Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-05-2011, 07:17 PM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
I agree as well. The poor get checks and do not pay in. The rich don't pay on income over 102k? So a middle class family earning 100k pays as much FICA as a billionaire. The middle class is getting ripped big time.
You know what the rich give up along with not paying FICA on income over $102K (actually I think it's a bit higher now)? IOW do you think they should pay 6.2% on all income without their eventual Soc Sec benefits also being uncapped (as it s now)?

In your example, the middle class family earning 100k will get the same Soc Sec benefit as the rich family. Not sure anyone s getting "ripped big time."
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
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 08-05-2011, 08:46 PM   #42
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: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
In your example, the middle class family earning 100k will get the same Soc Sec benefit as the rich family. Not sure anyone s getting "ripped big time."
I agree. The proposals on lifting the cap envision adding a bit more wealth shifting to the wealthy on top of the shifting they alrrady do. I think that is a fair bargain. As one of those wealthy people I think I benefitted a lot more from living in the greatest country in the world than did those deadbeat poor we like to bash. And, to beat my dead horse again, the missing trust funds call for a bit more "sacrifice" from the wealthy. After all, those moneys, collected from every worker, even the poorest, got sucked into the general fund to bail out bankers among other things.
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 12:02 AM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
I agree. The proposals on lifting the cap envision adding a bit more wealth shifting to the wealthy on top of the shifting they alrrady do. I think that is a fair bargain. As one of those wealthy people I think I benefitted a lot more from living in the greatest country in the world than did those deadbeat poor we like to bash. And, to beat my dead horse again, the missing trust funds call for a bit more "sacrifice" from the wealthy. After all, those moneys, collected from every worker, even the poorest, got sucked into the general fund to bail out bankers among other things.

Not trying to be to picky.... but almost all of the money that went to the bankers have been paid back.... and a lot of it with a good profit... not so to AIG and the car companies...

Also, even if they had not paid it back... the amount is small compared to the debt.... IOW, it is not the bailout of the banks that is the problem... it is all the other spending that has been going on for many years and will go on for many more (at hopefully a reduced amount)....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 06:09 AM   #44
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
IOW do you think they should pay 6.2% on all income without their eventual Soc Sec benefits also being uncapped (as it s now)?

In your example, the middle class family earning 100k will get the same Soc Sec benefit as the rich family. Not sure anyone s getting "ripped big time."
No - I don't believe the rich should pay 6.2% on all income. I believe SS should be dismantled and privatized.
__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 07:28 AM   #45
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: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Not trying to be to picky.... but almost all of the money that went to the bankers have been paid back.... and a lot of it with a good profit... not so to AIG and the car companies...

Also, even if they had not paid it back... the amount is small compared to the debt.... IOW, it is not the bailout of the banks that is the problem... it is all the other spending that has been going on for many years and will go on for many more (at hopefully a reduced amount)....
I am blaming that sector for the whole collapse, or at least assigning a greater measure to them than the average working class Joe who got hit by the recession. The loans were repaid but the damage is done. They can share the sacrifice now.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 06:22 PM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
I am blaming that sector for the whole collapse, or at least assigning a greater measure to them than the average working class Joe who got hit by the recession. The loans were repaid but the damage is done. They can share the sacrifice now.
Thee's plenty of blame to go around on this one. Don't forget the credit rating agencies, the government regulators (or lack of), the lack of due-diligence by pension funds and "sophisticated" traders, the gevernment forced-lending (red-line) rules, the government forced "easy terms" to poor people. And best of all, the greed of evryday people trying to cash-in on that real estate sure-thing.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 07:29 PM   #47
Recycles dryer sheets
Beryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar

I believe SS should be dismantled and privatized.
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
__________________
Retired - Class of 2011
Beryl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 10:26 PM   #48
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 ziggy29 View Post
In terms of how draconian the "solutions" to "fix" these things are concerned, SS only needs a tune-up. Medicare needs a complete overhaul.

Having said that, the recent threats to SS recipients that they "may not" receive their checks if the government defaulted shows just how illusory the "trust fund" really is.
There are 4 quoted words or phrases here, and I'm having a hard time figuring them out. I guess they are all scare quotes (Scare quotes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which are used around "a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning." So, putting "solutions" in scare quotes is meant to convey that, though some might call them "solutions", they are not actually solutions. Okay so far. But what can "may not" possibly mean here? Without the scare quotes, the sentence would mean: "it's possible that (previous) SS recipients will not receive their checks." With the scare quotes it means ... what?

