| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2011 11:53:25 PM · #76 |
| Of course as a junior senator he did cast a vote against raising the debt ceiling on those exact sort of grandstanding grounds that he now has to gnash his teeth at, now that he is in the hot seat. Kinda ironic, he? |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 11:57:22 PM · #77 |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 12:58:56 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just bristled a bit at the example of Exxon paying zero corporate tax. It seemed like rhetoric when better, more truly reflective examples could be had. |
It's not rhetoric, it's reality. Exxon Mobil paid zero federal taxes in 2009 (it actually got a $29 million refund on top of drilling subsidies) despite earning a profit of $45.2 billion. Exxon owns 20 subsidiaries in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that it uses to legally shelter cash flow and keep tens of billions reinvested overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. The same year, General Electric made $10.3 billion in income and received a $1.1 billion tax credit from the federal government. I had a family member working for a small trading company that made millions of dollars a year, but kept a single employee in a Swiss office as their CFO so they could (legally) claim that they were based overseas and avoid U.S. taxes. Again, this type of practice is only available to the wealthy, and not uncommon. A GAO study showed that 2 out of 3 U.S. corporations pay nothing in taxes.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Buffett example also seemed off. Were you saying that the average of all Berkshire employees was paying 32% tax? How could this even be? |
The figures came from Warren Buffett himself. Here's a condensed version.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 01:00:51. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 09:16:07 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just bristled a bit at the example of Exxon paying zero corporate tax. It seemed like rhetoric when better, more truly reflective examples could be had. |
It's not rhetoric, it's reality. Exxon Mobil paid zero federal taxes in 2009 (it actually got a $29 million refund on top of drilling subsidies) despite earning a profit of $45.2 billion. Exxon owns 20 subsidiaries in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that it uses to legally shelter cash flow and keep tens of billions reinvested overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. The same year, General Electric made $10.3 billion in income and received a $1.1 billion tax credit from the federal government. I had a family member working for a small trading company that made millions of dollars a year, but kept a single employee in a Swiss office as their CFO so they could (legally) claim that they were based overseas and avoid U.S. taxes. Again, this type of practice is only available to the wealthy, and not uncommon. A GAO study showed that 2 out of 3 U.S. corporations pay nothing in taxes.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Buffett example also seemed off. Were you saying that the average of all Berkshire employees was paying 32% tax? How could this even be? |
The figures came from Warren Buffett himself. Here's a condensed version. |
Related to that: Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 12:03:23 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Buffett example also seemed off. Were you saying that the average of all Berkshire employees was paying 32% tax? How could this even be? |
The figures came from Warren Buffett himself. Here's a condensed version. |
Thanks for the link. I'm guessing my misunderstanding comes in what the word "staff" means. Your post, and even the article talk about "employees", but Berkshire and it's subsidiaries employee thousands upon thousands of people. Obviously we're talking about a much smaller group if actual calculations were done. The quote:
"He told the committee that he recently compared how much he pays in taxes in terms of a percentage of his salary to what his employees pay.
The results? Buffett says he pays 18 percent of his salary to the IRS while the rest of his staff pays nearly twice that â 33 percent, a lopsided equation that put Buffett in a Robin Hood frame of mind."
I'm still a bit skeptical about the quote. Wouldn't the only way to do this be to have each employee voluntarily give their 1040 to Buffett? He can't calculate it any other way.
Anyway. I can agree with you on your main point. Hiding money off shores is common and should be fixed (though that is likely much, much more complicated than a few lines of code. For example, how do you keep a legitimately Indian company from paying taxes on all their earnings worldwide if they do business at all in the US?) The GE example is probably a good one for how difficult such a proposition would be. GE: 7,000 tax returns $0 to IRS 2009 is an obviously odd year for GE. We think of them making light bulbs, but 50% of their company is in fiancial investments and we all know 2009 wasn't kind to their ilk.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2011 12:59:37 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm still a bit skeptical about the quote. Wouldn't the only way to do this be to have each employee voluntarily give their 1040 to Buffett? He can't calculate it any other way. |
He asked. "In our office 15 people cooperated in a survey, out of 18, I didn't make anybody do it. And my total taxes paid, payroll taxes plus income tax, mine came to 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn't anybody in the office, from the receptionist on, who paid a lower tax rate. And I have no tax planning, I don't have an accountant, I don't have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2009 is an obviously odd year for GE. We think of them making light bulbs, but 50% of their company is in fiancial investments and we all know 2009 wasn't kind to their ilk. |
That was 2009. Last month, Bloomberg reported that "eleven U.S. corporations including General Electric Co. (GE), Boeing Co. (BA) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) together reported $62 billion in domestic profits in 2010 while paying a negative 3.6 percent federal tax." "GE's effective tax rate during 2010 was a negative 64 percent on $5.1 billion in U.S. profits."
