Jump to content

Debates


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349370865' post='1166225']
Actually, at one point in the debate Romney did say that part of his plan to reduce the deficit was to create jobs and thereby increase revenue. He proposes to do this by reducing taxes on small businesses. He threw out the term "revenue neutral" a lot, which implies government cuts either way if you want deficit reduction. It's really sleight of hand more than anything, because Romney could slash your marginal tax rate but also take away or cap deductions, so the average person pays the same net taxes anyway.

Of course a real solution has to be revenue positive, and the solution to that depends on whether or not you believe that reducing the tax burden on business will actually broaden the base.
[/quote]

And he hasnt said what deductions he wants to remove either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1349371234' post='1166228']
that seems to be the going explination...lower taxes on the small buisnesses->they have more money->they hire more people

im just not convinced thats how it will actually work
[/quote]

Because it wont. Small business only hires if they have customers to buy their products, just like large business.

It's supply side bullshit and we are in the middle of the results of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for Rick, I had posted it in another thread so you may not have seen it.

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Okay, Folks, Let's Put Aside Politics And Look At The Facts... [/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6?op=1#ixzz28LvReosi"]http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6?op=1#ixzz28LvReosi[/url][/size][/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349371710' post='1166232']
[b]Right now [/b]the US consumer market is the largest [b]right now[/b] if we continue these neoliberal ideas it wont remain that way.

No they arent investing in China. My primary argument is that supply side economic that you tout is a giant vacuum sucking the jobs out of one area and putting them in cheaper labor markets until that is no longer advantageous for profit then moving on to the next cheap labor market, at some point they wont be able to do that because the labor markets will ballance themselves out and then their ponzi scheme will be up.

And I agree with you about reducing the trade deficit, but you dont do it with free trade at the expense of the worker, you do it as Lew had mentioned, through protective tarrifs.
[/quote]

I concede that this happens in some industries, but not in all. There are many more factors than cheap labor, and in some industries cheap labor is not an option. The Malaysian 12-year-olds that made your Nikes can't build precise mechanical components or computer chips. Incentivizing global investment like China, Germany, Ireland, and many other economies do is an unavoidable reality, no matter how you feel about supply-side economics, and the U.S. is doing itself a disservice by not playing the game decisively. It may be too pro-business for your tastes, but it's undeniably pro-growth.

I'm not a disciple of all things supply-side. Reagan kept deficit spending which is antithetical to a real supply-side economy. Bush put two foreign wars on the credit card. I recognize its faults but it also has valuable tenets. Just like any other system of variables, there is a level of taxation that produces maximum revenue - a key tenet of supply side economics. That doesn't absolutely mean a lower tax rate - maximum revenue may occur at a higher tax rate. It's an important concept whenever you're talking about tax reform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349372832' post='1166245']
I concede that this happens in some industries, but not in all. There are many more factors than cheap labor, and in some industries cheap labor is not an option. The Malaysian 12-year-olds that made your Nikes can't build precise mechanical components or computer chips. Incentivizing global investment like China, Germany, Ireland, and many other economies do is an unavoidable reality, no matter how you feel about supply-side economics, and the U.S. is doing itself a disservice by not playing the game decisively. It may be too pro-business for your tastes, but it's undeniably pro-growth.

I'm not a disciple of all things supply-side. Reagan kept deficit spending which is antithetical to a real supply-side economy. Bush put two foreign wars on the credit card. I recognize its faults but it also has valuable tenets. Just like any other system of variables, there is a level of taxation that produces maximum revenue - a key tenet of supply side economics. That doesn't absolutely mean a lower tax rate - maximum revenue may occur at a higher tax rate. It's an important concept whenever you're talking about tax reform.
[/quote]

And Ill concede that not all industries are able to ship to jobs to 3rd world wages, but thats where we have to look at reeducating our workforce to do these new jobs and that requires investment in our people.

We also have to realize that technology has also replaced jobs. I would say look at the ATM Machine vs the Bank Teller. How many Bank Teller jobs did we lose because the ATM Machine came into play? Even factory jobs have been lost to machines that replaced the worker.

