Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree7Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old September 14th, 2012, 03:19 PM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Well if you're used to it I guess its normal. Where I live shops tend to be open 7 days a week and from morning till late in the evening.
Here everything is open 7 days a week. Big box stores like Wal-mart are open 24/7. Nothing is closed on weekends.

People routinely work more than 40 hours a week by choice. There was a magazine that came out recently that did one of those "best places to work" surveys. One of the critiques about the company I work for that knocked it down in the rankings was that they encourage people (strongly a lot of times) to go home at 1700. They don't like it when their employees work 60 or 70 hours a week or more and don't like people to work around the clock. This was considered to be a negative of my company, not a plus. Part of this might be because it's a tech company, but still, I doubt that would happen in Europe.

Advertisements
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 14th, 2012, 09:34 PM   #52 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Many companies choose overtime vs. new hires not because of the monetary compensation, but the benefits package makes it a less costly alternative. Also, some of the overtime hours given would not directly correlate into an additional full time position due to them being sporadic or seasonal.

I would personally like to see corporate tax breaks converted into a per hire tax credit. No new hires, pay what you should in taxes. Hire new employees and you get X amount per new hire. That would help the governments revenue stream, consumer spending, and the unemployment rate all with one change.
jhtalisman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 09:33 AM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
Many companies choose overtime vs. new hires not because of the monetary compensation, but the benefits package makes it a less costly alternative.
This is why I find the idea of companies paying >$5K for health insurance ridiculous. Its a massive disincentive to employment.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 12:47 PM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Health insurance costs are just a tiny part of why people don't hire.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 02:38 PM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Health insurance costs are just a tiny part of why people don't hire.
Tiny = less than like 1%. I think not.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 05:59 PM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Tiny = less than like 1%. I think not.
I disagree. Employers here aren't required by law to offer insurance at all. If it was a huge part of the reason why people aren't hiring, they just wouldn't offer it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 10:47 PM   #57 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I disagree. Employers here aren't required by law to offer insurance at all. If it was a huge part of the reason why people aren't hiring, they just wouldn't offer it.
No, but the benefits package as a whole is a viable way to attract and retain quality employees vs the competition. And it is not a tiny portion, most employers spent 20-30% of an employees salary/wages on health insurance. That is not including 401k match, dental, life, paid time off, etc.

Most companies are smart enough to not hire a full time employee to fill a position that is only needing to be filled an average of 1-2 days a week.
jhtalisman is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jhtalisman For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (September 16th, 2012)
Old September 16th, 2012, 11:49 AM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
No, but the benefits package as a whole is a viable way to attract and retain quality employees vs the competition. And it is not a tiny portion, most employers spent 20-30% of an employees salary/wages on health insurance. That is not including 401k match, dental, life, paid time off, etc.

Most companies are smart enough to not hire a full time employee to fill a position that is only needing to be filled an average of 1-2 days a week.
Let me put it another way. We all know people who are out of work in this economy. Just speaking anecdotally, how many of them do you know who have turned down a job offer because of the benefits package? If the main reason employers weren't hiring was health insurance they would simply not offer health insurance or would shift the largest cost of the insurance on to the employees shoulders as there is no legal penalty for not offering it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 07:28 PM   #59 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Let me put it another way. We all know people who are out of work in this economy. Just speaking anecdotally, how many of them do you know who have turned down a job offer because of the benefits package? If the main reason employers weren't hiring was health insurance they would simply not offer health insurance or would shift the largest cost of the insurance on to the employees shoulders as there is no legal penalty for not offering it.
Let me put it another way, since you obviously don't know anyone with highly demanded skills.

When you have employment offers from 2 or more companies with similar responsibilities and salary, it's going to come down to the rest of the package.

And there are some companies faithful to providing their employees with peace of mind. Knowing you aren't going to go bankrupt due to medical bills is just a start. You are correct that there isn't a law requiring health insurance, some companies do actually care enough to provide it.
jhtalisman is offline  
Last edited by jhtalisman; September 16th, 2012 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 09:48 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
Let me put it another way, since you obviously don't know anyone with highly demanded skills.

