Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Tax me more please I insist..

Tax me more please I insist.. (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But here's where the combination of altruism and self-interest happens: if the US economy takes another huge hit because of the draconian cuts built into the Supercommittee law, these self-made rich folks stand to have a lot less of a chance to continue to make money. Cutting trillions in federal spending starting in FY2013 means that many of the more lucrative parts of the economy will be impacted. Health care stands to lose even more than it already has-and if you don't think the health care industry is having problems, just take a look at how Medicare is already paying significantly less today than it did last year for the same services. "Sorry, Grandma, but we can't afford to get you the physical therapy you need after your hip surgery because Congress couldn't take it off the playground and man-up to make real decisions. You can almost hobble to the bathroom, right? That's good enough for Congress!" (This is not as much an exaggeration as you might think...)
It's the ol', "if you don't fund this measure, we'll be pushing poor gramma over the cliff" routine afaic. This reminds me of the commercials from last year showing a cute elderly couple in front of their $350k ranch complaining about cutbacks in Medicare. Medicare can't afford to keep up with all the services it's doling out to people, that's why it's paying less out in services. Hell, even Cuba recognizes the solvency problem. In the US, these services were supposed to be reserved for those who truly needed it, not create a dependency class of those who didn't.

So having a bunch of really wealthy people step up and say "why are you giving us all such a break when you're taxing the working poor at a higher real percentage than at any time in the last 40 years?" is not so much hypocrisy as pragmatism.
When your company is mired in IRS investigations into your back taxes from 2002 totaling nearly a billion dollars, it's hypocrisy. It's just one more tax dodger advocating the rest of us pay more in taxes. They've figured out how to game the system and expect everyone else to pay for it proving that folks are always more generous with someone else's money. Notwithstanding the failure to acknowledge that most working-poor are paying zero in income taxes. Which is a good thing to be clear. The government should make due with less across the board even if it means ditching that study of jello wrestling in Antarctica.

As far as I can see, the Republicans are offering corporations and the wealthy breaks they aren't asking for...and so far nobody has managed to explain where the Republicans get their ideas about job creation being linked to helping rich people keep more of their income, especially when these same rich people are publicly saying that paying more (and more reasonable) taxes won't hurt what they do to create and improve jobs...
This ideal that Republicans haven't offered any plans for improving the economy is a ruse. In this regard, House Republicans have been the most busy of all. Otherwise, I'm not real sure what you're saying here. The "rich" have launched a formal campaign specifically aimed at citing the adverse impact of tax policy on job growth. The WIN America campaign is a direct appeal to Congress and the White House and includes signatories of CEOs and CFOs from Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, Adobe, Cisco, Pfizer, and Apple to name a few. The Obama Administration has received sound rebuke from the Democratic business community that actively supported his campaign for President, but now feel his rhetoric and actions are openly hostile to the business community and job growth.

It is this community and Independents that will have the most profound impact on his success next year IMO.
ebuddy
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 04:47 PM
 
Funny how the Rich individuals say one thing, and how CEO's of companies say another...

According to the richest people being taxed more is not going to hurt the economy. According to the CEOs and CFOs of large companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe and so on say it will. The same companies that are the cause of the recession by laying off people, cutting spending and creating instability in the home while at the same time increasing profits.

Companies are self serving to there own interests which means maximum profits at all cost. If they could get away with murder that resulted in higher profits they would. Shouldn't listen to a single thing they propose because its always self serving.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Funny how the Rich individuals say one thing, and how CEO's of companies say another...

According to the richest people being taxed more is not going to hurt the economy. According to the CEOs and CFOs of large companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe and so on say it will. The same companies that are the cause of the recession by laying off people, cutting spending and creating instability in the home while at the same time increasing profits.

Companies are self serving to there own interests which means maximum profits at all cost. If they could get away with murder that resulted in higher profits they would. Shouldn't listen to a single thing they propose because its always self serving.
CEOs of companies aren't individuals?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 05:22 PM
 
I want to know exactly what rhetoric and actions of Obama's have been so hostile to companies?

There has been some rhetoric about fat cats and stuff like that, but many politicians in the history of politics anywhere have used populist rhetoric, and besides, why do we need to put on the kid gloves when it comes to hurting feelings and stuff? Rhetoric is just that, actions are a whole other thing.

