Yeah I too can agree that single parents and even couples trying to raise a family are America's most important asset. More things need to be done to ensure familys have enough to eat, healthcare and affordable rent. Single folks down on their luck can also find themselves overwhelmed at times, but they have only themselves to look out for and as such we need to ensure people arent taking advantage. Of course no amount of help is going to fix a problem with people trying to game the system. It will be importantant to ensure that when the cut backs for Government come, the folks who are really in need do not see their assistance reduced.
It is never a good thing to hear about kids going hungry, or familys being in trouble with no where to live. Gas and Power companies need more reform as well, these regulated monopolies are often times gamers of the system and get away with damn near murder on a daily bassis.
At the same time, I also feel whatever entitlements are still left are fast disapearing. One would almost think that the amount of money the government gets due to our existance it would ensure such basic things as Healthcare, Public services, and vast programs to ensure that a basic minimum quality of life could be had by every American. But that's not the case. Too many lazy people that want to sit around all day in a suit and run their mouth than get anything done. Sure Obama likes to roll up his sleeves, but WTF for? All I ever see him do is flap his gums and point his finger. More and more I see him not even bothering to wear a neck tie!
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
^^^ You were doing ok in your first 2 sentences, almost sounding, gasp - like a Dem.
Then your little pea brain shut down again for sentence number three, as it began imagining black welfare queens driving their Cadillacs down to the school district to pick up another load of free lunch tickets for their milano kids again.
Here's a little fact that will blow your mind:
The Social Security trust fund was intentionally designed to dry up in our lifetime, and when it does, you will still get approximately 78 cents on the dollar when you reach retirement age, even if no changes are made to the system. The Social security system never even used to have a trust fund... It simply took revenue from current workers and paid retirees/disabled people directly, a continuous cycle of younger working folks paying old and disabled folks. Which is ok so long as it's still there for people who paid in to it all their lives. The only reason the trust fund part of it came to be, is because it was projected that the baby boomer generation would overwhelm the system such that there would be twice as many retirees at one point as there were working people paying in to it. So it was decided that the baby boomer's, and ONLY the baby boom generation would pay not only for their elders, but also for themselves by increasing their tax and storing the surplus in trust for their retirement. On or about the time the last baby boomer dies, the trust fund should be gone and the system will again return to the old way of having working people pay for retired/disabled people again without a trust fund. Granted the fund will probably be exhausted long before the last boomer actually dies, but the system is really in much better shape than you probably realize.
So why does PowerStroker even bring this up^^^ one might ask?
It's because there is a narrative being sold out there to ill informed people in an attempt to manipulate them at the polls. A narrative that uses the talking point of the projected exhaustion of the trust fund, in an attempt to scare people in to supporting policies that are actually against the best interests of most Americans.
How many times have you heard the Sean Hannitys, Glen Becks, Bill O'Reillys, John McCains, Sarah Palins, John Boehners, and Rush Limpballs of the world, tell you that the Social Security trust fund is on track to go bust, and changes must be made to keep it alive? Changes like: Raising the retirement age, or PRIVATIZING the system by letting Wall Street invest the money for us and making it a system of personal accounts rather than a community retirement/disability insurance system? They usually preface their comments by saying we need to protect it for the people who are already collecting, or are about to, but the current crop of younger working folks... Well, they need to learn to fend for themselves.
OMG That sounds scary doesn't it??? That the Social Security trust fund is on track to go bankrupt in my lifetime... OMG, i had better listen to those fear mongers suggestions on how to fix it, right? WRONG MOTHERFUCKER
As I said, and this can be fact checked: The trust fund, was only for the baby boomer generation anyway, and was designed to be exhausted... And when it is, we will still get 78 cents on the dollar just about indefinitely so long as there aren't any more drastic population explosions in our country EVEN IF NO CHANGES ARE MADE. And when you think about it, Social Security isn't just retirement insurance, it's also disability insurance for your entire working life. To get back a guaranteed 78 cents on the dollar for this kind of insurance, well you'd be hard pressed to find a better disability insurance policy anywhere anyway.
So why do these conservative talking heads make such a big deal about it? It's because a better solution to fix it, and make it pay 100 cents on the dollar, would be to eliminate the taxable income cap, which would affect those pricks personally.
