posted
In the past I stated my view that the way to proceed with clearing up the mess left over from improper and hopelessly inadequate actions by members of the previous Administration was to not move toward impeachments and prosecutions.
My opinion has been that the republicans, even those who took part in and directly supported what may be near treasonous or criminal activities through the last few years, should be seen as having made mistakes that they, from a new prospective, could see was wrong and damaging to the Nation, and, given tolerance and the opportunity, would stop playing the political hate and blame game and participate in an all out cooperative effort among us all to clean up the mess left to us all.
I am beginning to reach the conclusion that I weas wrong in my generosity. I site the disgusting pure Party line attacks on the stimulus packages that are clearly not based on anything but divisiveness and Party first politics as example.
If the republicans are going to continue to play Party first games, ignoring reality in order to continue to sooth the egos and biases of the bigoted and ignorant that they so eagerly prefer as constituents, rather than look at the big picture of saving the world's economy and feeding the masses, then it is time to start treating them how they act and turn loose the proprietorial blood hounds.
Spend some justice department funds and time investigating and taking testimony from each and every person they have had dealings with over the last 8 years and they might not feel so secure that they waste time and energy spraying lies and Party line propaganda to whatever reporter is willing to put it on CNN or Fox News.
There is work for those congressmen to busy themselves with tending to the needs of the people, not the Party.
IP: Logged |
quote:I am beginning to reach the conclusion that I weas wrong in my generosity. I site the disgusting pure Party line attacks on the stimulus packages that are clearly not based on anything but divisiveness and Party first politics as example.
Now that's funny! The attacks on the stimulus package are occurring because there is VERY LITTLE STIMULUS and a LOT of social (socialist) engineering in the bill. I disagree with the republicans on this point. I'm glad that Obama and the socialists got their way. They are solely responsible for the result and will be in total control as the economy crashes and burns!
Let's see what the socialists can do! I can't wait!
IP: Logged |
posted
so PM, does that mean that you think Bush's cronies should get a pass on prosecution or not?
i never thought they should, and i am not happy that Obama decided to try to "play nice"..
somebody has to bury the hatchet in order for peace to come about, but we all know peace is mostly just wishful thinking, always has been, prolly always will be.
the reason we need stimulus is cuz of them...
our economy will fail no matter what Obama does if the banks decide that it will..
they decided quite awhile back to force this situation by not fixing their books after Enron.
because of Enron? the Mark to market for level three assets rule was enacted. they had several years to prepare, and they were given several years to prepare by the politicians because they asked for it.
i found it hilarious that you tried to blame the Democratic Congress for giving Bush the bailout money...
you have no idea how bankrupt the system (the freemarket system) made ITSELF...
there's a few good baks out there that would like to see the stimulus package fail too, they would come out on top.
however, two to 4 trillion now will save US ten years of depression, and ten trillion or more in unemployment and other costs associated with a total meltdown...
measuring success has to be realistic. if we are only in a 18 month recession? we will successful
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:so PM, does that mean that you think Bush's cronies should get a pass on prosecution or not?
Of course I think that the Bush cronies should not be prosecuted. They haven't done anything illegal. What do you propose, everytime there is a change of parties in this country, the losing side is prosecuted? THAT'S RIDICULOUS!
quote:i found it hilarious that you tried to blame the Democratic Congress for giving Bush the bailout money...
I blame the democrats, republicans, and Bush for the first bailout. I blame the democrats and Obama for this one!
quote:there's a few good baks out there that would like to see the stimulus package fail too, they would come out on top.
...and that's exactly what should happen - the bad banks and irresponsible home buyers should fail AND responsible banks and responsible homeowners should succeed.
