roids1
Banned
- Awards
- 1
Interesting arguement for a value added tax. Not quite right-wing enough for my tastes, but great insights into the mess the messiah's admin are making with the economy and healthcare.
Have at it!
Have at it!
rambo679
Member
- Awards
- 1
The problem with a VAT tax is that there is nothing to stop congress, unless the 16th amendment is repealed, from enacting it alongside the income tax as opposed to replacing it.
rambo679
Member
- Awards
- 1
Not quite, China is lowering their corporate tax and Russia has a flat tax. But I get your point.
GuyverX
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Ironfists.
Interesting comment.
I remeber saying the exact same thing in a discussion about a year ago when the whole economic crunch thing was coming down.
Not as related to taxes but more so to the U.S. approaching the end of its "illusion" of glory days and going towards having only two classes.. the exceedingly rich and the extremely poor.
And that Americans would be running to cross the border to Mexico instead of them coming here anymore.
And the Mexican people laughing at the irony of the situation.
roids1
Banned
- Awards
- 1
Uhhhhh. I don't know about this scenario. Our economy sinking into the crapper doesn't somehow lift Mexico's out of the crapper. Two social classes, extremely rich, extremely poor, with no middle class describes just about all of Central and S.America pretty well right now. Don't get your hopes up just yet. Although, there may be plenty heading to Canada, EU, or Asia to look for jobs.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
No type of tax reform is in the interest of the American people but one: cuts to existing taxes with equal and opposite cuts to spending to fund them. Any attempt at tax 'reform' merely shifts the burden around a little and makes some who used to be net payers net consumers, and vice versa. And unless spending is cut the over all trend is for an increase on everyone. The government can't be trusted with tax 'reform' because even if you find the reformed system temporarily to your liking, without spending cuts and without an actual cut in the power to tax, in the end what's left is a net increase in taxes on everyone and government spending.
There's one approach that works: cut or repeal existing taxes and decrease spending by the same amount.
There's one approach that works: cut or repeal existing taxes and decrease spending by the same amount.
GuyverX
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Trust... I am looking towards going to one of those myself. If things get too much worse.
A coworkers brother is in the medical field, come July of next year his position is being closed out here.
He either has to move to China or work for another company.
A lot of us might need to brush up on our foreign language skills though.
And soon.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
That's the problem, and why whenever they get worked up about 'tax reform' at any level of government, you should hold on to both your wallet and your balls. They'll be coming for one or both of those things. They have no incentive to 'reform' anything unless they're coming up short, which by definition means they're spending more than they're taking in. That's why, kooks like Ron Paul and myself aside, anyone who calls for 'tax reform' is really calling for a net tax increase.
rambo679
Member
- Awards
- 1
As long as the government can monetize the debt it will never decrease spending, no matter how much they cut taxes. For example, California being a state government with no Federal Reserve was forced to finally make the "painful" cuts when the voters rejected the proposition to extend the tax increases. As long as there is a federal reserve the federal government will never be forced into a corner enough to really cut spending.
enswalters
Member
- Awards
- 0
The problem with our current tax system is that it's too complicated, too burdensome, and too easy to cheat. Look at the Walton family, heirs to the Walmart fortune with a net worth of over $100 billion. They have lobbied hard to keep tax loopholes open that will allow them to avoid estate taxes.
The rich are getting richer paying low capital gains taxes, while hard-working middle class Americans are getting ripped off. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American (behind Bill Gates), even complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than his receptionist!!
I think the actually numbers were something like 18% for Warren Buffett, and 30% for his receptionist.
I'm not some left wing liberal who wants to give everyone a handout, but at the same time there has to be some sort of fairness to the tax system. When the wealthiest 1% of Americans saw their income levels rise higher than at any point in the past 20 years, while their income tax rates dropped to the lowest levels in 18 years.
Something is definitely wrong with this picture. If we don't do something soon, there will be no middle class left.
The rich are getting richer paying low capital gains taxes, while hard-working middle class Americans are getting ripped off. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American (behind Bill Gates), even complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than his receptionist!!
I think the actually numbers were something like 18% for Warren Buffett, and 30% for his receptionist.
