RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
http://www.freep.com/article/20130908/NEWS01/309080062/
In todays Free Press Detroit's local fish wrap this front page story appeared. It seems that between 1985 and 2008 when the practice was outlawed the trustees of one of Detroit's two pension funds paid out close 1 billion dollars in "13th" check bonuses to current and active employees as opposed to re-investing the surpluses.
The article goes on to claim the Pension Boards were controlled by the union officials acting as trustees.
They even paid out "13th check" bonuses the year Mayor Kwame Brown borrowed 1.44 billion to plug a hole in the pension funds. Former Mayor Dennis Archer tried to put a stop to this practice in 1996 but according to the article his efforts failed because it was "stymied by union opposition."
According to an actuarial report conducted for the city council in 2011 by independent statistician Joseph Esuchanko the 13th check bonus by 2008 had cost the pension funds 1.9 million when you account for accrued interest. An amount that would be much higher today.
Not surprisingly Democrats and Union officials blame the "great Recession " for the pensions plans shortfalls as opposed to their mismanagement of the funds.
As for the second fund the practice was done much less often and "only" about 218 million was paid out between 2000 and 2002.
So it turns out those who were claiming the pension funds were being robbed were correct. They were robbed by the Unions who ran them.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
I forgot to mention that in 2009 the Union Controlled Trustees increased active employees pension accounts 7.5% even though the fund lost 24.1% of its overall value that same year.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:09 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509
http://www.freep.com/article/20130908/NEWS01/309080062/
In todays Free Press Detroit's local fish wrap this front page story appeared. It seems that between 1985 and 2008 when the practice was outlawed the trustees of one of Detroit's two pension funds paid out close 1 billion dollars in "13th" check bonuses to current and active employees as opposed to re-investing the surpluses.
The article goes on to claim the Pension Boards were controlled by the union officials acting as trustees.
They even paid out "13th check" bonuses the year Mayor Kwame Brown borrowed 1.44 billion to plug a hole in the pension funds. Former Mayor Dennis Archer tried to put a stop to this practice in 1996 but according to the article his efforts failed because it was "stymied by union opposition."
According to an actuarial report conducted for the city council in 2011 by independent statistician Joseph Esuchanko the 13th check bonus by 2008 had cost the pension funds 1.9 million when you account for accrued interest. An amount that would be much higher today.
Not surprisingly Democrats and Union officials blame the "great Recession " for the pensions plans shortfalls as opposed to their mismanagement of the funds.
As for the second fund the practice was done much less often and "only" about 218 million was paid out between 2000 and 2002.
So it turns out those who were claiming the pension funds were being robbed were correct. They were robbed by the Unions who ran them.

I read the article. Let's remember, for one thing, that the pension funds did NOT have big pension payments, and the retirees did not get Social Security.

And the payments went to the retirees. Isn't a pension plan supposed to go to retirees? I mean, if it went to someone else, I would call it stealing, but it went to the pensioners. I guess you're pissed because the money didn't go to a bank in the form of fees.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
I read the article. Let's remember, for one thing, that the pension funds did NOT have big pension payments, and the retirees did not get Social Security.

And the payments went to the retirees. Isn't a pension plan supposed to go to retirees? I mean, if it went to someone else, I would call it stealing, but it went to the pensioners. I guess you're pissed because the money didn't go to a bank in the form of fees.


Had they not done the practice today they would be much more solvent and payments could be higher. On average police and fire get around $34000 which sounds about where a pension should be. However the under $20000 for non police and fire is to low IMO if they can't get any SSI to go along with that pension. IMO pensions should not be paid until the recipient is at least 62 [unless disabled] and should be in the neighborhood of 50% of SSI. If the person can get SSI. My mom for example gets about $1750 per month between my dad's Goodyear Pension and SSI. Some of these public pensions we hear about where the retiree gets to retire in their 50's and collect 50+thosand per year are not sustainable.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
I read the article. Let's remember, for one thing, that the pension funds did NOT have big pension payments, and the retirees did not get Social Security.

And the payments went to the retirees. Isn't a pension plan supposed to go to retirees? I mean, if it went to someone else, I would call it stealing, but it went to the pensioners. I guess you're pissed because the money didn't go to a bank in the form of fees.


Had they not done the practice today they would be much more solvent and payments could be higher. On average police and fire get around $34000 which sounds about where a pension should be. However the under $20000 for non police and fire is to low IMO if they can't get any SSI to go along with that pension. IMO pensions should not be paid until the recipient is at least 62 [unless disabled] and should be in the neighborhood of 50% of SSI. If the person can get SSI. My mom for example gets about $1750 per month between my dad's Goodyear Pension and SSI. Some of these public pensions we hear about where the retiree gets to retire in their 50's and collect 50+thosand per year are not sustainable.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:28 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

Had they not done the practice today they would be much more solvent and payments could be higher. On average police and fire get around $34000 which sounds about where a pension should be. However the under $20000 for non police and fire is to low IMO if they can't get any SSI to go along with that pension. IMO pensions should not be paid until the recipient is at least 62 [unless disabled] and should be in the neighborhood of 50% of SSI. If the person can get SSI. My mom for example gets about $1750 per month between my dad's Goodyear Pension and SSI. Some of these public pensions we hear about where the retiree gets to retire in their 50's and collect 50+thosand per year are not sustainable.

