The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Reptiles: how would you balance the federal budget?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:17 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant Or substantially reduce the deficit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107455) |
 |
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:24 PM Author: abnormal effete site Retirement age/medicare age both increased by 10 years in graduated steps over 10 years.
Begin mean testing of ss/medicare and eliminate 30% of recipients starting with new applicants/1 year delay, etc.
Increase all marginal rates 1-2%, eliminate EIC, eliminate MID for AGI above 300k (not sure how big of an impact that last one would have); increase qualified dividend rate to max out at 20% (lower of person's top marginal rate and 20%).
Lower Estate/Gift/GSTT tax credits to 3m/person.
Reduce food stamps funding by 10% this year, 20% next year.
Reduce medicaid spending by 10% this year, 20% next year.
How close am I?
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:30 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant You tell me
Btw re raising retirement age, you realize that your incremental approach is functionally equivalent to doing it all at once? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:14 PM Author: infuriating pale range toaster Increasing taxes on the poor by getting rid of the EIC! That's great. Great great great. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107803) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:58 PM Author: abnormal effete site AND increase marginal rates AND dividend rates, both rich/poor pay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109486) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:39 PM Author: infuriating pale range toaster Squeezing money from the poor seems like a stupid idea. Make the rich pay and subsidize the working poor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110089) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:52 PM Author: Adventurous chrome parlour background story Greetings, Why do graduated steps 10yrs over 10yrs? Think about how that plays out: 2012: RA is 65, 65yos retire 2013: RA is 66, 66yos already retired last year 2014: RA is 67, 67yos already retired two years ago 2015: RA is 68, 68yos already retired three years ago ... 2022: RA is 75, 75yos already retired 10 years ago 2023: RA is 75, finally a new wave of people can retire (those who were 64 in 2012) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:54 PM Author: abnormal effete site i was just spitballing, but the basic idea is a good one and i think one many people agree with, also if we do anything with age we need to do it, if possible, to delay the glut of boomers coming in the next 15 years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109465) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:17 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea what % of the budget is food stamps? Is this just a gesture to reptiles so they can feel better about all those undeserving minorities eating on their dime? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109215) |
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:28 PM Author: drab exhilarant theater indirect expression cut taxes for corps and wealthy, cut off all foreign aid, EPA, NASA, welfare (for blacks and mexicans), bill wall along mexican border, raise taxes on poor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107526) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:31 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant I don't think that would close DAT gap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107544) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:32 PM Author: Rambunctious casino He's a shitlib pretending to be a reptile (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107559) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:55 PM Author: Bronze exciting wagecucks theatre no, he was a reptile pretending to be a liberal pretending to be a reptile (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107706) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:28 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Honestly, I'd get rid of SS and medicare. Yes I know that the boomers were promised this, but I'm not sympathetic: they paid into a program and then fell asleep at the wheel to, and were complicit in, the government spending the tax dollars rather than investing them.
None of us were of age to vote while this was going on. The boomers paid into the programs, then elected the assholes who depleted the funds. I say fuck them. They should have seen this coming and they should have saved accordingly. We shouldn't be paying this shit off for the next 100 years. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:29 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Get rid of nearly all federal entitlement programs. Let the states take on this responsibility. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107531) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:33 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant Why don't Republicans propose a budget with no $ do for ss&medicare? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107569) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:34 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Boomers still come out to vote in droves. Proposing any sort of cut to SS/Med would be a death sentence (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107576) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:35 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant Doesnt that make it impossible to offer a credible deficit reduction plan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107586) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:37 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Yes. You asked us what we would do. You didn't ask us what was actually feasible.
If you're asking what's actually feasible, the answer is quite simple: We're fucked. We will never balance the budget during our lifetime. Our kids might, but our generation is lined up to be more reliant on the gov't for everything (employment, retirement, etc.) than the boomers were.
We're fucked. Accept it. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:40 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant It's troubling that one of the major national parties is incapable of putting forth a credible budget or being honest about their intentions (you can say the same for the Dems if you like, but that only strengthens my point) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107624) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:42 PM Author: gay police squad The Dems are openly pro-transfer. At least with the repubs at this point there is at least a possibility, however small but certainly not more, of less than the Dem status quo, who by virtue of the ACA have doubled down on ponzi scheming. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107635) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:47 PM Author: Rambunctious casino 1) You had no point. You asked why the Republicans don't do A, and I told you that neither Republicans nor Democrats can do A. Neither your question, nor my statement, reflects the mores of the party. Your question, and my answer, simply reflect the current state of affairs--that both parties are impotent to change those programs, even if they wanted to.