When you have employment offers from 2 or more companies with similar responsibilities and salary, it's going to come down to the rest of the package.

And there are some companies faithful to providing their employees with peace of mind. Knowing you aren't going to go bankrupt due to medical bills is just a start. You are correct that there isn't a law requiring health insurance, some companies do actually care enough to provide it.
How many unemployed people do you know who get job offers from two companies simultaneously?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 16th, 2012, 11:35 PM   #61 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Not relevant to the posters presented example and borders on ad hominem.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 05:30 AM   #62 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
How many unemployed people do you know who get job offers from two companies simultaneously?
Who even said unemployed? Someone could be looking a potential better place to work in their field. Has nothing to do with unemployment.

Hypothetical person is currently employed at Apple and has been for 5 years writing programs. He hates the facility, coworkers, and his boss, yet enjoys the line of work. He applies at Google and Microsoft, which both offer him $92,875 a year to start.

Google gives him 2 weeks paid time off, fully paid health insurance with no co-pays or out of pocket costs, dental, the option to work from home 2 days a week, and a company Lexus.

Microsoft gives him 1 week paid time off, health insurance but he pays 10% of the premium and has a $1000 yearly out of pocket deductible, no option to work from home ever, and a free bus pass.

Which would you choose if you had this option?
jhtalisman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 07:24 AM   #63 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

The initial argument was that employers are not hiring because health insurance costs are too high. My counter-argument was that if that was the case they'd simply not offer health insurance. Unemployment is close to double digits. There are plenty of people out there who are looking for jobs. We don't have a situation here where companies are exactly competing for employees. It's a buyers market when it comes to labor right now.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,677
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

It is a companies job market now days and they are calling all the shots on who they interview and hire. Alot of companies are putting more of the cost of health insurance on the employees.

Companies don't have to offer health insurance but it's a good incentative, and now days they are putting more of the cost on the employees.
__________________
"I'm gonna put a curse on you and all your kids will be born completely naked" - Jimi Hendrix
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 10:19 AM   #65 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,677
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

We will need to have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next 20 years. Japan is celebrating the 48th anniversary of its first bullet train this year.
The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal. Let's hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country.

Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the closed down GM factories, since the government bailed them out. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.
For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses.

Have some factories build hybrid or all-electric cars (and batteries). We can be building these sooner than later, do not believe anyone who tells you it will take years to retool the factories, that simply isn't true.

Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy. We need tens of millions of solar panels right now. And there is an eager and skilled workforce who can build them.

To help pay for this, impose a two dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline. This will get people to switch to more energy saving cars or to use the new rail lines and rail cars the former autoworkers have built for them.

Just some thoughts!
PH8AL likes this.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 10:44 AM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I don't think there's a huge demand for light rail here. If we waved a magic wand and had light rail tomorrow I don't see a lot of people using it to travel.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 10:52 AM   #67 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,677
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

It seems to be doing pretty good in cities with local transit rail systems. That is one of the things about it, would need to convince a majority of people to use it
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 10:56 AM   #68 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't think there's a huge demand for light rail here. If we waved a magic wand and had light rail tomorrow I don't see a lot of people using it to travel.
Sorry but that changes dramatically with the rise in price of fuel. Europe is a perfect example. When I lived there we used our car for local running because we could buy fuel on the base for a third the price of local gas staions. Any time we were going any distance we went by train. It was that much cheaper.
The liberals are correct in how they want to deal with this. If you ban something you create a black market. If you raise the cost while offering a cheaper option people will flock to that option and after awhile people whowere opposed get used to it or die off from old age. I don't personally like that method but will not deny that it works.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 11:17 AM   #69 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
We will need to have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next 20 years. Japan is celebrating the 48th anniversary of its first bullet train this year.
The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal. Let's hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country.
I think HSR on the East coast would make sense, from New York to LA probably would be unviable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the closed down GM factories, since the government bailed them out. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.
For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses.
Light rail is a decent idea. I'd rather a metro, but oft times it isnt practical.
The trains should be built by the most efficient builders IMO, if GM is them fair enough, but otherwise...

