View Full Version : Here's a nice idea...
04-13-2003, 05:06 PM
Lawmaker Suggests Moving Tax Deadline Closer to Election Day
Sunday, April 13, 2003
By Elizabeth A. Shack
WASHINGTON — Tax Day can be painful, but Rep. Roscoe Bartlett doesn't think it's painful enough for politicians.
That's why the Maryland Republican is introducing a bill to move the tax filing deadline from April 15 to the first Monday in November, the day before Election Day.
He thinks that the change would help people realize what their taxes are paying for and encourage more of them to vote -- and to vote differently.
"This is just an obvious thing, a very simple thing," Bartlett said last week. It is the second time Bartlett has tried to make the change -- an identical bill died in the last Congress.
Right now the filing deadline and Election Day are almost as far apart as possible, Bartlett said, and by the time people vote, they probably do not remember how much they paid in taxes.
Moving the dates closer together would make voters more aware of the price they pay for government services, said Dan Clifton, spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.
It would also make people realize they have the power to affect where their money goes, said Edward L. Hudgins, Washington director of the Objectivist Center.
Moving the deadline would "remind voters that they are taxpayers who suffer under heavy burdens, and taxpayers that they are voters who can remedy their situation," he said.
Anthony Burke, a spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
Burke did say that the tax filing deadline was changed in 1955 from March 15 to April 15, but he did not know the reason for the change.
Tax reform groups said changing the date to November would be a logical move.
"Purchasing on Election Day and paying for it on April 15th is like purchasing the government on a credit card," said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.
Bartlett said that he thinks most people do not realize how much of their tax money goes to support programs that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide. Holding a pocket-sized version of the Constitution, he said that most of the things lawmakers spend taxpayers' money on cannot be found in the document -- even obvious benefits like public schools.
"My hope is they will vote more responsibly," if they vote right after paying taxes, he said.
Bartlett said he already has 20 cosponsors for his bill and is confident he can win enough support to get it through the House, unlike last time.
04-13-2003, 05:11 PM
I like the idea. The only problem is, the new tax filing deadline would be way out of whack with the end of the fiscal year. As it stands right now, April 15 is just long enough after the end of the year to allow people to get their documents in order. Waiting until November would almost guarantee that people will lose their W-2s and other important documents.
But I like the idea of making the elected officials pay attention to their spending through a simple change like this.
04-13-2003, 10:12 PM
The reason you get your W-2s in January, is because the Feds demand it. Many companies have fiscal years which do not match our standard calendar, yet they have to send out the W-2s in the middle of _their_ year. There would be a transition year, in which your tax year would be short, but everything would fall into place after that.
04-17-2003, 11:38 PM
Actually, the best idea would be to carry through with the dropping of withholding taxes from each paycheck. The current system where taxes are taken out of each check was to be a temporary measure to support the government through the end of WWII. Up until that time taxpayers would pay a lump sum at the end of the tax year.
Imagine the wonderful realization that would occur when every taxpayer had to sit down before 15 April and write out a check to the treasury for their taxes owed. Not a smiling herd of sheeple exclaiming "Hey I got some back this year."
Look at how much you paid in, how much more you had to pay or the pittance that was returned to you from the exorbitant amount you paid over the lenth of the year. Too many people pay in thousands and get back hundreds and are overjoyed about this. Writing one check would be a cold, harsh, slap in the face, wake up and smell the stink on this one. Tell me tax reform wouldn't occur overnight!!
04-18-2003, 12:51 PM
That would be the best way, I agree. I try to tell people who are bragging about their refunds how much they are losing in interest, but nobody seems to care. They are happy to allow the Feds operate a zero-interest savings(?) plan for them.
I worked for a Senator many years ago, when he was touting a "no negotiations with terrorist organizations" law. I asked him if that included the IRS. :D
04-23-2003, 12:34 PM
Why would anyone want to pay a tax you do not have to pay ?
There is no law that says you have to.
It is a voluntary tax- Voluntary Compliance.
It is an oxi-moron. If voluntary means you have to then why
isn't any other law viewed the same way. Can you imagine
traffic laws or any other law to be enforced thru Voluntary
Compliance, give me a break. But leave it to the criminals in
Washington and the Internal Robbery Squad that is not even
part of the government.
