Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Kushinator · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
Define corporate welfare....If you can Greenie.

j-mac

When federal, state, and local governments use direct and indirect tax breaks or subsidies to strengthen the balance sheets of various corporations and their interests.

What is your point?

Boo Radley · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
Define corporate welfare....If you can Greenie.

j-mac

Just thought I'd help:

corporate welfare
n.
Financial aid, such as a subsidy or tax break, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses, especially when viewed as wasteful or unjust: "critics who say that letting big companies raise private stock on public land amounts to corporate welfare" (Frank Clifford).

corporate welfare - definition of corporate welfare by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Corporate welfare should be carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies.

Cato Handbook for Congress: Corporate Welfare

corporate welfare Definition: Government's financial support for big business, usually in the form of bounties, subsidies, or tax breaks.

What is corporate welfare? definition and meaning

disneydude · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
Define corporate welfare....If you can Greenie.

j-mac

Corporate Welfare takes many different forms, such as public subsidies to private corporations. Basically it is taking public money and giving it to private businesses, e.g., giving into corporation extortion by cutting tax rates to prevent a corporation from leaving the state or enticing a corporation to leave one state for another....rates that other businesses who play fairly do not receive.

It also includes things such as giving corporations free public land to build on or forgoing standard tax rates.

1Perry · Sep 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Just thought I'd help:

corporate welfare
n.
Financial aid, such as a subsidy or tax break, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses, especially when viewed as wasteful or unjust: "critics who say that letting big companies raise private stock on public land amounts to corporate welfare" (Frank Clifford).

Especially but not limited to.........Is this not exactly what Obama is proposing we do?

j-mac · Sep 13, 2011

So corporate welfare according to the libs in the know here all defer to some dictionary definition. But fail to explain how it is that only some corporations should have their plug pulled on this, while others get to suckle massively, go bankrupt, and everyone ignores that.

How is that fair? How is that America?

j-mac

nijato · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
Oh, I was just trying to take it to its logical conclusion, considering the level of obvious disdain, and disgust you have for private business in the past...

See, I think you have to define what you are calling 'subsidies'. Past discussions about oil companies and 'subsidies' have included eliminating deductions in depreciating equipment like any other business. So tell us dude, what are YOU speaking of when you talk of eliminating these so called subsidies?

j-mac

I'm guessing he's referring to the depletion allowance, which allows oil and gas producers deduct the value of oil and gas they have produced and sold from their tax bill. They sell the product, profit, and then they get to write off a depreciation for no longer having the product to sell. This would be one GIANT example of tax advantages given only to mineral production companies.

Boo Radley · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
So corporate welfare according to the libs in the know here all defer to some dictionary definition. But fail to explain how it is that only some corporations should have their plug pulled on this, while others get to suckle massively, go bankrupt, and everyone ignores that.

How is that fair? How is that America?

j-mac

I'm not sure there is any real argument for only some. Oil companies have been singled out in legislation because they recieve so much. Largely our leaders have been slow to rain this welfare program in, and there are far too many voters who ignroe the drain our our tax dollars by these give away programs. But many here and many of what you have been given as links argue to cut all of it, across the board.

j-mac · Sep 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure there is any real argument for only some. Oil companies have been singled out in legislation because they recieve so much. Largely our leaders have been slow to rain this welfare program in, and there are far too many voters who ignroe the drain our our tax dollars by these give away programs. But many here and many of what you have been given as links argue to cut all of it, across the board.

Hey, If you are going to cut something out, make the case, and make damned sure it is for all, across the board...Don't tell me how Solyndra should recieve my money, but Exxon shouldn't.

j-mac

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Socialism is achieved when property rights are redefined giving workers (labor) complete control of the means of production. Neither I, Krugman, nor the President support such a notion, so kindly refrain from misusing the term socialism, if for nothing other than your own sake.

No. The entire U.S. financial system could have been nationalized without increasing government spending. The President rejected such notions.

The use of the word is a simple misrepresentation aimed at destroying credibility in a fallacious manner.