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy. We need tens of millions of solar panels right now. And there is an eager and skilled workforce who can build them.
Solar is still inefficient, might be better to put that money into R&D.
Building a lot of new nuclear plants, upgrading dams etc, would give large amounts of temporary work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
To help pay for this, impose a two dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline. This will get people to switch to more energy saving cars or to use the new rail lines and rail cars the former autoworkers have built for them.

Just some thoughts!
Two dollar tax on a gallon really needs doing. It would be nice to see a carbon tax that everybody pays on fuel, from petrol to heavy fuel oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't think there's a huge demand for light rail here. If we waved a magic wand and had light rail tomorrow I don't see a lot of people using it to travel.
They would if they had to pay far more to run and own a car, and light rail was affordable.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 11:42 AM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
Sorry but that changes dramatically with the rise in price of fuel. Europe is a perfect example. When I lived there we used our car for local running because we could buy fuel on the base for a third the price of local gas staions. Any time we were going any distance we went by train. It was that much cheaper.
The liberals are correct in how they want to deal with this. If you ban something you create a black market. If you raise the cost while offering a cheaper option people will flock to that option and after awhile people whowere opposed get used to it or die off from old age. I don't personally like that method but will not deny that it works.
First of all, that's not the case now. Second of all, we Americans are married to our cars culturally. Look at it this way. Gas is hovering near $4 a gallon right now right? That means it has basically quadrupled in price in the past 10 years. Yet there doesn't seem to be a big demand for cheaper means of transportation. People want cheaper gasoline. They don't want light rail trains, monorails and subway systems. They want cheaper gasoline. A candidate who could deliver $2 gasoline would win in a landslide. A candidate who promised a $2 hike on gasoline prices ($6 gasoline) and a developing light rail system in exchange would be run out of town on a rail.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 17th, 2012, 11:48 AM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Solar is still inefficient, might be better to put that money into R&D.
Building a lot of new nuclear plants, upgrading dams etc, would give large amounts of temporary work.
We haven't built a nuclear plant here in more than 20 years. They are efficient and give out a lot of "clean" power, but environmentalists tend to oppose them every time one is proposed. Plus, people here in the US don't want to live anywhere close to one. They fear Chernobyl or Fukushima will happen in their backyard. People here just don't want them at the end of the day.

Quote:
Two dollar tax on a gallon really needs doing. It would be nice to see a carbon tax that everybody pays on fuel, from petrol to heavy fuel oil.
Proposing either of those things will get you tarred and feathered here in the States. Prepare for your opponent accusing you of hating the poor and the middle class. When you're basically proposing $5.50-6.00 a gallon gasoline, you are not going to get anyone to go along with you.

Quote:
They would if they had to pay far more to run and own a car, and light rail was affordable.
Would have to be affordable and practical as well. If it is affordable, but takes me longer than driving the car, I, and a lot of other people, are going to stick with the car.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 11:57 AM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,677
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

There was a time when majority of the people said they would never give up their horse & buggy for a horseless carriage, but when Henry Ford started mass producing horseless carriages, it finally took hold. It will take time for people to grow on it.

Gas prices are itching its way up to that $5 mark, sooner than later, besides, we should be demanding some alternatives to gasoline since some of our biggest haters control the oil. $2 a gallon days are long gone.
The government will just have to put a plan into action, yes there will be alot of people against it at the beginning, but as has been said, if its cheaper than to maintain an auto they will accept it.

We can't afford to continue on the status quo, it's not beneficial for us in the long run.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 12:40 PM   #73 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
There was a time when majority of the people said they would never give up their horse & buggy for a horseless carriage, but when Henry Ford started mass producing horseless carriages, it finally took hold. It will take time for people to grow on it.