There has been talk about dropping the Bush tax cuts, but that is no more non-business friendly than it was in the 90s before the cuts existed, and there has been talk about regulation. There may be something to the criticism of regulatory mechanisms (i.e. too much, too little, non-enforceable, ineffective, whatever), but surely with all of these financial bubbles we have gone through it must be pretty obvious that it is the government's job to ensure that the economy cannot be tampered with in such ways to create volatility in exploiting loopholes or practices that aren't properly regulated (or over-regulated). There are some that would argue that the free market sorts all of these sorts of things out, but I think there are generally the same people that believe in other myths like trickle down economics. I've never understood why some believe that the same people that come up with derivative trading and short selling all of these gimmicky things would turn around and rain money on the middle class if only there was no regulation.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
CEOs of companies aren't individuals?
No they are not. They are just the leader of a collective looking out for the best interest of that collective.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
No they are not. They are just the leader of a collective looking out for the best interest of that collective.
Considering the collective of Microsoft alone accounts for 95,000 employees worldwide, how is this a bad thing?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I want to know exactly what rhetoric and actions of Obama's have been so hostile to companies?
You'll have to listen to the business community. Obama has essentially one ally in the Corporate sector and that is the Business Roundtable; a collection of executive associates that counsel this Administration on economic policy and had been generally in support of Obama. This roundtable recently issued a 54-page document citing all the actions in which this Administration has been hostile to the business community.

For example; Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas. "We had been working very closely with them," Castellani said, but things kept popping up that were "not just an irritant but a distraction" to promoting economic growth.

"In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore," Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."


Again, these are people that had generally been in support of this President, not Republican obstructionists.

There has been talk about dropping the Bush tax cuts, but that is no more non-business friendly than it was in the 90s before the cuts existed, and there has been talk about regulation. There may be something to the criticism of regulatory mechanisms (i.e. too much, too little, non-enforceable, ineffective, whatever), but surely with all of these financial bubbles we have gone through it must be pretty obvious that it is the government's job to ensure that the economy cannot be tampered with in such ways to create volatility in exploiting loopholes or practices that aren't properly regulated (or over-regulated). There are some that would argue that the free market sorts all of these sorts of things out, but I think there are generally the same people that believe in other myths like trickle down economics. I've never understood why some believe that the same people that come up with derivative trading and short selling all of these gimmicky things would turn around and rain money on the middle class if only there was no regulation.
People complaining about "trickle-down" economics have no problem subsidizing the government at the top with other people's money hoping it will eventually trickle down to their recipient du jour, but unfortunately very little of it is available for its intended purpose. You can take your pick - it's either trickling down from an entity that makes your laws and assesses a fee for its wasteful existence or an entity you buy stuff from like you, me, and others. I'm in favor of you, me, and others because we naturally have a much greater stake in the game and related concern for basic principles like solvency and a survival that relies on increasing production, not merely feeding from it.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You'll have to listen to the business community. Obama has essentially one ally in the Corporate sector and that is the Business Roundtable; a collection of executive associates that counsel this Administration on economic policy and had been generally in support of Obama. This roundtable recently issued a 54-page document citing all the actions in which this Administration has been hostile to the business community.

For example; Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."
This is vague.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas. "We had been working very closely with them," Castellani said, but things kept popping up that were "not just an irritant but a distraction" to promoting economic growth.
It sounds like this is more anti-competitive business stuff, not anti-business. It's also something I wish the media would discuss more. I haven't been looking for info about the financial regulatory reform thing that I believe was led by Chris Dodd, but it also hasn't been widely discussed.

My impression was that this anti-business criticism was more along the lines of making it difficult for businesses to profit (e.g. tax increases), not along these sorts of lines. I don't buy that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is "anti-business" any more than it would have been anytime prior to the Bush tax cuts.

"In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore," Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."[/i]

Again, these are people that had generally been in support of this President, not Republican obstructionists.
This is also vague.

People complaining about "trickle-down" economics have no problem subsidizing the government at the top with other people's money hoping it will eventually trickle down to their recipient du jour, but unfortunately very little of it is available for its intended purpose. You can take your pick - it's either trickling down from an entity that makes your laws and assesses a fee for its wasteful existence or an entity you buy stuff from like you, me, and others. I'm in favor of you, me, and others because we naturally have a much greater stake in the game and related concern for basic principles like solvency and a survival that relies on increasing production, not merely feeding from it.
I don't think this is an accurate generalization. Besides, what evidence is there that trickle down works in the private sector? You don't prove that trickle down works in the private sector by trying to make the case that it doesn't in the public sector.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2011, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Funny how the Rich individuals say one thing, and how CEO's of companies say another...

According to the richest people being taxed more is not going to hurt the economy. According to the CEOs and CFOs of large companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe and so on say it will. The same companies that are the cause of the recession by laying off people, cutting spending and creating instability in the home while at the same time increasing profits.

Companies are self serving to there own interests which means maximum profits at all cost. If they could get away with murder that resulted in higher profits they would. Shouldn't listen to a single thing they propose because its always self serving.
You really think that the wealthiest people will actually pay more in taxes if the rates go up a considerable amount? That's very naive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 03:12 AM
 
You mean they would break the law?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is vague. It sounds like this is more anti-competitive business stuff, not anti-business. It's also something I wish the media would discuss more. I haven't been looking for info about the financial regulatory reform thing that I believe was led by Chris Dodd, but it also hasn't been widely discussed. My impression was that this anti-business criticism was more along the lines of making it difficult for businesses to profit (e.g. tax increases), not along these sorts of lines. I don't buy that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is "anti-business" any more than it would have been anytime prior to the Bush tax cuts. This is also vague.
I suspect more details are provided in the 54-page document they've delivered to Congress and the White House if you're interested. I'm not interested in defending each of the Democrat business leaders' concerns, only to affirm my statement that he is losing their trust along with Independents creating solidarity between they and Republican business owners saying the same thing, and that this will be problematic for him next year.

Are you saying that the Obama Administration suffers from an unfair perception problem that transcends party lines and that his leadership, policies, and actions, while effective and friendly toward the business community, are just misunderstood? Do you think they'd be this vocal if they weren't concerned for their bottom line? Why would they challenge a President they supported unless they felt this Administration had a real impact on actual dollars? Even if they had no regulatory burdens, lopsided and complicated taxation, lopsided distribution of Fed dollars, and market uncertainty to cite for an unacceptably high and sustained unemployment figure; in this I'm afraid perception is reality and leadership friendly to business ought to have a little more of their confidence and support. He doesn't. In fact, quite the contrary.

I don't think this is an accurate generalization. Besides, what evidence is there that trickle down works in the private sector? You don't prove that trickle down works in the private sector by trying to make the case that it doesn't in the public sector.
I gave as much detail in support of my position as you gave in support of yours. I'm guessing we disagree and I've found that the only thing facts and data will do is chase you out of a thread. I'm not that bent on silencing you.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You mean they would break the law?
You mean... you haven't? What's being said here time and again is that it is the large "too big to fail" monoliths that are capable of retaining a large enough number of tax attorneys to work the loopholes only available to them. They won't pay higher taxes. Either you'll pay a higher cost for their products to offset their additional expenses or they'll exploit havens and avoidance measures.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean... you haven't? What's being said here time and again is that it is the large "too big to fail" monoliths that are capable of retaining a large enough number of tax attorneys to work the loopholes only available to them. They won't pay higher taxes. Either you'll pay a higher cost for their products to offset their additional expenses or they'll exploit havens and avoidance measures.
Yep. I've explained this 3 times in this thread alone, but they keep avoiding it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yep. I've explained this 3 times in this thread alone, but they keep avoiding it.
I'm not sure "avoid" is the correct word. Most people who have to work for a living don't understand the reality of being able to head to the Gulch at will. It's all "work -> pay -> bills -> work -> pay -> bills" for them, so the mere notion of being able to drop the "work" element is completely alien.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2011, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean... you haven't? What's being said here time and again is that it is the large "too big to fail" monoliths that are capable of retaining a large enough number of tax attorneys to work the loopholes only available to them. They won't pay higher taxes. Either you'll pay a higher cost for their products to offset their additional expenses or they'll exploit havens and avoidance measures.
Can't argue on that one
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2011, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You witnessing stuff does not make it factual, what you've witnessed doesn't even belong in a paragraph justifying what is factual and what isn't, with all due respect.
If directly witnessing something doesn't make it factual then I don't know what your definition of factual is. To me the only things that are factual are things that are witnessed by me; not read about. If someone says to me they knowledgeable on something because they have done lots of reading, I will trust them less than if they had said they experienced it. Credibility is especially lacking if it's based on a government study. None of this is suppose to be 100% factual anyway; it's just suppose to get ya'll to think and try to witness some of this on your own. This has encouraged me to change my sig though.

I'm not really sure how any of this makes anything you've said factual. I'm not saying that this is not factual, just that you haven't made your case.

I still want to know what the costs of cutting these programs in half are. You can't just throw out an arbitrary percentage because this is what your gut feeling tells you feels right. Every cut, especially ones these large, will have positive and negative ramifications which need to be accounted for.
Can we agree that it's a fact if the government gives someone a gift, then gives it to them over and over they will become accustomed to getting it; feel that they are entitled to it, that it's just a basic right? Is it an agreeable fact that they will see if they can convince you to give them more and more over time becoming less efficient with their resources? ( src: if you give a mouse a cookie -Laura Numeroff). And if that is a fact then it is a fact that there is room to cut the budget to those programs. The hypothetical budget that I made up I thought was obviously conservative; I guess not: but here's some other budgets I found on the internet since if-someone-else-said-it-it-must-be-factual. These actual budgets make mine look impossibly cheap. No budget you'll find will make big poor look as responsible as mine did.

Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S. – How Average Americans are Lured into Debt Servitude by Promises of Mega Wealth.


Then there's this site from Bureau of Labor Statistics since everything government says is more credible.
Consumer Expenditure Survey

And this article shows anyone can get on welfare.
Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

But capitalism hasn't been around for eons...
Maybe the word hasn't but the idea of buy, sell, trade, barter, free-market and ownership has.


Canada, a country I'm familiar with, is not a socialist society.
I'm sorry I thought we were talking about US since people don't generally reference their "insurance premiums" in Canada. The only part of US society that isn't socialist is the part that's straight up corporate communist at this point.

You are far from alone, but I hope you don't see your basically gambling not facing financial ruin as any sort of solution to be proud of.
I don't view it as gambling financial ruin. Of all the problems I've seen in my life among the uninsured, they weren't denied treatment based on insurance or ability to pay. I'm sure it exists, but I have to go with what seems to be the norm for now. When I hear stories of how people were refused treatment and I see the other side it's usually some other reason like long wait times. You can't just go into the ER and scream "my kid is having an asthma attack take him first" when there are 15 people in front of you also dieing. There are ways around this; know what hospitals have the shortest waits in your area. Call 911 Then the ER won't even ask for your insurance card until after you've been treated. A poor person I know had cancer 20 years ago. She is still paying the bills to this day. She complains about it a lot and I tell her "if you didn't spend hundreds of dollars on shoes, purses, clubbing, and new clothes every month maybe you'd have those bills paid off." She certainly isn't in financial ruin.

For a self proprietor like myself a personal health disaster can not only drain all of your assets, but those of your business as well, jeopardizing the incomes of those which you work with too.
So, whats the big deal when the alternative is to be dead. 100 years ago you wouldn't be worried about this, you'd just be glad in the rare event someone had a treatment, and was willing to help you at any cost. This is an example of the kind of spoiled society we've evolved into; I don't see this as a quality; this is a case where we need to be taking steps back in order to move forward in the right direction again. People want top of the line technology in their treatment but don't want any part of their life to be phased by any of the costs. To me this is a sign that medical treatment or life in general, has gotten too good to the point people are accustomed to it and unappreciative for what they have, they want more more more.

.... why politicians aren't out there trying to reduce costs across the board with the system we have now.
Because it's not their job; their job is to make money first, by getting elected over and over and the best way to do that isn't to do anything that would hurt big medical or big insurance since those special interest pay them lots of money.

The liberal solution in terms of health care would probably start more along the lines of what we have now is not working, and we're running out of time with it.
Well I don't really see even the start of a solution there.

There is no single liberal solution though, they range from a hybrid private/public system (like we have now) and an expansion of the public side of things to fully public to solutions that try to work within the private market.
In a nut shell the liberals want to focus on the public side of things rather than rework the whole system like it needs to be. The republicans are no less guilty. The last thing we need to do is give big insurance any more business, power or influence over the medical system. We need a system that has more competition, more doctors. I gave a potential solution to increase docs through education, and increase price competition by coming down on insurance companies. I don't see how these 'easy way out' solutions' can work. Simply saying we should all pool our money to the government or big insurance so they can pay all the bills doesn't make any sense to me in regard to how it would push prices down. By the way is there a such thing as tax deductible roll over health saving accounts?
I'd say there is no single liberal anything, us liberals are pretty much generally the "miscellaneous" category in terms of our ideological makeup in comparison to the ideologically rigid and narrow right.
agreed, although liberals do tend to focus on how much 'free' stuff they can get out of government.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Dec 6, 2011 at 02:37 PM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2011, 02:42 PM
 
Today's Dilbert fits well here.

     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2011, 06:18 PM
 
The problem with trying to rework the tax code is that it is too much like the code behind Windows. If you tinker with it, you really don't know what will break - perhaps spectacularly. They can't even realistically just start from scratch because of the enormous potential for seriously unintended consequences. Piecemeal tweaks here and ther have already been an obvious problem, take the Alternative Minimum Tax as an example. Our moron legislators esteemed elected representatives built AMT to keep really rich people in the 1960s from avoiding any income tax at all, but they wrote it with literal constants (the law lists specific dollar amounts to qualify for having to use the AMT), so instead of tracking with "wealthy" taxpayers' incomes through some sort of indexed for inflation scheme, people who make middle class incomes are having to pay a LOT more in taxes. And every year, Congress winds up "adjusting" AMT instead of just scrapping it. Why? Because at some point they tied AMT receipts to something else, and now they don't know how to undo the damage.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,