyo point out that they are just as bad as the reps and often worse depending on the subject.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users