Gas prices are itching its way up to that $5 mark, sooner than later, besides, we should be demanding some alternatives to gasoline since some of our biggest haters control the oil. $2 a gallon days are long gone.
The government will just have to put a plan into action, yes there will be alot of people against it at the beginning, but as has been said, if its cheaper than to maintain an auto they will accept it.

We can't afford to continue on the status quo, it's not beneficial for us in the long run.
There's a difference though because the infrastructure for cars was already there. Cars were more efficient. They got you there faster and the roads were already there. That's not really the case now.

Look at it this way. There are a handful of cities that have really well developed public transportation systems. These tend to be big cities like NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, etc.... There are maybe a dozen of them in the US like that. Maybe. So yeah, you could link NYC and Philly via a light rail and that makes sense.

But let's look at something that's more practical. The biggest city near me is like a 3 hour drive away. If I have business up there tomorrow, I'm going to get up early and drive the three hours. I could fly and get there in like an hour, but I'd then have to rent a car because that city, like the vast majority of cities in the US, doesn't have a public transportation system that's worth anything. I'm left to either take a cab once I'm there or rent a car. Because both of these plus the cost of airfare and the time involved in this, I'm going to drive. Even if you put in a light rail that could get me there in 45 mins, I'm still going to drive just because I need a car at the other end. Public transportation just isn't developed in the vast majority of US cities. In a lot of places it just isn't there at all. In the places where it is there, you can look forward to walking for miles between the stop and your destination. A car is just more efficient in most cities. You would have to spend billions and maybe even trillions in overhauling the entire infrastructure.

Edit: TLDR - people don't want light rail. They want cars. They just want more efficient cars and/or cheaper gasoline.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; September 17th, 2012 at 12:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 01:00 PM   #74 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
First of all, that's not the case now. Second of all, we Americans are married to our cars culturally. Look at it this way. Gas is hovering near $4 a gallon right now right? That means it has basically quadrupled in price in the past 10 years. Yet there doesn't seem to be a big demand for cheaper means of transportation. People want cheaper gasoline. They don't want light rail trains, monorails and subway systems. They want cheaper gasoline. A candidate who could deliver $2 gasoline would win in a landslide. A candidate who promised a $2 hike on gasoline prices ($6 gasoline) and a developing light rail system in exchange would be run out of town on a rail.
Who cares? Its not workable, so it has to change.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 01:05 PM   #75 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post

Edit: TLDR - people don't want light rail. They want cars. They just want more efficient cars and/or cheaper gasoline.
You keep mentioning “what the people want".

The time comes where one has to say, screw what the people want. The people won't inform themselves enough, ever, that's why we need representative democracy.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 01:55 PM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
You keep mentioning “what the people want".

The time comes where one has to say, screw what the people want. The people won't inform themselves enough, ever, that's why we need representative democracy.
Representative democracy is supposed to represent the people. If it's working the way it's supposed to, then the people get what they want every time.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 02:18 PM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Representative democracy is supposed to represent the people. If it's working the way it's supposed to, then the people get what they want every time.
If the people get what they want every time, taxation will be 10% of GDP and spending 60%.

Thats why we have politicians.

If people want to buy drive their cars everywhere, their attitudes will have to change.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 02:49 PM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
If the people get what they want every time, taxation will be 10% of GDP and spending 60%.

Thats why we have politicians.

If people want to buy drive their cars everywhere, their attitudes will have to change.
Politicians who don't do what their constituents want them to do are called unemployed.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 02:57 PM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Politicians who don't do what their constituents want them to do are called unemployed.
To an extent, that doesnt make it right.

Things cant remain the same forever, its dangerous.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 03:59 PM   #80 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
To an extent, that doesnt make it right.

Things cant remain the same forever, its dangerous.
Again, it's how the system works. If you can pitch a $2 a gallon tax on gas to the public, knock yourself out. If you get enough people to back it, it'll happen. Personally, I think you pitch that in todays economy you will get massive kick back. I may be wrong. Americans are not interested in light rail. We're culturally invested in the automobile. We want cars at the end of the day.

Look at something that's far simpler. For many, many years they've tried to get rid of the dollar bill and replace it with the dollar coin. Logically it makes way too much sense. Coins are cheaper to mint and circulate than paper money. Paper money does not take abuse well and the bill have to retired all the time. Coins tend to last forever. It makes perfect sense. They've tried at least three different dollar coins that I can think of (Susan B Anthony's, Sequoia's and now the coins with the Presidents). None of them have gone into wide spread use people people refuse to use them. Congress has talked of simply discontinuing the production of $1 paper money. Every time this has been proposed it has encountered massive kickback. People want their paper $1 bills, not $1 coins.

Now you want to propose basically replacing automobiles which is going to entail far more upheaval than simply replacing a dollar bill with a dollar coin. Replacing currency is fairly straightforward and takes no time to get used to. Replacing the automobile is a lifestyle and cultural change.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 17th, 2012, 04:14 PM   #81 (permalink)
syi
Senior Member
 
syi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 574
 
Device(s): HTC evo 4G LTE
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 32
Thanked 58 Times in 47 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to syi
Default

Lol we have too much damn korn.

I'd legalize prostitution, marijuana, shrooms, lower the drinking age, raise the driving age, flat tax for everyone, change tax loopholes, increase pay+benefits for teachers at hs or below.
syi is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 06:22 PM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,677
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Now you want to propose basically replacing automobiles which is going to entail far more upheaval than simply replacing a dollar bill with a dollar coin. Replacing currency is fairly straightforward and takes no time to get used to. Replacing the automobile is a lifestyle and cultural change.
What I mention about having HSR system was not about replacing automobiles, but a way to help the country's economy and create jobs.

The point about raising a gallon of gas to help pay for it and hopefully would encourage people to take alternative transportation. If they don't want to they would still have their cars and pay for higher gas prices, which is going higher and higher and not much of any alternatives.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 06:34 PM   #83 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
What I mention about having HSR system was not about replacing automobiles, but a way to help the country's economy and create jobs.

The point about raising a gallon of gas to help pay for it and hopefully would encourage people to take alternative transportation. If they don't want to they would still have their cars and pay for higher gas prices, which is going higher and higher and not much of any alternatives.
My argument is that in the vast majority of the country, there are no alternatives. For example, for me to take the bus to work, I'd have to get on at least 3-4 buses by my count and and the route it takes to catch the bus I need to get to work. Some of the stops along the route are only visited once an hour. So if the bus I'm on drops me off at the wrong time I could be waiting up to an hour for the next bus to come by. This is not a practical means to commute across town, but it's all my city has and it's not likely to improve. I would lay odds that the fact that my city actually has a bus route puts it ahead of a whole lot of other towns. The surrounding towns don't have one at all. The nearest towns of any significant size to me are ~1 hour away. None of them have buses. If you put a light rail between here and there, there's no public transportation once you get there. You would be proposing spending a crap ton of money forever to shore up these public transportation systems in these small towns because they are not going to even be close to profitable by themselves.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 11:20 PM   #84 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Linked To Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth, Study Finds

A new study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found that over the past 65 years, tax cuts for the rich have not led to economic growth and instead are linked to greater income inequality in the United States.

The study found that cutting taxes for the rich does not increase saving, investment, or productivity growth. "The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie," the study said.
saptech likes this.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 02:16 PM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,197
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Definitely agree on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, we need a progressive tax model that would call for those with the highest personal income to be paying the largest share of taxes.

I'd also severely slash the military-industrial complex and pump large amounts of that money into education funding. No idea how Republicans can call themselves a party that cares about the future of our country when they consistently try to slash education spending and teachers' wages.
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 03:02 PM   #86 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
Definitely agree on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, we need a progressive tax model that would call for those with the highest personal income to be paying the largest share of taxes.

