Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall
By Harold Meyerson
The Washington Post

Wednesday 02 August 2006

Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid has taken to invoking Harry Truman's line about a "do-nothing Congress," and with ample reason. In dealing with the major issues of our time (global warming, immigration, the diminishing benefits and stagnant wages that characterize today's economy) or in discharging its oversight duties over administration policies that have failed (the war in Iraq) or were stillborn (the rescue of New Orleans), the Republican-controlled Congress has been nowhere to be found. In inverse relation to the seriousness of the challenges that America confronts, this Congress is well on its way to spending the fewest days in session of any in modern memory.

Still, the one thing that should engender more fear than the current Congress's doing nothing is the current Congress's doing something. Every time congressional Republicans are compelled by public pressure to address a serious issue, they retreat to their laboratory and emerge with Frankenstein-monster legislation designed primarily to reward their campaign donors and stick it to the Democrats, and only secondarily to fix the problem. The Medicare drug program they crafted with the Bush White House enabled seniors to obtain some medications at a lower price, but it codified the continued upward spiral of drug prices by forbidding the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies - a linchpin of Republican campaign finance - to bring prices down.

Now they're at it again. Facing pressure from Northeastern and Midwestern House Republicans fearful of losing their seats this November, the House leadership has at long last relented and crafted a bill, which passed the House at around 1:30 Saturday morning, to raise the hourly minimum wage from its current abysmal $5.15 to $7.25 in three separate stages over the next three years. A decade has passed since Congress last hiked the minimum wage, during which time it has managed in a series of votes to raise its own members' salaries by a cool $31,000. Democrats and labor were hammering the Republicans over this most double of standards; minimum-wage workers were showing up at the Republicans' district offices and on local TV newscasts to dramatize the disparity.

So Republicans had to respond, and they did so in their inimitable cynical fashion. Appended to the minimum wage hike that the vast majority of them opposed was a provision genuinely dear to their hearts: a cut in the estate tax that chiefly benefits the super-rich and that will reduce government revenue over the next decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by $753 billion. The shortfall could well lead to offsetting cuts in programs that benefit the same working poor that the minimum-wage increase would help. But who cares about the poor? The whole point of the exercise was to come up with a bill that might force some Democrats to vote for an estate tax cut they would otherwise oppose, and enable Republicans to claim they weren't really the Dickensian grotesques that many of them in fact are.

Which may be why the Republicans' midnight orations in favor of raising the wage bore minimal resemblance to, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Their tone was best captured by Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a Mayberry Machiavelli if ever there was one, who could not restrain himself from telling House Democrats, "You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight."

Wamp's taunt can serve as the credo for this entire Republican Congress, which legislates only when, and because, it can outfox the Democrats. It is the credo of the Bush administration as well, which views even its signature policy - its war on terrorism - as its foremost wedge issue against the Democrats. Combine this hyper-partisan ethos with a far-right ideology that sees no role for the government even as our corporate welfare state crumbles and our planet turns to toast, and you get a more do-nothing government than Harry Truman could have even imagined.

So the solutions for national problems get kicked downstairs. To date 23 states have passed minimum-wage standards higher than the feds' - and none of them in statutes designed to subvert themselves or play gotcha with the opposition party. States have begun to enact universal health insurance plans, while cities are passing living-wage ordinances. And just this Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair signed an agreement between the sovereign state of California and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to curb greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean fuels and fight global warming. "California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming," said Schwarzenegger, who understands that for a Republican to win election in Democratic California, he has to be a down-the-line environmentalist.

In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans are desperate to hold power. Not to govern, mind you, just hold power.


Ding,Ding,Ding. Give that man a cigar:) :)
 
Just shows that the DemocRats don't care one little bit about the little guy. All they want is to look like they care, but when the vote comes, they bail.

Minimum wage increases are nothing more than a tax on business. You will see your consumer costs go up every time. Anybody who's fooled by that is a sucker.
 
fossten said:
Just shows that the DemocRats don't care one little bit about the little guy. All they want is to look like they care, but when the vote comes, they bail.

For a liberal, it is never about results. Only intent.

Here is what the Dems are saying.