The practice was done because the pensions did not pay out enough. I find it hard to say it's stealing to help pensioners make ends meet.

And you think a cop and firefighter should work until he's 62 years old? Really? In jobs that are so physically demanding?

And Detroit did NOT have high-priced pensions. Now Orr is trying to steal what they have left. Let's be clear: He's wanting to give that money to bankers. It's funny you aren't upset about that REAL robbery.

Your hatred of unions and union workers is shameful.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
The practice was done because the pensions did not pay out enough. I find it hard to say it's stealing to help pensioners make ends meet.

And you think a cop and firefighter should work until he's 62 years old? Really? In jobs that are so physically demanding?

And Detroit did NOT have high-priced pensions. Now Orr is trying to steal what they have left. Let's be clear: He's wanting to give that money to bankers. It's funny you aren't upset about that REAL robbery.

Your hatred of unions and union workers is shameful.


There are exceptions to every rule. A street cop should be able to retire at 55. However if they work another job they should not get their pension. On the other hand a DOT cop who works the weigh station and inspects truck should absolutely work till 62. Also there is no reason for a healthy school teacher to be able to retire before age 62.
I hate neither unions or union workers except those who are greedy. To often many like you point to the example of the front line firefighter or patrol cop as an example of why those in those professions should be able to retire at a young age. They are the exception not the rule. As I recall you are the guy who a couple of years ago was saying NYC janitors earning over 100K per year were not overpaid. As well as your recent arguments that people who flip burgers at McDonalds should be getting a minimum of $31200 per year, plus paid healthcare and I am sure they also deserve a pension from McD's.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:04 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

There are exceptions to every rule. A street cop should be able to retire at 55. However if they work another job they should not get their pension. On the other hand a DOT cop who works the weigh station and inspects truck should absolutely work till 62. Also there is no reason for a healthy school teacher to be able to retire before age 62.
I hate neither unions or union workers except those who are greedy. To often many like you point to the example of the front line firefighter or patrol cop as an example of why those in those professions should be able to retire at a young age. They are the exception not the rule. As I recall you are the guy who a couple of years ago was saying NYC janitors earning over 100K per year were not overpaid. As well as your recent arguments that people who flip burgers at McDonalds should be getting a minimum of $31200 per year, plus paid healthcare and I am sure they also deserve a pension from McD's.

First, if a CEO of a failing company that makes $10 million a year is not overpaid, then a Janitor in the high-cost city of New York isn't overpaid at $100,000. They have families to house and feed. Do you believe they are supposed to live in a box on the street?

My aunt was a union janitor most of her life. She worked damned hard every day, and did her job well and with pride. Her union contract allowed her to own a small home, put two sons through college, and even had a small pension at the end.

Do you think she was greedy? YES OR NO?

I'll say it again: I believe everyone that works hard 40 hours a week deserves a living wage, housing, health care and a pension. I respect work, and those who work for a living. Why the HELL don't you?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
The practice was done because the pensions did not pay out enough. I find it hard to say it's stealing to help pensioners make ends meet.

And you think a cop and firefighter should work until he's 62 years old? Really? In jobs that are so physically demanding?

And Detroit did NOT have high-priced pensions. Now Orr is trying to steal what they have left. Let's be clear: He's wanting to give that money to bankers. It's funny you aren't upset about that REAL robbery.

Your hatred of unions and union workers is shameful.


In retrospect using the term stealing was probably to harsh. I am sure they gave out that money with the best intentions. Never considering it should be saved and reinvested for hard times. W Bush made the same error when he gave us that BS one time tax refund. Obama made the same error when he cut our SSI tax by a 12 pack per week.
The money each pensioner received was not that much and I doubt that $500 would make or break them. Just as the $12 per week Obama cut our SSI taxes amounted to nothing. However when you look at the big picture those paltry $500 checks would up costing those pensioners $2,000,000.000 just as that $12 we received in the end will cost us many many billions. As for the $250 W gave us again not needed and should have been put to better use.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:09 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

In retrospect using the term stealing was probably to harsh. I am sure they gave out that money with the best intentions. Never considering it should be saved and reinvested for hard times. W Bush made the same error when he gave us that BS one time tax refund. Obama made the same error when he cut our SSI tax by a 12 pack per week.
The money each pensioner received was not that much and I doubt that $500 would make or break them. Just as the $12 per week Obama cut our SSI taxes amounted to nothing. However when you look at the big picture those paltry $500 checks would up costing those pensioners $2,000,000.000 just as that $12 we received in the end will cost us many many billions. As for the $250 W gave us again not needed and should have been put to better use.

Bush did that so that the deficit would grow. It was on purpose. The old "starve the beast".

Yes, you were wrong. The ones trying to steal the pension money is the Governor and his appointed lackey Orr.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
Bush did that so that the deficit would grow. It was on purpose. The old "starve the beast".

Yes, you were wrong. The ones trying to steal the pension money is the Governor and his appointed lackey Orr.


I think those in charge of the pension fund knew they were creating a shortage but weren't concerned about it. The reason I believe they weren't concerned about it is because they were dyed in the wool Democrats and Union leaders that believe as most do [IMO] that all we need do is raise taxes and/or "tax the rich" anytime we come up short on funds.
I bet we all hear at least 100 times a year tax the rich as a solution as to how to fund an existing program or start a new program. They weren't concerned because they thought the day would never come when raising taxes or having somebody else pay for their spending would not happen.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:11 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

I think those in charge of the pension fund knew they were creating a shortage but weren't concerned about it. The reason I believe they weren't concerned about it is because they were dyed in the wool Democrats and Union leaders that believe as most do [IMO] that all we need do is raise taxes and/or "tax the rich" anytime we come up short on funds.
I bet we all hear at least 100 times a year tax the rich as a solution as to how to fund an existing program or start a new program. They weren't concerned because they thought the day would never come when raising taxes or having somebody else pay for their spending would not happen.

Now you're just speculating based upon your hatred of unions, with no facts at all. You should be ashamed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 7138
Now you're just speculating based upon your hatred of unions, with no facts at all. You should be ashamed.


It is speculation but, not from hatred of Unions. Just based on from what Ive heard and seen from the left my entire life. It seems everytime a person asks how are we going to pay for some program the answer is automatically raise taxes on the rich. as if there is a never ending pool of funds there. I am sure when it was pointed out to those pension trustees that there might be a shortage, they were of that same mindset. Look at the outrage when the GOP forced the recent spending cuts that amounted to less than a penny on the dollar. The left went crazy and predicted the end of the world. On the other hand when deficit spending went down the left claimed it was because of them. Go Figure.

_________________
"old bigoted white guys living in the dark ages tend to be heavily armed-wish we could put them all in prison for the remainder of their days so this country could join the ranks of the civilized"-U4riah 4/14/14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:25 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

It is speculation but, not from hatred of Unions. Just based on from what Ive heard and seen from the left my entire life. It seems everytime a person asks how are we going to pay for some program the answer is automatically raise taxes on the rich. as if there is a never ending pool of funds there. I am sure when it was pointed out to those pension trustees that there might be a shortage, they were of that same mindset. Look at the outrage when the GOP forced the recent spending cuts that amounted to less than a penny on the dollar. The left went crazy and predicted the end of the world. On the other hand when deficit spending went down the left claimed it was because of them. Go Figure.

No, it's hatred. YOU LOVE an worship the rich, and don't believe they should have to pay anything.

And if the GOP had control of the fund, they'd have stolen it. I can give you literally HUNDREDS of examples of companies that outright stole pension funds.

What these folks did wasn't illegal at all.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:08 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 1144
http://www.freep.com/article/20130908/NEWS01/309080062/
In todays Free Press Detroit's local fish wrap this front page story appeared. It seems that between 1985 and 2008 when the practice was outlawed the trustees of one of Detroit's two pension funds paid out close 1 billion dollars in "13th" check bonuses to current and active employees as opposed to re-investing the surpluses.
The article goes on to claim the Pension Boards were controlled by the union officials acting as trustees.
They even paid out "13th check" bonuses the year Mayor Kwame Brown borrowed 1.44 billion to plug a hole in the pension funds. Former Mayor Dennis Archer tried to put a stop to this practice in 1996 but according to the article his efforts failed because it was "stymied by union opposition."
According to an actuarial report conducted for the city council in 2011 by independent statistician Joseph Esuchanko the 13th check bonus by 2008 had cost the pension funds 1.9 million when you account for accrued interest. An amount that would be much higher today.
Not surprisingly Democrats and Union officials blame the "great Recession " for the pensions plans shortfalls as opposed to their mismanagement of the funds.
As for the second fund the practice was done much less often and "only" about 218 million was paid out between 2000 and 2002.
So it turns out those who were claiming the pension funds were being robbed were correct. They were robbed by the Unions who ran them.


I'm going with, in hindsight this turned out not to be a good idea. There are a whole lot of pension funds in trouble simply because times were flush so it was easy to jack up the benefits and it never occurred to pension managers that things could change for the worse. The one side effect of the current funding issues is you can expect that caution will rule the day in the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:14 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

I'm going with, in hindsight this turned out not to be a good idea. There are a whole lot of pension funds in trouble simply because times were flush so it was easy to jack up the benefits and it never occurred to pension managers that things could change for the worse. The one side effect of the current funding issues is you can expect that caution will rule the day in the future.

Isn't it better to do it like this, and give out more money when times are good, but it's not a permanent increase to benefits if times get tough?

Kinda like a business that gives bonuses at Christmas when business is good instead of giving pay raises?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:19 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 1144
Isn't it better to do it like this, and give out more money when times are good, but it's not a permanent increase to benefits if times get tough?

Kinda like a business that gives bonuses at Christmas when business is good instead of giving pay raises?


Should have been invested in the pension funds. Fat times don't last forever and a pension fund manager should do everything in their power to build the fund up for the lean times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:21 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

Should have been invested in the pension funds. Fat times don't last forever and a pension fund manager should do everything in their power to build the fund up for the lean times.

Pretty easy to say after the fact. I guess you could say the same thing to the business that gives out Christmas bonuses, too, right?

Oh well, since it involves unions, you guys will always denounce anything they do, and never give them credit, or even the benefit of the doubt.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:41 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 1144
Pretty easy to say after the fact. I guess you could say the same thing to the business that gives out Christmas bonuses, too, right?

Oh well, since it involves unions, you guys will always denounce anything they do, and never give them credit, or even the benefit of the doubt.


A bonus from a business is quite different from the responsibility of a pension fund.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:47 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509

A bonus from a business is quite different from the responsibility of a pension fund.

Only to some degree. It's funny how you think YOU can equate two things that are different, but don't like it when others equate something. Quite the double standard.

I would say that, at the time these extras were paid out, the pension funds were usually in good shape. There is no proof that the trustees did anything that was outside their fiduciary duties.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:12 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 3213
No, it's hatred. YOU LOVE an worship the rich, and don't believe they should have to pay anything.

And if the GOP had control of the fund, they'd have stolen it. I can give you literally HUNDREDS of examples of companies that outright stole pension funds.

What these folks did wasn't illegal at all.


Maybe you would care to comment on the attached article from The Detroit Free Press.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130901/N ... -Kevyn-Orr

We all know how much you hate Orr but it appears others were tapping the pension funds before Orr and Gov Snyder. Looks like they also got to other pension funds in Michigan as well. Just curious as to what you think about the fund managers that made these decisions and if you think they were wise.

This is not the same article as Glen posted but was linked to the same page.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:43 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:38 pm
Posts: 3073
From the article Glen linked to:

Quote:
The total payments are difficult to find in pension and city records because they are often hidden among cost-of-living adjustments


I'm sorry, but is anyone saying that pension funds or social security, or any other kind of managed retirement fund, should not be adjusted to reflect cost of living raises?

They should not be counting cost of living adjustments as part of the money they are claiming was paid out as 13th payments. That is just bogus.

These misspent pension dollars go back as far as 1985, right? So if a pension now is 20K a year (not really enough to live on today) without cost of living raises, in 1985, it would have been about 9.2K. Can you see retirees living on that today?

I'd sure like to see the dollars they claim were misspent with cost of living raises removed from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:26 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509
From the article Glen linked to:



I'm sorry, but is anyone saying that pension funds or social security, or any other kind of managed retirement fund, should not be adjusted to reflect cost of living raises?

They should not be counting cost of living adjustments as part of the money they are claiming was paid out as 13th payments. That is just bogus.

These misspent pension dollars go back as far as 1985, right? So if a pension now is 20K a year (not really enough to live on today) without cost of living raises, in 1985, it would have been about 9.2K. Can you see retirees living on that today?

I'd sure like to see the dollars they claim were misspent with cost of living raises removed from them.

Normally, there are not cost-of-living raises built into pension plans. Your monthly pension check you get at retirement will never grow.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:49 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:38 pm
Posts: 3073
Well, that is kinda crazy to me. Sounds like Social Security might be a better option after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:03 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 20509
Well, that is kinda crazy to me. Sounds like Social Security might be a better option after all.

Well, Social Security is VERY important, but it's VERY difficult to live on. A good retirement plan is a mix of your Social Security, a pension from work, and savings. A 401(k) is a great supplement, but not a replacement for a defined-benefit plan. The great thing about a pension plan is that, like Social Security, it never ends. If you live to be 110, you'll still get checks. Your savings would have run out long before that.

Now, would I be in favor of a national pension plan, that expanded Social Security and replaced company-provided plans? Heck yeah!

But until then, we have to keep and strengthen what we have now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justme01, mmmjvpssm, rainwater and 3 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group