I'd also severely slash the military-industrial complex and pump large amounts of that money into education funding. No idea how Republicans can call themselves a party that cares about the future of our country when they consistently try to slash education spending and teachers' wages.
Well, IMO, the federal government should play a very limited role in education.
It has done some useful things I'm sure, but its not their job and pumping money in isnt necessarily the solution.
Now, mind you, I think college costs should be made multiples more affordable, perhaps the federal government could do something there - but I think the feds overreach as is.

States, not local government, should pay for schools and pay teacher's salaries, as well. It seems ridiculous that city and county governments run schools and pay teachers to me, it creates so much funding differences.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 03:26 PM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,197
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Well, IMO, the federal government should play a very limited role in education.
It has done some useful things I'm sure, but its not their job and pumping money in isnt necessarily the solution.
Now, mind you, I think college costs should be made multiples more affordable, perhaps the federal government could do something there - but I think the feds overreach as is.

States, not local government, should pay for schools and pay teacher's salaries, as well. It seems ridiculous that city and county governments run schools and pay teachers to me, it creates so much funding differences.
I guess I disagree with you. For one thing, U.S. states apply for federal aid in many areas, not just education. States' budgets are often strained; here in Massachusetts, we had to approve opening casinos in order to bring in more money. It's hardly "throwing money at the problem", to paraphrase with a common idiom - it seems only logical that the federal government should definitely be kicking in more money; not only would the reduction of the military be making significant strides forward in terms of peace commitment, the extra funding would work towards raising American education standards, which have fallen by the wayside over the past few decades.

Second, I think federal involvement to create uniform standards in education is a good thing; each state doing things separately would lead to disconnect, discord, and inequality. As it is, we're lucky that we only have two major college entrance exams. Each state has different silly little standardized tests that children must take as they advance through primary/elementary and secondary school. It seems like a federal uniform standard would reduce a serious amount of grief from all the states trying to compare and contrast each other, figuring out what is equivalent to what.
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 03:42 PM   #88 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
I guess I disagree with you. For one thing, U.S. states apply for federal aid in many areas, not just education. States' budgets are often strained; here in Massachusetts, we had to approve opening casinos in order to bring in more money. It's hardly "throwing money at the problem", to paraphrase with a common idiom - it seems only logical that the federal government should definitely be kicking in more money; not only would the reduction of the military be making significant strides forward in terms of peace commitment, the extra funding would work towards raising American education standards, which have fallen by the wayside over the past few decades.
Well if budgets are strained, you borrow if their is a temporary deficit, and raise taxes and cut spending if there is a structural deficit. I would argue that a lot of the spending burden needs to be moved from federal to state governments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
Second, I think federal involvement to create uniform standards in education is a good thing; each state doing things separately would lead to disconnect, discord, and inequality. As it is, we're lucky that we only have two major college entrance exams. Each state has different silly little standardized tests that children must take as they advance through primary/elementary and secondary school. It seems like a federal uniform standard would reduce a serious amount of grief from all the states trying to compare and contrast each other, figuring out what is equivalent to what.
Well, states controlling education is natural in a federation.
In Germany education systems are far more varied from state to state, and the federal government is far stronger there (states don't set much tax rates and cant legislate for criminal law), although I guess states internally are more homogeneous, but Germany itself is not (Baden-Württemberg is very different to say, the Freestate of Saxony).
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 06:00 PM   #89 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

States budgets vary from state to state. Some states are fiscally responsible and routinely run surpluses. Alaska famously cuts checks to all of it's citizens out of money it makes from it's pipeline dollars I believe. Other states are completely broke and near bankruptcy.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 06:01 PM   #90 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
Definitely agree on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, we need a progressive tax model that would call for those with the highest personal income to be paying the largest share of taxes.
I may be wrong on this, but I think the top income earners already pay the lion's share of the tax revenue.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 18th, 2012, 09:15 PM   #91 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

I may be wrong on this, but I think the wealthiest pay little or no tax as unearned income is taxed at 15%.

