jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (59 posts)

The SUCCESSFUL 2003 Tax Rate Cuts and Why It Matters.

  1. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.

    President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:

    * GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

    * Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

    * The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.

    * The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.

    Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do NOT explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is NO COINCIDENCE that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

    Why Obama's Plan is Flawed

    Obama seems to believe that by "injecting" new money into the economy with public works projects reminiscent of the New deal he will increase demand and therefore production. But every dollar that gov't "injects" into the economy through public works, the gov't must first tax or borrow OUT of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another--and usually to some politically favored interest. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)

    I DO NOT believe that his stimulus plan is a stimulus plan AT ALL.  I don't think it's designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party.  It's designed to repair the power losses from the nineties forward of the Democrat Party and to entrench this party for "eternal power" like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with his New Deal.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nickny79 wrote:

      HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.

      President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:

      * GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

      * Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

      * The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.

      * The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.

      Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do NOT explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is NO COINCIDENCE that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

      Why Obama's Plan is Flawed

      Obama seems to believe that by "injecting" new money into the economy with public works projects reminiscent of the New deal he will increase demand and therefore production. But every dollar that gov't "injects" into the economy through public works, the gov't must first tax or borrow OUT of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another--and usually to some politically favored interest. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)

      I DO NOT believe that his stimulus plan is a stimulus plan AT ALL.  I don't think it's designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party.  It's designed to repair the power losses from the nineties forward of the Democrat Party and to entrench this party for "eternal power" like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with his New Deal.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Most economists don't believe that tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy. The first line of defense is Fed interest rate cuts. Bernanke has cut rates to near zero without the desired effect. Additional recommendations include unemployment compensation extensions, aid to states and cities for Medicaid and other projects, and support of needed and useful infrastructure projects that are on the shelf and can be implemented ASAP. Tax cuts are not the way to go.
        Here's a link to a recent op-ed by Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman--
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opini … amp;st=cse

        1. Nickny79 profile image88
          Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What a fool you are when you say "most economists"  and then you quote an op-ed from the New York Times.  Try reading the Wall Street Journal for a different perspective.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            In 2006 the 400 richest Americans averaged $263 million in earnings according to the IRS. Up 23 percent from 2005.

            The top 400 paid just more than $18 billion in federal income taxes, on a record $105 bilion in total income--THE LOWEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IN THE 15 YEARS SINCE THE IRS BEGAN RELEASING SUCH DATA. That compares with nearly $1 trillion paid by all other individual taxpayers.

            Nickny, how much lower do you want to make the tax rates for the greediest Americans?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates."
    http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

    1. Make  Money profile image72
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The same thing happens here in Canada.  The Conservatives like to spin the idea that it's the Liberals that increase the country's debt.  But when you look at the stats over a couple of decades it's the Conservatives that always increase our country's debt.  Harper, the Conservative leader has been acting like he's been in Bush's back pocket.  Tomorrow we find out whether he stays or goes, depending on his budget.

      1. Nickny79 profile image88
        Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The debt is not the point--either plan with increase the debt.  The point is if we must run a debt to create jobs, how can we best put this money to use?  If we must spend $1 trillion dollars on a stimulus, I would much rather see it spent on tax cuts, than on public works projects what invariably favor democrat voting constituencies and special interests.  EVERYONE benefits from a tax cut, not just the rich.  Better yet, why not combine public works with tax cuts and TEST which of the two prongs are more effective in creating jobs.  This is about economic recovery, not criticism of Obama running a debt.

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Did you miss the part where Obama's stimulus package includes $275 billion in tax cuts?

          And just to be contrary, did you know that every dollar spent on food stamps puts roughly $1.73 back into the economy, while refundable tax rebates go for about $1.26, temporary across the board tax cuts go $1.03, and corporate tax cuts, capital gains and dividends tax cuts, and Bush's income tax cuts average less than $0.40?

          http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/ec … 2008012913
          http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/200 … s-tax-cuts

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Kerry, knowing how very approximate the "science" of economics is, I wouldn't put much trust into any exact numbers, lest into provided by some random web site or mass-media...

            1. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, I'm fully aware of that. I was merely pointing out that there are other economic views that have just as much (probably more, actually) research and data behind them as Nick's apparent belief that George W. Bush's policies were GOOD for the economy.