" Sorry Mr and Mrs Minimum Wage Earner. We are going to screw you over because we are upset that we might not be able to tax a dead guy twice, a guy who has played by the rules and built up a nest egg for his family. Yes, yes, yes. This guys has paid taxes his whole life, and yes, we know you haven't paid any, but we wanted so badly to steal from this guy that we decided to screw you and keep you in your hole. Because if you ever did crawl out of your hole, we would lose contriol over you and thus lose our power to lord over you. I hope you undertand. Now get back to making my burger medium rare with no mustard and no pickles. "
 
97silverlsc said:
In dealing with the major issues of our time (global warming, immigration, the diminishing benefits and stagnant wages that characterize today's economy) or in discharging its oversight duties over administration policies that have failed (the war in Iraq) or were stillborn (the rescue of New Orleans), the Republican-controlled Congress has been nowhere to be found

And here is the problem. The "major issues of our time" aren't minimum wage or global warming. The major issue we are dealing are in regards to national security and the numerous international threats that are pushing the world into another world war.

Theories speculating the cause or existance of global warming or the irresponsible New Orleans government are minor issure when put in the context of the big picture facing the world and this nation. It is this ignorant short sightedness that demonstrates so very well why the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation.

We are on the brink of war, at this point, attempts at peace are little more than delaying the inevitable. All the while, ridiculous idealist liberals continue to look the other way and complain about NON ISSUES like the minimum wage in an attempt to exploit the ignorant people who respond to the class warfare the DNC relies upon.
 
In dealing with the major issues of our time (global warming, immigration, the diminishing benefits and stagnant wages that characterize today's economy) or in discharging its oversight duties over administration policies that have failed (the war in Iraq) or were stillborn (the rescue of New Orleans),

Global warming is nothing other than a relatively undebated subject, overheated (pun intended) by the Al Gores of hte world as if it will be the end of the universe. Diminishing benefits? Do you even know why anyone has benefits? They aren't something that you are guaranteed, they aren't something you deserve. They were merely a replacement for wage increases and used as an incentive during the wage freezes of way back when. You don't deserve anything. I'm suprised companies still pay a dime quite frankly, and if you do get partially paid for healthcare then count yourself lucky. THose of us small business owners of the US foot our own bill, and you should learn to yourself. Nothing but a bunch of liberal morons would think that benefits were a right and not a priviledge. Stagnant wages? Only the absolute ignorant of society acutally make minimum wage. Hell, at 15 years old I made more than minimum on a seasonal help job at a clothing store. If you make minimum wage (and are over 18), you probably deserve it and should face the fact that its all you're ever going to make.

Iraq is exactly what we all knew it would always be. The beginning of a fight that may last forever. Have we been attacked since?:rolleyes:
And the facts show that NO was NO's fault, not the feds.
 
stang99x said:
Global warming is nothing other than a relatively undebated subject, overheated (pun intended) by the Al Gores of hte world as if it will be the end of the universe. Diminishing benefits? Do you even know why anyone has benefits? They aren't something that you are guaranteed, they aren't something you deserve. They were merely a replacement for wage increases and used as an incentive during the wage freezes of way back when. You don't deserve anything. I'm suprised companies still pay a dime quite frankly, and if you do get partially paid for healthcare then count yourself lucky. THose of us small business owners of the US foot our own bill, and you should learn to yourself. Nothing but a bunch of liberal morons would think that benefits were a right and not a priviledge. Stagnant wages? Only the absolute ignorant of society acutally make minimum wage. Hell, at 15 years old I made more than minimum on a seasonal help job at a clothing store. If you make minimum wage (and are over 18), you probably deserve it and should face the fact that its all you're ever going to make.

Iraq is exactly what we all knew it would always be. The beginning of a fight that may last forever. Have we been attacked since?:rolleyes:
And the facts show that NO was NO's fault, not the feds.

FYI, the dirty little truth behind Phil's rant is that he's in a union environment at his job, so there's no way he earns anywhere near minimum wage.
 
And the god d@mn unions have become the root of all things chitty. You bastards (union members of a whole) are nearly bringing major companies to their knees with your failed work eithics and astronomical wages. I know burger flippers who deserve better wages than union workers. There is but one union that does its job, and even it gets out of step from time to time and that is UPS
 
He might work for a union so he's not paid minimum wage, but I'd bet money that his price is fixed to the minimum wage. So, if they raise minimum wage a dollar, all other wages are increased by the same amount.

