Tax churches.

Tax churches.....


......and the ACLU, and Greenpeace, and PETA, etc.

No just the church, Jeffy.

Itsy,


Why single out only one tin-cup holder?

Why single out only one tin-cup holder?

Good point. Tax all organizations in proportion to their income. And I'm not talking about individual churches, I'm talking about the SBC, UMC, PC, etc. as a whole.

Why not?

The more political they become they should pay taxes.

"......and the ACLU, and Greenpeace, and PETA, etc."

Oh yeah those organization have the cash laying around that churches do. Riiight.

Danni,


The point was that if we are going to tax the in-coming revenues of churches than we should do so for ALL non-profit organizations.


Why be discriminatory?

Just political pandering.

Don't fall for shit like this.....all any of it does is increase the size and power of govt.

nothing more

Why not?

The more political they become they should pay taxes.


Fantastic!

The organizations that I've mentioned are more political than most churches.

Since when were churches "non-profit?"

"We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over."
-- Pat Robertson

"A coalition of porn stars, strippers and others in adult entertainment roamed the halls of the Capitol recently to lobby against the Calderon bill"

I wonder how this lobbying went???

"Please young lady, come into my office"

I don't recall too many candidates going to PETA,ACLU, or Greenpeace for an endorsement.

I agree with Jeffy J.

Jerry Falwell.

And yes I am sitting at Gawd's right hand.

I don't recall too many candidates going to PETA,ACLU, or Greenpeace for an endorsement.


That doesn't mean that these organizations aren't political.

That doesn't mean that these organizations aren't political.

No doubt, but to claim that churches aren't just as political is absurd.

What is the biggest scandal facing Obama?

The comments made by the pastor of his church.

See?

Ah the "Mega Church"....Tax free!

"The more political they become they should pay taxes."

That is utter nonsense. The reason some folks (I'm generally not one) argue that churches should be taxed is because they really do earn a profit. They buy property and invest. They pay their prechers huge salaries.
The ACLU, PETA, Greennpeace do none of those things.
Apples and Oranges.

Don't tax the churches but tax the property the churches are sitting on. After all, prime estates could be used to hire plenty of people with some type of productive business. Talk about having wasted property doing nothing.

Tax train rails, the fewer the rails the higher the tax.

Tax the popularity, super delegates, they are the most popular the tax should be great after all they were elected and can't seem to follow democracy. Tax political parties.

Tax the media for every untruth.

I've never seen a candidate suck up to a PETA meeting.

I have however seen them suck up to any given flock of fools from a church pulpit.

Tax 'em.

Tax the media for every untruth

Wouldn't work. They would go broke.

The reason some folks (I'm generally not one) argue that churches should be taxed is because they really do earn a profit. They buy property and invest. They pay their prechers huge salaries.
The ACLU, PETA, Greennpeace do none of those things.


I didn't realize that the ACLU was 100% Pro Bono - not even any assistance from the government. I guess the lawyers who represent Greenpeace and PETA don't make a dime for their services either.


Also, are you suggesting that the higher-ups of these organizations don't receive a healthy stipend for their services?

I've never seen a candidate suck up to a PETA meeting.

I have however seen them suck up to any given flock of fools from a church pulpit.

No, but an awful lot of PETA lobby-money greases the system.


You want to have this both ways, but it doesn't work that way.

Tax train rails, the fewer the rails the higher the tax.

Tax the popularity, super delegates, they are the most popular the tax should be great after all they were elected and can't seem to follow democracy. Tax political parties.

Tax the media for every untruth.


translation........"Give me more government because what I have now isn't large enough"

LOL

Count on Cali to go whoring after more money, and in so doing, condone porn....

and in so doing, condone porn....

There is nothing wrong with porn.

"If we don't do some of these things, we are going to have to cut nearly $5 billion out of schools,"

Well nevermind the fact that the state provides social services to over 3 million illegal immigrants. Good luck with your budget..

You people have no clue how government works do you? How about this for some novel thinking, Don't tax the churches or any other non-profit or humanitarian organizations.

Force governement to live within it's income, just like you have to do. And get rid of the illegal IRS and illegal personal income taxes.