From ProPublica, "It's been 25 years since the last big tax reform legislation, which cut the corporate rate to 34 percent from 46 percent and eliminated a lot of deductions and tax breaks. But a quarter-century of pushing by businesses -- of which GE has been among the most aggressive -- has left us with both the lower tax rate (now 35 percent) and lots more deductions and shelters and other tax-reducing tactics than the 1986 legislation envisioned. GE's current idea of "reform" as expounded by John Samuels, the head of its tax department, is to cut the rate, but to allow some of GE's major tax-minimizing maneuvers to remain in place."
Cutting taxes has exactly same effect on the deficit as increased spending, arguably minus the benefits, but Republicans are only willing to address the latter as if it's the sole problem. The claim behind cutting taxes was that it would allow businesses and the wealthy to spur growth and create jobs. Instead, it has resulted in hoarding and shifting the tax burden to middle and lower classes where most of the money ISN'T. One of the primary problems is that roughly half of congress consists of millionaires and the rest aren't far behind. Given the demands of campaigning, wealth is basically a prerequisite for higher office, but it also means that our elected representatives aren't actually representative and would have to vote against their own self-interests â and against the interests of their largest benefactors â to do what's best for the majority of America. Obviously that's a tall order, and if you can paint the issues in terms that sound appealing to everyone (reduce spending, no tax hikes), then you can serve yourself and maintain popularity at the same time. Toss in the need to vote with an opposing party and you can see that the barriers to progress are incredibly daunting.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 12:59:52. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 01:12:43 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by glockguy:
Sorry. My bad. I guess what I am saying is " how is it possible that the USA can keep the entire world's economy at abay?". I apologize in advance, as a conservative, for believing the election of Obama was the worst thing the free world has seen in many years. That's saying a lot, because the "Bush era" was even worse.
I just can't believe that out of 300 miilion plus people trying to decide the "leader of the Free World. That's the best you (Americans) could come up with.
Seriosuly. Now, 'Bama can't even sort out a way to avoid a default.
Amazing |
Canadians can have opinions, I meant no offense, however, when a real troubling issue hits Canada, that can't be solved by big brother to the south, let me know. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 01:22:51 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We think of them making light bulbs, but 50% of their company is in fiancial investments and we all know 2009 wasn't kind to their ilk. |
But GE has always gotten out of its normal tax burden. 2009 was a normal year. Of course a few years ago there was this socialist lefty president named Ronald Reagan who tried to get them to pay a whopping 32% corporate tax. Thank God we have moved to the right in our country and put such socialist thinking from our minds.
"As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. â a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman â was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.
âI didnât realize things had gotten that far out of line,â Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Reganâs 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 01:28:38 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm still a bit skeptical about the quote. Wouldn't the only way to do this be to have each employee voluntarily give their 1040 to Buffett? He can't calculate it any other way. |
He asked. "In our office 15 people cooperated in a survey, out of 18, I didn't make anybody do it. And my total taxes paid, payroll taxes plus income tax, mine came to 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn't anybody in the office, from the receptionist on, who paid a lower tax rate. And I have no tax planning, I don't have an accountant, I don't have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do." |
Well, that's interesting. Don't quite know what to make of it. Since it was easy, I pulled up my last three years income tax on Turbo Tax. I fall somewhere in the 25-28% bracket. My effective federal income tax according to TurboTax?
2010: 6.86%
2009: 9.25%
2008: 10.73%
You'll have to take my word I'm not doing anything dodgy or gray. Basically my biggest advantages are having a mortgage and giving a fair amount of money to charity. Either his receptionist 1) makes a lot of money, 2) doesn't do a good job on her taxes, or 3) he is including other taxes like payroll tax, sales tax, etc. Maybe a more likely 4th option is she doesn't own a house. Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction?