That's the dirty secret behind the Democrats and the minimum wage. It is class warfare, but it's also a way to throw the unions a big bone.
 
meanwhile, to those of us in non union jobs, all a raise in Mininum wage does is put us closer to minimum wage. If they raise MW by 2.15 I can promise you companies are NOT going to raise all thier employees wages by that same amount. Therefore, after prices adjust upward to deal with increased payroll overhead, all increasing MW does is hurt the slightly above MW wage earner. And make even more people dependant on the .gov which is the Demos main goal.
 
Calabrio said:
He might work for a union so he's not paid minimum wage, but I'd bet money that his price is fixed to the minimum wage. So, if they raise minimum wage a dollar, all other wages are increased by the same amount.

That's the dirty secret behind the Democrats and the minimum wage. It is class warfare, but it's also a way to throw the unions a big bone.

I (mildly) disagree. I spent 8 years in the Postal workers union, and I can tell you that all wages are negotiated by contract every 3 years. Nevertheless, there may be some consideration to the minimum wage given during negotiations, but that will always be reflected in the price of a stamp.
 
Bah, taxing a dead guy twice my ass.

You can't tax someone when they're dead.

The estate tax taxes those who didn't do one iota of work for the money they're about to recieve. Think spoiled rich kid.

Calabrio said:
We are on the brink of war, at this point, attempts at peace are little more than delaying the inevitable. All the while, ridiculous idealist liberals continue to look the other way and complain about NON ISSUES like the minimum wage in an attempt to exploit the ignorant people who respond to the class warfare the DNC relies upon.

Dahahaha... and you republicans push OMGWTFBBQ GAY MARRIAGE?!?! as an issue. I give you 10 out of a possible 10 hypocricy points on that one. :rolleyes:
 
MediumD said:
Bah, taxing a dead guy twice my ass.

You can't tax someone when they're dead.

The estate tax taxes those who didn't do one iota of work for the money they're about to recieve. Think spoiled rich kid.



Dahahaha... and you republicans push OMGWTFBBQ GAY MARRIAGE?!?! as an issue. I give you 10 out of a possible 10 hypocricy points on that one. :rolleyes:

You need to go read up on the Estate tax before you spout off from such ignorance.

BTW, if gay marriage isn't such a big issue, why did 40+ states have it on their ballots in 2004?
 
MediumD said:
Bah, taxing a dead guy twice my ass.

You can't tax someone when they're dead.

The estate tax taxes those who didn't do one iota of work for the money they're about to recieve. Think spoiled rich kid.

You're logic is so horribly flawed. First of all, estate taxes don't penalize the "rich kids" nearly as much as you might think. There are clever ways of moving your money around in order to avoid these taxes if you're super wealthy and have high liquidity.

The people that get hurt are people like small business owners and farmers. Families that are forced to sell their families land in order to pay the substantial death tax. We don't oppose the death tax because we're worried about how it hurts the Kennedy family, I oppose it on principle and because it hurts the family of the man who opened a shoe repair shop 25 year ago.


Dahahaha... and you republicans push OMGWTFBBQ GAY MARRIAGE?!?! as an issue. I give you 10 out of a possible 10 hypocricy points on that one. :rolleyes:
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but the culture war is certainly an important issue. However, I know of no one who puts the gay marriage legal issue on the same level of importance as the foreign policy and international threats facing the country today.

I know you read these threads, but do you understand them? The second line of the initial post refers to the "major issues of our time" yet fails to mention the national security.
 
So instead of making it harder for the rich to avoid taxes, lets get rid of the tax altogether! Woo great idea!

In the case of a qualifying Family Farm, IRC §2032A allows a reduction from value of up to $820,000.

If the decedent owned an interest in a qualifying family owned business, a deduction from the gross estate in the amount of up to $1,100,000 may be available under IRC §2057.

$1,100,000 worth of estate value is NOT a small business. That's a huge sum of money to the average American.
 