I'm not some left wing liberal who wants to give everyone a handout, but at the same time there has to be some sort of fairness to the tax system. When the wealthiest 1% of Americans saw their income levels rise higher than at any point in the past 20 years, while their income tax rates dropped to the lowest levels in 18 years.
Something is definitely wrong with this picture. If we don't do something soon, there will be no middle class left.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
The problem is their wealth rising has nothing to do with taxes, it has to do with massive infusions of money and credit from the government. There is no such thing as a fair tax system. What's the 'fair' amount to take from anybody, rich or poor?
Here's the fair tax in almost everyone's opinion: "Let's get rid of the tax(es) I don't like and replace them with tax(es) I don't pay." Most people agree with that plan as 'fair'.
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
The problem is that they already are reaching the point of having a problem monetizing the debt. At this point its iffy who will "buy" the 2010 deficit (china will probably take 500 billion of it, but who will buy the other trillion?) and then forget 2011, even by then china is unlikely to be willing to take much
Do you think doubling the income of the bottom 5% of income would create jobs, or that top 1%? Do you think their net value rise is due to them having cash in hand and gold bars or to them investing in stocks and companies and businesses which create new jobs for the other 99% of the population?
And Warren Buffet says stuff like that, but partially its because he has no "income" as such that he takes in actual pay, he lives super frugally and its all reinvested. So his cash take home pay is possibly below his secretary's...
And as far as estate tax. Please. You pay taxes when the money is earned, why should you pay taxes again when its given to your family? How many times should that same dollar get taxed?
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
nothing, because thats not the terms of the agreement. So long as we are paying interest they won't do crap. They may not loan us any more $, but thats all they can do
no they wouldn't because then a) they lose every cent they loaned us and b) then they all die as well since we would nuke back. Honestly I don't know where people get ideas like this
because gold used to be the worldwide reserve currency, then the US dollar became the worldwide reserve currency and as the US dollar appears less and less stable it makes more sense for countries to start looking at returning to a gold backed standard.
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
The point is that the loan for the deficit has terms, and just because the chinese get worried about it doesn't mean they can change the terms. So sure they aren't happy, but that just means they stop buying the debt. Once they do that, then either our lawmakers will be forced to clip spending and raise taxes, or just ludicrously raise taxes (by an order of double what they collect now) or they'll just keep printing money and inflation will spiral into the 20% range.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
Yes they can. Just like we can repudiate our debt or inflate the **** out of the dollar so we're paying them back in devalued currency. Either way the rest of your post is on, but don't fall for the myth that debts between nations are the same as debts between individuals. There are no contracts between nations that an army or a bad hair day won't dissolve if one or both nations feel it's in their interest to do so.
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
True, but thats what the world bank and IMF are there for, to help mediate in that sort of thing if one party gets pissy
but the problem is if we either did repudiate the debt or let inflation go hogwild we'd have to already have a balanced budget because nobody else would loan to us either...
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
True enough. I think the over riding point is either way we go, we're ****ed.True, but thats what the world bank and IMF are there for, to help mediate in that sort of thing if one party gets pissy
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
Yeah, its just a question of are we ****ed in 2010, 2011 or 2012?
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
I'm thinking 2011. First quarter 2010 is going to be 'unexpectedly' slow is my guess, with the 'jobless recover' continuing until people realize GDP doesn't mean **** and maybe even a second or third round of major banking issues hits, at which point it's hello banana republic.
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
Yeah, I don't think it will last till 2012. I figure china will be willing to buy as much as another 500 billion in debt next year and then they'll cut us off after that. They are smart enough to realize (even if our congress isn't) that they are mostly giving us money so that we can buy their goods, but if inflation will devalue it and they'll never get it back they may as well keep it in china.
enswalters
Member
- Awards
- 0
Warren Buffet has a HUGE income - MUCH more than his receptionist, obviously. This guy is pulling in millions and he's worth billions! Come on! The difference is that "income" from capital gains is taxed at a low rate, while "income" from salary is taxed at a much higher rate. Hence, his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income as taxes than he does.
