Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-15-2011, 09:56 AM   #61
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
When I start seeing references to Fox News in a thread, it's coming dangerously close to the precipice (and the Pig). It's sort of like our version of Godwin's Law, I think.

This has mostly been a good thread so far. Let's not derail it with blatant ideological and partisan sludge.
Let's dial into MSNBC and see what they have to say on the subject ...

BTW, Fox shows include Glee, Bones, and House. I assume you are also against those?

Strictly news (per your reference)? Try dialing into Shep once in awhile. He blows the "big 3" away as far as news coverage, IMHO.

I know I'm going to get another "note" from the admins (what else is new), but when one comments on a preconceived idea (e.g. prejudice), I do get a bit nasty...
__________________

__________________
rescueme is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-15-2011, 10:02 AM   #62
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
That's one way to view it. Another would be (paraphrasing you) that the public employees contribution should have been higher to fully fund the pension, and that they were effectively getting a pay raise w/o that contribution. It is unfair now to say, in effect, "I'll keep all those prior contributions I could have made to fund the pension thank you, and that's just too bad for you, state taxpayer".
I wasn't aware that these plans allowed employees to "suspend" their pension plan contributions just because the state did. Am I missing something?

Just because the state was derelict in its duties to fund the pension plan each year as a component of employee compensation doesn't mean the employee did the same.
__________________

__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:02 AM   #63
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
Let's dial into MSNBC and see what they have to say on the subject ...

BTW, Fox shows include Glee, Bones, and House. I assume you are also against those?

Strictly news (per your reference)? Try dialing into Shep once in awhile. He blows the "big 3" away as far as news coverage, IMHO.

I know I'm going to get another "note" from the admins (what else is new), but when one comments on a preconceived idea (e.g. prejudice), I do get a bit nasty...
He didn't say "Fox", he said "Fox News". And yes, that would apply to all cable news.
__________________
MichaelB is online now  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:03 AM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
On an individual level, perhaps the taxpayer might have the expectation that his or her taxes are sufficient to pay the bills. But let's be realistic here; every year that the state did not make an adequate contribution to keep the state employee pension plan properly funded, the taxpayers as a group received a tax cut -- their taxes should have been higher to cover the state's legitimate bills that year. It is unfair now to say, in effect, "I'll keep all those prior tax cuts, thank you, and that's just too bad for you, state employee".
+1 Said it better than I could.
Actually, I will challenge this from one other angle, then go to work on my honey-do list

It would be different if they raised the taxes in 'real time' to fund the pensions. In that case, taxpayers would have a more realistic opportunity to raise the issue, complain about the higher taxes, and look into the issues behind them. And then, maybe they would push for adjustments. To do it after the fact would be like:

Say you buy a big screen TV for cash. You have every right to expect that you paid your money and that was that. Ten years later, the company is going out of business, and traces it back to the fact that it cut prices on its products years ago and didn't fund R&D and now they don't have compelling new products. So heck, since you got a deal on that TV years ago (it didn't include enough R&D expenses), the company can go back and retro-actively charge you that higher price for the TV.

I don't think you would go for that (you'd laugh and tell them to pound sand). But isn't that analogous to your view that taxpayers were getting a 'deal' at the time, and now it's time to pay up?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:08 AM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I wasn't aware that these plans allowed employees to "suspend" their pension plan contributions just because the state did. Am I missing something?

Just because the state was derelict in its duties to fund the pension plan each year as a component of employee compensation doesn't mean the employee did the same.
I'm just saying that would be one way to fully fund the pensions, through increased employee contributions. The funding is a combination of employee and taxpayer (employer). Somebody needs to fund it, and the employees are somebody.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:08 AM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You seem to think it is unreasonable for the recipient of the pension (the one most directly affected) to be reviewing the funding of said pension, and should just expect to get it, no matter any external events. OK, but...
Do I really think that? I've just reviewed what I posted most recently, and I don't find anything saying or implying I think public employees should not review funding of their pensions. Hawaii public employees, through their unions, did such reviews and were well aware of the machinations of the governor (Lingle) and legislature when the pension fund starting falling behind. You will see a reference in my post above to a 'HERS/union member suit alleging "skimming" and "actuarial unsoundness"' in 2002, unfortunately unsuccessful.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:09 AM   #67
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
Let's dial into MSNBC and see what they have to say on the subject ...