You see, people only pay a Social Security tax on their first $90,000 of annual income. This means the vast majority of working Americans are taxed for Social Security on their entire income. But the Aforementioned fat cats who are in favor of Privatization as a "solution" make a LOT MORE than 90 grand a year, and rather enjoy only paying a relative pittance of their income for Social Security and want to keep it that way. They are even willing to let an entire generation sacrifice their retirement by gambling it away on Wall St. Before they ever agreed to paying the same percentage of their income for Social Security that you and I pay.
Nice guys eh?
1,000 POSTS BITCH, I OWN THIS PLACE
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 23rd of October 2010 01:42:34 AM
^^^ You were doing ok in your first 2 sentences, almost sounding, gasp - like a Dem.
I don't know a single Republican that does not want to see basic needs met for people who are unable to meet them, either from hardship or disability. What pisses off the Republicans are people abusing the system, or people becoming LAZY because they just think they can go thru life getting hand-outs. It bothers me to think of people taking advantage of the system.
A good example would be, for instance, TONIGHT I went over to a friends house. I won't mention what was going on there, but to get to the point he was offering me Pop, Pizza and just about any food I wanted. I asked him if he hit the lotto and he responded, "Naw man I used someone's Bridge card to buy $400.00 worth of food"! Now this was a single guy in his late 20's to early 30's! He claimed the person who had the card moved out of state and had to use up the last of their card before he transfered it to the other states program. As he showed me his fridge and cupborads FULL OF FOOD, from $20 packs of bacon, to over 5 individual filet mingion sp? (steak), to cases upon cases of Coke, I stated to think to myself, "Man, I spend almost $150 per week on food!" the only diffrence here is this, IF I DONT WORK FOR THE MONEY, I DONT GET TO BUY THE FOOD! Even though I have a wife and two kids, there are people out there abusing the system. People out there that are just too lazy to work come in 2nd, whereas they just sit on their ass and collect money for doing NOTHING!. I know another guy that gets free food on a Bridge card and he lives in a house-hold of over 10 and he himself is in his mid 20's! Once he even offered to buy me food in exchange for cash! I just loaned him the money because the thought of that just made me SICK!
So next time you run your mouth about the hard done by people, just know that it's a fucking excuse! Many people with drug problems will simpily convert the card into Drugs, while their Children go without food. Democrats allow this sort of thing to happen, and they exploit the people that are in need.
Then your little pea brain shut down again for sentence number three, as it began imagining black welfare queens driving their Cadillacs down to the school district to pick up another load of free lunch tickets for their milano kids again.
I am glad you brought up free lunches... My kid's school lunches cost about $3.00 now days. Now I hear that people can get FREE LUNCHES and even REDUCED COST lunches. I would NEVER say this program is abused, since the children are the only ones that can use it. Each year as more and more kids join, the cost of lunch for my kids increases. While my wife is a hard core Republican and often times meets the standard of what you consider a Republican to be, I tell her that "It's for the kids" and we should be grateful that we do not need such assistance. I understand where she is coming from, these parents need to man or woman up, but kids are involved, and kids are the only ones who can benifit from this kind of program, so I support it whole hartedly. I remember back when I went to school there were kids who had free lunch passes. Everyone knew they were not well off, or their parents were shady. The kids that have to use these programs know what is going on, and I think when they grow up they will work harder to ensure their kids dont have to endure the embaressment of a free hand out come lunch time. Maybe I am wrong, maybe they will grow up thinking free rides are the American way.
Here's a little fact that will blow your mind:
The Social Security trust fund was intentionally designed to dry up in our lifetime, and when it does, you will still get approximately 78 cents on the dollar when you reach retirement age, even if no changes are made to the system. The Social security system never even used to have a trust fund... It simply took revenue from current workers and paid retirees/disabled people directly, a continuous cycle of younger working folks paying old and disabled folks. Which is ok so long as it's still there for people who paid in to it all their lives. The only reason the trust fund part of it came to be, is because it was projected that the baby boomer generation would overwhelm the system such that there would be twice as many retirees at one point as there were working people paying in to it. So it was decided that the baby boomer's, and ONLY the baby boom generation would pay not only for their elders, but also for themselves by increasing their tax and storing the surplus in trust for their retirement. On or about the time the last baby boomer dies, the trust fund should be gone and the system will again return to the old way of having working people pay for retired/disabled people again without a trust fund. Granted the fund will probably be exhausted long before the last boomer actually dies, but the system is really in much better shape than you probably realize.
