It is currently Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:54 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
I may have mentioned a time or two on the board I think Presidential elections should be treated more like job applications. This cycle, Amy Klobachar has been the candidate I find to have the resume and interview responses that support her being a top tier applicant for the job.

Along those lines, it speaks volumes to me that of the Democratic candidates she seems to be the only one talking realistically about the economy and our deficit problem. But of real interest, and why I started this thread, is her idea to establish a mechanism in the budget to act as an economic gyro. Here's a direct quote from her proposed policies on this link:

https://medium.com/@AmyforAmerica/senat ... 7c0b859fec

Establish a dedicated fund to tackle the U.S. debt and support our economy. Senator Klobuchar will establish a dedicated fund to make a down payment to tackle the U.S. debt and protect our economy. She will initially seed the fund with $300 billion by raising the corporate tax rate and dedicating savings from the government-wide budget review. When the economy is doing well, the fund will finance deficit reduction. When specific economic indicators show our economy is in a recession, the funding will automatically be diverted to increase spending on programs that are effective at stimulating the economy like infrastructure spending, increased unemployment and nutrition assistance, and an increased federal share of Medicaid and CHIP spending. As tax changes are implemented and as departments complete Senator Klobuchar’s government-wide review, she will invest additional government-wide savings towards expanding the fund to decrease the deficit and support our economy.

I should add, the proposal would be an unnecessary one in an environment where politicians budget responsibly. The norm should be balanced budgets and reduced deficit spending during economic good times, and focused spending on positive, job creating projects when needed. But as we watch deficits and stock prices rise in tandem it seems we need a program, an economic form of lap band surgery if you will, to do what our political will prevents us from doing otherwise.

It's an interesting approach, combined with other suggestions, all of which seem to come from her real experience sitting on related Senate committees.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9509
Location: On walkabout
I dunno, Honor. Sounds too gimmicky to me. Looks to me like that initial 300B represents 10 years of her proposed corporate income tax increase. That’s ten years of trillion dollar deficits. And, no, I’m not placing any stock in her claims about reducing government waste. That’s right up there with the check is in the mail and I promise I’ll pull out in time.

To reduce the debt, the government has to take in more money than it pays out. Right now, that’s over a trillion dollar swing. Amy’s 30B in additional tax revenue per year doesn’t even come close.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Hey Res,

I wouldn't disagree that the above is probably intended to get attention more so than be a fix-all. Gimmicky? Ok. But I contextualize that with the fact it's a gimmick that refocuses budgeting behavior back onto basic fundaments that we've lost completely. As noted in the OP, it's only an interesting idea because we stopped doing what it proposes as a regular course of action. In a functional political environment, we shouldn't need a gimmick to remind those making budgets that when the economy is doing well one doesn't explode government deficit spending, too. Most diets come down to gimmicks because eating sensibly and being active is easy to say but people still don't do it.

Now, are proposals to expand taxing billionaires into the 1950s levels also a gimmick? It's certainly easy to say but I haven't seen much in the way of putting legs under it by anyone in a meaningful way. In that sense, I don't think most candidates are even offering ideas that rise to the level of a gimmick yet. Attempts to put numbers to the broad ideas ends up being a circus. For the majority of campaigning Democrats the issue seems to be where we spend money, and not worry so much about how much.

Of the proposals she put up on her website, the one I think is the most functionally pragmatic is the proposal to move to a biennial budget. There have been bills to do this in the past, with the idea of tying budget making with budget oversight over two years rather than redoing the budget on a 1-year cycle. She also includes pushing the forecasting window to 25 years rather than 10.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9509
Location: On walkabout
Good morning, Honor. By gimmicky, I meant that her fund proposal purports to be a new way to solve an old problem, but won’t do anything substantive to solve the problem. I think it’s good that she’s thinking out of the box, but the specific proposal can’t work as advertised unless we are closed to having a balanced budget. I would not describe simply raising taxes as a gimmick, as it is one of the two basic tools we have to reduce the deficit.