2) Seeing as how most Republican lawmakers are boomers themselves, it's unlikely that they are being "dishonest" when they say that they want to cut taxes without touching those programs. Even if they aren't boomers, they aren't being dishonest if they don't want to cut programs their constituents support. I think you need to refresh your knowledge of Democratic workings. Generally, elected politicians do what the electorate wants them to do. Believe it or not, but this is by design. Or perhaps the difficulty your having is with the definition of "dishonest." Either way, think before you post.
3) You're assuming that a credible budget can only exist if it cuts SS + Medicare. That's a big assumption, and you're losing points for it. Although I think the system is fucked until we cut them, many others will disagree. Still, let's assume--as you have--that cutting those programs is the only way to totally fix the deficit. That still doesn't rule out the possibility for "credible" budgets that might be a partial fix.
This thread isn't going too well for you, I'm afraid. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:20 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant Epic retarded word salad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108527) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:44 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Ding fag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108673) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:21 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea We can make moderate cuts / reforms to SS and medicare to control costs. president would like to get rid of bush tax cuts in excess of 500k/some high income ... president was ready to agree to a budget reduction plan that was 10-1 cuts to tax increases. Republicans refused. Jeb Bush even said that was stupid and that he would agree to such a compromise.
Obviously that plan would not fix our problems entirely. It will take years. but it would be an enormous step in the right direction.
Both parties are NOT impotent to change Medicare and SS. Republicans have, the past few years, refused to yield an inch for purely political reasons. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:22 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Please link to democrats proposing cuts to M + SS. PLEASE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109268) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:40 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea First, but weakest point is that Obama arguably already has.
Romney said Obama "is the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare." It wasn’t a cut, rather a reduction in future growth (the size of the Medicare program will increase dollar-wise). And other presidents have cut Medicare in the past, though you can debate whether specific changes to the program constitute a "cut" in some of those cases as well.
Here are links to the PROPOSED deficit reduction plan, that I directly referred to: "President Obama’s budget director said Monday that the president’s new deficit-reduction plan would impose “a lot of pain,” and that is clearly true of White House proposals to cut $320 billion from projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid in the coming decade."
"In his plan to trim the federal deficit, President Barack Obama Monday proposed $320 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, largely by changing how the federal government pays health providers, slashing payments to drug companies, and dramatically changing the way it splits the costs of Medicaid with the states, according to a fact sheet the White House released."
These were probably the first two google results, but I think it makes my point. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:43 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea A more recent article with the same propositions http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/February/13/Obama-readies-budget.aspx (several mainstream newspapers cited in the kaiser article)
Here's the Washington post on Obama proposing social security cuts
"President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action."
Are you getting the fucking point yet? the president has taken a moderate, compromise approach to deficit reduction and has been sandbagged by Republicans because he BOXED THEM OUT. HE GETS CREDIT FOR A REASONABLE COMPROMISE, THEY REFUSE TO HAND HIM A POLITICAL VICTORY AND WE SUFFER. AS A COUNTRY. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:13 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Here let me spell it out of you:
BLOCKING FUTURE BENEFICIARIES FROM MEDICARE DOESN'T DO SHIT TO SOLVE THE 70 TRILLION IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES FOR CURRENT BENEFICIARIES |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:36 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea I'm done talking to you until you pull your head out of your ass and read a legitimate newspaper often enough to remember major policy positions taken by our president (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109673) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:01 PM Author: gay police squad like you said, the 500B is not a cut. It's a reduction in projected future growth in MC, the assumption for which is based on obamacare slowing MC entitlement claims, and obamacare, whether it reduces MC entitlement claims or not, is projected to cost 1.1T. Spending 1.1T to save at best 500B isn't sound economics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109499) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:06 PM Author: Pearl marketing idea The implications of the ACA are big - it is not meant solely to save the government money, but increase access to care and the means to pay for that care.
Regardless, I don't think the 500B from the ACA is an actual cut. I agree with the fact check website that it is not a "cut" - and that Romney is wrong when he says Obama cut 500billion from medicare.
(repeat that one again ... romeny attacking the president for allegedly cutting medicare).
I did, however, make my point that the President has proposed cuts to medicare and social security. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:14 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Those aren't "cuts" in the meaningful sense. It's Obama posturing that he'll "cut" the beauracratic burdens--not benefits. Which he hasn't done, btw
Also, 320 billion doesn't do SHIT to the problem (70 trillion), so that's hardly a solution. Start cutting 15-20 trillion and I'll concede |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:30 PM Author: nudist sickened piazza "president was ready to agree to a budget reduction plan that was 10-1 cuts to tax increases. Republicans refused."