In better shape that I realize? That is pretty funny PowerStroker! I am going to dig out my Social Security form which states in BLACK AND WHITE that the Social Security account may be depleted before my retirement age! This was in black and green from the SS administration!
So why does PowerStroker even bring this up^^^ one might ask?
I am guessing because you are a jackass.
It's because there is a narrative being sold out there to ill informed people in an attempt to manipulate them at the polls. A narrative that uses the talking point of the projected exhaustion of the trust fund, in an attempt to scare people in to supporting policies that are actually against the best interests of most Americans.
Scare tactics are the cornerstone of the Democratic party.
How many times have you heard the Sean Hannitys, Glen Becks, Bill O'Reillys, John McCains, Sarah Palins, John Boehners, and Rush Limpballs of the world, tell you that the Social Security trust fund is on track to go bust, and changes must be made to keep it alive? Changes like: Raising the retirement age, or PRIVATIZING the system by letting Wall Street invest the money for us and making it a system of personal accounts rather than a community retirement/disability insurance system? They usually preface their comments by saying we need to protect it for the people who are already collecting, or are about to, but the current crop of younger working folks... Well, they need to learn to fend for themselves.
PowerStroker, maybe you are just too young, but many people have PROOF from the Social Security Administration that says "The fund will be depleted by 20xx." These people arent lying! It's what the SSA sent out!
OMG That sounds scary doesn't it??? That the Social Security trust fund is on track to go bankrupt in my lifetime... OMG, i had better listen to those fear mongers suggestions on how to fix it, right? WRONG MOTHERFUCKER
PowerStroker, perhaps you need to read up about the forms that the Soc. Sec. Administration sent out. These were not sent out by Republicans, but the SSA themself! I know you must be getting a yearly SS statement right? They are usually white, black and green.
As I said, and this can be fact checked: The trust fund, was only for the baby boomer generation anyway, and was designed to be exhausted... And when it is, we will still get 78 cents on the dollar just about indefinitely so long as there aren't any more drastic population explosions in our country EVEN IF NO CHANGES ARE MADE. And when you think about it, Social Security isn't just retirement insurance, it's also disability insurance for your entire working life. To get back a guaranteed 78 cents on the dollar for this kind of insurance, well you'd be hard pressed to find a better disability insurance policy anywhere anyway.
It can be checked? Please PowerStroker.
So why do these conservative talking heads make such a big deal about it? It's because a better solution to fix it, and make it pay 100 cents on the dollar, would be to eliminate the taxable income cap, which would affect those pricks personally.
Do the people paying more get more PowerStroker? Because if there are caps to Social Security then there should be caps on what people have to pay into it. I know your a Democrat and looking for that free ride when you get old, but sorry pal. It's not going to happen.
You see, people only pay a Social Security tax on their first $90,000 of annual income. This means the vast majority of working Americans are taxed for Social Security on their entire income. But the Aforementioned fat cats who are in favor of Privatization as a "solution" make a LOT MORE than 90 grand a year, and rather enjoy only paying a relative pittance of their income for Social Security and want to keep it that way. They are even willing to let an entire generation sacrifice their retirement by gambling it away on Wall St. Before they ever agreed to paying the same percentage of their income for Social Security that you and I pay.
If I made more than 90K per year, I would not want to pay more into it. Every since I got my statement that said that Soc. Security was going to be depleted by 2032 I realized that it's pretty much another hand out program that was not properly budgeted. Typical Democrat shit.
Nice guys eh?
Who? The Democrats who failed to budget and oversee the program properly? Or the people who have pointed it out?
1,000 POSTS BITCH, I OWN THIS PLACE
Congratulations PowerStroker... I like the color of that star.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
No one is disputing that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in our lifetime... As I said, the Trust Fund was only for the BABY BOOMER generation, and if nature takes it's course, the BABY BOOMER GENERATION will be depleted in our lifetime, so it's a moot point.
