Medicare open enrollment begins Tuesday! Visit the AARP Medicare Resource Center for the information you need to make your best choices.

Reply
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
867
Views

Democratic socialism

867 Views
Message 1 of 280

Most of the taxes NH cited were minsicule taxes which had virtually no impact on the overwhelming majority of Americans. And all of them were essentially for the Affordable Care Act. I have to LOL because if the ACA wasn't paid for with taxes, the Obama fan club would never stop complaining about a failure to fund the ACA.

 

For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016.

 

In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
867
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
869
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

869 Views
Message 2 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?


My answer would be to bring in independent auditors into the government telling (the auditors) their charter is to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, cut costs (which means jobs in many cases) with the goal of cutting taxes as well as cumbersome regulations.  Laws can only be changed by Congress and they should also recommend changes to laws as well as creating new ones (if needed) and eliminating bad laws.  In many cases, government regulations unnecessarily hamper business.


We are probably not as different in our economic beliefs as you think.  However, taxes should only be reduced after the debt is gone.  As far as Government regulations hampering business, according to who, the business or the consumer?  Personally, I think the Government needs to step in to make the sure the playing field remains levnd fair and that does require laws and regulations.


One of the theories on taxes is the more money individuals have (and also businesses), the more money can be spent.  More money spent means more jobs.  More jobs mean more taxes collected.

 

I think with a $20 trillion dollar national debt hanging over our heads (in excess of $60,000 per person), we need some innovative ways to cover that debt and I don't think higher taxes will EVER create the stimulus for growing the economy.

 

Raising taxes didn't work for Obama (debt doubled in 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.


Your last point first.  One of the reasons the debt doubled was that due to the Economic collapse, the Government had to help spend our way out of a recession.  As times improve, the debt needs to be repaid.

 

You are correct, the more money individuals have to spend in the economy, the stronger it will be.  However, all tax cuts being proposed are for the richest, which will not drive the economy.  Jobs, new plants, etc are created without demanding starting from the bottom, not the top.  If the demand is there jobs and business expansions will follow.  By focusing on tax cuts for the richest, they are leaving the average consumer (the driver of the economy) the same or worse off if they have to make up the revenue shortage which will stall the economy.


The only thing "we" know about Trump's income tax plan are there are three rates and he is allowing the standard deduction to double ($24K for a couple) and only allowing home interest to be written off.  We don't know the salary ranges for each of the three rates so, until I see the ranges, I will assume (almost) everyones taxes will be less.  I might be wrong.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
869
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
876
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

876 Views
Message 3 of 280

@CriticalThinking wrote:

NH said, "Raising taxes didn't work for Obama (debt doubled in 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion)."

 

Really NH? In essence, I agree with the philosophy of NH on taxes, but what is this fairy tale about Obama raising taxes? During the Obama Administration, taxes were at their lowest rates since the 1950s. The debt doubled because of the 2008 Fiscal Crisis and irresponsible spending by Congress, not because of Obama.


Full List of Obama Tax Hikes

 

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats -- must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:

 

 

1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

 

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337)

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

 

 

Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*

2011-2012

15%

15%

35%

2013+ (current law)

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)

23.8%

23.8%

43.4%

 

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

 

 

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

 

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (currently unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on total sales, even if the respective company does not earn a profit. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Making matters worse: According to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, the Obama IRS didn’t bother to issue compliance guidelines until three quarterly filing deadlines had passed: “By the time [IRS] notices were issued, tanning excise tax returns had been due for three quarters." Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

 

https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
876
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
882
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

882 Views
Message 4 of 280

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?


My answer would be to bring in independent auditors into the government telling (the auditors) their charter is to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, cut costs (which means jobs in many cases) with the goal of cutting taxes as well as cumbersome regulations.  Laws can only be changed by Congress and they should also recommend changes to laws as well as creating new ones (if needed) and eliminating bad laws.  In many cases, government regulations unnecessarily hamper business.


We are probably not as different in our economic beliefs as you think.  However, taxes should only be reduced after the debt is gone.  As far as Government regulations hampering business, according to who, the business or the consumer?  Personally, I think the Government needs to step in to make the sure the playing field remains levnd fair and that does require laws and regulations.


One of the theories on taxes is the more money individuals have (and also businesses), the more money can be spent.  More money spent means more jobs.  More jobs mean more taxes collected.

 

I think with a $20 trillion dollar national debt hanging over our heads (in excess of $60,000 per person), we need some innovative ways to cover that debt and I don't think higher taxes will EVER create the stimulus for growing the economy.

 

Raising taxes didn't work for Obama (debt doubled in 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.


Your last point first.  One of the reasons the debt doubled was that due to the Economic collapse, the Government had to help spend our way out of a recession.  As times improve, the debt needs to be repaid.