Ceck this out :
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY !www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
04-23-2003, 02:51 PM
Shiz... I don't like to debate, and normally I don't get involved in "hot-button" topics; however, I must correct your dangerous misinformation regarding our "voluntary tax." Proponents of this tax-avoidance scheme are deliberately misinterpreting the word "voluntary." What the term actually means is that the taxpayer is allowed to voluntarily compute the amount of tax owed. It does not mean that payment of tax itself is voluntary.
I refer you to the following explanation and case law:
Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.
Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that “[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.”
Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual -4-return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”
United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.” United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”
Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.
Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”
04-23-2003, 03:11 PM
And to address your claim that the Internal Revenue Service is not part of the government:
Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.
Some argue that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.
The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. United States, 400 -25-U.S. 517, 534 (1971), “[w]e bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under § 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.”
Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the Internal Revenue Service was created. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service is a body established by “positive law” because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.
Relevant Case Law:
Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F. Supp. 471 (D. Nev. 1995) – the court described Salman’s contention that the Internal Revenue Service is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice.
Young v. I.R.S., 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984) – the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young’s claim that the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.
04-24-2003, 01:31 AM
I understand your feeling toward hot-button topics and not
liking to debate and i feel the same way, because there is just
too much to say typing into a forum like this. But i must
respectfully disagree with some of your replies. As you said my
dangerous misinformation, i agree about the dangerous part,
but not the misinformation. It is equally dangerous for both
sides. My belief is not about tax-avoidance schemes.
Millions of Americans were tricked into filing and paying federal
income taxes when legally, they didn't have to do either. It is
only because we and the rest of the nation have been thoroughly
deceived by the federal government(with federal courts playing
the key role), and an army of accountants, lawyers,and other
tax preparers. All of these have a vested interest in keeping us
ignorant concerning the real nature of federal income taxes.
The fact is, no provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires
anyone to FILE Or PAY income taxes. This tax, unlike other inter-
nal revenue taxes, is strictly voluntary. This is because a compulsory income tax would violate the Constitution's three
taxing clauses, the Bill of Rights and the 16th Amendment, all of
which impose RESTRICTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENTS POWER
AND ABILITY to tax income. So, in order for the income tax NOT
TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL it had to be written on a NON
COMPULSORY BASIS. But in order to deceive Americans of this,
as well as provide federal courts and the IRS with deceptive
passages on which to hang illegal prosecutions and illegal
seizures, the Internal Revenue Code was written to make paying
income taxes APPEAR mandatory. The government succeeded in
doing this by tricking the public into believing that those enforce-
ment provisions of the Code, THAT APPLY TO OTHER, NON
VOLUNTARY TAXES(susch as alcohol and tobacco taxes), also
apply to income taxes when in fact, THEY DO NOT. But despite
such trickery, the IRS still admits that our "income tax laws" are
purely VOLUNTARY !
On July 8, 1981 the Controller of the United States issued a
report entitled ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTERS THREATEN TAX SYSTEM,
on it's cover, warned that illegal tax protesters threatened our
tax system because...they represent a threat to our nation's VOLUNTARY tax system. The IRS uses the red light story....
If you ask the IRS (or anyone else in government for that matter)
the meaning of "voluntary compliance" you will get a lot of double
talk. When I first concluded that filing income tax returns was
voluntary(based on some of the government documents), I
decided to check out my conclusions with the IRS. I called and asked, "Is filing an income tax return based on voluntary
compliance ?" "It is ", I was told. In that case I said, " I don't want to volunteer ". " You have to volunteer," I was told. " If I
have to volunteer," I said "wouldn't that make compliance
compulsory(mandatory) and not voluntary ? No, the agent said.
"Voluntary compliance is similar to our motor vehicle laws; you
voluntarely stop at a red light--but if you don't, you get a ticket!
I objected to this reasoning by pointing out that if I could be ticketed, stopping at a red light(or obeying other traffic regulations) was compulsory, and not based on "voluntary
compliance" at all. No , the agent insisted, you stop voluntarily.
His reasoning was based on the absurd logic that since nobody was physically in the car making me stop, then I stopped
"voluntarily". If that is true, then all criminal laws are based on
"voluntary compliance", since nobody physically prevents
anyone from committing murder, rape, bank robberies, etc, etc.
But law enforcement people never claim that those laws are
based on "voluntary compliance". The agent, of course, was
trying to confuse me, altough he himself might have been confused. The IRS obviously indoctrinates all new agents with the
"red light" story, so that they will be able to confuse the public
if the question ever comes up.
It would be good to track down those responsible for writing the
Internal Revenue Code, since it is clear that it was deliberately
written to deceive us. Consider these facts. While no code section
requires anyone to file income tax returns, the Code makes it appear otherwise.While no Code section creates an income tax
"liability", the Codes makes it appear otherwise. While no Code
section requires anyone to pay this tax, the Code makes it
appear otherwise. While no Code section authorizes the IRS
to get any documents in connection with income taxes, the Code makes it appear otherwise,. While no Code section authorizes
the IRS to seize any money or property inconnection with income
taxes, the Code makes it appear otherwise. While no Code section contains any criminal or civil penalties in connection with
income taxes, the Code makes it appear otherwise. Those
responsible knew exactly what they were doing. They were creating the greatest deception the world has ever seen !
The Supreme Court has ruled that your Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights provide ample grounds for keeping your
financial records out of the hands of the IRS. But the IRS knows this full well, and any taxpayer can easily avoid an IRS audit by
simply refusing to attend. For example, Section342.12 of the IRS'
own Handbook for special Agents says....An individual may
refuse to exhibit bis books and records for examination on the
ground that compelling him to do so violates his right against
self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and constitutes
an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
In addition, this excerpt even acknowledges that individuals
don't even have to turn over their records in response to an IRS summons ! Despite all of this, Federal judges still order Americans to turn over books and records( especially those summoned
that don't know how to claim their constitutional rghts though even then, such claims are often ignored) to the IRS and often impose civil fines on those who don't. The point is that if there were any provision in the Internal Revenue Code that required
Americans to turn over their private papers and records to the IRS, such a provision would render the Code unconstitutional,
just as those IRS manuals say. But since no such provision is in
the Code, it is not unconstitutional on this ground.
President Reagan said in one of his speeches that:
"All income taxes from the people, not one dime goes to
run the government." If that is the case, where is it all going
or who is getting it ?
So in closing, yes it is dangerous when these black robed
cirminals can indict a ham sandwich when you go against
the hot-button topics, but that does not make them right.
They work for the system that eventually eats out your
substance, the garbage that they are.
04-24-2003, 08:02 AM
Shiz... so you advocate not paying taxes?
or venting about something you or I have no control over?
04-24-2003, 09:27 AM
This is starting to get interesting....
04-24-2003, 10:24 AM
Shiz… regardless of your opinion that the Internal Revenue Code does not require anyone to file or pay income taxes, the fact remains that the IRC does make such a requirement. Furthermore, even if your argument were correct, the legality of filing and paying income taxes has been repeatedly upheld by courts all the way up to, and including, the Supreme Court.
Now, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court was still a legitimate part of our legal system. You are certainly welcome to present your arguments to the Supreme Court, and if you are successful, I will be the first one to congratulate you. But until you have convinced the Supreme Court to reverse their prior rulings on the very arguments you are now making, the filing and paying of income taxes will remain a lawful, albeit distasteful, part of our lives.
As to your aversion for our federal government; that is neither here nor there. Whether the government is honest or not, it is still the governing body of our land. Whether their rules are fair or not, they are still the rules of our land.
I don’t like paying taxes any more than anyone else does. And I would definitely agree that our current tax laws are convoluted pieces of technical legalese that need some major revisions. But frivolous arguments like yours are counterproductive. If you really want to change the tax laws, stop tilting at windmills. You are intelligent enough to help bring about some real changes if you would channel your passion into legitimate avenues.
This will be my last post on this subject. As I said previously, I do not like to debate. And nothing I say will change your opinion, anyway.
04-24-2003, 10:50 AM
SM, actually, I think you provide a very well-worded debate. I'm sorry you don't like debating, but I think you're very good at it.
Myself, I love a good heated debate. :D
Shizamus, nobody likes paying taxes. But think about it. What would happen if nobody paid taxes? No police, no military, no roads. I agree that we pay too much tax and that our tax dollars are wasted on useless and inefficient programs. But taxes are what hold our society together. Without government, and without taxes, we would quickly turn into a chaotic state.
04-24-2003, 11:00 AM
Thanks, Sniper. :)
And I agree with your point that taxes are necessary. Tax reform is not about abolishing taxes, but making sure they are fair, and that they are properly used.
04-24-2003, 12:23 PM
You are basing your comments on the legality of filing and paying income taxes that have been REPEATEDLY upheld by courts all the way up and including the Supreme Court, so what ? That does not mean that they are saints, they are evil and corrupt,
and corruption rules in the highest places in gorvernment. Just
because something is legal does not mean it is lawfull. So you are saying that whether the rules are fair or not and honest or not
we are not to challenge their rulings ? and i cannot go along with
your implication of "why don't we just go along to get along. This
goes against everything our Founding Fathers set into motion.
Our Founding Fathers did not say fair or not these are the rules
of our land. They felt strong enough and convinced enough not
to go along with the rules of the land and recognized the
oppression and the corruption that existed in their day. Our Founding Fathers weren't fools, but represented the best minds
that have ever been assembled on this continent, and to go along to get along was not in their minds, but the Declaration of
Independence from corruption was. Our Founding Fathers paved
the way for Freedom and Justice and we as a Nation are hell
bent on throwing it all away. They changed our history for a lot
less reason than we have today.
But to say my arguments are frivolous is frivulous in itself, and
counterproductive is called labeling. And channeling my passion
into legitimate avenues ? And what would that be ? Going along
to get along, and don't rock the boat avenue ? I don't think so.
I never said not paying taxes, i am talking about the Federal
income tax only. In my previous post i said that in one of Prs.
Reagan's speeches he said that not one thin dime goes to
running the government and that includes the police , the military,
the roads, the bridges, the socialist giveaways, the ATF, the FBI
the EPA, the DEA etc .etc. The income tax does not pay for any of these, like Reagan said: Not one thin dime goes to run the
government. There are a zillion other taxes that suck out all
our substance out of us. And we do need a government, an
honest government like our Founding Fathers envisioned and
started for us which is stated in the Constitution Article 4,
section 4 : The United States(the government which is seated
in Washington DC, which is not a state, and only having
jurisdiction in the 10 square mile area) shall(look up the meaning of shall) guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican
Form of Government. This type of government guarantee's the
rights of all the people. Unlike a Democracy where 51% can rape
the other 49% whether they like it or not.
That is why DEMOCRACY IS TYRANNY !
ARMED ROBBERY IS ILLEGAL UNLESS YOU ARE THE IRS !
If you want truth listen to : www.gcnlive.com
or : www.thepowerhour.com
04-24-2003, 12:37 PM
http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/chatter.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/chatter.gif GOOD'UN http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/chatter.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/chatter.gif
04-24-2003, 12:50 PM
Ok.... uh.... call me stupid.... but....
Where do our taxes go then?
I ask because I honestly don't know.
One other point: the esteemed gentlemen who wrote the Constitution also gave us the right to vote. In essence, we rule the country. Not directly, but by representation. If the public urge was strong enough to do away with Federal income tax, don't you think it would have happened by now? All it takes is a strong enough movement from the people, and a strong block of voters. You maintain that just because it's a legal doesn't make it lawful. Well, OK. Then all we have to do is urge the people to vote for candidates that are in favor of repealing the Federal income tax.
But somehow I don't think that's going to happen. The truth is, the people allow income tax to be legal. And until the people make it illegal to tax our income, it will remain legal.
04-25-2003, 02:49 AM
The income taxes go to the IMF and the Federal
Reserve to pay off the interest on the national debt.