The Social Security system itself is pretty solid, and will go back to operating without a trust fund after the Baby Boomer Generation dies off. Just like it always had operated prior to the baby boomers.
The greater point that I'm making here, is that many people don't understand that the trust fund was purposefully intended to be depleted once the baby boomers die of... We get letters from the SSA every year, and they sound scary, but Rex, we're not Baby Boomers - our parents are. Now please ask yourself the approximate year that you think your parents may move to the great beyond from old age, and compare that to the projected depletion date of the trust fund. Hell, one of my parents already did pass away from cancer, and while my dad will never get to enjoy the retirement checks, he did know, that for his entire working life, he had Social Security disability coverage if anything would have happened to him.
Some are using this intended fund depletion to score political points by scaring people in to thinking the Social Security System itself can't survive without the trust fund, and that you will be screwd unless you elect them. They are wrong, and they know it. Hopefully now, so do you.
Medicare on the other hand is actually going to face some troubling times unless something is done. Luckily the healthcare law, that I know you hate, will at least extend the life of Medicare by about 10 years, buying us a little more time to come up with a more perminant fix.
If it makes you feel any better PowerStroker, I am not counting on Social Security to support me when I grow old. In fact I would imagine they will raise the age to collect up to over 70 years old by the time I am ready to collect. Even if there is still a Social Security program when I get to be old, I doubt it will amount to anything more than a few hundred extra dollars a month. Sure a few hundred bucks a month is still a few hundred bucks a month, but a far cry from supporting a 70 year old.
My point here is that I am not voting bassed on what is said about Social Security, however here in Michigan it is the Democrats that are trying to use the scare tactic with regards to Social Security, not the Republicans. All day long on TV I see ad's endorced by the Democratic party that flat out say "Republicans will end Social Security in Michigan" which anyone with half a brain knows is absolute bullshit, because Social Security is a FEDERAL program, NOT A STATE PROGRAM. All I see from the Democrats is lies...lies...lies... Obama is showing his true colors too in his efforts to stay in power. I can only imagine what he will stoop to come 2012. One thing is for sure, I don't think Americans are going to allow him another 4 years. I think the only reason Obama picked Biden for VP is because no one would ever want that idiot to run this country, and thus keeps him looking good, even if they both suck.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
But see, you're giving in to defeat and assuming the system won't be around for you, or that you will have to wait untill 70 to collect, or that it will be widdled down to nothing at that point. The TRUST FUND will certainly be gone by the time you retire, but that doesn't mean the system is gone. It operated without a trust fund for decades before the baby boom generation caused the need to create a trust fund, and it will operate just fine without a trust fund once the boomers die off.
Though it probably won't be enough to completely support you without some kind of savings of your own, it will dramatically improve the quality of your golden years. And if you put your support behind the Dems, any changes required to make it even stronger won't cause the need for you to wait till 70 to collect. The Dems would much rather just raise or eliminate the cap on taxable annual income so that rich people pay the same percentage as the rest of us. You guys always seem in favor of a "flat tax" from what I hear. How bout a flat percentage?
If however you assume that one day you will be one of those rich people, and don't think you'll ever need Social Security, then by all means help the Republicans drill more holes in it.
Keep in mind though, it's not just a retirement program, it's also a disability program. In our line of work, it's not too far fetched to believe that something might happen rendering us paralyzed or unable to support ourselves anymore. And this can happen at a much younger age than 70... Hell, it could happen tomorrow. If God forbid something like that does happen, I think you will reconsider your position on Social Security.
But see, you're giving in to defeat and assuming the system won't be around for you, or that you will have to wait untill 70 to collect, or that it will be widdled down to nothing at that point.
PowerStroker, may I remind you that the age to start collecting Social Security has been raised more than once? I should also mention they want to raise it even higher! There is a big difference in giving in and preparing for the worst, which at this rate could mean many people die before ever seeing a cent. Meanwhile all your Democrat buddies with Cadillac healthcare plans paid for by tax payers will be the only ones collecting that money. That's enough to make anyone turn over in their grave.
The TRUST FUND will certainly be gone by the time you retire, but that doesn't mean the system is gone. It operated without a trust fund for decades before the baby boom generation caused the need to create a trust fund, and it will operate just fine without a trust fund once the boomers die off.