This never happened. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:37 PM Author: lilac stag film sneaky criminal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3yHa8brzNA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107594) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:39 PM Author: Rambunctious casino That video is fucking infuriating: "We are 50 million seniors who earned our benefits"
No. You're 50 million seniors who knowingly paid into a Ponzi scheme. You're 50 million seniors who knowingly saddled your children with enormous debt so you could be prodigal with your earnings. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:43 PM Author: lilac stag film sneaky criminal someone should set that guy on fire. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107640) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:10 PM Author: copper floppy keepsake machete earned their benefits? I guarantee the average senior hasn't paid a tenth in medicare payments of what they will cost the US in health care. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109539) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:13 PM Author: copper floppy keepsake machete the comments are great. people are angry at boomers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109557) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:37 PM Author: gay police squad This. Both parties are held hostage. The better candidate in the one who doesn't further wealth transfer to boomers rather than eliminate the transfers entirely, at this point.
Balancing the budget at this point would require major if not insurmountable sea change. 2012 is just about voting for the guy who will further the damage the least. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 12:44 PM Author: Carnelian seedy trailer park i assure you that cutting taxes will be an economic disaster, especially when coupled with austerity measures. this will kill demand and lead to negative gdp growth. household deleveraging has only begun. short of a rapid onset of the third industrial revolution, deleveraging will continue for the next several years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107647) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:32 PM Author: nudist sickened piazza We are living in a bubble buttfuck. There are no other options. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110038) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:03 PM Author: big-titted excitant bbw national 1. Immediate 5% across the board cuts. No exceptions. Not a reduction in budget increase, a real cut. Each department can find how it wants to implement these.
2. Means test all entitlements. That includes Medicare and social security. Entitlements should never go to the wealthy.
3. Decrease corporate taxes to be competitive, one time tax amnesty for bringing back money parked overseas to invest here.
4. Kill all bullshit like NPR/NEA etc. yeah, it's not much but it's symbolic and important that people don't feel the budget is being balanced on their backs.
5. End all corporate subsidies. No exceptions. That includes all energy subsidies and all farm subsidies.
6. End all bullshit green energy incentives. This shit either makes sense economically (like installing weather stripping) or it doesn't (installing solar panels) people can make their own economic choices.
7. Flatten and broaden the tax rates. Maybe not flat, but the high end is too high and low end too low.
8. End all bullshit manned space flight programs.
9. End all bullshit tax deductions like mortgage interest rate deduction. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:09 PM Author: Submissive box office sex offender i'm a "lib" by xoxo standards, but i can actually get behind a significant number of these positions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107766) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:16 PM Author: infuriating pale range toaster This is more of a libertarian view, not a Republican view. I do support it except for the NASA ax thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107835) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:19 PM Author: coral motley parlor i think getting rid of manned space flight but keeping NASA around is a very reasonable position. there's a lot of basic science and research that can be done very cheaply compared to manned space flight (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107891) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:23 PM Author: Submissive box office sex offender my beefs:
4: this is stupid and pointless and i'm not big on making grand gestures simply for the sake of making grand gestures. there is nothing wrong with a modicum of gov't spending on culture, and this won't affect the budget so fuck it.
7: good idea, but i also think we need to maintain a graduated rate structure so as not to render them unduly regressive. imho we are all well-served by low tax rates for those living paycheck to paycheck, since every dime they have gets pumped into the market.
8: not a problem in theory, but i do reject the notion that there isn't a role for gov't in funding R&D. but i do think there are better ways to do that than the ones we presently employ |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:33 PM Author: nudist sickened piazza The oecd named us the most progressive tax country in the world. There is no chance they will be too regressive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110053) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:15 PM Author: infuriating pale range toaster Increase the Medicare/Medicaid lookback to 10 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21107821) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:56 PM Author: Adventurous chrome parlour background story Greetings, I can get behind a number of them, but #8 is pretty ridic considering we have to get off this fucking rock or a supercaldera will extinctify us sooner or later |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 8:25 PM Author: big-titted excitant bbw national An extinction event on earth will doom humans forever. There is no getting off this rock permanently no matter how many trillions we spend on it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110495) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 1:25 PM Author: Big garrison i dont consider myself a "reptile" bc im pretty moderate, but i will take a stab at this. (although i guess i have never & will never vote for a libtarded democrat & my fondest wish is 2 personally slit the throat of every single xo shitlib & bathe in their blood)
anyway it seems 2 me that if we cut bs libtarded programs that pay for "scientists" 2 study squirrel fertility & "artists" to smear excrement all over themselves, NPR, NEA, NSF, NASA, slash education funding, & completely eliminate welfare state handouts 2 freebooting minorities while stimulating the economy & encouraging job creation by cutting the capital gains tax, corporate tax rate, & income tax rate for top tax brackets we should be alright within a year or two. in fact we'd prolly have enough extra cash 2 comfortably increase defense spending by 10-20% cementing our status as the dominant nation |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:01 PM Author: violent field Subject: c LOL at you idiots not even talking about military cuts. Cut that shit 75 percent. We spend more than the next 20 countries combined.