And get rid of the illegal IRS and illegal personal income taxes.

Posted by Lipzoidial

That's some thinking ol'HC can cosign to.

But I'd say first abolish the Fed.

You people have no clue how government works do you? .......And get rid of the illegal IRS and illegal personal income taxes.

OK, you certainly know how government works and this would solve all their problems.

Wow for being non-profit, there sure are a lot of well to do preachers out there.

Ness,

Yes there is. It certainly is not in the state's interest to condone it by taxing, as it does cigarettes....I'm not suggesting they ought to try to eradicate it, as I don't believe that is doable, but they should not condone it by taxing it, which will ensure that they can not meaningfully curtail it when it gets out of hand...see cigarettes and alcohol...They cause monstrous health problems, but we're addicted to the tax money, so we allow them to be openly sold, and we take the deaths and social ills that come with them in exchange for the tax money....Now, personally, I'm ok with the alcohol, because most people aren't drunks and taken in moderation, it is helpful, but cigarettes have NO redeeming qualities, but we're stuck with them. Everybody who gets addicted to cigarettes starts at an age when its use is illegal, but we see no serious effort to curb this, because of the tax revenues....You don't wanna do the same with porn...

"I didn't realize that the ACLU was 100% Pro Bono - not even any assistance from the government. I guess the lawyers who represent Greenpeace and PETA don't make a dime for their services either.


Also, are you suggesting that the higher-ups of these organizations don't receive a healthy stipend for their services?"

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-05-12 09:03 AM

Burden of proof's on you.

In the mean time "the reverend" Pat Robertson is a multi-billionaire and "the reverend" Al Sharpton owes a ton of back taxes.

Besides, youporn.com is putting pay-for-porn out of business.

And if they don't want to address the illegal immigrant problem, legalize weed and tax it..

You don't wanna do the same with porn...

Porn is as dangerous as cigs? Explain.

Jon,

I tend to agree with you, but please tell me how Porn run amok will become as Hazardous as cigarettes?

Why not implement a flat tax. *Everyone* pays the same tax. No exemptions, no non-profit organizations. No nothing, everyone pays.

This is fair. Hey, you want to give to your church or PETA go ahead. If you really believe in the cause taxes should not matter.

It also takes one more thing out of the politician's hands. They can no longer give out tax breaks to their pals or donors and it makes it harder for them to social engineer.

I tend to agree with you, but please tell me how Porn run amok will become as Hazardous as cigarettes?

Well, that's easy.. We men have no immagination at all and without porn we wouldn't masturbate. If porn was rampant, we would beat our dicks right off, which would cause a massive increase in emergency room treatment and rising health care costs. Those health costs would eventually result in a massive recession in which we wouldn't be able to afforn porn anymore..

Or something like that...

KWRX25,

Well, porn industry tends to center on young, ignorant girls or even young, ignorant imported girls. Most of these girls don't make it big, but are just used up and spit out, and end up junkies or hookers.....not something you're after as a society.

In addition, it is where many teenagers now get their sex education, and the general attitude promoted by porn movies is not one which really encourages treating partners with respect...Kids learn the wrong thing....This does not bode well for social stability.

Certainly, there will not be the deaths associated with cigarettes, but the cycle of abuse which will be taught and fed will do terrible damage in the long haul. Society has become terribly oversexualized (look at this Miley Cyrus business), and our government should not join in by condoning and becoming addicted to porn. So, that's my point.

DEFICIT SOLVED.........

becoming addicted to porn.

Yeah, porn addicts make up at least 10% of our society, right? They are a scurge on our very existence and a threat to our future...

Nevermind that, in general, the countries that are less sexually repressed tend to have lower instances of rape.

"Well nevermind the fact that the state provides social services to over 3 million illegal immigrants."

Don't think of it as social services for 3 million illegal aliens think of it as subsidies to businesses that only hire illegals to do jobs Americans won't do (unless they pay decent wages).
All of the complaints about tax dollars being spent on illegal aliens are legitimate but the answer isn't to eliminate the services it is to force the people who hire them to pay for them.

"Why not implement a flat tax."