The people have been duped into thinking that this is
what they have to do. The IRS uses threats, bluffs 90%
of the time, and intimidation and making examples out
of a few to keep everyone else in line. Nobody wants to deal with
the IRS because of fear, and fear is the greatest motivator, they
would rather give them money that they do not owe just to get rid of them. Several years ago they had the congressional
hearings on the IRS, with IRS whistleblowers testifying, and telling of the horror stories inside the IRS, they testified behind
screened panels so that they would not be recognized out of fear
of what could happen to them. Congress admits knowing of the
of the terror tactics the IRS uses on the people. Congress has
the power to change this but you do not see anyone doing anything about it. On July 1 2001 Bob Schults went on a hunger
strike until someone from government would answer some
questions his hunger strike ended on July 20, 2001 made a deal
to talk to the government, the meeting was to take place sept.
20, 2001 but then we had 9/11 and it never happened.
He was working with Rep, Roscoe Bartlet, and then Roscoe
Bartlet even baked away from the issue. Bob Schultz is with
the "We The People" foundation and they were buying full
page adds in the USA Today paper to expose the corrupt IRS
to the people. Someone got to the USA Paper because they
finally refused to put anymore full page adds in their paper.
Bob Schultz went on the Hannity & Colmes where he was torn
to shreds by the neo-con Hannity, we report you decide ? yea
right ! A month ago a woman also went on a hunger strike on
the capitol steps she also was ignored and derailed. So as you can see no one wants to go near this hot potato. Because the
fear of the IRS has gotten to everyone including congress.
These polititians do not serve the people that put them there,
once there they serve the special interest groups. We would be a whole lot better off if they all went home.
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY !
04-25-2003, 08:40 AM
Shiz... so you advocate not paying taxes?????????????????????????????????????????????????
or venting about something you or I have no control over??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I bet you pay taxes... hehehe
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
04-25-2003, 11:12 AM
There are no Americans in Baghdad!!!!!!!!
04-25-2003, 01:32 PM
Of course i advocate paying taxes, and i pay plenty of them...
sales tax, gasoline tax( how much would a gallon of gas cost if
you were to take away all the taxes that are attached to it ?),
property tax, tax on your phone bill, utilities, etc. etc. and the
list of taxes is endless, not to mention taxes that are called by other names, licenses, permits, use tax...etc and this list is
endless too. So go figure it out. We have to work from January
until i think the middle of May for the goernment, for taxes
before we get to keep any money for ourselves. So , i pay
plenty of taxes along with everyone else.
But when you are talking about Federal Income Tax, only those that are Liable have to pay it, so says the 1040 instruction
booklet. By the IRS's own admission they claim that up
40 to 60 Million are not paying Federal Income Taxes.
I pay all the taxes that i am Liable for !
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY !
Listen to real talk radio at : www.gcnlive.com
Listen to the Power Hour radio :www.thepowerhour.com
04-27-2003, 07:41 PM
From: John Stossel ABC News C/O Tac:
In honor of the taxes you paid April 15, Friday's "Give Me a Break" is about "pork."
We knew the war would be expensive, and maybe you don't mind paying for that, but did you know this year's war budget includes money for researching an eel in Lake Champlain?
This happens all the time. Even before the war, members of Congress slipped in their pet projects — wherever they could.
You're already paying $200,000 for a cherry festival in Michigan, and almost $1 million to restore a luxury hotel in Coral Gables, Fla. Thousands more go to the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the Cowgirl Hall of Fame, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Can't these people pay for their own monuments?
I guess the idea is — Why pay for it yourself, if you can get some politician to give you taxpayers' money?
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is especially good at grabbing your money. He's head of the Appropriations Committee. Presto: Citizens Against Government Waste says his home state gets twice as much money for pork projects as any other state.
Alaska got money for the trail used by the Iditarod dog-sled race and $2 million for buses at the airport, which just happens to be named "Ted Stevens International Airport."
The federal government must pay for war, domestic security, immigration, environmental rules, and a few other things. But local festivals, airports, and halls of fame ought to be paid for by people who use them — and live close enough to watch how well the money is spent.
Why ship everyone's money to Washington, D.C., only to have it shipped back, minus handling costs to the most politically connected states?
Maybe so politicians can use your money to do favors for friends, and suck up to those who might vote for them?
Give Me a Break!
Nice Site TFF!:D
Was asked to pass this on!;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.