I think the two-year budget cycle is worth trying. But there also needs to be some mechanism or incentive for the president and Congress to take the budgeting process seriously without penalizing the citizenry when they don’t. I also like the 25 year forecasting horizon. Too often, bills are passed where the cost is effectively deferred for ten years, with a fiscal time bomb exploding in the out years. A longer time horizon would help prevent that.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Hi Res -

Presidential elections are always a bit frustrating in that there is a negative incentive for a candidate to put forward realistic policies given most of the electorate won't tune in to read or work through the proposals while their opponents will inevitably focus on the issues with it using soundbites. It seems the result is the discussion and decisions regarding which candidate to pick is reduced to reading broad guideposts about their views. Which is also probably ok in the sense any President is going to have their policies obstructed or modified by Congress, even friendly ones if they happen to have the same conditions as Trump and Obama. With Obama we got the ACA which didn't really reflect his or Clinton's healthcare plans perfectly but we went in the general direction the campaign promised. With Trump, besides Republicans getting Supreme Court justices and other federal justices, we ended up with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While the specifics differed from the campaign promises he did end up signing a bill into law I didn't think Paul Ryan would have supported. The direction it was projected by economists to take us (into deep debt) is proving true. It also ended up benefiting the top 1% more so than the rest of us. The details differed but the broad outlines including economist predictions about the effects reasonably held.

I say that because I don't think promises to cut or raise taxes should be categorized as gimmicky so much as guideposts on the grounds they are usually not detailed enough to even be a gimmick. What I take issue with is most candidates put out their tax plans, put up numbers that show how they will accomplish everything anyone could ever want, and then ignore the comments put out by economists who start forecasting probable consequences. Yet it seems those probable consequences are far more realistic than that a candidate will be able to pass their actual plan into law. At best, we'll get the gist of it provided they have a cooperative Congress and that's it. So it makes little difference if they provide a detailed plan anyway. Even one full of gimmicks if they felt the need.

So when I point out that raising taxes on billionaires isn't offering up much, let alone offering up a gimmick, it's because looking over the field suggests - if Trump loses which isn't a given - we'll probably end up with a $15/hr. Federal min. wage regardless of who gets elected, repeal of the upper bracket and estate tax changes from Trump's TCJA, and see something that attempts at a wealth tax of some kind...maybe. The latter is probably the most challenged, and essentially gimmicky, aspect of tax proposals being put forward. And the predictions of how they will actually work out aren't positive. That doesn't make them a bad idea completely, IMO, but we aren't living in the 1930s. The global wealthy have much more sophisticated mechanisms for protecting their wealth, and for all the promises behind them the outcome is almost certainly going to be a depressed effect on innovation. Like my issues with libertarian philosophy that ignores current conditions, the progressive attempt to rebalance the wealth inequality often ignores the fact the already super-wealthy are playing a different game. How the plans affect innovative new business pursuits has to be grappled with to make the idea less of a gimmick and more of an actual policy.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9509
Location: On walkabout
I think that all makes sense, with a reminder that a democratic president will not be able to do any of those things if the Republicans hold the Senate.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 20062
Out of curiosity, what number would you two feel ok’ish with the debt sitting at? I’ve probably read around a dozen or so opinion pieces that argues maintaining a sitting debt is a good thing. Because I’m a simple, simple, astonishingly average man, I intuitively feel we should pay our debt off with the caveat we can go into debt during downturns and wars, BUT we must pay our debt off. I feel, and it’s just a feeling, that paying so much in interest robs us of streets and bridges in the future, so to speak.

- Doc

_________________
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Hey Cam, my understanding has been the percentage of debt-to-GDP matters more than a specific number but I agree with your main point. That being, interest on the debt has opportunity costs that result in declining quality of public services and other benefits. If we do as Trump has done for long enough, the interest payments start to become a huge chunk of the tax revenue.

As to a percentage, the golden number I've heard thrown around is in the 70% debt-to-GDP ratio. Why that's good and 80% is less good while one shouldn't then expect 35% to be even better is one of those aspects of the economy I assume fits into economist models in ways that are above my paygrade. The interest numbers, though, are less opaque. Last forecasts I recall reading put interest on our debt as exceeding our military budget in ten years or so if we don't steer away from the direction Trump is taking us. I doubt even ajax or subbie would argue that's sustainable.