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 13:30:28. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 01:52:48 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction? |
Why? Buffett pays mortgage?
|
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:00:22 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction? |
Why? Buffett pays mortgage? |
No. Because it's a deduction that costs the US billions, if not trillions of dollars and people who own houses tend to be richer than people who do not. More expensive houses tend to have more interest. The deduction favors the rich. The problem is we always imagine "the rich" to be people that earn more money than us. If we're going to make REAL progress on the deficit, we're gonna need to talk about stuff like this. I'm not holding my breath though. We'd probably consider conquest of another country before considering sending this cow to the abattoir. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:14:05 PM · #87 |
One of the reasons taxes are not levied on certain activities is that the government wants to encourage certain behaviors. Mortgages, charities, health care costs, none are taxed, because we want people to put their money into them. Home ownership is higher in the US than in most of the world, and it has all sorts of advantages from reducing societal unrest to providing a high value asset which pays for retirement and elder care.
If you get rid of certain deductions it will shift behaviors in such a way that the government will end up paying more out than they might collect in taxes. If you get taxed the same on a dollar if you give it to charity, or buy a candy bar, more people will buy the candy bar. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:21:37 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One of the reasons taxes are not levied on certain activities is that the government wants to encourage certain behaviors. Mortgages, charities, health care costs, none are taxed, because we want people to put their money into them. Home ownership is higher in the US than in most of the world, and it has all sorts of advantages from reducing societal unrest to providing a high value asset which pays for retirement and elder care.
If you get rid of certain deductions it will shift behaviors in such a way that the government will end up paying more out than they might collect in taxes. If you get taxed the same on a dollar if you give it to charity, or buy a candy bar, more people will buy the candy bar. |
Oh, I understand this. But after the housing bubble there are many people out there asking if home ownership is really all that importantfor the government to be subsidizing. I'm sure there is no obvious answer to that and one would have a very hard time making a airtight case linking something like homeownership with "societal unrest". Part of the blame for the current recession is the drive to get everybody to own a home. I looked up the cost. The estimate is $131 billion in tax revenue in 2010 lost to this deduction alone. When we talk in the 10-12 year range like politicians are apt to do we're talking $1.3 trillion. That's big time. Again, this deduction favors the richer over the poorer.
Listen, I've not become the champion of eliminating this deduction, but the reality is our country is in a big, big, big hole and we are going to have to make some really painful decisions if we don't want this to end very badly (ie. war. It will always end with bloodshed). The republicans are stupid for trying to believe we can do this without raising taxes. The democrats are stupid for thinking we can do this by charging "the rich" (ie. "not us") alone.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 14:23:06. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:22:22 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction? |
Why? Buffett pays mortgage? |
No. Because it's a deduction that costs the US billions, if not trillions of dollars and people who own houses tend to be richer than people who do not. More expensive houses tend to have more interest. The deduction favors the rich. The problem is we always imagine "the rich" to be people that earn more money than us. If we're going to make REAL progress on the deficit, we're gonna need to talk about stuff like this. I'm not holding my breath though. We'd probably consider conquest of another country before considering sending this cow to the abattoir. |
Someone living in the projects is richer than a homeless person on the street. So what? Neither are rich. Owning a single homestead that puts you several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole, which for many Americans has put them underwater, doesn't make you rich. Quite the opposite. Rich is determined by net worth, assets minus liabilities. You want to compare Buffett's net worth with his secretary's? Maybe the secretary doesn't own a home because she can't afford one?
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 14:24:13.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:24:46 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction? |
Why? Buffett pays mortgage? |
No. Because it's a deduction that costs the US billions, if not trillions of dollars and people who own houses tend to be richer than people who do not. More expensive houses tend to have more interest. The deduction favors the rich. The problem is we always imagine "the rich" to be people that earn more money than us. If we're going to make REAL progress on the deficit, we're gonna need to talk about stuff like this. I'm not holding my breath though. We'd probably consider conquest of another country before considering sending this cow to the abattoir. |
Someone living in the projects is richer than a homeless person on the street. So what? Neither are rich. Owning a single homestead that puts you several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole, which for many Americans has put them underwater, doesn't make you rich. Quite the opposite. Rich is based on net worth, assets minus liabilities. You want to compare Buffett's net worth with his secretary's? Maybe the secretary doesn't own a home because she can't afford one? |
What are you even saying? Nothing to what I'm speaking about. Yes. The secretary may not own a home because she can't afford one. That means her effective tax is higher than someone who does. If you removed that deduction it wouldn't help the secretary any, but it would make her effective rate more comparable to the richer person who does own the home. Weren't Shannon and Warren pointing out that his receptionist had a higher tax rate than he did? Part of that answer would be removing the mortgage deduction if we assume she doesn't own a home (which I'm assuming since her tax rate is more than 18% according to Buffett). Using my own tax rate and assuming that I make more money than the receptionist (could be very wrong), it seems the mortgage deduction changes that % quite a bit.