              As the sister-in-law of a not-so-small business owner who arrived here in the US nine years ago with the clothes on his back and now runs a retail business that brings in tens of millions of dollars a year, I do feel entitled to my belief that it's the little people who need to have money in their pockets. Food stamps allow them to devote more of their income to non-essentials, such as the stuff my b-i-l sells, and since my husband and myself are both employed by his business, I have a direct financial interest in trickle-up economics. wink

              1. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It all sounds good until you ask yourself where those trickle-up money is coming from? If we leave aside a printing press, the source is the taxes your brother-in-law pays. And when you consider that roughly half of that money (according to TMG) bypasses recipients wallets and go directly to government, you might as well conclude that everybody - but government - will be better off if your brother just slashes his prices by a quarter and doesn't pay any taxes smile

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Death and taxes are the only constants in this life. If he (and I) have to pay taxes, I would rather they at least be spent in ways that benefit me. Food stamps do, for the reason I described above. Stupid wars and stupid corporate bailouts not only don't help, they're actively harmful to my interests, and I am furious beyond words at being forced to pay for them. Honestly, I'll probably be an anarchist myself before this depression is over, but for now I'm waiting and watching to see what Obama does.

                  1. 0
                    pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The only thing that is keeping me from picking up a hatchet and heading for Wall Street is Obama. I can't believe people are just taking this crap, just bending over and taking it. If McCain had won I'd be out there getting arrested. Or shot. But I'd take a couple Republicans down with me before I was done, so it would be worth it.

          2. Nickny79 profile image88
            Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's the biggest load of crap I ever heard.  And every time I piss, I put $2.00 into the economy--that's what I think of your economics.

            1. Make  Money profile image72
              Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I remember reading a book on macro-economics that said for every dollar that is put back into the hands of households it brings back roughly seven dollars in tax collected.  This was explained with the tax collected from the companies that produce the goods, packaging, shipping and the stores that sell the goods, taxes collected from employees of these companies that produce the goods, package, ship and sell them plus the taxes paid by these employees when they spend their wages and is repeated on and on.  This book on macro-economics that was used in schools was written by Brian Lyons, published by Prentice-Hall in 1983 so the amount returned in taxes now no doubt is not the same seeing most companies do not pay as much tax due to the amount of write offs they are allowed to use.

              I heard on the news that Obama is going to offer incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the states that were outsourced.  If this includes auto sector jobs here in Canada then NAFTA may have to be re-written or thrown out.  NAFTA basically abolished the Auto Pact between US and Canada.  Not many know that General Motors was originally formed from a Canadian company called Mclachlan (spelling may be wrong).

              1. Make  Money profile image72
                Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Just to add some more to the "evolution" of this thread. smile



                The name of the auto company was spelled McLaughlin not Mclachlan.  And the McLaughlin was part of the formation of General Motors of Canada.  From the History of GM Canada here's an interesting story about the Last Surviving 1908 McLaughlin-Buick 'Model F'  As the article says Harry Sherry of Sherry Classic Cars of Warsaw, Ontario, near Peterborough (where I live) was commissioned by GM to restore the 1908 McLaughlin-Buick 'Model F'.  When we celebrated my father's 80th birthday in 1993 dad happened to bump into an old friend at the restaurant, Harry Sherry's father.  They had gone to school together as kids in Belleville, Ontario.  So Harry's father invited mom and dad out to Harry's shop in Warsaw to see the beginning of the restoration of this 1908 McLaughlin-Buick 'Model F'.  I remember mom telling me that it was to be kept a secret because GM wanted it kept a secret until the restoration was complete.  They thought it was pretty cool to be privy to "this secret".

                The Road to General Motors of Canada is also interesting.

                Just had to share this bit of trivia. smile

  3. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Debt: " $450 billion, making it the fourth largest expense in the federal budget behind Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense spending."
    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/A … rcid=40861

  4. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Yep.  One word for you, Nick, since I'm supposed to ignore you, you know, now, lol:  Gobama!

  5. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Seeing that they're are no objections, I rest my case.   wink

  6. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    Didn't we already go over all this on another thread?

  7. TheMoneyGuy profile image74
    TheMoneyGuyposted 7 years ago

    I gotta quote Reagan here "You have to ask yourselves are you better off now than you were 4 year ago"

    He made that statement on the Campaign Trail against Carter.  While Mr. Nicky's statements are true, what he fails to acknowledge is the fact that most of the Beneficiaries are at the top of the food chain.

    The jobs created are pretty much a joke as they represent service sector jobs that pay less than unemployment in a lot of states.

    The answer to the Mr. Reagan's question is yes the economic foundations of our country are better after the tax cuts, but our country does not represent 95% of the population.

    Make no mistake I am a disciple of Smith, but what we have here would make the man rollover and say I told you so.  As most have never read the Wealth of Nations they only now what is spouted in there 100 level economics class.  Which is the basic Capitalist propaganda line that self interest will bring the greatest good, but people are not allowed to do this as the cards are stacked against them?

    What they don't cover is, Adams discussion of Collusion between those in the same industry, or far more damaging when government colludes with industry.  To quasi quote Smith, "Businesses that get a Bounty (Subsidy) tend to outfit to maximize the bounty and not profits from there business" if you read Smith he uses the Fishing Industry as an example.

    NickyNY our government is redistributing Wealth as we speak; it is just going from the bottom up not the top down.  It is just as wrong as welfare and more damaging.  There has never been a Laissez-Fair economy in the United States for any real length of time as Capital has always been able to buy Government. 

    Yes, in this Government Colluded Economy we are truly selling the Chinese the rope with which to hang us to quote Lenin.  It benefits a select few but the rest are screwed, our economy mirrors the Economies of Mexico, Brazil, and Russia far more than it does any of the other Western Powers.  Think about that for a bit.

    The fact is the worst thing any citizen can do is fall for their own propaganda. 

    Being a Professional in our Society might get you into the Upper Income Brackets but does not set you free.  Being the HNIC doesn't negate the fact you are still a Slave.  It is has it always has been.  It is not right, nor is it entirely wrong, it is just how it is, and those that understand the rules will always dominate over those that do not. 

    This reality of human nature will not change.  Yes even Envy is a part of the Collective, but it is often used to keep those like you one side and everyone else on the other.  You know what they say about the poor at any given time you can pay one half to kill the other. 

    By spewing this type of propaganda you are just doing your part to kill the other half.

    TMG

  8. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Please enlighten us then with an alternative economic theory.

    1. TheMoneyGuy profile image74
      TheMoneyGuyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I have no different Economic Theory, I really believe Smith had it covered, the problem is more a Governmental issue. 

      Take a look at MLB for an example, you cannot go out and start your own team and compete with them it just isn't allowed.  They get most of their operating expenses from the Taxpayers on Various levels.  They are proof that Subsidies do not lower prices, as most teams have consistently raised ticket prices even though their cost outlay has decreased.  I pick sports as it has become an opiate for the masses similar to Religion.  My point is though they could not exist in their present form in a competitive market. 

      The Tax Cuts are similar in that way, they benefit a select few yes and they do invest the money, but because of the Government policies in place, they make those investments elsewhere.  They only will invest here if they receive concessions not very competitive.  It reduces their efficiency and shorts their shareholders.   I am not arguing with you I am just putting things into perspective, like I said your facts are straight, they just don’t represent the average person.

      Again, I am not saying it should be different I am stating it is what it is, you can either understand it and prosper but never be free, or refuse to acknowledge reality and suffer and toil forever.




      TMG

      1. Nickny79 profile image88
        Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I personally support Milton Friedmann's model economics.  And the problem is a governmental issue.



        The idiosyncracies of one industry are not necessarily a useful lens for analysizing something infinitely more complex. 



        This is precisely the problem.   GOVERNMENT regulations needs to be relaxed or modified so that it is more attractive to invest HERE.  One obvious policy that encourages people to invest elsewhere is the corporate tax. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD.  Is it any wonder corporations are making an exodus and factories are closing down?



        I disagree with you here.  WHO EMPLOYS THE AVERAGE PERSON? If you want a good salary do you look for employment with the gov't or in the private sector?  If gov't is to employ individuals where does the tax money come from to pay for them?  Could an economy of 100% or 75% percent gov't employees sustain itself?



        What do you understand Obama's stimulus plan to entail?  Do you truly believe that this is the best possible package for the American people?  And if so why?

        1. TheMoneyGuy profile image74
          TheMoneyGuyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes they are unique but, the subsidy aspects are the same Berkshire uses similar methods to obtain favorable government financing, I just don't have enough room and writing skill to explain so most would understand. 





          It is more than just the income tax that is just one part, the other part is the labor component, there is a labor arbitrage in existence that makes China, Bangladesh and a few other more profitable to operate in.  This brings lower costs goods to us, but the lost value in wages is greater.  Wider trade deficits create more need for taxes that also drag down the economy.





          I look to the private sector, but I have specialized skills that can fetch a good price in the market, most do not have professional credentials so in order for them to seek an adequate means they must work for the government.