One of the challenges with our Republic is the lack of long term incentives for our politicians to try and not screw future generations over other than basic human decency. Every politician claims their plans will rev GCP growth resulting in the debt-to-GDP ratio to balance out when they a) cut taxes and juice the business engine if they are Republicans or b) raise government spending that enables the middle and lower classes to grow and feed the economy. But we seem to be in an era where around 2% growth is the norm. Trump's two best quarters came after he 1) passed the tax bill and 2) saw a run on exports just ahead of the tariffs taking effect in 2018. Both of those quarters made it to 3.4% growth but otherwise his Presidency isn't looking that different from Obama's.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/

Now, the stock market is going gangbusters as we all seem to know. But manufacturing is laying people off, at least partially due to the trade war, and has been in red flag territory for most of 2019. So, I don't think there is an argument there that the current 105% debt-to-GDP percentage caused by Trump's deficit is going to get corrected by a rise in GDP growth.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Last edited by honorentheos on Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:05 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 2038
Government Debt to GDP in Australia is expected to be 42.00 percent by the end of this quarter, according to Trading Economics global macro models and analysts expectations. In the long-term, the Australia Government Debt to GDP is projected to trend around 40.00 percent in 2020, according to our econometric models.
In the third quarter of 2019, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was 105%. That's the $22.719 trillion U.S. debt as of September 30, 2019, divided by the $21.542 trillion nominal GDP. This ratio is a useful tool for investors, leaders, and economists. It allows them to gauge a country's ability to pay off its debt.

If McConnell reduces spending in Social Security and Medicaid does that mean less money is being spent in the economy. What did the 1% do with their tax cuts?

_________________
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
aussieguy55 wrote:
If McConnell reduces spending in Social Security and Medicaid does that mean less money is being spent in the economy. What did the 1% do with their tax cuts?

US debt is held in part in bonds and treasuries held by members of the public that are obligations to the holders. And there is also a percentage - about 26% - of the US debt that is essentially money the government borrowed from itself. That includes somewhere in the range of $2.9 trillion in treasuries that the Social Security Trust Fund holds. So in a sense, you could be right that if the US reduces payment to itself regarding that debt obligation the result is less money going to the people who have been retiring in greater numbers over the last 10 years. 2020 is supposed to be the first year SS will expend more than it takes in. We've reached a tipping point that is almost certain to become only more of a hot button topic going forward.

The other part of your question is better divided into asking what corporations did with their significant corporate tax cuts compared to households? The understanding I have is most corporations didn't turn their tax dividends into hiring, capital expenditures and growth that put that money back into the economy where those dollars gain even more multiplier benefits. Instead, a sizeable chunk went to stock buy-backs which inflate a company's stock price and paper value. See - inflated stock market. On the other hand, consumer spending is widely seen as the central pillar of strength in the current US economy. Unfortunately, household debt is also a chunk of that, having returned to pre-recession levels so...

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Last edited by honorentheos on Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9509
Location: On walkabout
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Out of curiosity, what number would you two feel ok’ish with the debt sitting at? I’ve probably read around a dozen or so opinion pieces that argues maintaining a sitting debt is a good thing. Because I’m a simple, simple, astonishingly average man, I intuitively feel we should pay our debt off with the caveat we can go into debt during downturns and wars, BUT we must pay our debt off. I feel, and it’s just a feeling, that paying so much in interest robs us of streets and bridges in the future, so to speak.

- Doc


Hiya, Cam. I’d be comfortable with something like 40% debt to GDP as a baseline, depending a bit on the interest rate. I don’t think debt service at that level is high enough to be a problem. Money does have a time value, and a dollar in my hand today is worth more than a dollar I won’t get for thirty years. When investing in infrastructure like Highways or buildings, or navy ships or satellites, it makes sense to pay for the asset spread out over the asset’s useful life. That way, the taxpayers who are using or benefiting from the asset are the people paying for it.