Fallacy. I have not seen anyone claim that tax hikes will put 25 million plus unemployed back to work. Care to provide a source, or retract your statement as it is a fallacy.

Consumers have had 10 years of low taxes, and it has equated to how many new jobs? If low taxes were the end all solution to our economic woes, we would not be in this trouble in the first place rof

Goldenboy, I appreciate that is what you believe but the actions of both say differently. Krugman wants massive govt spending of taxpayers dollars and thus greater control of the govt. over that spending. Obama by his actions wants to redistribute income. No one is going to state they want socialism and will always react like you are reacting now but incrementalism will lead us that way.

As for the 25 million unemployed and underemployed, that is reality today and my question is HOW DOES RAISING TAXES ON ANYONE PUT THOSE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. I am raising that question and you are refusing to answer it.

I stand by my statement and the actions of our community organizer President speak volumes as to his goals, class warfare, massive expansion of the govt, redistribution of wealth, and control of the production by tax incentives with strings.

Consumers deserve to keep their money rather than waste it sending it to the govt. that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Those tax cuts have been reduced in value by the costs of the Obama Administration in the form of regulations, potential tax increases, Obamacare, and strings attached to those tax cuts. The tax cuts for small business are offset by the tax increases and regulations from Obama.

randel · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
So corporate welfare according to the libs in the know here all defer to some dictionary definition. But fail to explain how it is that only some corporations should have their plug pulled on this, while others get to suckle massively, go bankrupt, and everyone ignores that.

How is that fair? How is that America?

j-mac

you have a problem with the dictionary definition? you still havent answered the question yet...why the outrage against one but not the other?

Boo Radley · Sep 13, 2011

j-mac said:
Hey, If you are going to cut something out, make the case, and make damned sure it is for all, across the board...Don't tell me how Solyndra should recieve my money, but Exxon shouldn't.

j-mac

Have I done that?

Kushinator · Sep 13, 2011

Conservative said:
Goldenboy, I appreciate that is what you believe but the actions of both say differently. Krugman wants massive govt spending of taxpayers dollars and thus greater control of the govt. over that spending. Obama by his actions wants to redistribute income. No one is going to state they want socialism and will always react like you are reacting now but incrementalism will lead us that way.

In all fairness, your interpretation of their actions lead you to this conclusion. Socialism is simply unsustainable here in the U.S. Case and point; people are free to form worker owned enterprises, but they do not make up even .1% of all companies. The notion does not even bare mentioning within the context of this discussion.

As for the 25 million unemployed and underemployed, that is reality today and my question is HOW DOES RAISING TAXES ON ANYONE PUT THOSE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. I am raising that question and you are refusing to answer it.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will minimally impact overall consumption because those with high incomes have high savings rates. Raising taxes on families with zero or negative savings rates will in fact undercut the economy, but i have not heard such a policy being discussed.

Consumers deserve to keep their money rather than waste it sending it to the govt. that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Those tax cuts have been reduced in value by the costs of the Obama Administration in the form of regulations, potential tax increases, Obamacare, and strings attached to those tax cuts. The tax cuts for small business are offset by the tax increases and regulations from Obama.

What regulations, specifically, are offsetting tax increases? I hear this all the time, but have yet to see evidence of the actual regulations impact on economic activity. Remember, we deregulated the financial sector in 1999 which proved to be a disaster of epic proportions. To say that "all regulation" is bad for business is simply untrue.

None the less, my statement still stands. If tax cuts are the end all approach for eliminating our economic woes, how on earth can we be in this employment situation to begin with?

mike2810 · Sep 13, 2011

Based on some post defining corporate welfare, and seem to be against cooperate welfare. Got to ask, why then do so many support tax breaks and tax dollars building sports stadiums? Why sports and not other companies that may provide larger employment and tax revenue to a state/community?

Boo Radley · Sep 13, 2011

mike2810 said:
Based on some post defining corporate welfare, and seem to be against cooperate welfare. Got to ask, why then do so many support tax breaks and tax dollars building sports stadiums? Why sports and not other companies that may provide larger employment and tax revenue to a state/community?