Is that fair? Heck no. Warren Buffet realizes that, and he's even gone on record as saying that he should be paying a higher share of taxes. The reason the tax laws aren't changed is because the wealthy are getting richer by paying lower taxes, and they're the ones running this country, not the average American worker making $50,000 or less a year.
As far as creating jobs, absolutely, increasing the income of the poorest people is going to create more jobs than increasing the wealth of the richest 1%. The mega-wealthy aren't creating jobs in America. It's small business owners. Most of the big corporations are outsourcing jobs to China, India, and Mexico.
The Walton family is THE richest family in the world. Walmart is the most powerful corporation in the world. They make over $7 Billion a year in profits, yet they cheat taxpayers out of hundreds of millions every year, both in unwarranted tax subsidies and illegal/unethical tax loopholes.
Absolutely the Walton family should pay an estate tax. Why should they pass on $100 BILLION in assets to their heirs tax-free? Heaven forbid they pay a tax of 40% and only get $60 BILLION. Think about how they would have to cut back on their lifestyle!
The richest family in the world, more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, yet half of their Walmart employees are on federal assistance because Walmart refuses to pay them decent wages or provide health insurance? I guess the Walton family has the last laugh though, because the taxpayers are providing an average of $2100 in Federal assistance to each Walmart employee, money that just helps the Walton family get richer and richer.
I won't even get into the fact that Walmart encourages suppliers to outsource jobs to China, where they don't even pay workers the Chinese minimum wage of 31 cents an hour (typically about 13 cents an hour instead).
And the argument about how often a dollar is taxed is flawed. I pay income tax on my money when I earn it - then I turn right around and pay sales tax when I buy something. What is the difference between that and an estate tax?
enswalters
Member
- Awards
- 0
Actually, it has a big part to do with taxes, because the tax rates for the mega wealthy have gone drastically. In fact, the tax rates for the wealthiest 1% of Americans are at their lowest rates in 20 years, while their income levels have skyrocketed. In the meantime, real wages for the average American have fallen almost 20% since 1972.
It's really quite simple: wealth is being more and more concentrated among the richest 1% of people in the world.
Just to put it in perspective, the wealthiest 356 people in the world have more assets than the poorest 40% of the ENTIRE world!
In America, the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 90%.
Yet some people think that we need to cut taxes for the rich and give bailouts to big corporations to save jobs?
I just don't get it.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
Even if taxes have gone down for the 'mega wealthy', a technical term if I've ever read one, they still: one, pay far more than anyone else as a percentage and in absolute dollars; two, either have the option to use the money productively in which case it creates opportunities for jobs, or they simply spend it, in which case it ends up in someone else's pocket and if that pattern persists the 'mega wealthy' soon become simply 'the wealthy', and then the 'middle class', and then 'the poor'. Real wages have fallen precisely because of inflationary policy, which is at base a wealth transfer program from the poor and politically isolated to the rich and politically connected.
It's quite simple: one, wealth acrual is not a zero sum game; two, the rich are getting richer because they see all the new money and credit that gets pumped into the system before anyone else, and before it devalues, and thus even small increases in the supply of money and credit are initially concentrated in the hand of a few, drastically increasing their buying power on hand. You have to understand why things are happening, not just point to them over and over again as evidence of Evil Wealthy! People! Have you ever gotten a job from some dirt poor welfare queen deep frying her oreos for her? The reason capital gains taxes aren't a good idea is because that income comes directly from investments made that increase productivity and which creates more wealth for everyone in the end. If you tax it you've ass ****ed the very process that makes sure that everyone gets richer.
And? This is a sound bite which sounds impressive but has zero analytic value beyond getting people with a third grade education worked up. Who gives a **** who owns what or what the ratio of wealth or owned assets is so long as everyone's standard of living is rising, which is exactly what would happen if government spending were in line with intake, and they weren't inflating the money and credit supply.
The only way a person gets a few million dollars, barring a transfer through the government that just gives it to them at the expense of others, is if they do something other people think is worth a few million dollars. Then they either keep it, spend it, or invest that few million dollars. Either way, what exactly has the person with the few mil done wrong? Absolutely nothing.
