• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

The cleanest, most efficient, energy there is, is conservation.
Our house is 4500 sq. ft., on 3 levels, basement, main floor, and loft.
Our summer electric bill is smaller than older houses half that size. Part of it is because the house was built right, but part is because we don't have to have the entire house the same temperature all the time, plus or minus half a degree. We don't use the air conditioner much, as summers are usually mild here in northern Utah. The furnace gets used a lot during the winter, of course, but still, we can heat our house on a lot less gas than smaller houses. We have a lot of south facing windows and the sun comes in and heats up tile floors.
Car makers have been very successful at making cars with more power, a LOT less pollution, and very good gas mileage. It took about 10 years for that to be accomplished, once congress mandated it.
Now if we could just get congress to mandate better building codes....
 
Get a grip people Obama is a damn liar from start to the last word out of his Socialist/Marxist mouth.

He said the stimulus billions of dollars would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

What is it now? Latest number is 9.6.

He said his Stimulus plan would create jobs.

Los Angeles spent 111 million dollars in Stimulus Plan money and created a Grand total of 54 jobs.

Do the math, it comes to $2,055,555.55 per job.

Then we have to look at the "Cash for Clunker" debacle which was going to help American Auto Manufacturers but sold more cars to Toyota and it only cost $28,000 per car sold to give buyers up to $5,000 per car.

Was that a good plan?

I think not. It killed the sale of the perfectly serviceable trade ins because they had by law to be destroyed, and the gain in fuel mileage is negligible, to boot.

Now that's an Obama plan at it's best at work.

But wait, it gets better or worse depending on your IQ. Those who scored under 60 think the Obama Plan has worked.

Those with an IQ above room temperature know it's a total disaster.

Those in the inner circle of Obama's cadre of radicals Socialist/Marxists know Obama is right on track with the Cloward & Pevin strategy to bring about total redistribution of wealth after destroying the economy.

The Cloward & Pevin plan is better know as Socialism/Marxism.

A brief look at Obama's Cap & Trade plan tells us it will push our economy off into an ABYSS of DEPRESSION and make 1929 look like a day when we all won the LOTTERY because it will push possibly millions of our citizens into poverty and cost tens of thousands of jobs, and all for a HOAX known as Global warming.

In his own words:




Now I know people like to say that I hate Obama and nothing could be farther from the truth. I wanted him to succeed until it became clear way before the election that there were very serious questions about his true nature, as has been shown in his support of Rev. Wright and black Liberation Theology which is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, Anti-Capitalism, and Anti-White People.

As a real Christian I hate no person and no sinner only the sin and in this case the Complete Ideology of the sinner.

With all this said it is clear to me that to believe Obama has a plan that actually WILL create jobs is to believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and that pigs can fly.

So in conclusion we can live without any more of Obama's amateurish approach and solutions to anything ever!

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything, Obama says.
 
Councilman said:
...excerpt

Then we have to look at the "Cash for Clunker" debacle which was going to help American Auto Manufacturers but sold more cars to Toyota and it only cost $28,000 per car sold to give buyers up to $5,000 per car.

Was that a good plan?

I think not. It killed the sale of the perfectly serviceable trade ins because they had by law to be destroyed, and the gain in fuel mileage is negligible, to boot.
Click to expand...

Didn't check everything in this post but decided to see for myself what the cost of the CARS program was. So, I found this on the Consumer Reports site (I hope we can agree that these folks are not politically biased). Consumer Reports Cars Blog: Cash for clunkers: The final results

Their conclusions don't agree with yours.

Also, aren't most of the Toyotas sold in America made in America?

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama – V6 and V8 Engines.
TABC, Inc., Long Beach, California – Catalytic Converters, Sheet Metal Stampings, Front End Assemblies.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Georgetown, Kentucky – Camry, Avalon, Solara convertible, and Venza as well as the AR and GR engines.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Princeton, Indiana – Sequoia, Sienna, and Highlander
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, San Antonio, Texas – Tundra
Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia, Buffalo, West Virginia – ZZ, MZ, and GR engines; automatic transaxles
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi, Tupelo, Mississippi – Prius Hybrid This facility is currently being built, and production is scheduled to start in 2010/2011. The facility will be named "Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc."
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Get a grip people Obama is a damn liar from start to the last word out of his Socialist/Marxist mouth.