Just be sure no one confuses that with the "Fair Tax" because one is fair and the other is just a tax increase on working class Americans.

BTW, the "Fair Tax" isn't the fair tax.

Jsprague,

I didn't mean personally addicted...this has nothing to do with goverment policy..I meant that the government would become addicted to the tax money, much as it has for cigarettes, big corporations, etc....and would cease opposing the porn industry. That would be bad for the reasons I outlined.

The Fair Tax, of course, would make the whole discussion mute, as income is not taxed, only expenditures.

"The Fair Tax, of course, would make the whole discussion mute"

I think the argument for the "Fair Tax" should be "mute."

Umm, if the state is already broke, why is he proposing any new programs?

I think I'm seeing the real problem. They don't need more taxes, they need to quit trying to be so creative with the money they think they have.

I say get rid of all taxes. You libs are tax happy..

force the people

My least favorite words...

I meant that the government would become addicted to the tax money

It still seems as though you were originally making a moral argument, not a financial one..

I say get rid of all taxes. You libs are tax happy..

Yeah, its just the libs.. Republicrats are tax happy..

Danni,

Yep, Lefties sure don't like to go through debates. Your socialist friends, Hitler and Stalin, didn't like debates, either. You could simply end the debate by honestly entering into it, but because you're not trying to resolve anything, it just goes on and on.

We in California should stop all payents of any kind to illegals. This would certainly give us a health surplus.

Jsprague,

Yes, the GOPers are being punished by their base, and deservedly so. Where is the similar reaction in the Dem Party?

Republicrats are tax happy

Actually you arent far from the truth JSprague, and we should hold them accountable for it. We need less govt, not more..

Why not?

The more political they become they should pay taxes.

Posted by itsme

Don't they pay business taxes and sales tax? Don't the employees pay income taxes?

Um sure we do Snyper.

The Rev. Al.

Where is the similar reaction in the Dem Party?

It will come after they realize that their corporate candidates have no interest in fixing the country either. I would estimate it will start in about 2-3 years..

It will come after they realize that their corporate candidates have no interest in fixing the country either. I would estimate it will start in about 2-3 years..

Posted by jsprague

2-3 years if we're lucky. dem's have picked up their own strain of typically GOP blindness over the last couple of years.

Well,

Last time it was two years before the country wisened up, and put the GOP in charge, leading to the Contract With America, economic growth, and debt reduction.....Of course, those GOPers had ideas....I see no evidence from the current crop.

"...Each represents a small town that cannot really afford the lawsuits the ACLU brings."

Posted by KBM

Those small towns should have thought about that before they decided to play fast and loose with the constitution.

"As far as the legal fees, expenses, etc that the ACLU acquires are usually paid for by the tax payers of the U.S. SO you are correct, the ACLU does not pay the salaries, YOU DO!"

Posted by KBM

Actually, that happens all the time in civil action. It's not just the ACLU who get their legal expenses paid but any attorney/firm (and in cases you didn't know, its only WHEN THEY WIN that they get paid), and there are good public policy reasons for doing so, so hold your outrage for something that actually deserves it.

You mean "Contract On America".

Another Raygun Repube.

I was gonna say my state gives sin-tax a whole new meaning, but for high camp, I can't touch:

"Lefties don't like debates. Your socialist friends, Hitler and Stalin, didn't like debates, either. You could simply end the debate by honestly entering into it, but because you're not trying to resolve anything, it just goes on and on."

We "lefties" LOVE debates. Hitler a socialist? My mind reels. Hitler was a prototype Republican. National Socialists were to socialists like military justice is to justice. Ryker's profound ignorance never shined more brightly.

As for the ACLU making a profit: I sure wish it did. herm

Who the HELL pays for porn anymore?

"Who the HELL pays for porn anymore?"

Posted by NappyHeadedHo

The seven old farts who never heard of youporn.

Oops, one just died, make that six.

typical left wing nut jobs....only solution to any problem is to tax more. that solves all problems. just tax. couldn't possibly....reduce spending! wow. what a novel concept.

Once again ryker gets his facts wrong. The deficit reduction during the Clinton years was due to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed without a single Republican member of congress voting for it.

Posted by reinheitsgebot

Debt in 1990, 3.2t
Debt in 2000, 5.7t

Wou did a good job there brownie.

Seems like rei is a little confused on what a deficit reduction during the Clinton years is.

Looks like is Sniper is too stupid to differentiate between debt and deficit. Also, Clinton didn't take office till 93.

That should be:

Looks like sniper is too stupid to differentiate between debt and deficit.

Looks like is Sniper is too stupid to differentiate between debt and deficit. Also, Clinton didn't take office till 93.

Posted by reinheitsgebot

Changing the face that you have cut the deficit for a year dosen't do anything except slow you down before the wreck. A deficit is still that inspite of the face that it was $10 and now its only $9 that you owe.

The debt did increase every year that he was in office.

1993 - $4.4t
2000 - $5.7t

Let me rephrase it. Good job you did there Willie. Never mind the fact that the economy started sliding in the late 90s before you left office.

There has not been an administration or congress in modern times that has reduced the debt. Every year the government gets larger and larger.

sounds like rei is too stupid to.........

I can make an arguement like you do too.

Snipe,


I am by no means defending government largesse and I certainly abhor the level of debt our country has achieved.

Nevertheless, the figure itself is misleading. A far better measurement is a debt-to-GDP ratio.

Factoring in GDP, we pretty much stayed even or made some headway since WWII until that pathetic idiot Reagan was elected by you retarded morons. Then it really went to shit.

You can make an arguement? Compared to Chimpy and Ronnie Reagan, Clinton's efforts at deficit reduction are positively Herculean. To say otherwise is laughable.

Compared to Chimpy and Ronnie Reagan, Clinton's efforts at deficit reduction are positively Herculean. To say otherwise is laughable.

That's true, but it is like saying "I only killed 1 person, not 10".. Still isn't enough to fix the problem...

Reinheitsgebot,

Clinton balanced the budget because and only because of George Bush's budget agreement in 1990 and Newt Gingrich ramming the Contract with America down his throat, which had balanced budgets as a platform. That's the only reason. Had BillaryCare passed, there'd have been no hope for a balanced budget.

Jonryker,

The Congressional Budget Office cites the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 for the turnaround in the late 90's. The only part Gingrich played in this bill is opposing it.

[edit] Legislative history
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (VT-I)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against), and the Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.

The bill, at the time, was based on unproved economic theory. Since the Ronald Reagan administration, the American public was more receptive to Reaganomics pursued during the 1980s. The theory behind the bill was that federal budget deficits were more critical to economic health than either the New Deal liberals or Reagan-era conservatives wanted to admit. Both groups dismissed the importance of the federal budget deficit.

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

There's nothing left in this state that California's politicians will not tax. The state is literally -- and I mean this -- in a monetary downfall and just short of bankruptcy. If you live here -- get out while the getting's good. Right now the desperate socialist politicians here are doing everything they can to chip away at California's Proposition 13 so they can raise homeowners' property tax to the sky.

Jobs have been lost in the defense plants, and California makes it very expensive to do business here. The only new jobs available are the ones done primarily by the illegal coming in this state by the tens of thousands and those are in the travel industry, hotels, restaurants, landscaping, and -- until the housing downfall -- construction.

The politicians (during the boom times) promised - in exchange for votes -- unreal amounts in pensions and perks to city and county workers. Add to that the fact that more than 1/4th of the nation's estimated 25 million illegal aliens reside in California alone -- and most of them work "off the books" (40% work off the books in Los Angeles County alone) -- sending their "untaxed" money back to their home countries. Yet illegals cost this state a lot of money in social services, incarceration costs, housng, schooling, you name it. Add the $9 billion it cost my state last year for illegal aliens on to the the subprime housing debacle and you can start to get a picture of what's happening. California is a state of socialist Democrat politicians. (I'm not talking regular Democrats here, I'm talking hard core socialist Democrats -- there's a difference.) They hold the majority of power and they along with Governor Arnie have put my once wonderful state on the verge of bankruptcy.

You are seeing the third-worldizing of California.
Your state is next.

I wonder, if they are undocumented and their work is "off the books", where do all of these figures for how many illegals there are, what they get paid, how much they cost us, etc., comes from?

Wow--taxing porn--well that's not something you see everyday...

This goes to the same idea of raising the tax on beer a few weeks ago.

Taxing for all the wrong reasons--

CC is right in his post above.--We are drowning in illegals and Arnie has been a failure in this regard.

He is turning into a girly-man...

Murphy

It still seems as though you were originally making a moral argument, not a financial one..

Posted by jsprague


BULLSHIT.

CC is right in his post above.--We are drowning in illegals and Arnie has been a failure in this regard.

Posted by MURPHY

You sure you said that right? I don't mean about the illegals.

"BULLSHIT"

Yes and Camels Spit. What's your point.

Illegal immigrants--illegal aliens--I was referring to CC post and he was clear. What do you mean?

JS--

Sniper has been on the financial horn on this --You might have his post mixed up with JonRyker--who was taking a moral tact.


Murphy

Here is an article about the "underground economy" -- 40% of Los Angeles County.

Actually, that happens all the time in civil action. It's not just the ACLU who get their legal expenses paid but any attorney/firm (and in cases you didn't know, its only WHEN THEY WIN that they get paid), and there are good public policy reasons for doing so, so hold your outrage for something that actually deserves it.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-05-12 11:26 AM


Actually Hag--

The ACLU has a loophole to collect their attorney fees and costs--without having the case go to trial. Most of their lawsuits NEVER go to trial--and they get all their fees and costs because of the loophole law in place and Congress too chicken to repeal it.

First thing the lesbian DA did here is San Diego was pay the ACLU $990,000 for the Boy Scout/Balboa Park lawsuit.

Which was BS in the first place. But that is another thread..

Murphy

What "loophole law" is that, Murphy? I've never heard of it in my double digit years of practice.

CC--the illegal immigrants also send home about 13 Billion a year--I think just from our state--

So the money they make in the state leaves the state to go back to where ever.

We should send a bill to new Presidente in Mexico and the others in Central America..for the 9 Billion is services.

They can estimate and extrapolate the best stats.

We do get screwed by both parties--the Dems becasue they are so week on the border issue and want the illegal immigrants in so they can vote--then the Repubs for supporting the slave labor for the companies/corporations.

Lou Dobbs should move to CA and run for Governor..

Murphy

MC--when they put in a cause of action that mentions civil rights, discrimination --they get their fees and costs paid for --without a trial.

The ADA attorneys do the same thing--they allege the business is discriminating against folks in wheel chairs and the like and part of the ADA law allows them to collect their fees and costs from the defendant--even when they didn't go to trial.

Why do you think all the schools and churches and associations and other parties settle the cases? The fees and costs are already astonomical and will only go up and no guarantee they will prevail.

The Boy Scout lawsuit did not go to trial--the new DA decided in her first week to settle the case and the settlement included 900k in fees and costs.

It's a sham by the plaintiff's bar and chicken hearts in charge won't change it--exclude it--the federal law allows it.

Until they repeal this section--it will go on.

Murphy

Lou Dobbs should move to CA and run for Governor..

There are already enough Latinos there to guarantee his loss.

The politicians (during the boom times) promised - in exchange for votes -- unreal amounts in pensions and perks to city and county workers.

That is killing Mass. as well, Cali. In town after town here there is an all-out war of attrition with folks trying to pass overrides to save school and town services, and folks voting against overrides in an attempt to "smoke out" the unions through cuts to teacher/police/firefighter staffs.

In the end, the old union farts keep their jobs and continue to pay only $10 a week for health insurance, while young teahcers and cops end up laid off and the schools fall to shit.

Every federal dollar that comes by way of the state (after they take their piece) ends up going to mandated state programs for SPED and other programs which are typically medical in nature and so, the costs of those programs end up riding up the same soaring curve that medical insurance and healthcare in general is riding.

first my wife taxes my porn collection and now THE STATE!?!?!?

Nevertheless, the figure itself is misleading. A far better measurement is a debt-to-GDP ratio.

Posted by JeffJ

So you are saying it is OK to spend more than you make forever if the GMP is high. I would like to know how you rationalize that.

There is now way that spending more than you earn is a good deal unless you make a major purchase and you pay it off in a reasonable amount of time.

During WWII we spent more than we made but we never payed it off. Same for every war we have ever had.

Do you know my SS was used to finance Johnsons war? That's when it became a line item on the budget to cover the spending.

How can you say spending more than you make is OK? It isn't. It doesn't work for me or the government. That is why most governments here in the US are in trouble. They spend someone elses money like there is no end to it.

There are billions of dollars waiting to be taxed in churches. Stop giving them a free ride when they benefit from all the services that govt provides.

I agree church property should be taxed.

But given the state of the political dialogue---e.g., the kettle boiling over a candidate not wearing a goddamn flag pin in his lapel---can you imagine the explosion that would be set off by a politico actually proposing that?

The noise would shake the pillars of the Houses of Mammon.

translation........"Give me more government because what I have now isn't large enough"

Now this is humorous, a reporightie mocking large government.

The reporighties have created the largest government this world has ever seen all at the expense of the working people and give the taxation breaks to those who need and use it the most.

Now this is humorous, a reporightie mocking large government.

It isn't my fault a bunch of psychos hijacked our govt.

It is pretty weak when you have to ONCE AGAIN assign a position to someone to make an argument.

weak but extremely predictable.

Its sad to watch people just stay in the same rut and never improve themselves.

Stop giving them a free ride when they benefit from all the services that govt provides.

It that is so unacceptable then why are you advocating the same thing?

Try this......"stop giving them a free ride when they benefit from all the revenue that taxpayers provide."

See how easy it is to see how stupid your argument is when you change just a couple words?

It is not difficult assigning a position when YOU are the one in fact supporting the position.

Get a fuckin clue and maybe the change in your positions won't get a position assigned to you.

It is not difficult assigning a position when YOU are the one in fact supporting the position.

what are you talking about?

Prove it!

LOL

Crasswar will never change his wicked ways.

Crasswar will never change his wicked ways.

Posted by eberly at 2008-05-12 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Oh, I see the lightbulb just went off and you figured out the post.

Keep up that support and bitch about being assigned a position. Now that is humorous.

Perhaps a worse tax proposal, revealed a little later in the story... "Assemblyman Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) is targeting a wider group of consumers. Almost every Californian would bear some of the brunt of his proposal to charge a 25-cent tax on every plastic carryout bag from stores."

"Almost every Californian would bear some of the brunt of his proposal to charge a 25-cent tax on every plastic carryout bag from stores."

If that passes, you'll want the concession on the well-made, washable, grocery carriers.

If they actually do manage to pass this asinine tax, it should be very easy to get it repealed:

Just pay it with money that's all stuck together.

Democrats are the smartest people alive. They must be.

I mean, of ALL The things you could tax, they want to tax Porn.

Boy, thats hitting hard. These democrats got balls.

Lets tax a bunch of sluts. Perfect plan.

Kuma

We could balance our budgets if the "business activities" of churches were taxed, especially the Mormon Church. Like Pat Robertson, they are far more concerned with profits than their alleged prophets. Yet, they engage in business under the tax radar.

We could balance our budgets if the "business activities" of churches were taxed, especially the Mormon Church. Like Pat Robertson, they are far more concerned with profits than their alleged prophets. Yet, they engage in business under the tax radar.

Nutcase,

No, the budget would not be balanced...The government would simply spend more money and everyone who went to church would be poorer. Taxing a church meeting would directly be against freedom of association. Nothing is being bought or sold. The government has no business there. Of course, should a certain church pay enough tax money, it would be relatively simple to get your doctrine included in the puclic schools as "outreach", so I'd be real careful about taxing churches, less you establish one.

It should be taxed, maybe slow it down some.

"If that passes, you'll want the concession on the well-made, washable, grocery carriers.

Posted by Danforth"

Already have plenty, thanks.

P.S., Amtrak prices still the same. Metrorail prices still the same.

California May Tax Porn

The pimp always gets the biggest cut.