Once more, so ****ing what? The wealthy one percent by and large own that much because instead of ****ting on it or squandering that property they treat it well and use it productively. Some of it was given to them by the government and to that extent their ownership is wrong. But the mere fact that they simply have a lot of stuff is irrelevant.
No, we don't need to give bailouts. We shouldn't have given bailouts, and most people seem to be rightly against such bailouts. Your views on policy seem to be about as conflicted as a NAMBLA member deciding between the Boy Scouts or the Vienna Boys Quire. What's your solution, raise taxes on the very people who are producing the few jobs we have left in this country via their investments? The rich deserve neither special favors nor special punishment. And to the extent their taxes have been reduced, this is only a problem in that the government hasn't proportionately lowered its spending and so has gone into defecits and monetized their debt, and rolled over principle and interest for decades at the expense of some future dupes, probably my generation, who will have to eventually pay for their excess.
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
because the sales tax is your state taxing you, not the federal government, and they still have to pay the sales tax too on what they buy.
I'm going to discontinue replying to your posts as you are all about emotion, and not at all about logic or economics. Spouting populist soundbites is great, but the only people who believe those are the people who are too dumb or undereducated to manage to actually make anything of their lives.
Raising the income of the bottom % by the same amount of dollars won't create jobs as they will just spend extra at walmart or target and put slightly nicer things in their house, most of which come from outside the US. Raising the income of the rich has been shown again and again to create more jobs as they already have flat screen TVs and leather couches, so more of the money is used to invest in businesses with the hopes of future returns.
Your own math proves this. If you were giving out 1 trillion dollars over the span of a year and it went to the bottom 90% of the population, they'd get $3000 each or $250 a month. Not much and it would be frittered away. If you gave that same amount to the top 1%, they'd get $270,000 each or $22,500 a month and that would get sunk into things that actually create more jobs. They'd hire a part time tutor for their kids, or use that as seed money for business, etc
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
With the only exception to this being when their income is increased artificially by taking money from others and giving it to them, which leads to malinvestment and business cycles. The point is balance which can't be achieved by the government, but by allowing all people to dispose of as much of their own income as possible and as they see fit according to their individual wants and available means. If you want to raise real wages and living standards for all Americans you should get the government to stop spending more than it takes in, stop inflating the money and credit supply, and stop punishing wealth creation by hindering the formation of capital and its subsequent mobilization toward raising productivity.
In the end real wealth is not determined by nominal dollar amounts held by this or that person, but by the raw amount of **** out there that people can actually buy. So real wages will only go up as that overall supply of **** goes up relative to the money commodity and in line with consumer demand, which leads to increased demand for an increasingly more productive labor force and increased buying power for each unit of the money commodity everyone earns as wages or returns on investment. And the only way that happens is when those horrible rich people take their income and invest it into increasing productivity per head of labor, and if all people take only what they contribute home in terms of wage/return and economize based on what they've actually earned as opposed to being given a free lunch at someone else'sexpense. So taxing 'the rich' and especially their capital gains is not only counter productive, it's downright mindless stupidity if what you want are productive jobs that actually produce value and consistent and lasting work opportunities.
In the end real wealth is not determined by nominal dollar amounts held by this or that person, but by the raw amount of **** out there that people can actually buy. So real wages will only go up as that overall supply of **** goes up relative to the money commodity and in line with consumer demand, which leads to increased demand for an increasingly more productive labor force and increased buying power for each unit of the money commodity everyone earns as wages or returns on investment. And the only way that happens is when those horrible rich people take their income and invest it into increasing productivity per head of labor, and if all people take only what they contribute home in terms of wage/return and economize based on what they've actually earned as opposed to being given a free lunch at someone else'sexpense. So taxing 'the rich' and especially their capital gains is not only counter productive, it's downright mindless stupidity if what you want are productive jobs that actually produce value and consistent and lasting work opportunities.
Vtaper
Member
- Awards
- 0
Getting back on the VAT tax topic, I was listening to Thom Hartman the other day(yes, I do tune in occasionally to hear what that side is saying) talking about how great it(VAT) would be and would "Keep corporations honest".