IP: Logged |
posted
...and that's exactly what should happen - the bad banks and irresponsible home buyers should fail AND responsible banks and responsible homeowners should succeed.
what about all the people that have already lost their jobs thru no fault of their own? if they hadn't done a bailout and don't do this one? the numbers will be more than double what they are now.. they may double even with this bailout..
even WallMart is laying off people as of today...
the banks lied. here's the screwball thing that nobody seems willing to cover.
alot of the people that left Enron and caused it to explode went to the banks that failed.
and guess who created the Credit Default Swap market? JP Morgan people did..
the credit default swap is much more to blame for all the bad loans than fannie and freddie. yet JP Morgan ends up with govt money and Jamie Dimon is hailed as hero on Wall St...
this situation is alot more complicated than you understand.
the GOP says they have a "better" plan...
however, all iv hear them saying is they'll give away cash...
what's that old saying? give man a fish?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I think that the Bush cronies should not be prosecuted. They haven't done anything illegal. What do you propose, everytime there is a change of parties in this country, the losing side is prosecuted? THAT'S RIDICULOUS!
actually they have. we prosecuted our own US soldiers for waterboarding Vietnamese...
we prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding after WW2...
it's not even a question of whether it was illegal, and it has been admitted in miltiary court. we cannot even prosecute one of the detainees because he was tortured.
Bush official says Gitmo detainee was tortured
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Bush administration official has publicly described a detainee's treatment at the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as torture, according to a published report.
posted
The GOP has the ONLY good plan, but obviously it won't be enacted. Borrowing trillions of dollars to fix a mess caused by overborrowing (for decades) is INSANE.
Likewise, a "stimulus" plan that won't be put into the economy for years won't work.
A one time stimulus check didn't work last time and it wouldn't work in the future.
What is needed is allowing the American people to keep more of their money, so that they will spend it. Tax cuts always work to encourage spending and they also have PROVEN to provide more tax money to the government (as the economy improves). This has occurred when both republicans and democrats lowered taxes - all the way back to JFK!
The socialists don't like tax cuts because they like class warfare and cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't meet their twisted morals, even though wealthy people are the job creators. You'll never be hired by a poor person.
The other problem for the socialists is that tax cuts provide incentives for people to work and innovate, and that's not consistent with creating victims that will vote for the party of handouts.
IP: Logged |
posted
OK fox is the only place i can find anything on the GOP plan...
here's some hilites:
Like their House colleagues, Senate Republicans are calling to reduce the two bottom income tax rates from 15 to 10 percent, and from 10 to 5 percent.
i got no problem with that, but it will require borrowing to replace the dough lost
They also want a $15,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers and a 4-to-4.5 percent mortgage rate for creditworthy first-time buyers. South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is pushing a plan that would lower tax rates for individuals and small businesses and, he says, create 7.5 million jobs over four years.
i think they got that in the senate bill, too bad you can't make more than 75 grand to qualify, and have to be first time home buyer, won't help me.
four years is no faster than the Dem plan..
actually? those hilites are all that's there...
most of the complaining is simply about the Dems spending money to do things.
last fall? the GOP was complaining that they weren't getting anything done...
maybe you have some other links to show waht the GOP plan is, cuz IMO just cutting taxes is no plan..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here you go PM, this is from a nonpartisan group:
tpc > library > publications Distributional Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts and Their Financing William G. Gale, Peter Orszag, Isaac Shapiro
Published: June 03, 2004 || Availability: PDF | Printer-Friendly Version
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).
I. Introduction Popular discourse about tax cuts frequently ignores a simple truism: someone, somewhere, at some time will have to pay for them. The payment may be in the form of increases in other taxes or reductions in government programs; it may occur now or later; it may be transparent or hidden. But iron laws of arithmetic and fiscal solvency imply that the payment has to occur.
To date, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have been funded with increased borrowing. This postpones but does not eliminate the required payments. It can also create the misleading impression that tax cuts make almost everyone better off because the direct tax-cut benefits are immediate and quantifiable, but the ultimate costs are delayed and disguised and thus often ignored.
The central goal of this analysis is to correct the misleading impression that these tax cuts make everyone better off. We estimate not only who benefits directly and immediately from the recent tax cuts, but also who benefits and who loses once the financing of the tax cuts is considered.