He said the stimulus billions of dollars would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

What is it now? Latest number is 9.6.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the President can absolutely make such statement. It was clearly an estimate from the start. Like many of Bush's estimates on Iraq. Did Bush lie then? No.

He said his Stimulus plan would create jobs.

Los Angeles spent 111 million dollars in Stimulus Plan money and created a Grand total of 54 jobs.

Do the math, it comes to $2,055,555.55 per job.
Click to expand...

That is ignoring marginal propensity to spend.

Furthermore, I already addressed this post before and you ran away.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992945

Then we have to look at the "Cash for Clunker" debacle which was going to help American Auto Manufacturers but sold more cars to Toyota and it only cost $28,000 per car sold to give buyers up to $5,000 per car.

Was that a good plan?

I think not. It killed the sale of the perfectly serviceable trade ins because they had by law to be destroyed, and the gain in fuel mileage is negligible, to boot.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lean-energy-boost-jobs-18.html#post1059006955

Already addressed. The destruction of the cars was a bad idea no doubt, but CARS was nothing more then a repackaged bonus depreciation kind of spending incentive we saw under Bush.

Now that's an Obama plan at it's best at work.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's a consumer version of bonus depreciation. The kind that was started under Bush in 2001. It's a pilfered Bush idea. And not bad one either.

But wait, it gets better or worse depending on your IQ. Those who scored under 60 think the Obama Plan has worked.

Those with an IQ above room temperature know it's a total disaster.
Click to expand...

Councilman, wrong as usual:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lean-energy-boost-jobs-18.html#post1059006955

Those in the inner circle of Obama's cadre of radicals Socialist/Marxists know Obama is right on track with the Cloward & Pevin strategy to bring about total redistribution of wealth after destroying the economy.
Click to expand...

You not liking something does not equate to it being socialist or Marxist. Furthermore, you cannot even define either term. What makes you think you can use them properly?

Furthermore, Cap and Trade as a market principle for reducing emissions works. The Sulfur cap and trade vastly reduced sulfur emissions. Maybe you think that was a failure too?

Now I know people like to say that I hate Obama and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Click to expand...

Cuz you do? He does the same things as Bush and you bash him constantly yet refuse to bash Bush for doing the same things.

Stop reading Newsmax. That's your first problem.
 
obvious Child said:
I wasn't aware that the President can absolutely make such statement. It was clearly an estimate from the start. Like many of Bush's estimates on Iraq. Did Bush lie then? No.

He said his Stimulus plan would create jobs.



That is ignoring marginal propensity to spend.

Furthermore, I already addressed this post before and you ran away.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bs-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-5.html#post1058992945



http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lean-energy-boost-jobs-18.html#post1059006955

Already addressed. The destruction of the cars was a bad idea no doubt, but CARS was nothing more then a repackaged bonus depreciation kind of spending incentive we saw under Bush.



Not really. It's a consumer version of bonus depreciation. The kind that was started under Bush in 2001. It's a pilfered Bush idea. And not bad one either.



Councilman, wrong as usual:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lean-energy-boost-jobs-18.html#post1059006955



You not liking something does not equate to it being socialist or Marxist. Furthermore, you cannot even define either term. What makes you think you can use them properly?

Furthermore, Cap and Trade as a market principle for reducing emissions works. The Sulfur cap and trade vastly reduced sulfur emissions. Maybe you think that was a failure too?



Cuz you do? He does the same things as Bush and you bash him constantly yet refuse to bash Bush for doing the same things.

Stop reading Newsmax. That's your first problem.
Click to expand...