Using that type of language is exactly how the left will get support for a VAT and get people to think this way.(see quoted text)
enswalters
Member
- Awards
- 0
I love reading the replies to my post. Since I am in the "too dumb or undereducated to manage to actually make anything of their lives" category I guess I should keep my mouth shut. Eh, that's just not my style.
I'm curious as to what "undereducated" means? I graduated from Troy State University with a 4.0 GPA. Since I don't have a master's degree does that mean I'm undereducated and "too dumb" to make anything of my life?
Now, I was selected to attend the Naval War College to get my master's degree next year, so will that put me in the "educated" category? Or are only people that graduate from Yale, Harvard, or Princeton "educated"?
But giving Bill Gates an extra $270,000 a year is going to create more jobs in America because he's already got a flat screen tv and leather couch?
I hate to say it, but Bill Gates isn't investing money to create jobs in America. Microsoft just announced huge layoffs in America at the same time that they just signed a contract to outsource work to India.
Maybe the Walton family will use that $270,000 that they desperately need because they just can't survive on $80 billion, and they'll create jobs in America?
Hmmm, something tells me that isn't going to happen either, not when they've outsourced so many jobs to China already and now they're outsourcing more jobs to India as well.
Those are FACTS, not emotions.
Too many people here are hooked on "labels" - you've got to be a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat. I don't put myself in any of those categories.
I believe in common sense, something sadly lacking in society today.
I believe in a balanced budget amendment. I live on a budget and the government should follow those same rules. Don't spend what you don't have.
I believe in the progressive tax system, but think it needs to be overhauled and simplified. Get rid of all the silly tax deductions and loopholes. The rich SHOULD pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes. I don't think the progressive tax system is evil. It's been around since ancient Rome, and it works - as long as the system isn't abused. Get rid of the loopholes and the abuse goes away. Call it wealth redistribution all you like, but the fact is that we've had a progressive tax system in the U.S. and in Europe for hundreds of years.
Contrary to what some might have inferred, I don't believe in "welfare" and giving money to people to stay at home. I also don't believe in giving bailouts to big corporations. Instead, I believe that investing in small businesses is the key to success of the U.S. economy. Give small businesses tax incentives to hire people, to expand production, to provide health benefits to employees. Reduce the bureacratic barriers that are impeding small business growth.
I believe in fair trade. When you have huge trade imbalances with China because they manipulate the value of their currency, have lax safety and environmental standards, and a minimum wage of only 31 cents an hour, it's not possible for their to be fair trade.
I don't believe in a big Federal government. The Federal government has taken over too many functions that can, and should, be accomplished by the states. I do believe in a strong military, not just because I've devoted over 20 years of my life to military service, but because it's one of the few functions specifically granted to the Federal government in the constitution.
I believe that we should pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - soon. We can no longer afford to be the world's police force, and the people in Iraq and Afghanistan need to take responsibility for running their own country. We have greatly weakened our military, and with the growing threats in North Korea, Iran, and China, we need to rebuild/modernize our forces, not continue to wage wars that will never result in peace in countries that have been waging war within their own borders for centuries.
Let the flaming begin!
I'm curious as to what "undereducated" means? I graduated from Troy State University with a 4.0 GPA. Since I don't have a master's degree does that mean I'm undereducated and "too dumb" to make anything of my life?
Now, I was selected to attend the Naval War College to get my master's degree next year, so will that put me in the "educated" category? Or are only people that graduate from Yale, Harvard, or Princeton "educated"?
Let me get this straight: you're saying that giving the average working class American/small business owner an extra $3000 a year is a waste? I think that 90% of Americans are going to disagree with you and say that they could use the money.
But giving Bill Gates an extra $270,000 a year is going to create more jobs in America because he's already got a flat screen tv and leather couch?
I hate to say it, but Bill Gates isn't investing money to create jobs in America. Microsoft just announced huge layoffs in America at the same time that they just signed a contract to outsource work to India.
Maybe the Walton family will use that $270,000 that they desperately need because they just can't survive on $80 billion, and they'll create jobs in America?
Hmmm, something tells me that isn't going to happen either, not when they've outsourced so many jobs to China already and now they're outsourcing more jobs to India as well.