And more generally, what is it that makes conservative commentators pepper their comments with these scare quotes? Actually, it makes it very difficult to understand what is being said.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2011, 10:50 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
Yes, perhaps as personal trainers?

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 12:48 AM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
Why do you throw out this red herring? Just because it was privatized, it does not follow that a 75 YO would be forced to have an extreme level of market exposure in his portfolio.

He could also buy an annuity with his private funds. There are many options.

What's a 75 YO to do when his President says he can't guarantee that the next SS checks will go out? Some private funds would be looking pretty good.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 06:55 AM   #51
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
Privatized SS funds could be mandated into an AA that would weather the storm. And yes - maybe go back to work if they fall short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Why do you throw out this red herring? Just because it was privatized, it does not follow that a 75 YO would be forced to have an extreme level of market exposure in his portfolio.

He could also buy an annuity with his private funds. There are many options.

What's a 75 YO to do when his President says he can't guarantee that the next SS checks will go out? Some private funds would be looking pretty good.

-ERD50
Good points!
__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 08:31 AM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
..
Ahh . . . but not all expenditures produce equal "good" in the economy. When dollars are in the hands of a consumer, that individual spends them on whatever will bring him the most benefit (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, a car, a boat, etc). He will also shop around for that particular item to find the seller who gives him best value for the dollar. From these millions of possible choices, the individual will choose one, and both the seller and the buyer are winners at the end of the transaction. This competition for business consistently improves the quality of goods and services and lowers prices.

Ok... wait a minute.

There are multiple issues buried in the topic. It can be difficult to separate them.

Don't get hung up on whether the money was distributed by an Insurance company or Uncle Sam for a minute.. or efficiencies or, or how people ripoff the system or any of that... for a minute. Just the consumer behavior side.

For SS or a payout annuity from an insurance company either... the money goes into the hands of a consumer. They spend it on their needs. Correct?

They make a consumer choice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post

When the government takes money from the public to spend for the health care for others, there's no reason to believe that this is the best use for the money--the people who the money belonged to initially certainly didn't make the choice to spend it on health care (it got taken from them in taxes). The people who receive the health care didn't choose the sellers (in some cases) and didn't/couldn't shop for a good price (hey, it was Uncle Sam paying the bill).
For health care. Another very complicated problem. Let's narrow it down for the sake of this comment. Forget the myriad private vs public debate (much of which is born out of rhetoric to not solve the problem but to yield some advantage to someone or group).

Our current health care system (the whole thing) is not fit to solve the current problems we face. The broad system for funding it to the way it is currently rationed and delivered. And there are thousands of issues buried in it. Including the way it is funded (across the board). It is a patch quilt that evolved out of many artificial barrier and problem (natural or artificially created by some group or situation).

I agree medicare should change. But it is a funding mechanism for our broader healthcare system. The whole thing has been gamed and twisted for different groups to take advantage of it. It is really a complicate mess.



I am for the most efficient and lowest cost approach. But it will require big changes to our current system (just about every aspect of the rules and how it is administrated, etc). Right now everybody thinks it should be someone elses problem... they do not want to change!

You better believe... the most powerful groups opposing it are the health insurance industry and many of the providers of drugs and services. Why? Because they make massive profits the way things are today... they do not want to change. Besides, they may wind up with less or even be obsolete. IOW - they don't want the risk their current business in an effort to evolve the system.... this is really the issue!

Be careful about the political rhetoric. All that is happening there is someone yanking your chain and telling part of the story... the part of the message that might yield your support.

Watch, this is going to be a real national crisis.... and it is not just Medicare... or Medicaid for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
True, except for all the "extra" money collected from me for the last 30 years--the money that went into the "trust fund". That money didn't go to any oldsters at the time, it went immediately to be spent on whatever the government bought: Tanks, welfare payments, food stamps, aid to cities, space exploration, studies on the sex life of frogs. That money is gone and the taxpayers in general don't have money to pay the "trust fund" back. Surprise! No, not really. So, lets stop the charade and make SS a true pay-as-you-go affair that balances out every year. Make the payouts match the SS taxes, or make the taxes match the payouts, but no more shifting around of money. That game is over.
Couldn't agree more. A lot of govt waste.


And I would add to it. If the geniuses in Washington decide that there is a better way... make the changes. But be reasonable about it and don't yank the carpet out from under people that no longer have time to adjust.


On were the money went... yes SDI, and a zillion other things.

Did you understand what I meant about that money being transferred to the wealthy? Do you understand how that worked?

Because what I think what I am hearing from you is... yeah... the money was spent. Ok we got scr3wed... let's move on.

If so, that is very confusing. I don't understand. I am not that forgiving.



Look... you really need to be skeptical of the story: we really mean it this time. Heck many of them are the same people!!!

This really is about what programs will be cut.

You are going to pay no matter what. But they hope that the expenditure cut is what they owe you! And they are really hoping you will agree to it. Their best outcome... is that they convinced you that is was a great idea.


I am suspicious when they want to lump it all together move it around like a shell game where no one (of us) knows what happened.

The starting point should be: Let's cut everything else first and after that has been wrung dry.... Then let's take a look at SS and Medicare. Because it sure sounds like another round of three card monte to me!
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:05 AM   #53
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
And yes - maybe go back to work if they fall short.
I hope you are not serious in this comment. OTOH, if you are, I hope it happens to you.

Heck - I'm in my mid-60's and can't imagine going back into the wor*force (even if there was a j*b for me). I could not imagine it being a decade (or half-generation) older...
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:09 AM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
I don't support privatizing Soc Sec to begin with. But it's disingenuous to suggest there is no option between the status quo and uprooting the system for all ages. There are all sorts of transitions possible to change Soc Sec. "Because we've always done it that way" is not a good reason...that's largely how Federal spending has gotten out of control.
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:24 AM   #55
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
I hope you are not serious in this comment. OTOH, if you are, I hope it happens to you.

Heck - I'm in my mid-60's and can't imagine going back into the wor*force (even if there was a j*b for me). I could not imagine it being a decade (or half-generation) older...
Not totally serious. There has to be a system that helps those truly in need.
__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:49 AM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
What do you suggest a retired 75 year old do when the privatized SS funds are adversely affected by the market? Go back to work to rebuild that nest-egg?
At that age one should have a large fixed income percentage of ones portfolio. At the risk of argument if one worries about such things, an annuity makes sense. Of course that like all insurance (and indeed a lot of the whole market) is a gamble, you bet you will live a long time, the insurance company bets you will die soon, its the reverse bet to life insurance. So you to can express your opinion (to use the wall street term) on your life expectancy.
__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:58 AM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
Don't get hung up on whether the money was distributed by an Insurance company or Uncle Sam for a minute.. or efficiencies or, or how people ripoff the system or any of that... for a minute. Just the consumer behavior side.
But this misses a major point: By removing market forces, we no longer have any assurance that the money being spent on Medicare is being put to the "highest use." The person that had the money originally was going to use it for something (his own health care, education for his kids, maybe give it to a charity) that he/she believed brings the most benefit. Instead, it was taken from him and is being spent by the government on a $200,000 knee replacement for a 95 year old leukemia patient.
But, okay, I'll go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
For SS or a payout annuity from an insurance company either... the money goes into the hands of a consumer. They spend it on their needs. Correct?

They make a consumer choice!
But we were also talking about Medicare. Make your case about how consumers made a rational choice about their medical care and the best use of funds under Medicare. Or, under typical full-coverage private insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
[Discussing health care delivery in the US]I am for the most efficient and lowest cost approach.
With all due respect: No you aren't. And neither am I. The most efficient and lowest cost approach to providing health care would be complete and total privatization. Everyone pays for their own care (or buys their own private insurance to do this). No government money transfers. Health care costs would immediately plummet--families would choose palliative care for older cancer patients, poor people with easily treated diseases would likely die at higher rates than they do now, lots more pain medication and fewer new joints, and expensive imaging machines and tests would get used enough that the per-use cost would significantly decline. Waiting would increase. That's not the world I'm advocating, but that's the system in which people rationally choose where they want to spend their money, and maybe they'd decide to skip that Alaska cruise so they can afford the premiums to pay for their medical care in a few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
Right now everybody thinks it should be someone else's problem... they do not want to change!

