PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP


petegz28
03-26-2010, 11:20 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 11:27 AM
Is 100% better than 90%?

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 11:29 AM
yeah, I'd sure like that $3 trillion in debt Geoge W ran up now so I could give it to some lazy welfare putz's.

talastan
03-26-2010, 11:31 AM
yeah, I'd sure like that $3 trillion in debt Geoge W ran up now so I could give it to some lazy welfare putz's.

Yep that's exactly what Obama would do....You're starting to get it BRC! :thumb:

I love this opening:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

You mean the administration underestimated the costs of their grand schemes? Big Shock. :rolleyes:

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 11:36 AM
yeah, I'd sure like that $3 trillion in debt Geoge W ran up now so I could give it to some lazy welfare putz's.Yep GW was a POS but BO will run that up in two years vice 8

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 11:41 AM
Yep GW was a POS but BO will run that up in two years vice 8nah, he will tax the rich to make up the deficit later after re-election.;)

donkhater
03-26-2010, 11:42 AM
But, but, but..... he did it first!!!:deevee::deevee::deevee:

Is it any wonder that the Democratic party thought that extending parental insurance coverage to 26 year olds was a good idea? They're all about extending adolescence.

stevieray
03-26-2010, 11:43 AM
yeah, I'd sure like that $3 trillion in debt Geoge W ran up now so I could give it to some lazy welfare putz's.

bush bush bush bush bush bush

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 11:44 AM
nah, he will tax the rich to make up the deficit later after re-election.;)

At this rate, where will he find "rich"?

petegz28
03-26-2010, 11:44 AM
So, BRC is still blaming Bush for the current and projected spending of Obama???? LMAO

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 11:45 AM
So, BRC is still blaming Bush for the current and projected spending of Obama???? LMAOdude all of my posts in this thread are sarcastic attempts at humor.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 11:47 AM
dude all of my posts in this thread are sarcastic attempts at humor.

I dont believe that for a second.

petegz28
03-26-2010, 11:48 AM
dude all of my posts in this thread are sarcastic attempts at humor.

Given your responses and attitude since Sunday, I doubt it.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 11:49 AM
I dont believe that for a second.okay smart guy tell which part was true?

cdcox
03-26-2010, 11:57 AM
So just to put this in perspective, having a debt that is 90% of GDP is akin to a family making $100K per year owing $90K on their house and having no other debt.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 12:18 PM
So just to put this in perspective, having a debt that is 90% of GDP is akin to a family making $100K per year owing $90K on their house and having no other debt.

Yep. "New math" makes that hard for dittoheads to grasp though. Heh.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 12:20 PM
GDP is not = Federal Revenue.

petegz28
03-26-2010, 12:21 PM
Yep. "New math" makes that hard for dittoheads to grasp though. Heh.

Perhaps you can explain why Obama math doesn't work at the CBO?

Hey, maybe I can count my monthly mortgage payment twice like the Dems and Obama did with medicare cuts for the health care bill???

cdcox
03-26-2010, 12:21 PM
GDP is not = Federal Revenue.

Well, it could be.

petegz28
03-26-2010, 12:22 PM
GDP is not = Federal Revenue.

Not yet. Although 1/6 of GDP just became Fed Revenue.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 12:30 PM
GDP is not = Federal Revenue.Yep, Federal revenue for 2009: $2.16 Trillion, let's assume it doubles to $4.32 Trillion

Federal Debt estimated 2020: $20.3 trillion

That's appro. 500% debt to income ratio. Sounds good to me....


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

CoMoChief
03-26-2010, 12:37 PM
I dont believe that for a second.

No shit, nobody does.

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 01:04 PM
So just to put this in perspective, having a debt that is 90% of GDP is akin to a family making $100K per year owing $90K on their house and having no other debt.

No, this is the gov't taking 90% of the nation's wealth to pay off the debt.

The gov't makes no money except what it takes from the citizenry so your comparison is entirely out of whack.

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 01:05 PM
Yep, Federal revenue for 2009: $2.16 Trillion, let's assume it doubles to $4.32 Trillion

Federal Debt estimated 2020: $20.3 trillion

That's appro. 500% debt to income ratio. Sounds good to me....


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

That's the new math that made Kotter's brain wrinkle.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 01:11 PM
That's the new math that made Kotter's brain wrinkle.

How many people make $50,000 per year and live in a $250,000 house? A lot of folks I know. Wouldn't be my choice either, but it's not an unusual situation. And government generated income is much more secure than personal income, isn't it?

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 01:14 PM
Yep, Federal revenue for 2009: $2.16 Trillion, let's assume it doubles to $4.32 Trillion

Federal Debt estimated 2020: $20.3 trillion

That's appro. 500% debt to income ratio. Sounds good to me....


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

No worries. All these young people that believed in change and hope to vote Obama in will by that time be paying half their wages to the government. I'm sure they'll feel the need to do the right thing.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 01:15 PM
For Mr. Kotter:

Definitions:

1) The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.



2) US Federal Revenue - see chart





3) debt [dɛt]
n 1. something that is owed, such as money, goods, or services
(Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) bad debt a debt that has little or no prospect of being paid

3. an obligation to pay or perform something; liability
4. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) the state of owing something, esp money, or of being under an obligation (esp in the phrases in debt, in (someone's) debt)

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 01:17 PM
How many people make $50,000 per year and live in a $250,000 house? A lot of folks I know. Wouldn't be my choice either, but it's not an unusual situation. And government generated income is much more secure than personal income, isn't it?

Government does not generate income. Government receives revenue based on income produced by others. If producers of income are not successful, government receives less.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 01:20 PM
KCDan:

In post #21, you compared revenue (income) to debt. Understood. I'm comparing that debt to the same debt (too many) Americans carry with their mortgage, compared to their incomes.

What's the rub?

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 01:23 PM
Government does not generate income. Government receives revenue based on income produced by others. If producers of income are not successful, government receives less.

Just like individuals, government income (revenue) will fluctuate, yes. My point remains, it's still much more secure than personal income to an individual.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 01:25 PM
Just like individuals, government income (revenue) will fluctuate, yes. My point remains, it's still much more secure than personal income to an individual.

A good share of your wonderful new health care plan is based on fluctuating revenue. F'ing brilliant.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 01:28 PM
KCDan:

In post #21, you compared revenue (income) to debt. Understood. I'm comparing that debt to the same debt (too many) Americans carry with their mortgage, compared to their incomes.

What's the rub?Here is the quote that I was referencing.

"So just to put this in perspective, having a debt that is 90% of GDP is akin to a family making $100K per year owing $90K on their house and having no other debt."

This would be more correctly stated if he had used that a family making $100K per year had debt of $500K. Debt to income vs. debt to income instead of debt to income and debt to GDP. Totally different and not akin at all.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 01:35 PM
Just like individuals, government income (revenue) will fluctuate, yes. My point remains, it's still much more secure than personal income to an individual.

Then you are dumber than a rock. It is DEPENDANT on Producers to produce. No wonder you are so clueless. The very most elementary ideas go over your head.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Then you are dumber than a rock. It is DEPENDANT on Producers to produce. No wonder you are so clueless. The very most elementary ideas go over your head.

So, Mr. Einstein....when was the last time government revenues declined dramatically, for a sustained period of time? If you say the Great Depression, you are right. Question number 2, Albert....what were government revenues like in 1939, 1945, and 1960 compared to the low years of government revenues in the early 30s?

When you figure that out, then tell me who's clueless....Mr. Einstein.

And if you want to say, "oh, but this...THIS....THIS....is different than previous U.S. history; the government is gonna go broke over this! Rush and Sean and Glenn all say so, so it must be true!".... go ahead, Albert.

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 01:48 PM
So, Mr. Einstein....when was the last time government revenues declined dramatically, for a sustained period of time? If you say the Great Depression, you are right. Question number 2, Albert....what were government revenues like in 1939, 1945, and 1960 compared to the low years of government revenues in the early 30s?

When you figure that out, then tell me who's clueless....Mr. Einstein.

And if you want to say, "oh, but this...THIS....THIS....is different than previous U.S. history; the government is gonna go broke over this! Rush and Sean and Glenn all say so, so it must be true!"....well, go ahead, Mr. Einstein.

The GDP of this nation does not inherently belong to the gov't, it belongs to the people, the producers. Gov't, through the consent of the governed, takes a portion of that money from the people but hasn't created any new wealth. Therefore the gov't has no money except that which it takes from the people.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 01:49 PM
If you dont understand how government generates revenue than its not worth explaining it. After your break go ask one of the brighter freshmen. They can explain it in terms you may understand.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 01:51 PM
The GDP of this nation does not inherently belong to the gov't, it belongs to the people, the producers. Gov't, through the consent of the governed, takes a portion of that money from the people but hasn't created any new wealth. Therefore the gov't has no money except that which it takes from the people.

So, you are saying the government is not going to continue to get it's present share? Why not?

If you dont understand how government generates revenue than its not worth explaining it. After your break go ask one of the brighter freshmen. They can explain it in terms you may understand.

I understand completely; it's you who seems to think the government is going to just quit collecting taxes. Perhaps you ought to ask an IRS agent if that will be okay with them.

fan4ever
03-26-2010, 01:55 PM
But, but, but..... he did it first!!!:deevee::deevee::deevee:

Is it any wonder that the Democratic party thought that extending parental insurance coverage to 26 year olds was a good idea? They're all about extending adolescence.

Bam!!!

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 01:57 PM
So, you are saying the government is not going to continue to get it's present share? Why not?



I understand completely; it's you who seems to think the government is going to just quit collecting taxes. Perhaps you ought to ask an IRS agent if that will be okay with them.

I guarantee the gov't is going to continue collecting taxes, and that's precisely the point. At some point the economic burden that continues to be foisted upon the producers of the nation will topple the economy. Increasing costs to pay into the federal treasury will lower expenditures on shit like the flat screen, or the Nikes, or the trip to Knicknackpaddywhack, TN to see Granny Arthur's favorite outhouse or whatever the fuck American families might do with that money instead of give it over to Uncle Sam to piss down the tubes chasing the votes of the fuckwads, dilweeds, losers and other trash of the American system who choose to sit idly by while others shoulder their burden of responsibility. As for me, I'm ready to cry uncle and get on the teet.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 01:58 PM
So, you are saying the government is not going to continue to get it's present share? Why not?
Trying to eat lunch now while typing so I may screw this up. Chinese food can be so distractingly good.

How, then if the gov't continues to take "it's" current level of revenue, does it pay off its exploding debt?
Current debt to income ratio for the US gov't is >500% ($2.1T:$13T).

Current interest being paid on the US debt is ~$380Billion

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 02:01 PM
Trying to eat lunch now while typing so I may screw this up. Chinese food can be so distractingly good.

How, then if the gov't continues to take "it's" current level of revenue, does it pay off its exploding debt?
Current debt to income ratio for the US gov't is >500% ($2.1T:$13T).

Current interest being paid on the US debt is ~$380Billion

George likes spicy chicken.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 02:02 PM
George likes his chicken spicy.Will be eating the real thing next month in Beijing!

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 02:03 PM
Will be eating the real thing next month in Beijing!

See if you can get them to stop lending us money.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 02:04 PM
See if you can get them to stop lending us money.
They are buying our equipment and paying for our services.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 02:06 PM
They are buying our equipment and paying for our services.

No I meant our government, not your company.

RaiderH8r
03-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Will be eating the real thing next month in Beijing!

Chicken, dog or rat?

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 02:08 PM
No I meant our government, not your company.
With our debt exploding, they'll stop all on their own. They already are as now Japan is the #1 foreign holder of debt. They passed China last month as China is reducing buying out debt

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 02:08 PM
Trying to eat lunch now while typing so I may screw this up. Chinese food can be so distractingly good.

How, then if the gov't continues to take "it's" current level of revenue, does it pay off its exploding debt?
Current debt to income ratio for the US gov't is >500% ($2.1T:$13T).

Current interest being paid on the US debt is ~$380Billion

FTR, I'm not saying I like this....as a long-term arrangement. However, you and I have both lived long enough to know that projections like these are, at best, guesstimates.

Policies, circumstances, and the economy all change and grow. Economic growth outpaced expectations in the 80s and 90s and government revenues soared, and Congress was actually able to balance the budget (however briefly) in the 1990s. I'm convinced, by history, that America will rise to the occasion like it always does. Maybe I'm wrong, but history is on my side.

The deficits and debt of WWI, the Depression, WWII, the Cold War and Vietnam, the economic collapse of the late 70s and early 80s.....seemed overwhelming at the time, but America rose above it. We will yet again, albeit with a whole lot of naysayers predicting doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it. I believe in America, and wish more other people would too.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 02:12 PM
I seriously hope so but with the reduction of our manufacturing base, any economic explosion would surely be much more moderate than previous decades resulting in much less revenue increase without exploding taxation.

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2010, 04:26 PM
I believe in America, and wish more other people would too.

What a flat out lie. If you believed in America you would not support this stupid ****ing healthcare bill. You believe in something but it is not America.

petegz28
03-26-2010, 04:54 PM
FTR, I'm not saying I like this....as a long-term arrangement. However, you and I have both lived long enough to know that projections like these are, at best, guesstimates.

Policies, circumstances, and the economy all change and grow. Economic growth outpaced expectations in the 80s and 90s and government revenues soared, and Congress was actually able to balance the budget (however briefly) in the 1990s. I'm convinced, by history, that America will rise to the occasion like it always does. Maybe I'm wrong, but history is on my side.

The deficits and debt of WWI, the Depression, WWII, the Cold War and Vietnam, the economic collapse of the late 70s and early 80s.....seemed overwhelming at the time, but America rose above it. We will yet again, albeit with a whole lot of naysayers predicting doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it. I believe in America, and wish more other people would too.

More like you believe in a AmeriKa.

Brainiac
03-27-2010, 12:53 AM
FTR, I'm not saying I like this....as a long-term arrangement. However, you and I have both lived long enough to know that projections like these are, at best, guesstimates.

Policies, circumstances, and the economy all change and grow. Economic growth outpaced expectations in the 80s and 90s and government revenues soared, and Congress was actually able to balance the budget (however briefly) in the 1990s. I'm convinced, by history, that America will rise to the occasion like it always does. Maybe I'm wrong, but history is on my side.

The deficits and debt of WWI, the Depression, WWII, the Cold War and Vietnam, the economic collapse of the late 70s and early 80s.....seemed overwhelming at the time, but America rose above it. We will yet again, albeit with a whole lot of naysayers predicting doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it. I believe in America, and wish more other people would too.
The problem is that we've never had a maniac like Obama in charge before. He is hell-bent upon redistributing income from the rich to the poor because he thinks when he's done everybody will be rich. The problem is that after he removes all incentive for people to work hard and produce wealth, everybody will be poor. It's why communism failed, and it's why Obamanomics fails.

God help us if the Republicans don't take back Congress in the Fall elections. You'd think the Republicans would be a shoo-in, but there are too many people (including people who post on this site) who think we can just vote for bread and circuses for everyone.

Guru
03-27-2010, 03:02 AM
At this rate, where will he find "rich"?They can just tax themselves.

Oops, they don't pay taxes.

Taco John
03-27-2010, 03:04 AM
I believe in America, and wish more other people would too.


Let's hope Caterpillar believes in America enough to keep jobs here. I have a hunch that a bunch of feel good bull crap isn't going to pay the bills over there though.

The Mad Crapper
04-03-2010, 09:54 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obamacare_Flag_Nazi_Logo_Troops.jpg

The Mad Crapper
04-17-2010, 01:19 PM
Obama has embarked upon the most brazen, slash-and-burn socialist restructuring scheme in our nation’s history

And that’s exactly what he’s doing. Obama has embarked upon the most brazen, slash-and-burn socialist restructuring scheme in our nation’s history. This president is many things, but he’s not stupid. He knows full well that his massive government takeover of health care, coupled with his global warmist “cap-and-trade” tax scheme – and his broader tax-and-spend-during-deep-recession game of economic Russian roulette – are undeniably unsustainable.

Not only will these policies bring down the private insurance industry (part of the plan), they will – if let stand – bring down the whole of private industry, crashing our entire free-market system (again, part of the plan).

It’s already happening. AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar are but the first among an anticipated cavalcade of major corporations expecting to suffer a multi-billion dollar bloodbath at the hands of Obamacare – merely one of the president’s radically sweeping, game-changing initiatives. (Congratulations, Mr. President.) As every good Marxist knows – to include the “man-child president” (as dubbed by Rush Limbaugh) – it’s all unsustainable. Scary thing is: It’ll work if they’re not stopped at the ballot box come November.

As reported by FoxNews.com: “‘The future of the economic might of this nation is at stake,’ Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way bluntly observes.

“President Obama’s budget forecast for the next decade (grossly underestimated) projects an additional $10 trillion in deficit spending, more than doubling the current national debt to a staggering $20 trillion.

“The gloomy forecast leads some analysts like former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin to suggest our economy is headed for a cliff.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22055

SNR
04-17-2010, 01:38 PM
If only we had Fred Thompson as president....

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2010, 11:20 PM
If only we had Fred Thompson as president....

I would have supported that...fiscal responsibility, before an inevitable foray into incrementally resolving the healthcare boondoggle. With Obama...we are getting it, just the other way around. Not my first choice; but it will, IMO...work. Too bad so many ideologues think that solving mutlitple problems...must be done by the same party; despite history's lesson that it is highly unlikely. :shrug:

It's why pragmatists choose to go with the flow, with the "people"--because that's how democratic republics work, even if it's heartbreaking for the "purists"...who cannot embrace solutions to the problems each side can best address and that the other side refuses to embrace, and who realize that, sometimes, the major parties are not equipped (at least, at times) to solve certain other problems due to ideological dogma. So you opt for efficacy, versus ignorant "consistency."" It's a sign of strength; not of weakness or lack of a moral compass. Not at all.