BTW, Fox shows include Glee, Bones, and House. I assume you are also against those?
Well, I think it's obvious Glee, Bones and House are programs on the Fox television network -- and that Fox News is something else entirely. Which means your point makes no sense whatsoever.

I just think this has been a surprisingly good thread for the most part, and references to "Fox News" (among other things) tend to cause them to decay into partisan political free-for-alls. Didn't want to see that happen here. It has nothing to do with being "for" or "against" anything.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:11 AM   #68
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Say you buy a big screen TV for cash. You have every right to expect that you paid your money and that was that. Ten years later, the company is going out of business, and traces it back to the fact that it cut prices on its products years ago and didn't fund R&D and now they don't have compelling new products. So heck, since you got a deal on that TV years ago (it didn't include enough R&D expenses), the company can go back and retro-actively charge you that higher price for the TV.

I don't think you would go for that (you'd laugh and tell them to pound sand). But isn't that analogous to your view that taxpayers were getting a 'deal' at the time, and now it's time to pay up?
I'd say you could also make a similar analogy that retroactively made employees pay more to keep their same promised level of pension benefits to make up for what their employer didn't contribute in years past.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:14 AM   #69
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
That's one way to view it. Another would be (paraphrasing you) that the public employees contribution should have been higher to fully fund the pension, and that they were effectively getting a pay raise w/o that contribution. It is unfair now to say, in effect, "I'll keep all those prior contributions I could have made to fund the pension thank you, and that's just too bad for you, state taxpayer".
No. The state had bills in the amount of $xxx in a particular year. Some of bills were for economic development grants, some of the bills for building public amenities like parks and roads, etc., some of the bills were salaries for current state employees, and some of the bills were for required contributions for the employee pension plan (as calculated by the actuaries). Because the elected public officials refused to raise taxes to cover all the bills, they had to short something. They chose to short the pension plan contributions. They could have shorted road construction or economic development or something else. They chose the pension contribution because the other things would be immediately noticeable. It had nothing to do with the level of employee contributions. It had to do with choices by the people we elected and their cowardice in not doing the right thing and raising taxes. Using your logic, we could just as easily go back to the road paving company and say "we paid you too richly, you'll have to give us some money back."
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:15 AM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,379
If I am reading the chart correctly, Greg, I would be worried that the accrued liabilities have increased more than the assumed 8% return on assets, the past decade. I say that only in that reaching just the 8% mark is hard enough. I know our pension just got it's accrued liabilities in line with 100% funded status using the 8% return assumption by reducing our COLA this year.
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:22 AM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Contracts to businesses, tax breaks, zoning exceptions are among the many actions that the politicians engage in, along with salary and pension, that lead inadequate public finances. To condemn one and not the others is not objective.
I didn't know I had to be all-inclusive in each post. No problem, I condemn all the things you mentioned, and more. I think I've complained about those exact issues in many other threads. I don't feel that I'm not being objective about it, it just isn't the topic of this thread.

Quote:
The elected political leadership is absolutely responsible for lousy public finances, followed by the unquestioning electorate.
I'll stand by my assertion that the Union reps fit in there. I said ahead of the politicians, but I'll accept 'equal to' or 'right behind', but IMO, definitely ahead of the electorate (I don't get to sit at a table and negotiate with the Gov), and I put the public employees ahead of the electorate.


Quote:
So the employee representative is more in the wrong for asking than the elected or appointed leader is for approving?

see above


Quote:
Sorry. The Governor, Mayor or City Council member is in charge, and they are well supported by auditors and financial professionals. When they commit to spending of any type that is not properly funded they are being duplicitous.

Employees and their unions are just one of many constituents that benefit from the City or State largess.
Agreed, but not really relevant to the thread, unless we start a thread on overall govt abuse.

GregLee - I'll re-read your posts later, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I gotta run now - later!


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:35 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Because the elected public officials refused to raise taxes to cover all the bills, they had to short something. They chose to short the pension plan contributions. They could have shorted road construction or economic development or something else. They chose the pension contribution because the other things would be immediately noticeable. It had nothing to do with the level of employee contributions.
Is this really true? I don't know, and don't have time to look it up now, but I was under the impression that IL made the contributions each year as required. They didn't 'short' that contribution and shift the money elsewhere, AFAIK. Now, it's true that those contributions were too low to fully fund the pension (or we would not be having the conversation). What I am saying is, the Union leaders had the responsibility to go to their rank and file, and explain that the pension was not being fully funded. And that they had two choices - ask the State (or whatever municipality is involved) to raise their contribution level, or ask the rank & file if they are willing to raise their contribution level (or a combo). Doing neither was kicking the can down the road.