 

You are correct, the more money individuals have to spend in the economy, the stronger it will be.  However, all tax cuts being proposed are for the richest, which will not drive the economy.  Jobs, new plants, etc are created without demanding starting from the bottom, not the top.  If the demand is there jobs and business expansions will follow.  By focusing on tax cuts for the richest, they are leaving the average consumer (the driver of the economy) the same or worse off if they have to make up the revenue shortage which will stall the economy.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
882
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
883
Views

Democratic socialism

883 Views
Message 5 of 280

NH said, "Raising taxes didn't work for Obama (debt doubled in 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion)."

 

Really NH? In essence, I agree with the philosophy of NH on taxes, but what is this fairy tale about Obama raising taxes? During the Obama Administration, taxes were at their lowest rates since the 1950s. The debt doubled because of the 2008 Fiscal Crisis and irresponsible spending by Congress, not because of Obama.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
883
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
889
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

889 Views
Message 6 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?


My answer would be to bring in independent auditors into the government telling (the auditors) their charter is to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, cut costs (which means jobs in many cases) with the goal of cutting taxes as well as cumbersome regulations.  Laws can only be changed by Congress and they should also recommend changes to laws as well as creating new ones (if needed) and eliminating bad laws.  In many cases, government regulations unnecessarily hamper business.


We are probably not as different in our economic beliefs as you think.  However, taxes should only be reduced after the debt is gone.  As far as Government regulations hampering business, according to who, the business or the consumer?  Personally, I think the Government needs to step in to make the sure the playing field remains levnd fair and that does require laws and regulations.


One of the theories on taxes is the more money individuals have (and also businesses), the more money can be spent.  More money spent means more jobs.  More jobs mean more taxes collected.

 

I think with a $20 trillion dollar national debt hanging over our heads (in excess of $60,000 per person), we need some innovative ways to cover that debt and I don't think higher taxes will EVER create the stimulus for growing the economy.

 

Raising taxes didn't work for Obama (debt doubled in 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
889
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
903
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

903 Views
Message 7 of 280

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?


My answer would be to bring in independent auditors into the government telling (the auditors) their charter is to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, cut costs (which means jobs in many cases) with the goal of cutting taxes as well as cumbersome regulations.  Laws can only be changed by Congress and they should also recommend changes to laws as well as creating new ones (if needed) and eliminating bad laws.  In many cases, government regulations unnecessarily hamper business.


We are probably not as different in our economic beliefs as you think.  However, taxes should only be reduced after the debt is gone.  As far as Government regulations hampering business, according to who, the business or the consumer?  Personally, I think the Government needs to step in to make the sure the playing field remains level and fair and that does require laws and regulations.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
903
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
907
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

907 Views
Message 8 of 280

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:




And, I guess I have been posting with someone who continues to insist that 2+2=5 and black is white.  From earlier posts I thought you were somewhat open minded, but I am starting to revise that opinion.


I am open minded until someone starts telling me what to post and insisting they want to control posting.   I've a good idea, just ignore my posts...ok?


Why didn't you just ignore mine, or do you absolutely have to get in the last word even when you are wrong?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
907
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
910
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

910 Views
Message 9 of 280

@sp362 wrote:




And, I guess I have been posting with someone who continues to insist that 2+2=5 and black is white.  From earlier posts I thought you were somewhat open minded, but I am starting to revise that opinion.


I am open minded until someone starts telling me what to post and insisting they want to control posting.   I've a good idea, just ignore my posts...ok?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
910
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
911
Views

Re: Democratic socialism

911 Views
Message 10 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

sp362:  Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

 

 

I agree 100%.


In a way, I agree too. My preference would have been for the government to have gotten out of the way and allowed the free economy to recover. 

 

On the other hand, if the answer was made to go the Keynesian route, I would have preferred to go full bore Keynesian in the short term.

 

Interestingly, with all the whining about tax cutting, it included tax cuts. 

 

The infrastructure was to be a major element and yet well after the fact Obama joked that the shovel ready jobs were't all that shovel ready. That seems a strange thing since the pols are still talking about more taxes so we can do more infrastructure work. It seems that stating the goal is more important than figuring out how to accomplish the objective.

 

 


Since consumers and businesses had stopped spending, what do you think would have happened if the Government had stopped as well?  There is a very good chance your solution would have ended in a depression.


Have you considered what consumers and businesses would do if the government "slimmed down" and got out of the way?  With more money in THEIR pockets, the economy might just expand!


And what would your answer have been to the economic crisis?  What is your idea of the Government "getting out of the way"?  Less regulations?  Less oversight?  Fewer laws?


My answer would be to bring in independent auditors into the government telling (the auditors) their charter is to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, cut costs (which means jobs in many cases) with the goal of cutting taxes as well as cumbersome regulations.  Laws can only be changed by Congress and they should also recommend changes to laws as well as creating new ones (if needed) and eliminating bad laws.  In many cases, government regulations unnecessarily hamper business.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
911
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors