RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Shutdown/Impass

Posted by: Boldwin
- [4030710] Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 18:44

What gets shutdown in a government shutdown. Who gets paid and for how long.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
581biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 08:49
The rich giggle as the teabaggers keep them well-stocked with mansions and yachts.
582biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 09:25
Wealthiest 1% reap 70% of capital gains in the country

Doesn't perfectly support my earlier statement, but you get the gist. That 15% tax-rate benefits the wealthy almost exclusively. 90% of all capital gains are garnered by the top 5% of earners.
583sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 11:47
Gee, that 24% figure pd by the "merely rich", isnt all that much different from what I've generally paid and the 16^ pd by the uber-rich, is LESS than I've generally paid.
584Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:08
S&P reveals that part of the reasoning for the downgrade was that some politicos on the Right were not taking the effect of a default very seriously.

In other words, "If these wackos as making budgetary decisions, the bonds they issue aren't worth as much."
585Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:42
"S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said."

Obama and Turbo Timmy were the ones talking about a potential default. Scaring people. The only way they would default was if they were too stupid to pay the interest on the debt first. They had plenty of money for that.


586sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:50
Selective memory? It was the HOuse Republicans saying "let it default". Obama was WARNING against it, House Reps were cheering FOR it.
587Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:51
Ha! Were had a potential default because of the Tea Party's unwillingness to reject default as an option. The list of people on the Far Right saying default was no biggie is long. Those on the left? No one.

The fact that Obama was pointing out the facts on the ground (default is bad) wasn't bad. It was that that realty was shaped by the Far Right.
588Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:53
"More than 100 House Republicans backed a measure sponsored by McClintock that created a plan if the country failed to raise the debt ceiling - prioritizing debt payments over other obligations."

589DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 16:03
A link that maybe B7 should try reading for two minutes to learn something about this topic
590Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 16:31
McClintock voted against the final compromise bill. He's part of the problem, not the solution. It should be noted that his bill never made it out of committee--a committee controlled by his own party.
591DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 17:34
Also, I guess in B7s world if you contract for services and then just don't pay for them, it isn't real debt and won't affect your credit rating at all.

I should really try that with Dish Network - I'm sure they'll just keep shipping the 200+ channels of goodness and I can explain that I have to pay my real debt and they can just wait, and it'll be fine... right?
592DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 17:40
Also also, wasn't I called a treasonous evil SOB for suggesting that Obama's people prioritize payments however they wanted to (after paying off the debt interest)? Am I just imagining that?

Now you're excoriating him for not agreeing to do that (and, presumably, pay what YOU want paid first).

Pick a damn lane, already. It's hard to keep track when you just completely go blind rage/make stuff up that directly contradicts your blind rage from two weeks ago.
593sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 17:53
Yes but DW, like myself, you're a leftwinbger. That alone makes you treasonous. Makes no difference whether you agree or disagree with the rightwiongnuts. You're a lefty? You're treasonous.

C'mon, ya gotta know the rules of the game by now.
594weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 19:43
Bili thank you for the link @ 582.
According to the article:
Top 1% $396,000 or more
Average Income: 1,241,000
Average capital gain: 232,824
232,824/1,241,000 = 18.76%
A far cry from over 50%.


595Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 20:04
Bili said top 0.5%. Not the top 1%.
596Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 21:22
Actually, bili said the top 5%. According to the chart (from 2005) the top 5% of earners paid 89.5% of all capital gains taxes.

Lowering that particular tax rate benefits the top 5% of earners almost exclusively.

But that isn't the point bili was making, which is made better in the Forbes article he also linked to in 578.
597sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 21:52
In 2007 (the last year the IRS has published data for) the 400 derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of $345 million from capital gains and paid an average effective rate of just 16.6%.

67% of their income, taxed at a meager 15%.
598weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 21:52
The forbes article only looked at the top 400 returns out of just under 143 million returns filed for 2007. (.00028%)

From the IRS website:
IRS Stats

For 2006 there were over 138 million returns filed.
There was not a clean break of the top .5%
The best I could do was the 354K returns with incomes over 1 million AGI that represented .256% of the total returns filed.
The average AGI was 3.4 million with net capital gains of just under 500K.
That calculates to 14.55% of income derived from net capital gains.

Note: The link @582 used Average Capital Gain.
I believed I used the more mainingful Net Capital Gain.
If a taxpayer had capital gains of 1 million and capital losses of 500K they are netted together for a 500K capital gain and taxes are figured on the net amount.
599sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 01:34
A rose, is a rose, is a rose. Income, is income, is income.

There exists, no valid rationale, not born out in practiuce, for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than "earned" income.

WHY, tax the kid born with the silver spoon in his mnouth, 15% on his lifelong "investment income", while taxing the blue collar working stiff, 18-23% of the income they generate through labor?

Income, is income, is income; and it should all be taxed as just that...Income.
600sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 01:39
FTR; bili's original statement...Most in the top .5 % generate the majority of their income from capital gains....wowuld seem to be supported by the Foirbes Top 400.

He then "ammended" his statement to...90% of all capital gains are garnered by the top 5% of earners. ...which is NOT the same as saying the top 5% get most of their income from Capital Gains. It says, 90% of all capital gains, are in the hands of a very small part of the population (top 5%) and thus, the benefit of a lower capital gains tax rate, aids onbly a very se;lect few taxpayers and amongst the mopst wealthy of them at that. IE, social welfare for the uber rich.

And dont EVEN claim capital gains spur growth, spur jobs etc etc etc. The investments, the tax cuts, NONE of that has spurred economic growth over the past severalk years, so please drop the tired old cliche claims which history has already shown to be false.
601sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 02:18
Tax Rates that would make Leona Helmsley proud

...In an analysis of the 20 highest income ZIP codes in the nation for 2007 (as reported by the Internal Revenue Service), he finds that the 130 individual tax returns filed from the Helmsley Building in Manhattan showed an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an effective federal tax rate of just 14%. ...

...In 2007, the 400 derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of $345 million from capital gains and paid an average effective rate of just 16.6%.
...


...Sullivan found that the highest income ZIP code for 2007 belonged to New York’s Seagram Building, used as the address for 19 individual tax returns showing an average AGI of $13.9 million, with an effective tax rate of 19%. The highest AGI ZIP codes (and lowest tax rates) are dominated by Manhattan office buildings...

...Some of the top 20 ZIP codes are residential, including Atherton, Calif.’s 94027, where 3,505 tax filers reported an average of $1.23 million in AGI and paid an effective 21% tax rate. ..

There ya have it WK. 3500 filers, with AGI of your theoretic gross peresented to me, and on THAT figure, they paid less than 2/3 the top rate in taxes. Not 35%, but 21%.
602Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 13:23
The forbes article only looked at the top 400 returns out of just under 143 million returns filed for 2007.

The IRS puts out information about the top 400 each year, fyi.

But I think you are using the wrong metric here. Taxes for the top 400 wealthiest Americans have been cut in half over the last decade. So the group most able to pay more in taxes have continued to enjoy tax break after tax break.
603weykool
      ID: 5478101
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 18:22
But I think you are using the wrong metric here. Taxes for the top 400 wealthiest Americans have been cut in half over the last decade. So the group most able to pay more in taxes have continued to enjoy tax break after tax break.

I am fully aware the IRS makes available the stats for the top 400 returns (which may or may not be the wealthiest Americans)
To be honest looking at the top 400 returns is a pretty useless measure because it is such a teenie tiny percentage of returns filed.

The link I provided at #598 has the raw data.
Please use the link I provided to substantiate your claim that the taxes have been cut in half.

I also challenge you to list all the so called tax breaks they supposedly enjoy.
I made a similar challenge to Sarge and he was unable to offer anything and then tries to change the subject.
604sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 19:39
WK...tyhere is a reason people with 7+figure incomes hire FIRMS of tax professionals. Yet you in your false air of superiority, expect me as a non-tax professional, to show you how to shelter 800k of income from taxes.

Tell ya what, when you can hit with one shot, a dinner plate at 1200 yards, with a crossing wind, and a 100 ft elevation difference between you and the plate...THEN I will take up your tax challenge.
605Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 22:08
Please use the link I provided to substantiate your claim that the taxes have been cut in half.

That's funny. Really. I tell you that taxes for the wealthiest have been cut in half over the last ten years, and you tell me to prove it based upon a link to only the last year's information.

This is like trying to prove that Star Wars was a good movie based on a movie still photo.

Meanwhile you keep dodging the clear point, made in post and link and post and link, that the richest enjoy an effective tax rate lower than those not as wealthy.

If you want me to prove it you'll have to actually respond to the posts being made.

I noted before that you were on the right track regarding the use of tax loopholes for the rich not to pay top tax rates--why is it so hard for you to make the next step--that such loopholes, combined with lower capital gains taxes, actually make their effective tax rate relatively low?

I'll even give you a gimme: Capital gains taxes are at 15% now.

606sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 22:40
FLAT TAX, SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD....

Line 1) Total Income from ALL sources _______
Line 2) 25,000 if Single, 50,000 if Married or Single with minor dependant(s)
Line 3) Subtract Line 2 from line 1
Line 4) Flat Tax Rate 50%
Line 5) Line 3 x Line 4 = Total Tax Liability
Line 6) Amount Withheld
Line 7) If Line 6 > Line 5..Amount to be refunded
Line 8) If Line 5 > Line 6..Amount Due

Viola...simple, 15 minutes tops to complete. No more making $5,000,000 and paying 16% taxes.
607Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 00:04
Let's not go off the rails here, sarge. As I've pointed out in two separate flat tax threads, the numbers just don't add up.
608sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 00:21
From my past reading, seems a Tax of 20% or so is necessary for revenue neutralitry, depending on what if any exemptions are allowed. Since I'd propose a 'life sustaining' exemption, a rate of 50% struck me as appropriate. *shrug*
609weykool
      ID: 5478101
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 06:02
Sarge:
You are absolutely correct
If I come on here and make a comment about rifles like: "The best rifle is a 22 or 23 caliber rifle, whatever it takes"
You are going to call me on it.
Likewise if you make an equally stupid comment about taxes don't be surprised if I call you on it.
All I'm asking from you is stop making comments if you are going to make them out of ignorance.

PD:
The link I provided has stats from 1995 to 2008.
I assumed you would have no problem navigating the site.
IRS stats by year
I have provided you the direct link you will need to support your claim.

There is nothing to discuss regarding a "lower effective rate".
We all pay one set rates for ordinary income based in income levels and we all pay another rate for for net long term capital gains.
There are reasons why there is a different rate for for capital gains and only a complete loon would suggest we eliminate the lower capital gains rate.
I care not to debate an issue with complete loons.
610Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 09:54
We all pay one set rates for ordinary income based in income levels and we all pay another rate for for net long term capital gains

Well, you really continue to swing and miss on my point. I can see why you are so frustrated--you think you are going to really hit the pitch out but come up with nothing but air.

Loon? Really?

I'm not sure if you misunderstand the concept of "effective tax rate" or not. You come across as a guy who believes he understands all about tax law but this is a concept which you are actively avoiding.

You're right--you don't want to debate it. I get that. And I see where you are coming from here--a person suggesting raising tax rates of any sorts is a "loon." Nice.
611sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 12:53
WK still holds fasdt to the theory, that lower cap gains taxes incentivizes investments, which in turn provide capital for economic growth.

WONDERFUL theory, sort of like the Marxist theory "from each according to their abiulity, to each according to their need". Both are great theories, both have been demonstrated in the real world, to not work real well.