Those are FACTS, not emotions.
Too many people here are hooked on "labels" - you've got to be a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat. I don't put myself in any of those categories.
I believe in common sense, something sadly lacking in society today.
I believe in a balanced budget amendment. I live on a budget and the government should follow those same rules. Don't spend what you don't have.
I believe in the progressive tax system, but think it needs to be overhauled and simplified. Get rid of all the silly tax deductions and loopholes. The rich SHOULD pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes. I don't think the progressive tax system is evil. It's been around since ancient Rome, and it works - as long as the system isn't abused. Get rid of the loopholes and the abuse goes away. Call it wealth redistribution all you like, but the fact is that we've had a progressive tax system in the U.S. and in Europe for hundreds of years.
Contrary to what some might have inferred, I don't believe in "welfare" and giving money to people to stay at home. I also don't believe in giving bailouts to big corporations. Instead, I believe that investing in small businesses is the key to success of the U.S. economy. Give small businesses tax incentives to hire people, to expand production, to provide health benefits to employees. Reduce the bureacratic barriers that are impeding small business growth.
I believe in fair trade. When you have huge trade imbalances with China because they manipulate the value of their currency, have lax safety and environmental standards, and a minimum wage of only 31 cents an hour, it's not possible for their to be fair trade.
I don't believe in a big Federal government. The Federal government has taken over too many functions that can, and should, be accomplished by the states. I do believe in a strong military, not just because I've devoted over 20 years of my life to military service, but because it's one of the few functions specifically granted to the Federal government in the constitution.
I believe that we should pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - soon. We can no longer afford to be the world's police force, and the people in Iraq and Afghanistan need to take responsibility for running their own country. We have greatly weakened our military, and with the growing threats in North Korea, Iran, and China, we need to rebuild/modernize our forces, not continue to wage wars that will never result in peace in countries that have been waging war within their own borders for centuries.
Let the flaming begin!
EasyEJL
Never enough
- Awards
- 3
or you made a ****ty choice of majors, either one is possible. Its the choices you make that prove you are dumb or not, regardless of what piece of paper you have from what college. There are people I know with PHDs who are idiots when it comes to practicality, and are incapable of understanding how their mortgage works....
BTW I love that BBQ place right outside of troy state, can't recall the name but their bbq was great and so was the banana pudding.
right that same 90% who don't understand how compound interest works, or any other basic math over 10th grade level, who are going to spend the money on chinese made goods at walmart. Them believing they could use the money doesn't change the FACT that they would fritter it away on things that wouldn't aid the american economy significantly.
you apparently ought to look into what bill gates actually does as a person. Remember that he doesn't control microsoft anymore. He has no need to spend the extra money on garbage, so that means it gets reinvested - in stocks, in the US economy, not into garbage goods from overseas.
again where is any of it about need? even in the bottom 90% what is the money likely to go for? A new cellphone? Rims? video games? a very small fraction of the US "needs" anything. Its more about fulfillment of wants which mostly means buying cheap garbage goods from overseas.
no, they are just emotional call outs, read the language you used
Why should they pay more? on average they use even LESS of government services than someone lower on the income bracket. Progressive tax systems aren't evil, but they are inherently unfair. And stating they've had it in europe for hundreds of years isn't exactly a plus as our GDP growth and economic growth has remained above theirs with a larger growth in population, partially because we haven't been so ridiculous about it. Most of europe is in far worse shape financially than we are, and their deficit to GDP ratio gets worse and worse year by year.
you understand the only real cure for this is for average american production worker's lifestyle to be roughly equivalent to that of people in other countries. Keep in mind our people who we consider to be living at the poverty line still live better than about 80% of people on the planet. You'll never get "fair" trade unless you can produce effectively for the same costs.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Interesting Article on Tbol and Baseball | Anabolics | 15 | |
| Unanswered Interesting article about squats | Training Forum | 3 | ||
|
Interesting article I came across about 11-KT | Anabolics | 20 | |
|
Operation 'Cyber Juice' -interesting article. | Anabolics | 13 | |
|
An interesting article from Iron man magazine | Anabolics | 0 |