Originally posted by Richard:
Owning a single homestead that puts you several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole, which for many Americans has put them underwater, doesn't make you rich. |
Doesn't this speak as much to the idea of borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars for a home as anything else? People were underwater because they borrowed 100% or more for the loan. That certainly doesn't make people rich. It's lunacy.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 14:32:40. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 02:33:23 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are you even saying? Nothing to what I'm speaking about. |
You said: The mortgage interest deduction costs the US billions AND that it favors the rich... You then added a bit about owning homes makes you richer.
That implies to me that you believe home owners by default are rich. They are not. I'm also saying that the rich don't take out mortgages in the first place so the mortgage interest deduction doesn't even apply to them. If you're going to target the mortgage interest deduction as something that needs to be cut or eliminated then that is targeting the middle class.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 14:34:05.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2011 03:11:19 PM · #92 |
To grossly over simplify (and my macro economics are only capable of that) the free market tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. If you have capital you can make it grow, if you don't you can't. If the government decides to regulate the market it can do so on many levels, be only to enforce the rules of the market place, or to try to balance the market against perceived societal goals.
If we want to continue to see our economy follow the path of the free market then getting rid of all imbalances in taxation is logical, but we must face the reality that in so doing we are going to squeeze the middle class/working class out of existence. The elimination of the minimum wage, the eliminations of collective bargaining, a flat tax on all products and incomes, the free flow of capital across national borders, all squeeze the middle of the demographic.
Should the mortgage deduction be eliminated it will move housing to the old model, where there will be a class of owners, and a class of renters, with a smaller chance of being able to buy a house should you not be born into the right demographic. At one time in America we shared a dream, that everyone would be able to buy a little house and send their kids to college, and we felt that it was proper for the government to help foster that dream. The fact that unregulated lenders saw an opportunity to make vast amounts of money by overlending to unqualified applicants, while securitizing that debt as a pool and betting on the failure of that debt, is not so much a failure of the idea of home ownership, as an example of the flaws of an unregulated free market. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 03:40:35 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
To grossly over simplify (and my macro economics are only capable of that) the free market tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. If you have capital you can make it grow, if you don't you can't. If the government decides to regulate the market it can do so on many levels, be only to enforce the rules of the market place, or to try to balance the market against perceived societal goals.
If we want to continue to see our economy follow the path of the free market then getting rid of all imbalances in taxation is logical, but we must face the reality that in so doing we are going to squeeze the middle class/working class out of existence. The elimination of the minimum wage, the eliminations of collective bargaining, a flat tax on all products and incomes, the free flow of capital across national borders, all squeeze the middle of the demographic.
Should the mortgage deduction be eliminated it will move housing to the old model, where there will be a class of owners, and a class of renters, with a smaller chance of being able to buy a house should you not be born into the right demographic. At one time in America we shared a dream, that everyone would be able to buy a little house and send their kids to college, and we felt that it was proper for the government to help foster that dream. The fact that unregulated lenders saw an opportunity to make vast amounts of money by overlending to unqualified applicants, while securitizing that debt as a pool and betting on the failure of that debt, is not so much a failure of the idea of home ownership, as an example of the flaws of an unregulated free market. |
Once money trickles up, or gushes up; those up there, have the incentive and the means to prevent the money from coming back down. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 03:47:36 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are you even saying? Nothing to what I'm speaking about. |
You said: The mortgage interest deduction costs the US billions AND that it favors the rich... You then added a bit about owning homes makes you richer.
That implies to me that you believe home owners by default are rich. They are not. I'm also saying that the rich don't take out mortgages in the first place so the mortgage interest deduction doesn't even apply to them. If you're going to target the mortgage interest deduction as something that needs to be cut or eliminated then that is targeting the middle class. |
That's probably just sloppy writing. I mean owning a home is associated with being richer. If you own a home you are likely to make more money and have more money than someone who does not. Certainly there would be exceptions, but I'm speaking in general. Make more sense?
I think your idea of "rich" and my idea of "rich" are possibly different. It is of no use to only think of "rich" as other people. I'd think it would be entirely reasonable to consider the top 20% of people to be "rich" (although that's completely arbitrary). Do you know how much that is in annual income? Wiki has the numbers for 2003 at least (which are a bit dated I admit). $90,000/year.