IF a lower cap gains tax rate was such an incentive to economic growth; why so much investment in gold? Why hasnt the economy FLOWN into the stratosphere? Why arent companies hiring left and right?

Why? Because those who "have it", are hoarding it. Those who dont, are trying to figure out how to survive, without resorting to theft.
612sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 13:13
and FTR WK...referring back to my post 601, and its link..

...Some of the top 20 ZIP codes are residential, including Atherton, Calif.’s 94027, where 3,505 tax filers reported an average of $1.23 million in AGI and paid an effective 21% tax rate. ..

That isnt 400 filers, its 3500. AGI breaks down to be above 100k/m; yet they paid WELL below the 35% tax rate.

So, show me in my "ignornace", where my contention was/is false. Go ahead...I'll wait.
613weykool
      ID: 5478101
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 14:51
PD:
I have never claimed to be an expert about tax law.
I do know enough to be able to spot pure BS when I see it.
I had no idea if Bili's claim at #576 was true or not but it just sounded a little off.
And I was right.
I have no idea if your claim at #602 is true or not but it sounds like BS.
You have the link to prove your claim. (There is a link to the top 400 returns as reported by the IRS)
Until you prove your claim we will have to assume you are spewing BS.
614Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 15:42
only a complete loon would suggest we eliminate the lower capital gains rate. I care not to debate an issue with complete loons.

First, you don't "debate", you spew. You haven't recognized a single point made by someone else, that occurs in debates. It is unclear if this is due to obstinance or ignorance, probably both.

There are plenty of intelligent people who advocate the removal of a capital gain distinction, it's the cornerstone of any meaningful tax simplicity reform. A good third of the tax code is dedicated to the distinction of regular and capital income. I'm not an expert, but I have studied the tax code and that much hasn't changed.

Whenever weykool enters a thread, that is my notice to exit, not interested in reading the rants and insults of a self satisfied dimwit.
615Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 18:46
Jeez, I spend more time correcting errors...

I have never claimed to be an expert about tax law.

I never claimed you did.

Until you prove your claim we will have to assume you are spewing BS.

Well, there you go. Apparently your link to the raw data trumps my link to the story which draws the conclusion I made. Since (in this thread, anyway) you have drawn the line at talking about either "effective tax rate" or "loons" you've decided to define out any attempt at the point in question. Easy to say someone is "spewing BS" when you refuse to look at the information provided.

Why do you come here? You clearly are not interested in any real debate.
616weykool
      ID: 5478101
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 04:43
PD:You come across as a guy who believes he understands all about tax law
WK:I have never claimed to be an expert about tax law.
PD:I never claimed you did.

Why do you come here? You clearly are not interested in any real debate.
You are correct, there is no real debate here.

I ask Sarge to back up a claim, all I get is a changing of the subject.
I ask Bili to back up his claim I get misleading links, parsing of words, and a changing of the subject.
I provide you with a link to back up your claim and all I get a changing of the subject and insults.
Pointless to have a debate when people refuse to back up claims and only want to change the subject when they get challenged.
I am done "debating" if that's what you think you are doing.
617biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 08:46
Wow, WK. If I'd known the precise figure mattered so much to you (instead of, you know, the point), I would have looked it up first.

I read the stat in an article years ago. Perhaps it's now only 43%, but if it is, how does this matter? The rich clearly don't pay the same rates as regular Americans, and showing that I'm off by a few percent one way or another doesn't invalidate that over-arching conclusion.
618biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 09:16
I just saw 598. Thanks for doing the math. You are right; I must have not remembered the stat correctly.

Again however, the point that the rich pay lower rates than the rest of us remains.

Buffet makes my point better (and more accurately).

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
619Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 11:41
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, yet they spend $75,000 a year,(year after year) and have $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."
-Dave Ramsey
620sarge33rd
      ID: 97131511
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 12:13
but...a family doesnt own a mint, or have the ability to increase revenue, (nor do we as long as the Reps hold their idiotic line in the sand).