Alas, it's heresy to dogmatic ideologues, though. :rolleyes:

Politics, first and foremost, is about consensus and compromise. Moonbats and teabaggers prefer the politics of division and demagoguery. And myopic partisan blinders don't allow them to see the "light."

:shake:

The Mad Crapper
08-26-2010, 09:16 AM
The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. History
Current federal budget trends are capable of destroying this country

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

Posted: August 26, 2010


There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the measures to combat the Great Recession have mostly helped large banks and financial institutions, and that's a view common to Republicans (75 percent) and Democrats (73 percent). Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor.

There is another instinctive conclusion among the American people. It is that the national deficit, and the debts we have accumulated, are of critical political importance. On the national debt, the money the government has spent without the tax revenues to pay for it has produced mind-numbing numbers so large as to be disconnected from reality. Zeros from here to infinity. The sums are hard to describe; it is hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one. The public knows that, shuffle the numbers as you may, the level of debt is unsustainable.

Who could be surprised since millions of voters have discovered that for themselves? As one realizes the morning after the night before, there is an unavoidable penalty for excess. It is unnerving to wake up and learn that you have a mortgage on your home that exceeds the value of the property. Or, and too often both, you have a credit card line that you cannot repay and the issuer has you on the rack for ever bigger compound interest on the debt. The lesson has been well and truly learned that debt catches up with you. Millions understand that they are just going to have to find a way to live within their means—and then still eke out some savings to pay down debt. And there are well over 14 million Americans without a paying job, so the level of discontent is very high. Just how are they going to regain control of their lives?

In a usnews.com post on July 26, Jodie Allen of the Pew Research Center reported that in recent weeks more academic and market economists have been urging the government to defer budget cuts and tax increases and instead provide additional stimulus to a still-fragile economy, some by continuing the Bush tax cuts. But among the public there has been a suggestive shift of opinion the other way, reflecting worries about debt. "Deficit and government spending" has jumped from 10th or 11th place as a priority for the federal government to one that is second only to job creation and economic growth. The drift of opinion is manifest in other recent polls. For instance, a CBS poll conducted July 9-12 assessed the most important problem facing the country as the economy and jobs (38 percent), with concern about the budget deficit and national debt way down at 5 percent. Yet CNN (July 16-21) has 47 percent preoccupied first with the economy, and 13 percent with the federal deficit. In a recent Time magazine poll, two thirds of the respondents say they oppose a second government stimulus program and more than half say the country would have been better off without the first one.

People see the stimulus, fashioned and passed by Congress in such a hurry, as a metaphor for wasted money. They are highly critical about the lack of discipline among our political leaders. The question that naturally arises is how to forestall a long-term economic decline.

The Fed has lowered rates dramatically to keep the economy ticking and maybe continue the painfully slow recovery, but at the receiving end there is no feeling of relief at all. People know that the stimulus is about to stop stimulating. They know that money is petering out. They know that states are preparing to cut $200 billion to balance their budgets. They realize that the Great Recession has wiped out huge amounts of wealth and that, unlike other recessions, this will not be followed by the kind of economic boom when people who had sat on their money during the lean years unleash pent-up demand for all sorts of goods and services.

There is no sign of that happening this time around. Households and businesses have kept their hands in their pockets. And so while many think that the only way to revive the economy and to inject more money into it is through governmental spending, the general feeling is that we can't afford that right now. The government will be writing more IOUs on top of those we already can't afford. Why plan a second stimulus if the first stimulus couldn't prevent high unemployment?

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/08/26/the-most-fiscally-irresponsible-government-in-us-history.html

alnorth
08-26-2010, 09:57 AM
So just to put this in perspective, having a debt that is 90% of GDP is akin to a family making $100K per year owing $90K on their house and having no other debt.

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but there's another cost to this you might not be accounting for. You might think "gee, if you make $100k, you can probably afford a 200k or 250k mortgage, so we shouldn't sweat it until we are at 250% GDP". (GDP isn't the same as income, but other people already covered that)

Well, the USA also has a AAA credit rating. If we get much higher than 100% GDP, our sovereign debt will probably be downgraded. Our credit rating will still be high, but a rating of, say AA- still means a lot more in interest has to be paid than the sparklingly high credit rating and low interest we pay now.

go bowe
08-26-2010, 03:49 PM
Then you are dumber than a rock. It is DEPENDANT on Producers to produce. No wonder you are so clueless. The very most elementary ideas go over your head.damn, i need new glasses...

i thought you said DEFENDANT...