          This is truly damning to the economy as it currently stands 54% of the workforce is employed by the government, you subtract unemployment and that means the taxes of 36% pay for the other 64%.  I look at government employment as fancy welfare it accomplishes the same effect.







          I think Obama's package is more of the same subsidy economy; it will make money flow around but will not create wealth for the constituency.  The same people will capture this money.  Whether you give it straight to the Corporation or circulate it through the hands of the consumer the final resting place is the same.  It buys votes but doesn’t exactly create the change he sold his supporters.

  9. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    I'm genuinely willing to give your the benefit of the doubt on this area.  I just want you to note that no where have I ever supported a totally laissez faire economy, even if such were possible at this stage of the game--obviously it is not.


    Be so kind as to tell us the alternative economic model you espouse.  I am willing to give you a hearing.

  10. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Well then on the most important matters it appears we agree.  The bottom line is the
    GOV'T needs ot make it as attractive as possible for people WITH CAPITAL ["rich people"] to open businesses in the US that employ American citizens.  I cite corporate tax as but ONE easy example for the benefit of other readers.  I acknowledge there are many arcane, less obvious ways the gov't intentionally and unintentionally discourages economic growth.  My fundamental point is that gov't is more of the problem than the solution.

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    The government is suppose to collect taxes and redistribute them back into society in such manner, that it best benefits the community as a whole. However in America the government is controlled by theives,
    who syphon off as much as they can get away with. Would imagine some industries and people have a personal army to insure their profits overseas, as the US military.

  12. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Agree, Knol, with one exception - it is not just about America. EVERY government steals from the people as much as people allow it to steal. This is just how things work...

  13. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL Welcome to the anarchist club Kerry! We have cookies wink

  14. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    Ooh, I like cookies. smile

  15. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Just made a batch of chocolate chip cookies for my wife.

    It is the only thing keeping the revolution going.

    That and the red wine big_smile

  16. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Sherry with cheese helps, too smile

  17. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Have a cookie, Pam wink

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Cookies and red wine. The only answer. Sherry Misha? WTF? Sweet or dry?

    2. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Misha. Actually now that you mention it, a cookie does sound better than an axe. smile

  18. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Right now I am sipping Amontillado, which is somewhere in between. I have a soft spot for jerez, you know smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You would be what we would call, "A big girl's blouse." big_smile

      Never got on with sherry. Port - yes. With a nice cigar and some strong cheese. Not American cheese. Proper cheese......

      Anything is better than that conservative drink - Bud light lol

      1. Make  Money profile image72
        Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol  Are you going to take that Misha?

        "The phrase "Big Girl's Blouse" is an idiom in Britain meaning "ineffectual or weak, someone failing to show masculine strength or determination".

        I had to look it up. smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I mean..... Sherry? tongue

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LOL
            Actually as far as I recall I think it comes from Alexander Duma's (sp?) "Three musketeers". There was an episode there when they (don't remember who of the four exactly) was pretty excited about getting drunk with jerez. big_smile

            Sufi, are you supposed to watch dreams right now? Well, Mark, too I guess smile

            1. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Most of my clients are from the US, so I work into the night! smile

      2. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Lots of Ouzo - Life is good! smile

        1. Make  Money profile image72
          Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ouzo can sure get you pickled.  But I guess you are suppose to sip it.  I didn't realize that a couple of decades ago. big_smile

          1. Sufidreamer profile image81
            Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            2 Ouzo's is good. 3 is OK. Four is bad!

            1. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Five is better...Six is excellent! Until morning comes... lol

              1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Curse the morning. mad

                1. Make  Money profile image72
                  Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll have to remember that. smile

                  I remember it tasting pretty good, like licorice.

                  1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    That's the one! Tastes very nice, but sneaks up and punches you on the chin. smile

  19. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    I like how all of Nick's topics seem to devolve (evolve?) into discussions of alcohol lately. lol

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is just to keep his mind of his bits and peices. LOL. smile

      1. Make  Money profile image72
        Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah I think this is what they refer to as evolution Kerry lol

  20. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Come on Ralph, we are talking about drinks already smile

  21. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Why do you Ralph keep posting the same scribe and say nothing yourself? Why I am wasting my time looking over here for what's new
    and there is nothing?

  22. Make  Money profile image72
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Actually Ralph did post something new.  He just didn't separate it from Nick's original post.  Here's Ralph's last post separated.

  23. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Thanks Mike. You are a wonder of information.

  24. Make  Money profile image72
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Yeah does it ever. big_smile

 
working