Since I got my Econ degree in the far, far past, there’s a new school of economics that, I think, places much less emphasis on the importance of government debt. I can’t remember the name (I bet EAllusion know it) and I’ve never tried to learn what it’s about. I’m pretty much a Keynesian.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Res Ipsa wrote:
Money does have a time value, and a dollar in my hand today is worth more than a dollar I won’t get for thirty years. When investing in infrastructure like Highways or buildings, or navy ships or satellites, it makes sense to pay for the asset spread out over the asset’s useful life. That way, the taxpayers who are using or benefiting from the asset are the people paying for it.

That makes sense. Thanks Res.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:42 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 2038
In Australia people are focusing on paying down credit card debt. Trump on Michelle Obama's birthday reversed her program of vegetables etc in school meals and accept pizza etc. So more obese kids. The most obese states are red states. Having a healthy population would surely be good for the economy.
https://stateofchildhoodobesity.org/adult-obesity/

(Update) about 29 to 30% of Australians are obese in 2017. In the 2005 National Health Survey, 53.6% of Australians reported being overweight with 18% falling into the "obese" category.

_________________
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 6141
Image

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:25 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 2038
If someone takes a second or a third job to survive is that counted as jobs growth?

_________________
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:34 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 6310
Location: Arizona
ajax18 wrote:
Image


Jobs Created:
2015 2.728 million jobs
2016 2.318 million jobs
2017 2.153 million jobs

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000 ... w=net_1mth

_________________
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 6141
aussieguy55 wrote:
If someone takes a second or a third job to survive is that counted as jobs growth?


I'd like to see a system where people have an incentive to work more. I don't think raising their taxes on hours worked over 40 is helpful. Nor is offering a paltry $5k annual net difference in income for continuing to work vs. retiring.

Our last president said 1% GDP annual increase was the new norm. Thankfully he's been proven wrong by someone who understands people will find a way to work and even prosper if they have an incentive to do so.

I don't think many voters have any intention of paying off the debt. Think of it like a marriage. Your spouse has secretly ran up $150k in credit card debt and is planning on divorcing you. With that she'll take 60-75% of your income for the rest of your life and probably put you in another $300k of debt in attorneys fees securing the terms for it. Are you really that concerned about the interest charges on the new vehicle you want to buy now? Will waiting another year and saving really help your cause that much? Your savings is her savings but your debt is also her debt.

We're kind of in a bad marriage as a society. Each side can see that saving, working longer hours, going without things, is not really going to benefit you or even your family in the future. It just frees up money for other people to take from you in the present.

Before we even start to pay down the debt or deficit politicians will find ways to use that money to purchase votes. The more robust our social welfare system becomes, the more impoverished people it will attract (3rd world immigration) and literally create (unwed motherhood).

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Last edited by ajax18 on Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
When Obama took office the White House made bold predictions of a rebounding economy with 4% GDP growth. Turned out the recession had legs. The idea that 2% GDP growth was the new normal, the general average we saw during the recovery, was challenged by Trump when the spurts happened around the tax law taking effect in 2018 but the reality is we are still experiencing GDP growth of around 2% on average. Trump's economy isn't what you think it is, but I guess it helps if you lie about what Obama said to make it seem better than it is.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 6141
What would a $20 trillion debt to a country look like to the average voter in personal debt? $10 million? Maybe a $1 billion? Would the average voter say, I need to start saving and working longer to pay this down? Or would he just file for bankruptcy?

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9509
Location: On walkabout
ajax18 wrote:
Image


Except in recessions, as long as our population grows, we expect to see the number of jobs increase. So, there’s nothing unexpected, let alone magical, about the fact that the number of employed people has continued to increase during Trump’s term. But what jobs has he brought back? Which industry were these jobs lost in?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tackling the Deficit
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:30 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17285
ajax18 wrote:
Image

You can google any number of graphs on unemployment trends from 2009 to 2018. What they'll show is a massive spike in unemployment around the Great Recession followed by a steady sloping downward curve as employment recovers. Almost all of that occurs in the Obama years, with the last part of the curve being in the Trump years. Obama left the Presidency with already quite low unemployment, and now it's even a little lower. This is a trend that's been going on for years. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MrB and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group