Specifically, we examine the distribution of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (when fully in effect and reflecting the President's proposal to make most of the tax cuts permanent) combined with the costs of paying for those tax cuts. We therefore examine the "net effects" of the tax cuts, accounting for both the direct benefits and the costs of financing those benefits.
Because there is uncertainty about how the tax cuts will ultimately be financed, we examine two hypothetical scenarios. In both scenarios, the burdens are set so that the annual cost of the tax cuts (when fully phased in) would be paid for fully — so that the net effect of the tax cuts that year on the budget thus would be zero.
The first scenario assumes that each household pays an equal dollar amount each year to finance the tax cuts. Under this scenario, each household receives a direct tax cut based on the 2001 and 2003 legislation, but it also "pays" $1,520 per year in some combination of reductions in benefits from government spending or increases in other taxes to finance the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Something close to this scenario could occur if the tax cuts were financed largely or entirely through spending cuts. We refer to this as "equal-dollar" financing.
The second scenario assumes each household pays the same percentage of income to finance the tax cuts. In this case, each household receives a direct tax cut based on the 2001 and 2003 laws, but also pays 2.6 percent of its income each year. Something close to this scenario could occur if the tax cuts were financed through a combination of spending cuts and progressive tax increases. We refer to this as "proportional financing." Our principal findings include:
Once the financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 "tax cuts" are best seen as net tax cuts for about 20-25 percent of households, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 75-80 percent of the population. Not surprisingly, equal-dollar financing is significantly more regressive than proportional financing. Under either financing scenario, more than 75 percent of tax filing units would be worse off: they lose more from the financing than they gain directly from the tax cuts. The "losers" would be concentrated among low- and middle-income households. Under equal-dollar financing, the losers include 90 percent of households in the middle fifth of the income distribution and nearly all households in the bottom 40 percent. The annual net transfer of resources from low- and middle-income households to high-income households would be sizable. The annual transfer from the 80 percent of households with incomes below $76,400 to the top 20 percent of households with incomes above that level would be $113 billion under equal-dollar financing and $27 billion under proportional financing. The annual transfer to households with incomes above $1 million would be $35 billion under equal-dollar financing and $15 billion under the proportional scenario. Middle-income households would be losers under both scenarios, but would fare worse under equal-dollar financing. Under equal-dollar financing, households in the middle quintile would average losses of $869 per year, 3.1 percent of after-tax income. With proportional financing, the loss would be $228, or 0.8 percent of after-tax income. Low-income households would be worse off under either scenario, but would face enormous costs under equal-dollar financing. Under equal-dollar financing, households in the bottom quintile lose an average of $1,500 a year, or 21 percent of their income. Under proportional financing, they lose 2.5 percent of after-tax income. High-income households would be net winners, and the gains among the highest-income households would be large. People with annual incomes above $1 million would gain an average of $59,600 a year, or 3.1 percent of after-tax income, under proportional financing and $135,000 a year, or 7 percent of after-tax income, under equal-dollar financing. The tax cuts are often portrayed by their supporters as painless and simply "giving people their money back." But the numbers presented above indicate that the substantial majority of American households ultimately will be made worse off by the tax cuts, because the tax cuts ultimately will have to be financed. Different methods of financing would generate variation in the particular results, but the basic findings — that most households end up being worse off and transfers would flow from low- and middle-income households to more affluent households — are likely to continue to hold unless a significant portion of the tax cuts themselves are repealed. The reason is that the tax cuts scale back or eliminate many of the most progressive elements of the federal tax system, including the estate tax, the taxation of capital gains and dividends, the top income tax rates, and the phase-outs of certain exemptions and deductions for households with high incomes. It is unlikely that any method of financing those changes, other than repeal of the tax cuts, will be as progressive as the tax provisions that have been scaled back.
Section II provides conventional distributional analysis of the tax cuts, ignoring the financing. Section III discusses the seemingly obvious point that tax cuts need to be financed. Section IV examines the distributional effects under alternative methods of financing. Section V discusses the robustness of the results and provides concluding remarks.
Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).
William G. Gale is the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy at the Brookings Institution and Co-Director of the Tax Policy Center. Peter R. Orszag is the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at Brookings and Co-Director of the Tax Policy Center. Isaac Shapiro is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. We thank Len Burman, Joel Friedman, Robert Greenstein, Matt Hall, David Kamin, Richard Kogan, and Arloc Sherman for their contributions to this analysis.
quote:Because there is uncertainty about how the tax cuts will ultimately be financed, we examine two hypothetical scenarios. In both scenarios, the burdens are set so that the annual cost of the tax cuts (when fully phased in) would be paid for fully — so that the net effect of the tax cuts that year on the budget thus would be zero.
This is nothing more than a strawman being presented by the liberal Brookings Institute.
There are NOT two choices to "pay" for the tax cuts. In fact, history shows that the tax cuts are MORE than "paid for" with the increase in taxes resulting from the increased business activity and increased employment that results from the tax cuts.
The problem we have in this country is not that taxes are too low. The problem is that no matter what the level of taxes, the government insists on spending far more than we take in (largely in entitlements). That's why no stimulus plan will work in the long run, including tax cuts. While tax cuts would do the most to stimulate the economy, the idiots in Washington (of both parties) will still spend more than we take in. The government has spent itself into insolvency and the time to pay the piper is rapidly approaching. Obama's socialist agenda will only bring about the collapse sooner.
IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, history shows that the tax cuts are MORE than "paid for" with the increase in taxes resulting from the increased business activity and increased employment that results from the tax cuts.
that is myth perpetuated by the people that have destroyed our economy PM...
a simple glance at the deficit charts will show you the lie
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
In his closing arguments urging his colleagues to vote against the Senate stimulus bill, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blamed Democratic leaders -- not President Obama -- for crafting a bill he believes is both wasteful and non-stimulative. "The president was right to call for a stimulus, but this bill misses the mark," McConnell said on the Senate floor this morning.
"To his credit, our new president has committed himself to working with Congress to fix the economy, a top priority for both parties," McConnell said. "What many of us did not expect, however, was that President Obama wouldn't be the author of that plan ... the bold economic plan that President Obama called for ended up being written by some of the longest-serving Democrats in the House of Representatives -- and it showed." He added that Senate Democrats didn't do any better.
McConnell repeated Republican's core objections: wasteful spending, permanent government expansion, minimal job creation, and a staggering price tag. "We have no assurance it will create jobs or revive the economy," he said. "The only thing we know for sure is that it increases our debt and locks in bigger and bigger interest payments every year. In short, we're taking an enormous risk with other people's money."
now, look at that chart above and tell me how the democrat spending packages have caused more debt...
don't hand me the "8 year lag" mumbo jumbo line either...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon bdgee - you know better than that. When tax cuts are enacted, MONEY coming into the treasury increases. The debt chart that you posted reflects the peace dividend that Clinton enjoyed after Reagan won the cold war and tensions eased Bush I. Clinton decimated the military (started by Bush I) and that is largely responsible for the deficit improvement. Bush, on the other hand, inherited a recession from Clinton and then had the dot-com bust and 911. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans have done a TERRIBLE job with our country's finances and deserve a LOT of blame. Obama is exactly right to say that he doesn't want to take advice from a group that presided over a doubling of the national debt!
None of this changes the fact that when taxes are cut, investment goes up and income to the treasury increases. Also, none of this changes the fact that members of both parties have been over-spending for decades and that these entitlements are destroying our economy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: C'mon bdgee - you know better than that. When tax cuts are enacted, MONEY coming into the treasury increases. The debt chart that you posted reflects the peace dividend that Clinton enjoyed after Reagan won the cold war and tensions eased Bush I. Clinton decimated the military (started by Bush I) and that is largely responsible for the deficit improvement. Bush, on the other hand, inherited a recession from Clinton and then had the dot-com bust and 911. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans have done a TERRIBLE job with our country's finances and deserve a LOT of blame. Obama is exactly right to say that he doesn't want to take advice from a group that presided over a doubling of the national debt!