I'd have to look into Ireland as I'm not as familiar but China and Germany protect their workers/industries through their trade policies. It's very much in the notion of Hamilton and Franklin as to what they do, and it's something I'd like to see us get back to doing. I'd argue [b]THAT[/b] is why their economies are so strong, more than anything else, especially in the case of Germany.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lincoln said it best here, if we want a healthy economy Labor must be the priority.

[quote]Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349373457' post='1166248']
And Ill concede that not all industries are able to ship to jobs to 3rd world wages, but thats where we have to look at reeducating our workforce to do these new jobs and that requires investment in our people.

We also have to realize that technology has also replaced jobs. I would say look at the ATM Machine vs the Bank Teller. How many Bank Teller jobs did we lose because the ATM Machine came into play? Even factory jobs have been lost to machines that replaced the worker.

I'd have to look into Ireland as I'm not as familiar but China and Germany protect their workers/industries through their trade policies. It's very much in the notion of Hamilton and Franklin as to what they do, and it's something I'd like to see us get back to doing. I'd argue [b]THAT[/b] is why their economies are so strong, more than anything else, especially in the case of Germany.
[/quote]

There we agree; the U.S. is not aggressive enough in acquiring and retaining business in its borders. Mainly because a lot of our politicans are bought by lobbyists.

I don't generally support socialist policies but I really believe that public undergrad university education ought to be free for STEM, education, and other valuable fields - based on performance, of course, and only for those majors (you can still go to Nietzsche State and get your degree in Historical Russian Cave Art, but you can pay for it yourself). Student debt is really crushing to a wide swath of the middle class, and keeps another chunk of people from getting into the workforce at all.

Here's a wild idea for stimulus... forgive all extant student loan debt and implement controls on future lending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily I had band practice last night so I had an excuse to miss the shit show. Let me be clear about my stance; I like Obama because he is not (this new generation of hard-core conservative christian values and fiscal lunacy) Republican and nothing more. I haven't decided if I will vote third party or for Obama just to keep the aforementioned party "of crazy" out of power.

That said, I hear time and time and time again that "Obama didn't do anything to make it better." But, correct me if I'm wrong, are there not other pieces to the puzzle of "doing things to make it better?" If the president has an idea, doesn't he need Congress and the Senate to make that idea policy?

I picture a much similar conversation that could happen in a different part of this forum. One where we are divided in half about whether our coach should be fired or extended. Its easy to look at a 1-15 record and think he sucks at his job and needs to go. Its crazy to think anyone would defend that record. But its disingenuous to ignore that the GM insisted upon carrying 12 WRs and left the coach with only 4 legitimate offensive linemen, or the fact that he drafted 4 punters, 2 kickers and a long snapper last year. Then you also have the QB constantly tweeting about how its his job to ensure this coach is a one term coach and that's why he checks to a run on 85% of the plays. Obviously this is an exaggeration and of course part of the coach's job is to make it work and find the means to open the lines of communication and achieve compromise. But there is a contingent of people who just say "He's fucking 1-15 he has to go" and its infuriating.

The president does nothing "alone." For those who insist on framing the debate around a broad view of his "accomplishments" without citing examples of presidential policy and the specific disagreements that Congress or the Senate had and the subsequent failure of the President to rectify those issues, I think lesser of you.

Everyone needs to stop talking about the fucking presidents and start talking about [u]voting out as many incumbents in the Senate and Congress as we can[/u]. Want change? Hope? A better America? Vote out as many of the STATUS QUO as possible. Your representatives only give one fuck about their constituents and that's when it comes to handing out money for their district. When it comes to policy and compromise across the isle for the good of America...fuck you, they have their sponsors and their ideology. How do we change that, vote every last one of these pricks out. All across the country there are new minds eager to break into the game and start changing it. Vote out your 70 year old 16 term congressman and get someone who isn't bought and worn and complacent in their micro-world.

Otherwise why in the world would you expect things to change?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349375034' post='1166256']
There we agree; the U.S. is not aggressive enough in acquiring and retaining business in its borders. Mainly because a lot of our politicans are bought by lobbyists.

I don't generally support socialist policies but I really believe that public undergrad university education ought to be free for STEM, education, and other valuable fields - based on performance, of course, and only for those majors (you can still go to Nietzsche State and get your degree in Historical Russian Cave Art, but you can pay for it yourself). Student debt is really crushing to a wide swath of the middle class, and keeps another chunk of people from getting into the workforce at all.

[color=#ff0000]Here's a wild idea for stimulus... forgive all extant student loan debt and implement controls on future lending.[/color]
[/quote]


[b]SO[/b] agree re: Lobbyists.
Agree, but let's extend that to housing as well so we can get things back to some sense of normalcy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1349375109' post='1166258']
Luckily I had band practice last night so I had an excuse to miss the shit show. Let me be clear about my stance; I like Obama because he is not (this new generation of hard-core conservative christian values and fiscal lunacy) Republican and nothing more. I haven't decided if I will vote third party or for Obama just to keep the aforementioned party "of crazy" out of power.

That said, I hear time and time and time again that "Obama didn't do anything to make it better." But, correct me if I'm wrong, are there not other pieces to the puzzle of "doing things to make it better?" If the president has an idea, doesn't he need Congress and the Senate to make that idea policy?

I picture a much similar conversation that could happen in a different part of this forum. One where we are divided in half about whether our coach should be fired or extended. Its easy to look at a 1-15 record and think he sucks at his job and needs to go. Its crazy to think anyone would defend that record. But its disingenuous to ignore that the GM insisted upon carrying 12 WRs and left the coach with only 4 legitimate offensive linemen, or the fact that he drafted 4 punters, 2 kickers and a long snapper last year. Then you also have the QB constantly tweeting about how its his job to ensure this coach is a one term coach and that's why he checks to a run on 85% of the plays. Obviously this is an exaggeration and of course part of the coach's job is to make it work and find the means to open the lines of communication and achieve compromise. But there is a contingent of people who just say "He's fucking 1-15 he has to go" and its infuriating.

The president does nothing "alone." For those who insist on framing the debate around a broad view of his "accomplishments" without citing examples of presidential policy and the specific disagreements that Congress or the Senate had and the subsequent failure of the President to rectify those issues, I think lesser of you.

Everyone needs to stop talking about the fucking presidents and start talking about [u]voting out as many incumbents in the Senate and Congress as we can[/u]. Want change? Hope? A better America? Vote out as many of the STATUS QUO as possible. Your representatives only give one fuck about their constituents and that's when it comes to handing out money for their district. When it comes to policy and compromise across the isle for the good of America...fuck you, they have their sponsors and their ideology. How do we change that, vote every last one of these pricks out. All across the country there are new minds eager to break into the game and start changing it. Vote out your 70 year old 16 term congressman and get someone who isn't bought and worn and complacent in their micro-world.

Otherwise why in the world would you expect things to change?
[/quote]

While I agree with you here, the President can be a great influence in changing the minds of the electorate, (and thus Congress) through the bully pulpit we've seen a few presidents "change the game" so to speak. Obama is supposed to be a great orator, he's failed on that notion of using that pulpit, because he's too much politician and not enough statesman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349375536' post='1166261']
While I agree with you here, the President can be a great influence in changing the minds of the electorate, (and thus Congress) through the bully pulpit we've seen a few presidents "change the game" so to speak. Obama is supposed to be a great orator, he's failed on that notion of using that pulpit, because he's too much politician and not enough statesman.
[/quote]

I'm pretty convinced the 24hr news cycle and corporate owned media circus has essentially ended the President's ability to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349376407' post='1166264']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxaY_mxYflg[/media]
[/quote]

oh and them too, without real legislation to stop their vamperical tendencies and not the weak dodd/frank nothing else matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default"]http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[color=#0000CD][b]["The Art of Political Lying"] – by BlackJesus[/b][/color]

Mitt Romney, the man who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts and to the right of Rick Perry in the GOP primaries showed last night why in the land of reality, lying can be a great weapon. In this post-truth-world where Romney is applauded this morning despite his calculated 27 lies in 38 minutes of speaking; we have a surging candidate who exemplifies that you can shamelessly lie and get away with it, as long as you do so with conviction, certitude, and feigned moral outrage. In a WWE society where knife-fighting midgets can get a million YouTube hits and where polite civility is characterized as "pussified" weakness, President Obama ran into a buzz saw of mistruth and myth. Romney, a shyster CEO "salesman" by trade (who could sell overpriced ice to an Eskimo) knows that people love a shiny lie and so he told Americans that they'd all pay less taxes and that the less they pay in taxes, the faster the national debt would disappear. It's the dishonest and naïve political equivalent of "everyone gets a puppy".

Then again, have you ever tried to argue with a Mormon missionary at your door? Romney, who spent Vietnam hiding out in Paris while telling the French to stop drinking wine because his prophet Joseph Smith's golden tablets said so, shows that many people don't mind if you lie, as long as you do it with a missionary's zeal. Sure you can advocate spending 2 trillion more dollars on wasteful foreign wars like Romney did, as long as you attack the pennies in comparison spent on Sesame Street and promise to fire that infamous 'commie' Big Bird. Sadly the business world incubates many metaphorical 'Mitt Romneys', who all possess the single common element to cunningly discern what someone wants to hear, and then tell them it.

After all, Romney is a man who made a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. However, in a brief moment of truth last night, the used car salesman Romney made it clear that his sons keep on telling him lies that after a while they hope he'll think is true. Well, I guess his sons learned from their father and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Now to Romney's credit, last night's debate was a standout performance by an unscrupulous con man. A masterful display of sleight-of-hand and contradiction, anchored in lies and misrepresentation. Perhaps Romney deserves a prize now, but probably not the White House.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349372670' post='1166241']
This is for Rick, I had posted it in another thread so you may not have seen it.

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Okay, Folks, Let's Put Aside Politics And Look At The Facts... [/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6?op=1#ixzz28LvReosi"]http://www.businessi...1#ixzz28LvReosi[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

That was a good read, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349375034' post='1166256']
There we agree; the U.S. is not aggressive enough in acquiring and retaining business in its borders. Mainly because a lot of our politicans are bought by lobbyists.

I don't generally support socialist policies but I really believe that public undergrad university education ought to be free for STEM, education, and other valuable fields - based on performance, of course, and only for those majors (you can still go to Nietzsche State and get your degree in Historical Russian Cave Art, but you can pay for it yourself). Student debt is really crushing to a wide swath of the middle class, and keeps another chunk of people from getting into the workforce at all.

Here's a wild idea for stimulus... forgive all extant student loan debt and implement controls on future lending.
[/quote]

What do you mean by controls on future lending?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pbs-mitt-romney-debate_n_1939546.html?utm_hp_ref=media"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pbs-mitt-romney-debate_n_1939546.html?utm_hp_ref=media[/url]

[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
The CEO of PBS fired back at Mitt Romney Thursday, saying that it was "stunning" that the Republican candidate had singled her network out in Wednesday's debate.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
Romney had [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/romney-i-like-big-bird_n_1937922.html"]one of his most memorable moments[/url] when he vowed to cut the federal subsidy to public broadcasting.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
"I'm sorry Jim, I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS," he told moderator Jim Lehrer, who has worked for PBS since the 1970s. "I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I'm going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don't need."[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
PBS chief Paula Kerger spoke to CNN's Carol Costello on Thursday, and didn't mince words in her response to Romney.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
"With the enormous problems facing our country, the fact that we are the focus is just unbelievable to me," she said. Later, she called it a "stunning moment."[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
Noting that the debate touched on education, she called PBS "America's biggest classroom," adding, "This is not about the budget. It has to be about politics."[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
Kerger also fact-checked Romney -- who she has [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/paula-kerger-pbs-mitt-romney-tv-funding_n_1184660.html"]tussled with before[/url] -- pointing out that PBS doesn't get any direct money from the government.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
"In fact, the money that comes from the government into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting goes to our member stations," she said.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
Curiously, Kerger declined to praise or defend Lehrer, who has been [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/jim-lehrer-debate-moderator-reviews_n_1937896.html?utm_hp_ref=media"]tarred and feathered[/url] for his moderating.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
"It was a very complicated debate structure," she said.[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]
PBS also issued a [url="http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2012/statement-presidential-debate/"]blistering statement[/url] after the debate:[/size][/font][/color][indent]We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves. The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.
A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.
As a stated supporter of education, Governor Romney should be a champion of public broadcasting, yet he is willing to wipe out services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including underserved audiences, such as children who cannot attend preschool and citizens living in rural areas.

For more than 40 years, Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission – harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse.
...]
Earlier in 2012, a Harris Interactive poll confirmed that Americans consider PBS the most trusted public institution and the second most valuable use of public funds, behind only national defense, for the 9th consecutive year.
A key thing to remember is that public television and radio stations are locally owned and community focused and they are experts in working efficiently to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every $1.00 of federal funding invested, they raise an additional $6.00 on their own – a highly effective public-private partnership.
Numerous studies -- including one requested by Congress earlier this year -- have stated categorically that while the federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively modest, the absence of this critical seed money would cripple the system and bring its services to an end.[/indent]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Go Skins' timestamp='1349382010' post='1166295']
What do you mean by controls on future lending?
[/quote]

I don't believe that it's ethical for the government to charge %.01 more than the Fed rate for student loans. Education represents a direct investment in the American people. Private lenders should be able to charge a little more, but not much. I'm currently paying on two private loans that are at 7.25% and 10.25% respectively, the latter of which I had no choice but to take. I doubt it's possible to get a private student loan below 7%. That's borderline criminal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349360313' post='1166154']
The answer to some of your questions is quite simple. In order for the U.S. to create more jobs here in the U.S. is to make it less profitable and more difficult for companies to produce goods abroad and then ship them back into the country for sale. If the government raises tariffs and taxes on imported goods it cuts into the companies profit margin. Eventually the gape between the break even point of a product produced and shipped into the U.S. becomes so close to the profit of just producing the product in the U.S. that they give in. Oddly enough some foreign companies have realized a production strategy that has out matched a lot of U.S. companies. Or maybe it isn't so odd at all. Companies like Toyota, Pioneer, and Honda have manufacturers inside and outside the U.S., and they try to balance the amount of production to meet the needs of the consumer in each area, avoiding shipping the products as much as possible. Sadly U.S. companies like GM and Ford pride themselves on being a U.S. made product and don't worry as much on secondary markets. There was an article recently on yahoo that listed American made cars not available for sale in the U.S. It was quite interesting, but if I was an outsider, I would wonder why I had to be sold a car that wasn't 'good' enough to be sold in the U.S.One other factory to take into account is the poor U.S. strategy of flaunting that something is American made. That actually hinders their sales in other markets around the world, versus companies that might be owned outside the U.S., point to the fact that, no, they aren't American owned, but they are American made by the same kind of people that might be your neighbor or Joe Blow down the street. It's actually sad to see a country with a free enterprise country be so mismanaged by people making millions and billions of dollars.

Sorry most of my examples were using car companies, but those are the easiest ones to understand.
[/quote]


Good stuff here....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yO7UMn71E&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEIpkMz20&feature=player_detailpage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349383434' post='1166304']
I don't believe that it's ethical for the government to charge %.01 more than the Fed rate for student loans. Education represents a direct investment in the American people. Private lenders should be able to charge a little more, but not much. I'm currently paying on two private loans that are at 7.25% and 10.25% respectively, the latter of which I had no choice but to take. I doubt it's possible to get a private student loan below 7%. That's borderline criminal.
[/quote]

I agree with this. The reason I asked is because I took a student loan out for school at a community college in the DC area (something I didn't want to do till I got to a 4 year school) and although it is a small loan (at least for now), it's interesting how I read things about what the gov't does with things like this. Some people won't attend school right after HS because they can't afford it. I know a few people that started off at community college, transferred to a 4 years school, found their niche, and got the job they wanted.

What didn't exist 30 years ago (at least in VA) was 529's. At least parents now have a new way to put money aside for their students tuition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...