We lost 293,000 jobs this summer. Doesn't appear that the stealfromus package did much-a-anything.
 
apdst said:
We lost 293,000 jobs this summer. Doesn't appear that the stealfromus package did much-a-anything.
Click to expand...

So you think without the stimulus we would have lower unemployment?

Okay boy genius, answer me this.

Without the stimulus, taxes would be higher and there would be less demand. Explain to me how higher taxes and less demand equates to more jobs. Or you could just run away throwing mindless irrelevant crap as a subsitute for a real reply.
 
obvious Child said:
So you think without the stimulus we would have lower unemployment?

Okay boy genius, answer me this.

Without the stimulus, taxes would be higher and there would be less demand. Explain to me how higher taxes and less demand equates to more jobs. Or you could just run away throwing mindless irrelevant crap as a subsitute for a real reply.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!! Really? Care to prove that???

The mindless, irrelavant crap, is in your post...:rofl
 
apdst said:
LMAO!!! Really? Care to prove that???
Click to expand...

Easy. One merely needs to look at the actual stimulus bill. The Stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts. And the rest was spending. Do you reject that? Therefore, without the stimulus, we would have higher taxes and less demand. You know, you could educate yourself for once.

The mindless, irrelavant crap, is in your post...:rofl
Click to expand...

Correction. You have no reply. And you are genetically incapable of admitting you are wrong.
 
obvious Child said:
Easy. One merely needs to look at the actual stimulus bill. The Stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts. And the rest was spending. Do you reject that? Therefore, without the stimulus, we would have higher taxes and less demand. You know, you could educate yourself for once.



Correction. You have no reply. And you are genetically incapable of admitting you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Genetically speaking, he is from south Louisiana. Not much different than east Texas, where I grew up. They used to be mostly democrats, until LBJ signed the civil rights bill.
 
obvious Child said:
Easy. One merely needs to look at the actual stimulus bill. The Stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts. And the rest was spending. Do you reject that? Therefore, without the stimulus, we would have higher taxes and less demand. You know, you could educate yourself for once.



Correction. You have no reply. And you are genetically incapable of admitting you are wrong.
Click to expand...

But, who's taxes got cut? The welfare class?

Business taxes weren't cut. You know, the folks that actually put people to work?
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Genetically speaking, he is from south Louisiana. Not much different than east Texas, where I grew up. They used to be mostly democrats, until LBJ signed the civil rights bill.
Click to expand...

Didn't take very long to resort to the, "you's a racist", argument.
 
obvious Child said:
Easy. One merely needs to look at the actual stimulus bill. The Stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts. And the rest was spending. Do you reject that? Therefore, without the stimulus, we would have higher taxes and less demand. You know, you could educate yourself for once.



Correction. You have no reply. And you are genetically incapable of admitting you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Look at the nature of the "tax cuts". Much of it went to pay down credit card and mortgage debt. That is why we did not get the multiplier effect we expected.

Was there some short term positives, yes. The question is it woth the long term cost. We will spend about $800 billion on stimulus. That means at a normalized 5% interest rate on the 10 year it will cost us $40 billion per year forever. So many feel that the short term benefit is outweighted by the long term cost.

So the next generation will pay $40 billion each year so that we would have a better economy for 1-2 quarters in 2010. I think that is a lousy deal for my son.
 
obvious Child said:
Easy. One merely needs to look at the actual stimulus bill. The Stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts. And the rest was spending. Do you reject that?
Click to expand...

Yes. A 'tax credit' is not the same thing as a 'tax cut'.....You do know the difference do you not?


j-mac
 
apdst said:
But, who's taxes got cut? The welfare class?
Click to expand...

Nice fallacy of changing the subject. Do you reject that the stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts and the rest spending? Tell me how without the stimulus there would be lower taxes and more demand.

Business taxes weren't cut. You know, the folks that actually put people to work?
Click to expand...

Technically not true. As the Republicans like to point out, much of the business at stake is small businesses reported on schedule C of the form 1040. The same return that various tax credits went to.