"Middle class" is such a garbage term. If we truly consider "middle class" to be the middle third of income earners that range would be $30,000 to $67,000/year. How many of us are "middle class" under that distinction? And, I might point out, this is HOUSEHOLD income. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 03:56:48 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
To grossly over simplify (and my macro economics are only capable of that) the free market tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. If you have capital you can make it grow, if you don't you can't. If the government decides to regulate the market it can do so on many levels, be only to enforce the rules of the market place, or to try to balance the market against perceived societal goals.
If we want to continue to see our economy follow the path of the free market then getting rid of all imbalances in taxation is logical, but we must face the reality that in so doing we are going to squeeze the middle class/working class out of existence. The elimination of the minimum wage, the eliminations of collective bargaining, a flat tax on all products and incomes, the free flow of capital across national borders, all squeeze the middle of the demographic.
Should the mortgage deduction be eliminated it will move housing to the old model, where there will be a class of owners, and a class of renters, with a smaller chance of being able to buy a house should you not be born into the right demographic. At one time in America we shared a dream, that everyone would be able to buy a little house and send their kids to college, and we felt that it was proper for the government to help foster that dream. The fact that unregulated lenders saw an opportunity to make vast amounts of money by overlending to unqualified applicants, while securitizing that debt as a pool and betting on the failure of that debt, is not so much a failure of the idea of home ownership, as an example of the flaws of an unregulated free market. |
I don't disagree with you, but, as you say, it's far more complicated. The first house my father built in Bellevue, WA (a suburb of Seattle) he sold in 1978 for $17,000. I looked it up on Zillow. It's valued now at $417,000. That easily outstrips inflation and is likely a consequence of some of the policies we have had to encourage home ownership. It seems the more we try to get people to be able to buy homes, the more they cost (and then people can't buy them). I don't know the solution, but I do know that if we're going to solve the deficit problem then EVERYTHING needs to be on the table for discussion. What ever happened to that independent panel's recommendations from six months or a year ago? Nobody seems to remember that anymore because it was so unpalatable and it didn't even solve the problem completely. IIRC it reduced/removed the mortgage deduction.
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 15:57:09. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:01:18 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are you even saying? Nothing to what I'm speaking about. |
You said: The mortgage interest deduction costs the US billions AND that it favors the rich... You then added a bit about owning homes makes you richer.
That implies to me that you believe home owners by default are rich. They are not. I'm also saying that the rich don't take out mortgages in the first place so the mortgage interest deduction doesn't even apply to them. If you're going to target the mortgage interest deduction as something that needs to be cut or eliminated then that is targeting the middle class. |
That's probably just sloppy writing. I mean owning a home is associated with being richer. If you own a home you are likely to make more money and have more money than someone who does not. Certainly there would be exceptions, but I'm speaking in general. Make more sense?
I think your idea of "rich" and my idea of "rich" are possibly different. It is of no use to only think of "rich" as other people. I'd think it would be entirely reasonable to consider the top 20% of people to be "rich" (although that's completely arbitrary). Do you know how much that is in annual income? Wiki has the numbers for 2003 at least (which are a bit dated I admit). $90,000/year.
"Middle class" is such a garbage term. If we truly consider "middle class" to be the middle third of income earners that range would be $30,000 to $67,000/year. How many of us are "middle class" under that distinction? And, I might point out, this is HOUSEHOLD income. |
Income doesn't tell the whole story though. As I said earlier you have to look at net worth not how much money you're making. Johnny making 90k with a family of 4 and one son who has extensive medical needs may be worse off financially than single Susie making 40k.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:04:53 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Income doesn't tell the whole story though. As I said earlier you have to look at net worth not how much money you're making. Johnny making 90k with a family of 4 and one son who has extensive medical needs may be worse off financially than single Susie making 40k. |
I quite agree, but we're talking generalities here and one cannot take those things into consideration. Percy makes 2 million but pays a lawyer $150,000 a year on retainer, has a wife with MS that costs him $70,000 a year in medical bills, etc. etc. etc. What's your point on a macro scale? |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:33:06 PM · #98 |
| The saddest part of this debate among hobbyist photographers, is how much more substantive it is than the debate in Washington and in the National press. Our democracy is broken. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:35:09 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The saddest part of this debate among hobbyist photographers, is how much more substantive it is than the debate in Washington and in the National press. Our democracy is broken. |
+1 |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:44:39 PM · #100 |
|