And the Union reps, their rank & file, and the politicians were ALL closer to this than the general electorate, and should take more of the responsibility.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:39 AM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
If I am reading the chart correctly, Greg, I would be worried that the accrued liabilities have increased more than the assumed 8% return on assets, the past decade.
Clearly, Berish agrees with you, and that is a problem that he constructed his diagram to highlight. In another of the articles he wrote on the HERS, he makes a series of recommendations for amending the system, among which is:
Quote:
Require the actuary to certify that "actuarial assumptions", taken as a whole, represent the actuary's "best estimate": That is universally required of actuaries who service plans of non-government employers, but not of the HERS actuary. For example, the most powerful "assumption" is that the HERS fund will earn an average investment return of 8 percent, yet the actuary's report says it is "Set by the legislature" (I suspect that will come as a surprise to most lawmakers who cannot be blamed if they assumed it was recommended by the actuary or at the very minimum the endorsed by the actuary).
Honolulu Civil Beat - A Way To Save Hawaii's Government Employees' Retirement System - Article
By the way, I recall seeing elsewhere that the 8 percent assumption has now been changed to a 7 3/4 percent assumption. Not a sufficient change, but a step in the right direction.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:40 AM   #74
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Is this really true? I don't know, and don't have time to look it up now, but I was under the impression that IL made the contributions each year as required.
I don't know about IL. In my state they did not make required contributions for years.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:57 AM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
They chose to short the pension plan contributions. They could have shorted road construction or economic development or something else. They chose the pension contribution because the other things would be immediately noticeable.
I agree with what you've said, but I'm not, myself, of the opinion that the governor and the legislature did something stealthy and nefarious in Hawaii when they "borrowed" from the state pension fund. Hawaii has a balanced budget requirement in its constitution, and when times are tough and tax revenues fall, that makes it difficult for the state to meet its obligations to provide for the health, education, and welfare of its citizens. I don't think it was kept secret in the early 2000s that the state was using temporary changes to its pension contributions to fund other programs. And I don't see anything wrong with that, so long as, later, the state will restore the funds that it earlier failed to contribute. Now, the time has come to start putting back that money, and that is being done.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:21 AM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
While this may not be true for all jurisdictions, the one area in these public pensions that really gauls me, is when city worker (mostly its cops and firemen) somehow are able to put in ridiculous amounts overtime in their last few years, and as a result can walk away with pensions that far exceed their actual salary. I do not believe these plans were designed with the expectation they would be gamed, and this area is one that does not seem fair to the taxpayers. Those loop holes need to be closed and those in charge should not allow that practice to continue (except their doing it too). The City of Ft Worth has major funding problems due to this.

That said, I greatly admire all police and firemen, but nevertheless, I feel this is just plain wrong.
__________________
DFW_M5 is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:25 AM   #77
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,146
+1 . I can't blame any individual for taking advantage of the system that currently exists, but pension spiking really should be prohibited.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:42 AM   #78
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
No. The state had bills in the amount of $xxx in a particular year. Some of bills were for economic development grants, some of the bills for building public amenities like parks and roads, etc., some of the bills were salaries for current state employees, and some of the bills were for required contributions for the employee pension plan (as calculated by the actuaries). Because the elected public officials refused to raise taxes to cover all the bills, they had to short something. They chose to short the pension plan contributions. They could have shorted road construction or economic development or something else. They chose the pension contribution because the other things would be immediately noticeable. It had nothing to do with the level of employee contributions. It had to do with choices by the people we elected and their cowardice in not doing the right thing and raising taxes. Using your logic, we could just as easily go back to the road paving company and say "we paid you too richly, you'll have to give us some money back."
Exactly. The underfunded pension issue is framed improperly and blaming the unions is a red herring.

Underfunding pensions in the past was a deliberate choice that enabled politicians to spend more elsewhere, which they did. Some got paid and others got promises. To say now that the ones that got promises do not deserve to be paid is unacceptable, as is asking the victims to make up the loss, and blaming their representatives is another form of blaming the victim.

Instead of lowering the pension or demanding more from the employees why not go back and ask all those that got contracts and did business to return part of that money? Better yet, go back and assess the difference on the taxpayers of the past. And if that can't be done, then the taxpayers now will need to foot the bill. And perhaps more politicians need to be made accountable for their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
+1 . I can't blame any individual for taking advantage of the system that currently exists, but pension spiking really should be prohibited.
+1
__________________
MichaelB is online now  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:54 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Actually, I will challenge this from one other angle, then go to work on my honey-do list
From the rest of the entries in this thread I get the feeling you are blowing off your to-do-list. Tsk, tsk. Since I last posted I have been off on the bike checking out all of the marches/rallies downtown - unfortunately they were not very inspiring.
Quote:
It would be different if they raised the taxes in 'real time' to fund the pensions. To do it after the fact would be like:

Say you buy a big screen TV for cash. You have every right to expect that you paid your money and that was that. Ten years later, the company is going out of business, and traces it back to the fact that it cut prices on its products years ago and didn't fund R&D and now they don't have compelling new products. So heck, since you got a deal on that TV years ago (it didn't include enough R&D expenses), the company can go back and retro-actively charge you that higher price for the TV.

I don't think you would go for that (you'd laugh and tell them to pound sand). But isn't that analogous to your view that taxpayers were getting a 'deal' at the time, and now it's time to pay up?

-ERD50
I think a better analogy to the retroactive big screen TV payment scenario would be cutting employee pension benefits because the company/government realized it screwed up back in the day.

The appropriate taxpayer analogy would be the company shareholders taking a haircut when the poor planning comes home to roost.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:36 PM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
From the rest of the entries in this thread I get the feeling you are blowing off your to-do-list. Tsk, tsk.
heh-heh, yep, I just had to try to get in a quick reply as they were coming in. Now I'm gonna need a gear puller, no time to get one today before I'm going out again, so that to-do list is getting pushed back to next week. I'll survive though

RE: TV company asking for 'back pay':

Quote:
I think a better analogy to the retroactive big screen TV payment scenario would be cutting employee pension benefits because the company/government realized it screwed up back in the day.

The appropriate taxpayer analogy would be the company shareholders taking a haircut when the poor planning comes home to roost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I'd say you could also make a similar analogy that retroactively made employees pay more to keep their same promised level of pension benefits to make up for what their employer didn't contribute in years past.
Yes, the employees could be asked to pay, and/or have their benefits cut. The money has to come from somewhere, right? For public pensions, it is either the pensioners, the Union, or the taxpayers, or some combo. There's no getting around that.

I'm not sure there is any real analogy to a shareholder when we talk public pensions though. There are the bond-holders, but a default would raise interest rates hurting taxpayers anyhow. I can choose to buy shares or not in a company, that's tougher with a government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Exactly. The underfunded pension issue is framed improperly and blaming the unions is a red herring. ...
Looks like we will end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I just can't see that it is a red-herring at all to say the unions share a significant part of the blame.

As I said before, the Union leaders are at the table with our politicians, and a wink-wink-nod-nod says 'Well, Mr Politician, you are up for election this next cycle, and you know we have not made our endorsements for our millions of members yet.... Now, about those benefits, you don't really want to suggest that our voting members have their contributions raised at this time, do you? No, I didn't think so....'


The taxpayers just don't have anyone at the table like that. Sure, to some degree the electorate has to take some responsibility for electing [derogatory remark self-edited] who we do, but the Union is just closer to this, and IMO, should share more of the responsibility in fixing it. If you don't see it that way, then well, you don't.

As a point of reference - when it comes to underfunded private pensions, there is some insurance/backup from the PBGC (limited to $54K annual currently). The key point here is that is not a taxpayer bailout, it is funded by contributions from those same private corporations. If a company offers a pension, they pay into the fund (and pay more if their funding level is lower). So (at least to date) they don't go outside and ask others to pay the bill. Makes me wonder why a program was not set up like this for State and Municipal govt pensions? We wouldn't have this discussion, they would be forced to buy 'insurance', and the insurance would be there if needed.

Of course, if the claims against PBGC exceed their ability to pay, it's a new ballgame. A quick scan of the wiki article didn't give me sense of how well covered they are, and it's admittedly tough to predict how many businesses will go bankrupt with an underfunded pension.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Gray divorce" in retirement Nords Life after FIRE 46 07-27-2011 09:48 PM
Middle-Income Boomers Expect Tough Retirement mickeyd FIRE and Money 27 07-27-2011 08:44 AM
GAO Report on Retirement Income Purron FIRE and Money 5 07-17-2011 03:27 PM
Mid 40's looking for soft retirement in 8yrs, 9 months and 23 days sspribyl Hi, I am... 0 07-17-2011 01:34 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.