I don't. But sports fans want teams, and I think often don't think this through. Just an opinion. :coffeepap

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059794151]In all fairness, your interpretation of their actions lead you to this conclusion. Socialism is simply unsustainable here in the U.S. Case and point; people are free to form worker owned enterprises, but they do not make up even .1% of all companies. The notion does not even bare mentioning within the context of this discussion.

I agree that socialism is unsustainable here just like it is collapsing all over the world yet that doesn't stop the arrogance of liberals to continue to promote it. Obama as has been shown has zero executive and management experience and skills. All he knows how to do us community organize and take money from someone else. That is what he is trying to do now. A good leader wouldn't be promoting class warfare and wealth redistribution, a good leader would encourage the poor to reach a higher income status instead of demonizing it.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will minimally impact overall consumption because those with high incomes have high savings rates. Raising taxes on families with zero or negative savings rates will in fact undercut the economy, but i have not heard such a policy being discussed.

Then what is the purpose of raising taxes on the rich? It sends the wrong message and attempts to redistribute wealth. It demonizes wealth creation and promotes class warfare. Do you think the 47% that don't pay any FIT care about raising the taxes on someone else?

What regulations, specifically, are offsetting tax increases? I hear this all the time, but have yet to see evidence of the actual regulations impact on economic activity. Remember, we deregulated the financial sector in 1999 which proved to be a disaster of epic proportions. To say that "all regulation" is bad for business is simply untrue.

Yesterday I posted an article on regulatations. Not going to do it again because you ignored the one yesterday and will ignore it today. Obama is totally anti business except those chosen ones that support him, i.e. GE. Where is your outrage over the Head of the Jobs Committee having a company that doesn't pay any Corporte taxes because they make all their income overseas? No one is saying all regulations are bad is an exaggeration but we have laws on the books that should have prevented what happened with the financial crisis.

None the less, my statement still stands. If tax cuts are the end all approach for eliminating our economic woes, how on earth can we be in this employment situation to begin with?

As does mine stand. raising taxes on one class while redistributing that to another promotes classware and hurts the economy. When you increase the number of people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer you eventually destroy the taxpayer thus giving more power to the Govt. The private sector will bring us out of this economic malaise we are in and that isn't going to happen until Obama is fired.

Erod · Sep 13, 2011

roughdraft274 said:
1. We can't base the entire argument on two cities. In general making 250,000 is doing extremely well. If you're struggling on getting by on that then I would assume it's much more due to living outside your means more so than cost of living. My household income is half of that and at the age of 25 my wife and I have bought our own house, have two vehicles that were purchased new, mine was paid off in a year and her's we bought outright, and at the same time are donating as much is allowed into our 401k's and have a side savings account. If we can manage that then anyone earning 250,000 shouldn't be having a hard time regardless of the city. Of course if you earn 250,000 and you think that it's a good idea to stretch yourself by buying a home or condo worth 1.5 million you can barely afford is a good idea that doesn't mean you aren't doing well, it just means you make poor decisions.

2. If you earn 250,000 your taxes won't go up according to his plan. You won't owe one penny more. It's only an increase in taxes on earnings over that amount. Lets say you earn 300,000, your taxes will go up 1500 give or take a little. If that puts you in the poor house while earning 300,000 then it's you with the problem.

3. Lets just go out on a limb and say you earn a hefty 500,000 next year. If we bump up the top marginal tax rate to what is proposed that means an extra 7,500 in taxes. Sorry, but arguing that this is going to put anyone in the poor house or that anyone earning that much will have to lay someone off so they can afford it is being disingenuous.

So how much is enough? $7,500 today, then the government blows that, too. Next up is what, $15,000 more? $25,000 more? How much do you want?

And no, $250,000 is not a lot of money. Imagine living in Phoenix, Chicago, Seattle, San Diego, San Francisco, LA, Miami, Tampa, New York, Boston, DC, Burlington, Richmond, Denver - it's not just two cities - and trying to put two kids through college while paying your bills.