None of this changes the fact that when taxes are cut, investment goes up and income to the treasury increases. Also, none of this changes the fact that members of both parties have been over-spending for decades and that these entitlements are destroying our economy.
Wow, you really do have a "Fatal Attraction" thing going on for bdgee. Because the post you refer to was posted by glassman, not bdgee. Maybe you should see someone about that OCD issue you have going on. Just trying to help you out PM. GL!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: C'mon bdgee - you know better than that. When tax cuts are enacted, MONEY coming into the treasury increases. The debt chart that you posted reflects the peace dividend that Clinton enjoyed after Reagan won the cold war and tensions eased Bush I. Clinton decimated the military (started by Bush I) and that is largely responsible for the deficit improvement. Bush, on the other hand, inherited a recession from Clinton and then had the dot-com bust and 911. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans have done a TERRIBLE job with our country's finances and deserve a LOT of blame. Obama is exactly right to say that he doesn't want to take advice from a group that presided over a doubling of the national debt!
None of this changes the fact that when taxes are cut, investment goes up and income to the treasury increases. Also, none of this changes the fact that members of both parties have been over-spending for decades and that these entitlements are destroying our economy.
money coming in increases, true.
the PROBLEM is that money is all borrowed.
i hate Clinton. but not because of economics,
furthermore? he didn't decimate the military. Bush took the military Clinton left him and conducted a lightning strike on Baghdad. one of the most impressive displays of military craft ever seen on the planet.
fact is? Bush and Cheney have decimated the military more than anybody since the Nam.
they did it primarily by over-reaching...
investment goes up and income to the treasury increases
that's hilarious. in case you didn't notice? people who invested when Bush took office had a net loss.
this chart is the only one i have time to find right now, since i am just between peices. it's from last JUNE! the dow took a bigger dive since then:
the fact is? when taxes are ridiculous? cutting them is good, but you can only cut so far before the returns go back to negative, just like bull manure in your garden.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: C'mon bdgee - you know better than that. When tax cuts are enacted, MONEY coming into the treasury increases. The debt chart that you posted reflects the peace dividend that Clinton enjoyed after Reagan won the cold war and tensions eased Bush I. Clinton decimated the military (started by Bush I) and that is largely responsible for the deficit improvement. Bush, on the other hand, inherited a recession from Clinton and then had the dot-com bust and 911. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans have done a TERRIBLE job with our country's finances and deserve a LOT of blame. Obama is exactly right to say that he doesn't want to take advice from a group that presided over a doubling of the national debt!
None of this changes the fact that when taxes are cut, investment goes up and income to the treasury increases. Also, none of this changes the fact that members of both parties have been over-spending for decades and that these entitlements are destroying our economy.
"C'mon bdgee - you know better than that. When tax cuts are enacted, MONEY coming into the treasury increases."
That's bull sh-t!
You have to be a nitwit that drinks Fat Rush Tea to believe that bull sh-t.
hell, everything in your post if nothing but warmed over lies from the RNC and Fat Rush.
You can't justify any of those claims with credible evidence or references (and I don't mean that pansy-assed crap from some far right-wing **** you like to try and pass off as respectable)
IP: Logged |
posted
comeon bdgee, i had it handled without the expletives
Jan. 20--Call it "Mission Unaccomplished."
George W. Bush leaves office today with the Dow Jones industrial average off 2,306 points from when he took over: The worst performance for any U.S. president.
The blue chips closed Friday -- the last full trading day of Bush's term -- at 8,281, way off of the 10,588 that the index stood at when Dubya took office in 2001.
That makes Bush the first president since Richard Nixon to preside over a declining Dow. In percentage terms, Bush's 21.8 percent Dow drop is the worst showing since an 83.2 percent decline under President Herbert Hoover, whose term included the 1929 stock-market crash.