I see you don't want to admit that the stimulus resulted in less taxes and more demand. But I have realized honesty is something you do not think highly of.
 
washunut said:
Look at the nature of the "tax cuts". Much of it went to pay down credit card and mortgage debt. That is why we did not get the multiplier effect we expected.
Click to expand...

That's true. But your point does not change the fact that the stimulus reduced taxes. The structure and size of the stimulus tax cuts were a problem. But that doesn't change the fact it reduced taxes, something Apdst is desperately attempting to avoid admitting.

Was there some short term positives, yes. The question is it woth the long term cost. We will spend about $800 billion on stimulus. That means at a normalized 5% interest rate on the 10 year it will cost us $40 billion per year forever. So many feel that the short term benefit is outweighted by the long term cost.
Click to expand...

True, but that can be said of basically any spending, including debt financed tax cuts. The sad thing is without the lowered taxes and increased demand, we'd be in real pain and people like J-mac and Adpst would be calling for Obama to blow the bank.

So the next generation will pay $40 billion each year so that we would have a better economy for 1-2 quarters in 2010. I think that is a lousy deal for my son.
Click to expand...

Eh. That's not really the big cost. Worry that your grandchildren will have to pay for $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The debt is minor comparatively. As I pointed out before, if Obama and Bush had spent exactly Zero dollars and increased the debt by Zero dollars, we'd still be boned.

America's unfunded liabilities are far more scary then our debt. But I have never seen a partisan ever admit this.
 
obvious Child said:
That's true. But your point does not change the fact that the stimulus reduced taxes. The structure and size of the stimulus tax cuts were a problem. But that doesn't change the fact it reduced taxes, something Apdst is desperately attempting to avoid admitting.
Click to expand...

If you believe that then you are truly misreading adpst. No one can argue that tucked within the massive porkulus bill that tax breaks for certain behaviors were present. Just as you and other liberals desperately avoid calling them what they are in reality, credits, not cuts.


True, but that can be said of basically any spending, including debt financed tax cuts. The sad thing is without the lowered taxes and increased demand, we'd be in real pain and people like J-mac and Adpst would be calling for Obama to blow the bank.
Click to expand...

Is that so? You liberals must have one reliable crystal ball that you use. Heck, you can tell what would have happened had Obama taken a different path with the economy, now you can tell what myself and others would have posted? That's impressive. However, you are wrong. Trouble is, we are still going to feel the pain, only when it does hit, Obama policies will have magnified it.

Eh. That's not really the big cost. Worry that your grandchildren will have to pay for $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The debt is minor comparatively. As I pointed out before, if Obama and Bush had spent exactly Zero dollars and increased the debt by Zero dollars, we'd still be boned.
Click to expand...


More like $110 Trillion, or $393K per citizen. And you should ask yourself why that is? Is it less spending, less borrowing? Or is it that Obama has blown a hole in the debt, along with other repub, and liberal politicians that continue to tax, spend, and borrow us out of existence?

It starts with misrepresenting the difference between a tax cut, and tax credit. Small piece I know, but all in all symptomatic of the larger problem of politicians lying to us.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

America's unfunded liabilities are far more scary then our debt. But I have never seen a partisan ever admit this.
Click to expand...



Then you are simply not paying attention. Either on purpose, or not.


j-mac
 
obvious Child said:
Nice fallacy of changing the subject. Do you reject that the stimulus was 36.6% tax cuts and the rest spending? Tell me how without the stimulus there would be lower taxes and more demand.



Technically not true. As the Republicans like to point out, much of the business at stake is small businesses reported on schedule C of the form 1040. The same return that various tax credits went to.

I see you don't want to admit that the stimulus resulted in less taxes and more demand. But I have realized honesty is something you do not think highly of.
Click to expand...

You still haven't shown us who's taxes were cut. There certainly weren't across the board tax cuts.
 
obvious Child said:
That's true. But your point does not change the fact that the stimulus reduced taxes. The structure and size of the stimulus tax cuts were a problem. But that doesn't change the fact it reduced taxes, something Apdst is desperately attempting to avoid admitting.