MediumD said:
So instead of making it harder for the rich to avoid taxes, lets get rid of the tax altogether! Woo great idea!

I sense the sarcasm in your post. But you think the minimum wage raised to $7.15 is going to help anybody? LOL

$1,100,000 worth of estate value is NOT a small business. That's a huge sum of money to the average American.

You would be woefully incorrect. You're assuming that's all cash. By the time you factor in property, equipment, and assets, there isn't enough to go on a spending spree. And when you tax that, often the recipient has to go take out a loan to pay the tax or liquidate the business. Nice thing to do to somebody who's just lost their father, eh? Slap 'em with a big tax bill?
 
It's not cash, it's assets. That is still one hell of a lot of assets.

My dad runs a small business, it's enough for him to live comfortably, but it doesn't have anywhere near $1.1M in assets. Were it to grow to that level before he dies, I would be stuck with a big tax bill. I wouldn't really mind so much, because even at a 50% tax rate, assuming I did have to liquidate the business, I would still have 550K that I didn't even earn. I would be damn happy to get half a million dollars that I didn't have to work for.
 
MediumD said:
$1,100,000 worth of estate value is NOT a small business. That's a huge sum of money to the average American.

What part of the country do you live in? What do you think a single piece of commercial property costs in any urban area? Hell, in many parts of the country, you can expect to pay North of $500k for a regular sized house.

How much is a farm worth? What if there is a natural water source on that farm. How much value does that have to a condo developer looking for water front property?

So, if we tax that, the family is forced to sell it all off inorder to pay the taxes. The value isn't liquid, so the family has no way of dispersing the value prior to their death.

And furthermore, for what reason should people be taxed excessively after death? So they pay a death tax and then the family members pay income tax on the money too? How is that right? How can you defend that. Other than you class warfare spite, it's indefensible.
 
MediumD said:
It's not cash, it's assets. That is still one hell of a lot of assets.

My dad runs a small business, it's enough for him to live comfortably, but it doesn't have anywhere near $1.1M in assets. Were it to grow to that level before he dies, I would be stuck with a big tax bill. I wouldn't really mind so much, because even at a 50% tax rate, assuming I did have to liquidate the business, I would still have 550K that I didn't even earn. I would be damn happy to get half a million dollars that I didn't have to work for.

Ask your father which he'd rather-

Half of his life work to be given to the government.

Or to pass on that legacy to his family- to maybe help his children and grandchildren better their lives. College funds, help with a mortgage, whatever.

You're clearly under 21 with virtually no live experience. This is evident in all your posts. You don't seem to understand the value of money here. "I'd be happy with just $500k.." is an idiotic statement, my guess made by someone with little to no work experience, no family, and no thoughts of legacy and mortality.
 
MediumD said:
It's not cash, it's assets. That is still one hell of a lot of assets.

My dad runs a small business, it's enough for him to live comfortably, but it doesn't have anywhere near $1.1M in assets. Were it to grow to that level before he dies, I would be stuck with a big tax bill. I wouldn't really mind so much, because even at a 50% tax rate, assuming I did have to liquidate the business, I would still have 550K that I didn't even earn. I would be damn happy to get half a million dollars that I didn't have to work for.


Wow, you can tell you know nothing about farming or the value of farm land and farming equipment. Do you realize how many small farms go under due to sons being force to sell the land to pay the "estate taxes".

Just an example. Where I am from, good farm land brings... oh, on the low side 3000 per acre. Now, say I am a small farmer with 500 acres (which is very very little )... guess what? My "net worth" is already 1.5 Million. Acording to the tax man anyway. yet my family might have owned this farm land for generations. Now add onto this the price of a new combine, 500k or so.

Plus the fact, the average small farmer has very little in the way of liquid assets, IE CASH. what is the Son to do? He "OWES" the government taxes on this land and equipment, again. so he is forced to sell, and that is why ADM, ConAGra etc now own most of the farmland in America today.

So spare me the BS on how the "estate tax" only hurts the rich. That is so much bs it stinks more that Cow Dung. The True rich, like the Kennedy's, hide their wealth in offshore trust funds where the government cant touch it. Meanwhile the working men and women of America pay the price.
 
MediumD said:
It's not cash, it's assets. That is still one hell of a lot of assets.

My dad runs a small business, it's enough for him to live comfortably, but it doesn't have anywhere near $1.1M in assets. Were it to grow to that level before he dies, I would be stuck with a big tax bill. I wouldn't really mind so much, because even at a 50% tax rate, assuming I did have to liquidate the business, I would still have 550K that I didn't even earn. I would be damn happy to get half a million dollars that I didn't have to work for.

A regular everyday Robin Hood are you.

You talk big but obviously have had everything given to you. Otherwise you would know how hard your dad has had to work to get what he has and you see no problem with someone stepping in and stealing from him, AFTER he is dead.

Here is a tiny bit of advice. Spend the day with your dad and get his take on the inheritance tax. Obviously you haven't worked for it so you don't deserve a dime. I hope he gives it away to charity before he dies.
 
Calabrio said:
Ask your father which he'd rather-

Half of his life work to be given to the government.

Or to pass on that legacy to his family- to maybe help his children and grandchildren better their lives. College funds, help with a mortgage, whatever.

You're clearly under 21 with virtually no live experience. This is evident in all your posts. You don't seem to understand the value of money here. "I'd be happy with just $500k.." is an idiotic statement, my guess made by someone with little to no work experience, no family, and no thoughts of legacy and mortality.

My 65 year old father (I'll let you be the judge of how old that makes me,) being a reasonable man, knows that the government needs money to do it's various duties. If we are going to let those with more than a million dollars of net worth go without paying estate taxes, where do you propose we get money? Especially with the neocons completely going back on conservatism and spending more money than ever.

I understand the value of money pretty well, actually. I have a job, I bought a Mark VIII for $2k with money I earned. My daddy didn't buy it for me. You want people to be able to get 550 times the value of my car without earning it, without taxation.

I'll talk about the family farm issue later.

So spare me the BS on how the "estate tax" only hurts the rich. That is so much bs it stinks more that Cow Dung. The True rich, like the Kennedy's, hide their wealth in offshore trust funds where the government cant touch it. Meanwhile the working men and women of America pay the price.

So, once again your solution is, instead of closing tax loopholes where the ultra rich can hide their money, we just quit taxing the rich in the first place. Woo hoo, great plan.

MonsterMark said:
A regular everyday Robin Hood are you.

You talk big but obviously have had everything given to you. Otherwise you would know how hard your dad has had to work to get what he has and you see no problem with someone stepping in and stealing from him, AFTER he is dead.

It's not exactly stealing money from him when he's dead... because the money isn't going with him when he dies, it's staying here and being passed on to an heir. You can't use money when you're dead. I don't see how the heck anyone thinks this is taxing a dead person.

Here is a tiny bit of advice. Spend the day with your dad and get his take on the inheritance tax. Obviously you haven't worked for it so you don't deserve a dime. I hope he gives it away to charity before he dies.

You want my dad to give his money away so I don't get any of it, because I didn't earn it? Well, that's what I've been saying all along, I didn't earn it, so I don't really deserve much of an inheritance - neither do the rest of the heirs who didn't do a lick of work but are set to receive millions. You are a fool to think I have had everything given to me. People should work for what they have instead of getting it on a silver platter.
 
MediumD said:
If we are going to let those with more than a million dollars of net worth go without paying estate taxes, where do you propose we get money?
Sales tax or
Income tax and
Tarrifs.

Now that I've answered your question, why do you think the government should be in the business of grave robbing in order to finance it's wasteful spending?

Especially with the neocons completely going back on conservatism and spending more money than ever.
The implication here is what? That the Democrats would have spent less? But, let's split the difference, let's NOT plunder a families estate and LOWER wasteful government spending.

I understand the value of money pretty well, actually. I have a job, I bought a Mark VIII for $2k with money I earned. My daddy didn't buy it for me. You want people to be able to get 550 times the value of my car without earning it, without taxation.
It's not about you, it's about your father. He should be able to do whatever the hell he wants with the money he's earned. He shouldn't be penalized and plundered just because he's died.

And, in case you weren't aware-
the money is taxed when it's earned. It'll be taxed when they die. And you'll be hit with income taxes after you get it. And then sales tax when you spend it. Nothing is tax free.