Reinstate the bush tax cuts for the rich
Tax all capital gains for the rich as regular income
Lower tax rate for interest to 10 percent
Blocks mortgage income deduction for the rich
Get rid of charitable tax deduction for donations
Tax all white Americans an extra 10 percent, 20 if they are fat and lazy.
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:26 PM Author: cheese-eating legal warrant Your expenditure cuts are likely much smaller than your revenue cuts and you expect a 1T+ deficit to close on its own thanks to the stimulus provided by lower taxes?
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:02 PM Author: 180 temple LOL at all these fucking reptiles refusing to suggest cutting even a dollar from defense spending.
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:45 PM Author: Rambunctious casino Defense spending is a little more important than giving 9-year old Tommy in Maine a brand new iPad for "learning", faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108356) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:29 PM Author: 180 temple AKA don't cut programs I agree with, cut the ones I don't agree with.
No better than the shitlibs you get MAF about for giving iPads to kids (how do I get in on that BTW). Enjoy those millions of tax dollars going to Halliburton so they can research the DEADLY BROWN TREE SNAKE. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 3:44 PM Author: Rambunctious casino "AKA don't cut programs I agree with, cut the ones I don't agree with."
Duh you fucking faggot. But at least my biases are driven by my desire to improve the economy and make America more efficient. Libs couldn't give a fuck about that--gotta have that welfare, birth control, and those iPads! |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: 180 temple Did the bulb in your heat lamp burn out this morning? You are MAF, breh.
Much defense spending is pure corporate welfare. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 4:24 PM Author: Rambunctious casino lol shitlib (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108958) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:35 PM Author: nudist sickened piazza He's right. Not sure why any sane person thinks we need a military as large as we do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110065) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 8:26 PM Author: big-titted excitant bbw national I just stated there was an across the board 5% budgetary cut. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110509) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:42 PM Author: Pearly supple hall Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:38 PM Author: nudist sickened piazza That was easy. Clicked damn near every box. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21110085) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:47 PM Author: Wine metal cruise ship the entire Reptile economic plan is basically throwing sand bags from a hot air balloon (cutting taxes) in order to give it more lift.
unfortunately, at some point you run out of sand bags |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 2:48 PM Author: Rambunctious casino (can't craft a counter argument, so crafts a bad analogy instead) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108375) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 4:15 PM Author: sadistic vigorous crackhouse preventive strike This analogy backfires big time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21108891) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 4:19 PM Author: sadistic vigorous crackhouse preventive strike Nice quick vids on topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES9C7fX_Co&feature=plcp
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0RkWqyn1y4&feature=relmfu |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 4:27 PM Author: Sexy ladyboy hissy fit - Slash defense spending
- Slash entitlement spending (fuck you olds)
- Increase estate taxes
- More tax brackets. Not clear why a guy that earns $15 million in a year pays the same marginal rate as a guy who makes $400k/year. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:12 PM Author: iridescent round eye immigrant Same.
After percentage cut to SS/MC (or no inflation adjustment for a while), I would slowly raise entitlement ages. Like 1 year increase every 2-3 years and then peg to some metric about average life expectancy/health. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:17 PM Author: Sexy ladyboy hissy fit tcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109219) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 5:47 PM Author: Indigo marvelous bawdyhouse prole holy shit medicare growth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109434) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 6:09 PM Author: hairless bat shit crazy kitchen queen of the night cut Medicare and SS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#21109530) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2012 7:19 PM Author: Insane Lavender Lodge Patrolman eliminate capital gains for companies w/ 90% American employees
|
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 7:28 PM Author: laughsome garnet affirmative action office where are we on this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1996472&forum_id=2...id.#49087902) |