How NOT to Pay Taxes
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 01:12 AM   #92 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
States budgets vary from state to state. Some states are fiscally responsible and routinely run surpluses. Alaska famously cuts checks to all of it's citizens out of money it makes from it's pipeline dollars I believe. Other states are completely broke and near bankruptcy.
Said states need austerity, in that case
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I may be wrong on this, but I think the top income earners already pay the lion's share of the tax revenue.
You are right with regards to federal income tax. Having everyone pay tax to the federal government is a bit mad anyway, I think the lower levels for state income tax should be much lower than for federal income tax.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 08:51 AM   #93 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
You are right with regards to federal income tax. Having everyone pay tax to the federal government is a bit mad anyway, I think the lower levels for state income tax should be much lower than for federal income tax.
State income taxes vary from state to state. Some states have ridiculously high tax rates. Others have lower rates. Some have no sales tax. Others have high sales tax. All of this varies from state to state and cities/municipalities set their tax rates as well.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 01:09 PM   #94 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
State income taxes vary from state to state. Some states have ridiculously high tax rates. Others have lower rates. Some have no sales tax. Others have high sales tax. All of this varies from state to state and cities/municipalities set their tax rates as well.
I know, but my point stands
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 01:17 PM   #95 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Well, the trend is toward more nationalization and has been that way since the civil war really. States rights aren't something that is a big priority though the Obamacare bill changed some of that as there are many states that want to nullify it and opt out of it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012, 02:03 PM   #96 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Well, the trend is toward more nationalization and has been that way since the civil war really. States rights aren't something that is a big priority though the Obamacare bill changed some of that as there are many states that want to nullify it and opt out of it.
Well, I guess with Obamacare, there was the issue that states were failing to look after their citizens needs with regards to healthcare at all.
Same can't be said for education, although I'm sure they could do much better.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2012, 01:52 AM   #97 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo 5oh View Post
I was thinking about me being president and finding ways to help the economy like ideas all fantasizing of course nothing serious

Ideas:
1. Well we manage to get gaddafi 30 billions frozen why not take a couple billions from there for the favor we doing and a little oil

2. And Japan with all the problems they are having should move those big companies like Toyota I think they are having problems because of all the natural disasters relocate them here in the U.S. so we have more jobs. Sony is also over there right ?

3. Make people start farming corn for some reason is a valuable resource...
I would appoint yes men with bad secrets to all the highest military positions and then stage a military coup.

Then I would send all the members of congress back to their home disricts to be locked in stocks in front of the local court houses so its easier for their constituents to hit them in the head with rotten fruit and feces.

I would have all the lobbyists forced to eat our phony paper money until their intestines burst.

Then I would open a national chain of state owned strip joints where every night is 2 for 1 lap dance night.

That should handle the Government Budget which is the 1st step to leading by example.

At this point I would prolly get bored so I would then turn over control to google because, well, I trust them with everything else, why not?
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2012, 04:15 AM   #98 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
... Then I would open a national chain of state owned strip joints where every night is 2 for 1 lap dance night. ...
I agree, but the primary human form, i.e. XX, may frown upon the XY, whining about the mind is willing, but the flesh is weak.
PH8AL likes this.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2012, 07:57 AM   #99 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
I agree, but the primary human form, i.e. XX, may frown upon the XY, whining about the mind is willing, but the flesh is weak.
I guess we could open a chain of male reviews as well. In the name of fairness. My logic was that male reviews do turn a profit but the big spenders are all male.

But I guess to maximize budget funds we should open several chains each catering to different tastes. Furries are people to.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #100 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I do like the idea of sending Congressmen home in stocks. I wonder if we could implement a system where if you are defeated in an election you are sent home in stocks to be publicly humiliated for your poor performance. Choose to retire before your constituents are sick of you and you can go home in peace.
PH8AL likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.