I'll talk about the family farm issue later.

So, once again your solution is, instead of closing tax loopholes where the ultra rich can hide their money, we just quit taxing the rich in the first place. Woo hoo, great plan.
First of all, let's just talk about the principle of it.
Why should the government tax you simply because you've died. How is this right, how do you justify this practice. It's not about revenue, it's about the redistribution of wealth. Let me emphasize that REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. And as deplorable as this, it doesn't even work. The people most hurt by the policy are the middle entrepeneur class.

It's not exactly stealing money from him when he's dead... because the money isn't going with him when he dies, it's staying here and being passed on to an heir. You can't use money when you're dead. I don't see how the heck anyone thinks this is taxing a dead person.
So, do you support the complete seizure of all land and property following a persons death? Why not, it's not like they can spend it when they are dead. Since apparently the idea of taking care of your family,providing them a better life, sustaining a family business, or establishing some kind of legacy don't matter to you, why don't we turn all property over to the government following our death.

That'll do wonders for our economy.:rolleyes:

You want my dad to give his money away so I don't get any of it, because I didn't earn it? Well, that's what I've been saying all along, I didn't earn it, so I don't really deserve much of an inheritance - neither do the rest of the heirs who didn't do a lick of work but are set to receive millions. You are a fool to think I have had everything given to me. People should work for what they have instead of getting it on a silver platter.
Your father can do whatever the hell he wants to do with his savings. Hopefully he won't give you a penny and donate absolute everything to an animal shelter. But whatever he does, it should be his choice. The government should not rob his grave.
 
MediumD said:
It's not exactly stealing money from him when he's dead... because the money isn't going with him when he dies, it's staying here and being passed on to an heir. You can't use money when you're dead. I don't see how the heck anyone thinks this is taxing a dead person.

He's already paid taxes on it. Why does it have to be stepped on again?

MediumD said:
You are a fool to think I have had everything given to me. People should work for what they have instead of getting it on a silver platter.
No, I don't think you have had everything given to me. But your position bothers me. It is in mankinds nature to strive to do better and to provide better than those that came before us. My Dad worked hard so I would have a better life than he. I work so my kids will have a better life than I. I hope some day that I could pass along the fruits of my labor to my kids and their kids, knowing that my efforts directly affected generation after generation. Better housing, better food, better opportunity.

Who is it for you or the government to take that away from me? If you have already paid into the system, you're done. Hands off. You've paid your dues. Go get your money from the people that haven't paid into the system. That have only taken and taken. Vote out the Democrats. Vote in compassionate conservatives that want to offer a hand up, not a hand out. Vote for people that want to change our public education system so more and more Americans get a decent, wage paying education and will be able to pay into the system. Liberlaism has failed this country. Your advocacy to take from the rich and give to the poor hasn't worked for the past 50 years. Time for a new start.
 
LOL compassionate conservatives. The kind who give out tax cuts to the richest people in the nation? The kind who hire their cronies to make hundreds of millions in no-bid government contracts? The kind who believe in 'trickle down theory?' Hah.

Sorry, I'm done. We just have different views, and discussing them really won't do anything. I came here to talk about cars, and in the interest of staying calm... I think will be trying to stick to that (after I hear back on the "lets kill the muslims" thread.)
 
MediumD said:
LOL compassionate conservatives. .)
As opposed to greedy liberals.

MediumD said:
The kind who give out tax cuts to the richest people in the nation? .)
Who also pay 90% of all the taxes.

MediumD said:
The kind who hire their cronies to make hundreds of millions in no-bid government contracts? .)
Evil Halliburton

MediumD said:
The kind who believe in 'trickle down theory?' Hah..)
Disdain for Reaganomics

MediumD said:
Sorry, I'm done. We just have different views, and discussing them really won't do anything. I came here to talk about cars, and in the interest of staying calm... I think will be trying to stick to that (after I hear back on the "lets kill the muslims" thread.)

You certainly covered all the liberal talking points. Well, back to the koll-aid kooler for you I guess. But hey, thanks for stopping in. It is rough and tumble, that's for sure and especially when you so drunk from the koolaid you can't see straight.:D Take care. Still 'friends'?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top