True, but that can be said of basically any spending, including debt financed tax cuts. The sad thing is without the lowered taxes and increased demand, we'd be in real pain and people like J-mac and Adpst would be calling for Obama to blow the bank.



Eh. That's not really the big cost. Worry that your grandchildren will have to pay for $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The debt is minor comparatively. As I pointed out before, if Obama and Bush had spent exactly Zero dollars and increased the debt by Zero dollars, we'd still be boned.

America's unfunded liabilities are far more scary then our debt. But I have never seen a partisan ever admit this.
Click to expand...

My arguement is less about spending money on stimulus versus how we spent it. If we had really done a good job of fixing our infrastructure I could have called it an investment. There is so much to fix, railroad tracks so trains can run faster, bridges, wireless, airports you get the point.

Also I wouldnot minimize the additional $800 billion. To paraphrase a senator from a generation ago, a trillion here a trillion there before you know it adds up to real money!

Again, the biggest item in the $50 trillion ( some people think it is closer to $100 trillion) is Medicare. Which again points to the failure of the HC bill to do what we needed it to do.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Until that "green" energy is cheap enough to compete with the supposed "dirty" energy, it will flop, not create a lot of jobs, waste money or some combination of the three.
Click to expand...

The Bloom Box is currently being tested by eBay, Fedex, Wal-Mart, Staples, the San Francisco Airport, and the CIA.

10 years from now, fossil fuels will be history.
 
j-mac said:
If you believe that then you are truly misreading adpst.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Adpst just refuses to admit he's wrong. Like usual. He asked me to prove that the stimulus cut taxes. I cited that it was 36.6% tax cuts. To say it did not cut taxes is arguing that tax cuts don't cut taxes. Hence why he's dancing around trying to avoid he was wrong.

No one can argue that tucked within the massive porkulus bill that tax breaks for certain behaviors were present. Just as you and other liberals desperately avoid calling them what they are in reality, credits, not cuts.
Click to expand...

Tell me, if my marginal effective rate I pay on my taxes drops this year from last year, do I pay less taxes? Let's see if you can answer this honestly. I'm betting not. If I pay 25% rather then 27% because of various tax items in the Stimulus bill, has my taxes gone down assuming the same AGI and structural type of income? :2wave:

Is that so? You liberals must have one reliable crystal ball that you use.
Click to expand...

It's called history. Something you should actually study.

Heck, you can tell what would have happened had Obama taken a different path with the economy, now you can tell what myself and others would have posted?
Click to expand...

Sure. Look at IMF bailout countries. They cut spending to the bone. Did that work for them? You know, you COULD get your information from reputable sources for a change. Want to point to a country that went from severe recession to economic growth by cutting spending in a short period of time? Good luck with that.

That's impressive. However, you are wrong. Trouble is, we are still going to feel the pain, only when it does hit, Obama policies will have magnified it.
Click to expand...

And I predict you will not be able to find a single country that I ask for. Does history support J-mac? No. Just like the fact that cops cannot threaten to rape and murder suspects' families during interrogations despite your argument otherwise.

More like $110 Trillion, or $393K per citizen.
Click to expand...

Correction. $100 trillion.
American Thinker: Is the US Government bankrupt?

And you should ask yourself why that is?
Click to expand...

Decades of government mismanagement, expansion of entitlements and Americans' refusal to cut. I wasn't aware that Obama was in power for decades. Please show evidence of this.

Is it less spending, less borrowing?
Click to expand...

Technically it's neither. The $100 trillion is a projected cost of entitlement spending over projected revenues. No actual spending or borrowing has occurred. Hence why they call it "unfunded liabilities." A liability is a future obligation. No actual monies have been spent for it or borrowed for it. Good job on financial fail there.

Or is it that Obama has blown a hole in the debt, along with other repub, and liberal politicians that continue to tax, spend, and borrow us out of existence?
Click to expand...

See above. Your ignorance coupled with partisan hackery is causing a severe failure to understand the subject.