Listen to yourself PowerStroker! You sound like a MAD MAN! If the trust fund is gone, then it's safe to say there isnt much "SECURITY" there. That means that people are just PISSING AWAY money to a system that without a trust fund would not be stable, and result in freequent changes in the amount you get. One month you could get $1000 bucks, the next might only be $500. How can people deal with that who are on a budget? The amount you get is the bassis of EVERY budget.
Though it probably won't be enough to completely support you without some kind of savings of your own, it will dramatically improve the quality of your golden years. And if you put your support behind the Dems, any changes required to make it even stronger won't cause the need for you to wait till 70 to collect. The Dems would much rather just raise or eliminate the cap on taxable annual income so that rich people pay the same percentage as the rest of us. You guys always seem in favor of a "flat tax" from what I hear. How bout a flat percentage?
Do you think Republicans are the only ones making more than $90,000 per year? How about Nancy Pelosi's husband who owns a shit load of Apple, or Nancy Pelosi herself? If I made over $90,000 per year I sure as hell would not want to be paying MORE MONEY into a system that I might never get to see. What is FAIR about FORCING people pay more money just because they have it? There are caps on Social Security, and that being the case there should be a cap on what people have to pay into it. If you think all the FAT-CAT Democrats want to pay more of their wages to Social Security your just nuts. The Democrats have you brain washed! The Democrats in power now are all filthy rich, and most of them got that wealth from being carrer politians catering to special intrest in the name of the average working class who is too fucking ignorant to know any better. At least most of the Republicans got their money from hard work and business WELL BEFORE running for office. Take Obama for example. Before he was President he was not exactly well off, but because of idiots like you who voted him in office he will be filthy rich by the time he leaves office. The worst part is, he isn't even doing a good job! In fact he just found another way to line the pockets of the government in the form of FINES for not buying insurance. Total crock of SHIT!
If however you assume that one day you will be one of those rich people, and don't think you'll ever need Social Security, then by all means help the Republicans drill more holes in it.
It is not a matter of not thinking I need the money, it is a matter of the MONEY WONT BE THERE! Regardless how much they raise it, extend it or whatever the greedy people will just take-take-take until it is GONE. Republicans are not drilling holes in it. If the system was as good as you claim, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, that is not the case! By the way, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to better yourself, you should try it sometime PowerStroker. Open up a decent size shop with 3-4 workers and you too will be above the $90,000 per year mark! Don't allow the Democrats to put you in the frame of mind to sell yourself short. Thats all I am saying.
Keep in mind though, it's not just a retirement program, it's also a disability program. In our line of work, it's not too far fetched to believe that something might happen rendering us paralyzed or unable to support ourselves anymore. And this can happen at a much younger age than 70... Hell, it could happen tomorrow. If God forbid something like that does happen, I think you will reconsider your position on Social Security.
Yes, we do work in a high risk job. If I were disabled I'd be fucked. No amount of money would change that. It's very possible that my family would be the ones to pay, and not Social Security. If I were too bad off and became a serious drag on my family I'd consider just offing myself in some spectacular way. While I hope it never happens, it can. I can tell you right now that the thought of Social Security taking care of me does not make me feel any better. That's not to say I wouldn't take what they were giving, rather I am more than positive it would not be enough.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
If you need any help 'offing yourself' in a spectular way just let me know.
Your point about Nancy Pelosy and other Dems making more than 90 grand doesn't matter, because they don't mind paying the higher taxes to improve Social Security.
Your point about HUGE variances in the amount you will recieve once the trust fund is gone is baloney. It didn't have that problem before the baby boomer trust fund was set up. So long as the working US population doesn't have huge fluxuations, neither will your Social Security checks.
Gee PowerStroker... I'd be willing to wager the 9.5% unemployment rate would be enough, yet its well into the double digits in some states.
So here we have a huge fluxation in working Americans, yet you want to run your trap about how social security isn't bad, dispite millions of Americans getting a statement that says otherwise.
I am sorry PowerStroker... I like you and all, but when it comes to the true state of the social security system I will take the word of the Social Security adminisrations warning letters over you or your Democratic hype. Nothing personal.
As far as Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi who's household makes over 90K, I am pretty sure they will figure out a way to side step paying, just like ole' Nancy does when the tax payers have to foot the bill flying her from California to Washington every week. There is also claims out there that she flys her family around on the tax payer dime also. So tell me again how she does not mind giving away more money to a Social Security system that is capped, where as she won't see an equal return. LOL!
Oh and by the way if I ever have to off myself in a spectacular way, Ill be sure to vist a heavy truck dealership in Minn.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
Gee PowerStroker... I'd be willing to wager the 9.5% unemployment rate would be enough, yet its well into the double digits in some states.
That's only 4.5% higher than normal, not much effect on benefits, especially since unemployment that high usually spells deflation anyway.
So here we have a huge fluxation in working Americans, yet you want to run your trap about how social security isn't bad, dispite millions of Americans getting a statement that says otherwise.
The statement doesn't factor in the life expectancy of the baby boomers.
I am sorry PowerStroker... I like you and all, but when it comes to the true state of the social security system I will take the word of the Social Security adminisrations warning letters over you or your Democratic hype. Nothing personal.
Fine, just be sure to apply the same standard to Republican hype.
As far as Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi who's household makes over 90K, I am pretty sure they will figure out a way to side step paying, just like ole' Nancy does when the tax payers have to foot the bill flying her from California to Washington every week. There is also claims out there that she flys her family around on the tax payer dime also. So tell me again how she does not mind giving away more money to a Social Security system that is capped, where as she won't see an equal return. LOL!
Nancy owns a multi million dollar vineyard. She isn't worried about having to pay the same percentage as the rest of us when she's set for a very comfortable life with the money she already has in the bank. Nancy doesn't serve in congress for the paycheck - she does it because she can afford to truly live her patriotism. It's the fat cats on your side who dont want ANY redistribution of wealth whatsoever, even though their lavish lyfestyles won't suffer in the least. But if you feel some kind of loyalty to billionaire hedge fund managers, well, I cant help you.
Oh and by the way if I ever have to off myself in a spectacular way, Ill be sure to vist a heavy truck dealership in Minn.
It's just a regular Ford dealer. We sell fiestas too, and the biggest thing I usually ever see is a F550, with an occasional L8000.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 25th of October 2010 06:18:56 PM
PowerStroker wrote: As far as Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi who's household makes over 90K, I am pretty sure they will figure out a way to side step paying, just like ole' Nancy does when the tax payers have to foot the bill flying her from California to Washington every week. There is also claims out there that she flys her family around on the tax payer dime also. So tell me again how she does not mind giving away more money to a Social Security system that is capped, where as she won't see an equal return. LOL!
Nancy owns a multi million dollar vineyard. She isn't worried about having to pay the same percentage as the rest of us when she's set for a very comfortable life with the money she already has in the bank. Nancy doesn't serve in congress for the paycheck - she does it because she can afford to truly live her patriotism. It's the fat cats on your side who dont want ANY redistribution of wealth whatsoever, even though their lavish lyfestyles won't suffer in the least. But if you feel some kind of loyalty to billionaire hedge fund managers, well, I cant help you. She must have a vineyard because all of her work smells of some drunken pipe dream. She has all this money in the bank, and all this wealth but she can't be bothered with flying in smaller planes, and instead requires a massive jet to cart her plastic body around at the tax payers expence.
Yeah I have much more loyalty to billionaire hedge fund managers because they dont FORCE me to purchase anything like Adolf Pelosi did.
Redistribution of wealth? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? Does your broke ass really feel entitled to other people's money? What in gods name is wrong with you!? Who the hell do you think you are to expect someone else to just GIVE you what is theirs?
You need to get your head checked out soon, before someone knocks it off. People arent going to put up with your kind much longer. WORK HARDER. WORK SMARTER. FIND A BETTER JOB. LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS!
The idea of wealth distribution is THEFT! Why doesn't Nancy give away half of here fortunes like Bill Gates, or all the other rich folks? Oh yeah, thats right... She worked hard for many years fucking the American public to get that money. The idea of Redistributing wealth only sounds good to her when it only applies to other folks, much like her shitty heathcare bill! Meanwhile she will ride the Cadillac plan laughing all the way to the bank knowing she has idiots like you snowed!
-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 25th of October 2010 11:06:21 PM
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