You might think it's preposterous for someone to want to live in more than 1,800 square feet, but that's just your socialistic mind at work. The government has done nothing additional for me to warrant stealing my money at a higher rate. Nothing.

The government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Don't ask me to subsidize their problem. Tell them to fix it.

Kushinator · Sep 13, 2011

Conservative said:
As does mine stand. raising taxes on one class while redistributing that to another promotes classware and hurts the economy.

Increasing taxes on a high saving demographic while keeping taxes constant on the low saving demographic will increase overall consumption, and therefore boost the economy. You cannot deny this, even if you disagree with it in nature.

When you increase the number of people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer you eventually destroy the taxpayer thus giving more power to the Govt. The private sector will bring us out of this economic malaise we are in and that isn't going to happen until Obama is fired.

I just want a real sustainable recovery. To achieve this, we need a large sustainable boost in aggregate demand. Public works projects and infrastructure repairs will surely achieve this. Tax cuts on the other hand will not. Just because you disagree with my analysis on a ideological basis does not render it incorrect. Tax cuts do not boost demand in a highly indebted society.

FWIW my position in February 2009.

Goldenboy219 said:
Depending on our Marginal_Propensity_to_Consume domestic goods, the amount of money spent on a given time, will have a multiplier effect due to the original injection of dollars, and the remaining transactions (known as steps 2 through infinity) provide the multiplier effect.

Here is a very very very very basic example of a Keynesian multiplier effect, that is semi representative of our economy in the US:

In one year, unemployment has jumped 2.7%. According to Okun's Law, a 1% rise in unemployment equates to a 2% loss in GDP. So we have a decrease in GDP (income) of around $740 billion from January of last year. Full employment GDP (market equilibrium) is probably in the 3% ranges.

Most people would think, "hell our stimulus package is greater than the GDP shortfall, so we are gonna be ok."

But we forgot about the multiplier effect. Say for instance that our marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%, giving a multiplier of 2. From steps to through infinity (when the money stops trickling), an additional $740 billion of economic activity (GDP) occurs (assuming there are no leakages).

Does $1.48 trillion sound like it possesses the sheer quantity to overt asset liquidation? Consider the consequences of 10% unemployment, or $1.9 trillion in GDP shortfall. This money does not filter into the system until the end of the summer, when they plan spend something like $150 billion tops by the end of 2009. By that time, unemployment could be higher than 10%...

Missing the mark is really bad, even worse than going way over the shortfall, because it will fail to turn the tide, and could lead to higher prices (stagflation). But that is not the worse possible consequence of this fake ass stimulus.

This money has to come from somewhere, and it forms a zero sum game with private investment. More and more money flowing into the treasury to pay for this endeavor equates to less and less investment in the private sector. Private sector innovation creates greater worker productivity, and higher standards of living.

Future generations will be far more harmed by the crowding out of private investment, much more so than this big debt number that has eclipsed $10 trillion.

Notice.

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059794189]Increasing taxes on a high saving demographic while keeping taxes constant on the low saving demographic will increase overall consumption, and therefore boost the economy. You cannot deny this, even if you disagree with it in nature.

The low saving demographic aren't paying any FIT, what part of that don't you understand? Increasing taxes on anyone during these poor economic times is suicidal and is either a sign of incompetence or design. Which is it?

I just want a real sustainable recovery. To achieve this, we need a large sustainable boost in aggregate demand. Public works projects and infrastructure repairs will surely achieve this. Tax cuts on the other hand will not. Just because you disagree with my analysis on a ideological basis does not render it incorrect. Tax cuts do not boost demand in a highly indebted society.

Anything the govt. does is short term and has no sustainability as evidenced by the first stimulus. this one isn't any different, bailing out teachers, police, and firefighters isn't a Federal Responsibility, that is a state responsibility.

The first stimulus was supposed to support infrastructure spending and failed to do that. Why do you believe this is any different? Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of those high indebted taxpayers and that is what drives the economy, not taking more of that tax revenue from the people that earn it. We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt today and you want to reward politicians that generated that debt by giving them more? That is illogical.