You can not compare household finances, to national finances.
621Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 12:20
I like Dave Ramsey. A lot. His Financial Peace University should be required for newly-engaged couples.

But he's wrong about the metaphor. The US government is not a family. Or, if it were, it would be a family without a job but mouths to feed, paying for groceries on the credit card.

The Tea Party would be the cranky aunt, telling Dad to stop spending money on those damn kids.

You do what you have to do, including charging food on a credit card, until things get better.
622sarge33rd
      ID: 43701514
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 15:00
Another spot on statement from W Buffet:

Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.

"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said

"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."


623sarge33rd
      ID: 43701514
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 15:26
I've said for years,"...those least able to afford to give, are the most likely to do so."

Seems, I was right.

Rich people are different, and not in a good way

Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish.
624Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 17:26
You have no idea.

That is who you work for, Sarge. Why you choose to carry so much water for him, I really can't say.
625sarge33rd
      ID: 507181517
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 18:19
for cripes sake Boldwin...could you be MORE insane?

Like him or not, Soros knows money. Like him or not, Buffet knows money. BOTH, will tell you that the rich have PLENTY of room to be taxed more. (more pronounced...FAIRLY). If middle class taxpayer pays 20% of his/her income ion fed inc tax, there is NO REASON for someone making 500 times as much, to pay a lower per centage. NONE.

We the people, have GOT to quit protecting the uber-fkn-rich, and START making them pay their fair share. And paying a lower per centage of inc ome than their secretary, is NOT their fair share.

Gonna ask you the same question I asked my dad......Why do you endorse the rep Party, when you cant afford to the Republican dues? (ie ..membership at your local country club, chauffer and car that cost more than then the median priced home in your area.)
626weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 18:46
Bili:
Thank you for being honest enough to admit an honest mis-remembering.
You also made an honest effort to provide links to back up your claim.

Re the Buffet quote:
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
As the saying goes: "Figures dont lie but liars know how to figure"
The lie in this case is Buffet is lumping social security and medicare taxes with income taxes.
Now if Buffet's point is that payroll taxes unfairly raise the effective rates of middle and lower income tax families then lets do whatever we can to repeal them and eliminate them for all taxpayers.
The lie goes even deeper when he uses "and on my behalf", which means he is including taxes that are paid by the employer and not the taxpayers.
Remove the the 15.3% (assuming they made less than $106,800) and the effective income tax rates for the other 20 people become 17.7% to 25.7% with a 20.7 average.
The next question I would like to know is how does Buffet know know what taxes the other 20 people in his office paid?
Does he know what itemized deductions they claimed?
Does Buffet require the people who work in his office to file copies of their returns with him?

In addition if Buffet believes he should be paying more taxes then by all means he should.
There Is no law from stopping him making out a check to The Bureau of Public Debt for his "fair share".
627Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 18:50
Why do you endorse the rep Party, when you cant afford to the Republican dues? (ie ..membership at your local country club, chauffer and car that cost more than then the median priced home in your area.) - Sarge

I can't afford the price of living in a gulag or re-education camp.
628sarge33rd
      ID: 357111518
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 19:11
No WK. The answer is not the repeal of SS, but to raise the top tax rates, do away with Cap Gains being given an unforgivably LOW rate, and eliminate the home mortgage interest rate deduction beyond the primary residence.

That, for starters. Income, is income..period. It should all be taxed at the same rate.
629Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 20:32
I am done "debating" if that's what you think you are doing.

You never were debating, wk. You we're busy pissing a circle around yourself, daring others to come near you.

I get it--you don't want to talk about effective tax rates. Probably because you'd have to admit that the rich pay less of their income in taxes than those who work for them, and that would just rock your world.

Whatever.
630Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, May 21, 2012, 18:00
House breaks deal with WH, passes budget that exceeds the agreed-to limits

Another example in the ongoing "Why you can't trust a Republican lawmaker to keep his word."
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Shutdown/Impass

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours21
Last 7 days21
Last 30 days1712
Since Mar 1, 200789551320