"I wouldn't hold Bush completely responsible, but he didn't do anything to help the situation -- and did a lot of things to exacerbate it," said Jeffrey Hirsch of the Stock Trader's Almanac.
Hirsch and other experts partly blame the red ink on circumstances beyond Bush's control, such as the downturn that followed the 1990s dot-com bubble.
But market watchers also lay plenty of blame on the outgoing president.
"A lot of (the losses) stem from Bush's unwillingness to make hard decisions," said Herald columnist and WBIX-AM (1060) "Money Matters" host Barry Armstrong.
For instance, Armstrong said, Bush's 2001 tax-cut package spawned huge budget deficits that have hurt the government's ability to address today's recession.
But the financial planner fears the tough times will continue well into President Obama's term.
"I think 2009 and 2010 are going to be bad years for the market," Armstrong predicted, estimating that the Dow will stay stuck in a 7,500-to-9,500 range.
By contrast, Hirsch expects the blue chips to rally 40 percent by June.
what's even more interesting is that under democratic presidents, the DOW has averaged about 3% better returns since the great depression...
what i find hard to accept in the last two weeks is all of the so-called facts we have been subjected to by the GOPs in congress.
i don't like having one party run everything, no matter which party it is.
the GOP brought all of this on themselves and they aren't going to get out of it by lying.
it's one thing to say they don't think the plan will work, it's completely different to lie and say it doesn't create jobs.
laying sod on the DC Mall would create lots of jobs, starting with the fertiliser sales guys to the sod farmhands to the truckers delivering, etc etc etc...
does this belong in a stimulus bill? I DON"T KNOW, but i do know that it is an attempt to get people working... those jobs (had they followed thru) would prolly be filled with fresh college grads after the spring graduation. it would be good for them to get their hands dirty for a change.. maybe they'd have better appreciation how easy some other jobs really are...
i think i've said this before, but it bears repeating the stimulus package will create inflation, prepare accordingly
inflation is the ONLY way the govt will pay off the debts we've ALREADY accrued without raising taxes, and obviously anybody who raises taxes will be summarily executed.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Often, when I see another, then, another of PM's childish post claiming imposibilities, I'm reminded of a comment I over heard by a colleague when I was at the University if Alabama.
As is the case at any college mathematics department, there are unsolicited letters and emails (and there used to be telegrams) from supposed rational and sane individuals who are informing you that they have discovered the amazing trick of squaring the circle or trisecting an angle or some negative number that is the square of another number and on and on.
One had arrived claiming success in trisecting an angle and been taped to the main desk of the departmental office with various statements and claims highlighted in orange and this colleague was reading it, shaking his head, and muttering over an over, "We need a hit man to save mankind from these guys". (In physics and engineering departments they get schemes for constructing perpetual motion machines and proofs that lead can too be transmuted to gold.)
Yep, would almost be the kind thing for even the one writing the letters, proudly announcing that they, and generally they alone have discovered some trick that gets around rigorous logical proofs that those impossible task are indeed, impossible.
IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee, your sick ego and elite thought process is disgusting. You are trapped on a level you will never leave until you change your foul mind from aggrivating attacks to understanding and equality.
Good luck, you need it.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bdgee, your sick ego and elite thought process is disgusting. You are trapped on a level you will never leave until you change your foul mind from aggrivating attacks to understanding and equality.
Good luck, you need it.
No one attacked you! How is it you are too lame brained to figure that out?
You could have gone on all day without attacking me, but it just isn't in you. The sick thing is, you have no idea what it is that compels you to be such a biased narrow minded jerk.
Well, I do. So do a lot of people. But, I ain'ta gonna tell you, not in order to prevent you from knowing, but because it is simply well beyond your where-with-all. That doesn't mean it is complicated. No one will explain it to you because you can't understand it. People could spend all day trying to tell you and then all day the next day and the next and you wouldn't understand, because you are disposed to refuse.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