Don't care about your position in 2009 and it is obvious to me that you have never hired, trained or fired anyone in your career thus are unfamiliar about the cost associated with all those activities. Obama doesn't have a clue either.

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

More good news for liberals and the Obama administration

U.S. crosses $1 trillion deficit threshold for third straight year, logging $1.23 trillion deficit with one month to go before end of fiscal year

More headlines from FoxNews.com:
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

roughdraft274 · Sep 13, 2011

Erod said:
You might think it's preposterous for someone to want to live in more than 1,800 square feet, but that's just your socialistic mind at work.

And bam. Thanks for showing that you're not capable of intelligent discussion.

If you have the money then I see absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be able to buy any house you want. You should be able to have gold toilets for all I give a ****. However, if you make 500,000 a year and then buy a multi million dollar house and then buy a few fancy sports cars, then pay for two kids to get a top of the line ivy league education and at the end of the day your so stretched by your over spending that 7500 in taxes would cause you serious distress then that's you're fault.

You can call a tiny tax increase "stealing" all you want but understand that most people see right through the talking points bud.

j-mac · Sep 13, 2011

roughdraft274 said:
And bam. Thanks for showing that you're not capable of intelligent discussion.

If you have the money then I see absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be able to buy any house you want. You should be able to have gold toilets for all I give a ****. However, if you make 500,000 a year and then buy a multi million dollar house and then buy a few fancy sports cars, then pay for two kids to get a top of the line ivy league education and at the end of the day your so stretched by your over spending that 7500 in taxes would cause you serious distress then that's you're fault.

You can call a tiny tax increase "stealing" all you want but understand that most people see right through the talking points bud.

From what I can tell, in the liberal way of thinking today, over extending is ok, they'd just open another credit line to cover the $7500. then go after their neighbor that makes a little more and demand that they pay for it.

j-mac

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

roughdraft274 said:
And bam. Thanks for showing that you're not capable of intelligent discussion.

If you have the money then I see absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be able to buy any house you want. You should be able to have gold toilets for all I give a ****. However, if you make 500,000 a year and then buy a multi million dollar house and then buy a few fancy sports cars, then pay for two kids to get a top of the line ivy league education and at the end of the day your so stretched by your over spending that 7500 in taxes would cause you serious distress then that's you're fault.

You can call a tiny tax increase "stealing" all you want but understand that most people see right through the talking points bud.

Spoken like a true liberal out of touch with reality. Most people see through liberalism that is why 20% now call themselves liberal. Who gives you the authority to speak for "most" People? I don't know what motivates people like you to spend time on a message board vs. going out and trying to make something of yourself. You can legislate equal opportunity but not equal outcome. taking from someone else to give to someone else does nothing to promote exceptionalism and individual wealth creation so you don't need a massive central govt. I would feel a lot better about people like you if you would only admit who you are and that is a socialist.

Kushinator · Sep 13, 2011

Conservative said:
The low saving demographic aren't paying any FIT, what part of that don't you understand? Increasing taxes on anyone during these poor economic times is suicidal and is either a sign of incompetence or design. Which is it?

Nonsense.

The low saving demographic could pay more money to the government (raise taxes), but this will result in lower total consumption as a result. Raising taxes on the wealthy will not force high income families to consume less; instead, it will simply reduce net national savings which is the only way to create jobs!

Do you understand? We cannot create jobs when everyone with the ability to do so is saving their money!

Anything the govt. does is short term and has no sustainability as evidenced by the first stimulus. this one isn't any different, bailing out teachers, police, and firefighters isn't a Federal Responsibility, that is a state responsibility.

My analysis in Feb 2009 still applies as to why the stimulus was inadequate in terms of sheer size. Fiscal policy to boost economic activity is short term in nature; the economy needs a jump start that only fiscal spending policy (not tax policy) can provide.

The first stimulus was supposed to support infrastructure spending and failed to do that. Why do you believe this is any different? Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of those high indebted taxpayers and that is what drives the economy, not taking more of that tax revenue from the people that earn it.

People paying off debt and saving money will not create jobs that we need NOW.... period. Nothing you have stated negates this fact.

We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt today and you want to reward politicians that generated that debt by giving them more? That is illogical.

This is a strawman. I have in no way stated that increasing the national debt is a way of rewarding politicians, nor have i supported such nonsense. Please stay on topic and avoid using fallacies.

Don't care about your position in 2009 and it is obvious to me that you have never hired, trained or fired anyone in your career thus are unfamiliar about the cost associated with all those activities. Obama doesn't have a clue either.

The logic stands now as it did in 2009, before one dime of ARRA money was spent. FWIW, i entered semi-retirement @ the age of 27; i did not reach this position due to a lack of entrepreneurial skill/knowledge. None the less, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

StillBallin75 · Sep 13, 2011

Conservative said:
Spoken like a true liberal out of touch with reality. Most people see through liberalism that is why 20% now call themselves liberal. Who gives you the authority to speak for "most" People? I don't know what motivates people like you to spend time on a message board vs. going out and trying to make something of yourself. You can legislate equal opportunity but not equal outcome. taking from someone else to give to someone else does nothing to promote exceptionalism and individual wealth creation so you don't need a massive central govt. I would feel a lot better about people like you if you would only admit who you are and that is a socialist.

hahahahahaha....

Conservative · Sep 13, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059794243]Nonsense.

The low saving demographic could pay more money to the government (raise taxes), but this will result in lower total consumption as a result. Raising taxes on the wealthy will not force high income families to consume less; instead, it will simply reduce net national savings which is the only way to create jobs!

So what you are saying is that the fair share of tax responsibility for the low saving demographics is zero since 47% aren't paying any FIT? Raising taxes on the rich does nothing but promote class warfare and does nothing for deficit reduction as evidenced by history. when you give a politician more money they spend it, not use it to cut deficits. There is no guarantee that more revenue will come into the Treasury just like there is no guarantee that behavior will not change. When you raise taxes on businesses who pays those taxes? How does that help the lower saving demographics?

Do you understand? We cannot create jobs when everyone with the ability to do so is saving their money!

What people do with their money is personal choice for it IS THEIR MONEY! Saving money means less need for all that so called liberal help so when people save more cut the size of govt.

My analysis in Feb 2009 still applies as to why the stimulus was inadequate in terms of sheer size. Fiscal policy to boost economic activity is short term in nature; the economy needs a jump start that only fiscal spending policy (not tax policy) can provide.

You judge the first stimulus by the way it was spent never recognizing that it could have and WAS spent wrong. There is still stimulus money left that hasn't been spent showing that Obama doesn't have a clue nor do his supporters. 842 billion was plenty if spent correctly. Guess they couldn't find the shovels for shovel ready jobs.

People paying off debt and saving money will not create jobs that we need NOW.... period. Nothing you have stated negates this fact.

People paying off debt and saving money means less need for that liberal help as I stated, further where does that payback and savings go and how does that affect investment funds? Needing jobs now doesn't create sustainable growth and you ought to know that. Not all people are going to save the money or pay down debt no matter how you spin it.

This is a strawman. I have in no way stated that increasing the national debt is a way of rewarding politicians, nor have i supported such nonsense. Please stay on topic and avoid using fallacies.

Who said anything about increasing the national debt even though that is what is going to happen. I asked you about rewarding politicians by sending them more tax revenue after THEY created the 14.6 trillion debt. You need help with your reading comprehension.

The logic stands now as it did in 2009, before one dime of ARRA money was spent. FWIW, i entered semi-retirement @ the age of 27; i did not reach this position due to a lack of entrepreneurial skill/knowledge. None the less, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

The logic stands now you don't give more money to politicians, you reward the taxpayers. FWIW you didn't answer the question posed.

Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Boo Radley

disneydude

1Perry

j-mac

nijato

Active member

Boo Radley

j-mac

Conservative

randel

Boo Radley

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

mike2810

Boo Radley

Conservative

Erod

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

Conservative

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

j-mac

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Conservative