You better believe... the most powerful groups opposing it are the health insurance industry and many of the providers of drugs and services.
Hey, careful with that broad brush! There are lots of folks opposing change, and they come from both sides of the aisle. Congressman Ryan proposed some significant changes to make Medicare more efficient and allow it to continue to provide care to old folks, and who is opposing him? Some other special interests. Resistance to change comes from all sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
Because what I think what I am hearing from you is... yeah... the money was spent. Ok we got scr3wed... let's move on.

If so, that is very confusing. I don't understand. I am not that forgiving.
Maybe it will help if you just think of the SS taxes you paid before, the stuff we were told was going into a "trust fund", as instead just extra FIT that you paid to support the things the government does. You like some of it, right? Aid to the poor, etc? Well, that's what it really was used for. And it is gone. There's no getting it back from the old person, poor person, government contractor, and that reptile sex researcher. That's who got it. It went to individuals and corporations, not to "the rich" or any other nameless group. The time to stop the transfer from SS was at that time, the time to object to the big spending was then. Let's do something constructive and look ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
I am suspicious when they want to lump it all together move it around like a shell game where no one (of us) knows what happened.
Precisely. Start by making SS truly "pay-as-you-go" with no transfers of funds to or from the general fund. Money collected for SS goes out that year. This happens to be a good time to transition, because we're close to income=outgo. We either make the tax formula constant and let the checks vary in size every year, or we make the benefit check amounts constant and let the taxes vary every year. Then everything is above board and clear. Workers paying now are supporting people who are retired now. Hopefully, the next generation will do the same for them. No paying ahead (so the government can spend it) etc. If you want to pay ahead, put it in your own savings so you'll be sure you'll get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
The starting point should be: Let's cut everything else first and after that has been wrung dry.... Then let's take a look at SS and Medicare. Because it sure sounds like another round of three card monte to me!
Just so I understand you--the stuff the government just started doing in 1935 and 1965 is more important than everything it did before that? I mean all the courts, national defense, collecting of taxes, etc--the stuff actually mentioned in the Constitution--takes a back seat?
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 09:58 AM   #58
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by meierlde View Post
At that age one should have a large fixed income percentage of ones portfolio.
Assuming they have a portfolio.

Heck, I'm "only" 63 (along with DW), but I didn't have a "portfolio" till my/her company defined benefit (e.g. pension) plans were elimated in our mid '30s.

Don't assume that everybody - especially in those in the lower income catagories, have a portfolio to count on...
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 10:13 AM   #59
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 116
Quote:
Where might one find lists of suggested proposals (by credible sources) for fixing SS and Medicare?
Social Security | The Concord Coalition

Health Care | The Concord Coalition
__________________
tjscott0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 01:23 PM   #60
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: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Maybe it will help if you just think of the SS taxes you paid before, the stuff we were told was going into a "trust fund", as instead just extra FIT that you paid to support the things the government does. ...And it is gone. There's no getting it back from the old person, poor person, government contractor, and that reptile sex researcher...The time to stop the transfer from SS was at that time, the time to object to the big spending was then. Let's do something constructive and look ahead.

Precisely. Start by making SS truly "pay-as-you-go" with no transfers of funds to or from the general fund. Money collected for SS goes out that year. This happens to be a good time to transition,
The rest of your post was OK but ignoring history here seems flat out wrong to me. If the payroll taxes had been just more Federal Income Tax those 50% of non-payers everybody is complaining about wouldn't have paid a dime of it. It would all have come out of the hides of the more well to do. Instead, those payroll taxes were regressive, hitting low income workers to a much greater relative degree than the upper crust. To deal with that by drastically cutting SS for the boomers on the verge of retirement would seem doubly evil -- tax us extra to cover our costs, then cut us to the bone anyway. But, since no one seems to be calling for drastic cuts for the boomers we need a big infusion of more fairly balanced initial revenues to make up the trust funds. If we simply go to a pay as you go system now without a balanced infusion we will be really sticking it to today's young middle class workers with a double whammy. Pay for the missing boomers' funds with a nice, regressive payroll tax but hold off on the reduced benefits until it comes time for the kids to retire. A better approach would be to recapture the revenues lost thru the Bush cuts with a simplified tax code (both on rates and loopholes) and maybe a pay go SS system over the long term. I'm still not sure whether pay go is good. The trust fund concept seems sensible if we can learn to control our urge to blow it away on binges.
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.