It starts with misrepresenting the difference between a tax cut, and tax credit. Small piece I know, but all in all symptomatic of the larger problem of politicians lying to us.
Click to expand...

All that matters is effective marginal tax rates. I got plenty of clients that would see higher effective marginal taxes if statutory tax rates went down but key tax credits and deductions went away as well. Statutory tax rates don't tell you anything (well, if you have any idea of how taxes actually work, hint: not you).

Then you are simply not paying attention. Either on purpose, or not.
Click to expand...

The irony on that post is hilarious. Someone who bashes Obama and blames him for the unfunded liabilities claims I'm not paying attention when those unfunded liabilities started well before Obama even got out of grade school. You remind me of the people who blamed Clinton for the savings and loan disaster. Never mind he wasn't in power.
 
apdst said:
You still haven't shown us who's taxes were cut. There certainly weren't across the board tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Still refusing to admit you are wrong eh?

How about you read the stimulus bill code? Hint: it's not hard to know who's taxes were cut. Google "$400 tax credit" you know. Educate yourself.

Tell me, how would jobs pick up with higher taxes and less demand? Or you can run away like you always do.
 
washunut said:
My arguement is less about spending money on stimulus versus how we spent it.
Click to expand...

No question. But to deny that taxes decreased because of the stimulus bill is basically pretending that everyone who got the $400 credit didn't get the credit. Not completely out of character for some people here though.

If we had really done a good job of fixing our infrastructure I could have called it an investment. There is so much to fix, railroad tracks so trains can run faster, bridges, wireless, airports you get the point.]
Click to expand...

True. but we should also realize that kenysian economics has never fixed a financial crisis. Neither has supply side. I keep making this challenge and partisan keep running away from showing me how supply side has fixed a historical financial recession. Kenysian/supply side can merely blunt the pain. They will not fix it. You cannot spend you way out of a financial crisis. Nor can you cut you way out of it either. You must address the cause of the financial recession and restore financial and lending markets. It is amazing just how few people here understand that.

Again, the biggest item in the $50 trillion ( some people think it is closer to $100 trillion) is Medicare. Which again points to the failure of the HC bill to do what we needed it to do.
Click to expand...

True. The ugly fact is neither party will do what is necessary. The GOP attacked the healthcare bill by saying it would cut seniors' medicare. They were defending it. We're going to have to get to the point where Medicare is 80% of our budget before a party does what is necessary.
 
obvious Child said:
Still refusing to admit you are wrong eh?

How about you read the stimulus bill code? Hint: it's not hard to know who's taxes were cut. Google "$400 tax credit" you know. Educate yourself.

Tell me, how would jobs pick up with higher taxes and less demand? Or you can run away like you always do.
Click to expand...

Again, please, tell us exactly who's taxes were cut. Since you're so much smarter and more knowledgable than the rest of us, it should be a piece of cake to show us that information
 
obvious Child said:
No question. But to deny that taxes decreased because of the stimulus bill is basically pretending that everyone who got the $400 credit didn't get the credit. Not completely out of character for some people here though.



True. but we should also realize that kenysian economics has never fixed a financial crisis. Neither has supply side. I keep making this challenge and partisan keep running away from showing me how supply side has fixed a historical financial recession. Kenysian/supply side can merely blunt the pain. They will not fix it. You cannot spend you way out of a financial crisis. Nor can you cut you way out of it either. You must address the cause of the financial recession and restore financial and lending markets. It is amazing just how few people here understand that.



True. The ugly fact is neither party will do what is necessary. The GOP attacked the healthcare bill by saying it would cut seniors' medicare. They were defending it. We're going to have to get to the point where Medicare is 80% of our budget before a party does what is necessary.
Click to expand...

Pt #1- never said there were no tax cuts.

Pt #2- I agree that in this type of recession throwing money was not the fix. However if you want to put some people to work during this period which is what the stimulus did then I would have preferred to have them do something that would have long term benefits to our economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom