Cheney’s tax return
By on Apr 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Cheney’s tax return
suggests he was “a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act” aimed at spurring increased charitable donations, despite the fact that “it looks like none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sounds a lot like Barbara Bush’s Katrina largesse to her ne’er do well son, Neil.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pmnote to satan:
need to create a new zone for this crowd
April 17th, 2006 at 7:28 pm“I WANT CLOSURE…uh, if you will.”- Syphilis Dick
April 17th, 2006 at 7:34 pmNo!
April 17th, 2006 at 7:35 pmI AM SHOCKED!! SHOCKED, I tell ya!! Can you imagine the duplicity and general sh*t those two clowns pull on their taxes?!?!
We must support Kucinich and DeFazio’s efforts to prevent BushCo from rolling over Congress to invade Iran!! We all knew that Cheney would cheat on his taxes, just like we all know that they will pull every dirty trick in the book to Nuke Iran.
The latter is something that will affect all Americans!!
Styve
April 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pm“This is the most dishonest, disengenous, disconflabragating, ostentatious, oditious, carnivierous, unpatriotic, commie-gay-lefty, inciteful blowviations ever uttered.” (Damned lib. bloggers!) Snarked Darth…of 5 derferments and “other priorities” fame.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pmApril 2006
Is anyone surprised? Dick Cheney’s favorite charity is….. Dick Cheney.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pmThe claim that tax cuts would benefit the poor reminds of the claim that tax cuts for corporations would generate jobs -and they are both false:
As President Bush and his senior advisors traveled across the country this past weekend touting 2005 job growth numbers and demanding that Congress make the administration’s tax cuts permanent, a study examines the administration’s claim that tax cuts create jobs—and finds it without merit.
No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts and Job Creation, Report Shows
It also makes me suspicious to find out VP Vheney did not use the Katrina relief act for what it was intended. We all know now that “charitable” organisations are used by lobbbyists, corporations, to funnel money to the corrupt politicians they intend to bribe:
Abramoff and a partner, Michael P.S. Scanlon, a onetime aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), admitted bilking Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and attempting to bribe public officials. They used a network of charities and other nonprofits — some existing, some they created — to forge a full-service influence-peddling operation.
Abramoff’s Charity Began at Home
As DeLay confronts allegations of improprieties that have led to several House Ethics Committee investigations, his supporters are increasingly citing his caring heart as key to understanding the real Tom DeLay.(…)
April 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm”It looks good on the surface, but it’s rotten,” said Fred Lewis, president of Campaigns for People, a Texas nonprofit group. ”It’s not about benefiting children, and it’s not about benefiting charity. It’s about allowing another way for the donors to get their hooks into politicians.”
DeLay’s charity for children under fire
CROOK
April 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pmJust some food for thought. With Katrina, and the tsunami before it, many relief orgs and charities had seen donations to them decrease because of so called “donor fatigue.” Even if Cheney’s donations did not go all to Katrina relief, a good proportion of the money *may* have went to charities that had seen donations plummet post Katrina. We may not want to paint Cheney as totally evil on this charge (although he has done plenty else to be pegged as evil).
It would be interesting to see just where the money went to ….and hopefully not to some pseudo charity like the US Family Network.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:29 pmOh, he’s evil. I wouldn’t spit on him if we were on fire.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:42 pmHe may well be evil. But it is clear that the Cheney’s had nothing to do with where the charitable donations went. The agreement they signed in 2001 directed the administrator to make the contributions as directed.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:23 pmWhat would be interesting is how many people actually did maximize the charitable deduction in the Katrina legislation.
Once again,this isn’t about Cheney.It;s about the Congress. In November,remember that if your representative voted for the AUMF,and all but 133 did,they need to go home. Their judgment has been shown to be suspect. This issue confrims yet again that the Congress passes legislation that continues to undermine the safety and fiscal soundness of the US.
Vote them out and start over. How could it be worse?
The day this evil pricks heart finally gives out , I shall be wrist deep in astroglide! Too much info?
April 17th, 2006 at 9:52 pmOK … so let’s say he’s the evil psycho most here say he is … do any of you know how much money he gave to charity … TP conveniently leaves it out …
$6.87 million … that’s just one tax year people … perhaps he’s just mostly evil (to borrow from The Princess Bride).
April 17th, 2006 at 9:54 pm#1 beat me to it!
April 17th, 2006 at 10:00 pmIs anyone really surprised about this? Sure it was perfectly legal and legit. But I believe that they knew from day one that the legislation could be abused in this manner.
They just chose to ignore it. And not tell you about it.
Seems like almost everything to do with this administration fits those two sentences.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:34 pmI wish we knew what…charitys he gave to. My guess would be:
‘Republicans only medical foundation’
April 17th, 2006 at 11:04 pm” ” children gun owners foundation’
” ” diebold hackers foundation’
” ” Make war,make money foundation’
Did Deadeye Dick Cheney claim Satan as a dependant?
-GSD
April 17th, 2006 at 11:04 pmhurricane profiteering is as bad as war profiteering, and should be prosecuted… they’ve yet to put relief money to work down there – no one should be profiting!
April 17th, 2006 at 11:40 pmPhilanthropists use to built libraries and hospitals to better mankind.
These kinds of donations and abuse of the letter of the law, are a slap to the face of mankind.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:30 amCheney’s BIG bucks are yet to come.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:27 amLook, stop trying to defend a greedy pig. We live in a world with limited resources, when you take MORE THAN YOU NEED, you are taking someone else’s share. Just cause he donated some of it (essentially just giving it back to the people he took it from to begin with) toget a tax break doesn’t make him honorable. He’s a greedy pig 99%.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:47 amSo the government passes a bill that allows people to give more money to charity, in light of the Katrina disaster. And you guys are implying that anyone who takes advantage of the new law, to give to charity, but not necessarily to Katrina charities is somehow doing something wrong? Aren’t they still giving the charity?
Seems to me we should be more critical (although in reality I don’t think it’s anyone’s business in the first place – but since you brought it up) of VPs who don’t give any money to Charity. Hmmm. What VP could that be? Oh yeah, here’s a remider of Al Gore’s tax return.
Believe me, I’m not blaming Gore. He knows what he believes and he sticks to it. As a Democrat, he’d rather make good use of other people’s money than his own, and it makes sense from his point of view. Why give yourself when you can take from someone else?
April 18th, 2006 at 8:32 amC Stroms, can’t you understand that anyone who has as much money as Cheney made it at the expense of someone else? So, the fact that he gave it to a charity, for which he gets a tax break (not 100% philanthropic by any standard), does not make him any less greedy.
We have LIMITED resources. Taking more than your share is greed. And Cheney has taken significantly more than his.
Go to http://www.congress.org and read some of the letters people write to Bush and Cheney about having to choose between gas to get to work and enough food to eat. Those people don’t benefit from Cheney donating their money to Katrina charities.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:03 amLimited Resources? There is not a limited amount of money to go around, as if there’s a big pot and everyone gets their share. Money is invested and the same money is used over and over again. The fact that Cheney has a lot of money doesn’t mean someone else has less. In fact, a majority of Cheney’s money is invested which creates jobs and I think the people who have those jobs probably like getting a pay check.
Apparently you think all rich people are greedy. Let me ask this…How much is too much? I’d love to have a dollar amount that you think is sufficient for everyone to have.
For someone on this blog to judge why someone else is giving money to charity, seems kind of disingenuous. I mean, we aren’t allowed to judge people for behaving in ways that destroy thier lives and the lives of others, but we are allowed to judge people for what charities they give to or for what we think the reasons are they give to charity in the first place? Come on.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:10 amC Storms
If you read the article it sounds like he gave a certain amount to non-tax deductable charities. Further, it looks like Gore does not give to charities regularly, but rather when he sees a worthy cause. Oh, it also looks like your article is dated 1998.
That said, back to the topic at hand, what a person does with their money is that person’s responsibility, so long as they pay their taxes I personally don’t care. It kind of ceases to be charity when it becomes something you do just because it is expected by polite society.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:13 amLimited Resources? There is not a limited amount of money to go around, as if there’s a big pot and everyone gets their share.
You don’t know that the government doesn’t just make money whenever someone wants more, and that there is a limited about of wealth? Really? How do you not know that?
Might wanna read this: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics1.asp
Scarcity, a concept we already implicitly discussed in the introduction to this tutorial, refers to the tension between our limited resources and our unlimited wants and needs. For an individual, resources include time, money and skill. For a country, limited resources include natural resources, capital, labor force and technology.
Because all of our resources are limited in comparison to all of our wants and needs, individuals and nations have to make decisions regarding what goods and services they can buy and which ones they must forgo. For example, if you choose to buy one DVD as opposed to two video tapes, you must give up owning a second movie of inferior technology in exchange for the higher quality of the one DVD. Of course, each individual and nation will have different values, but by having different levels of (scarce) resources, people and nations each form some of these values as a result of the particular scarcities with which they are faced.
So, because of scarcity, people and economies must make decisions over how to allocate their resources. Economics, in turn, aims to study why we make these decisions and how we allocate our resources most efficiently.
Money is invested and the same money is used over and over again. The fact that Cheney has a lot of money doesn’t mean someone else has less.
Yes, it does.
In fact, a majority of Cheney’s money is invested which creates jobs and I think the people who have those jobs probably like getting a pay check.
Trickle down does NOT work. Want a link for that?
Apparently you think all rich people are greedy. Let me ask this…How much is too much? I’d love to have a dollar amount that you think is sufficient for everyone to have.
Don’t be ridiculous. Moderation is a good policy. If everyone only takes what they need, then there will be enough for everyone to live comfortably. It’s when people take more, they ensure that other people WILL do without.
For someone on this blog to judge why someone else is giving money to charity, seems kind of disingenuous. I mean, we aren’t allowed to judge people for behaving in ways that destroy thier lives and the lives of others, but we are allowed to judge people for what charities they give to or for what we think the reasons are they give to charity in the first place? Come on.
Comment by C Storms — April 18, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Allowed? As of this moment we have frredom of speech. Give Bush another year and I’m sure there will be Newspeak classes required for all.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:24 amSee, CStrom can not judge Dick Cheney, but he feels free to judge Al Gore. That is how the elite Republicans work. The worlds rules apply to everyone except them.
-GSD
April 18th, 2006 at 9:29 amExcellent point GSD.
They are also very confident in their accusations, but they are without knowledge of why they believe what they are stating as a fact. Like the school yard bullies with their empty threats. It’s how this Administration took office and has coerced people into doing things their way. They’ve stolen the lunch money of the entire schoolyard as if it’s their entitlement, and then justify the thievery with a lot of intimidation. Disturbing at the very least.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:35 amYa can’t take it with ya Dick-Brain.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:37 amAnd your time is runnin’ short.
When that kool-aid pump you use for a heart freezes up,
you’ll be having a short interview with your Uncle Satan.
After which you’ll be inserted into an endless loop where
all you do, every day, is get drunk and shoot your supposed
friend in the face. Have fun, Pig-shit.
Unbelievable … here is some of the info you were looking for.
Adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006.
Federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.
Donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005.
During the course of 2005, paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments.
Given the amount of charitable giving, there was a substantial over withholding such that the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.
Three charities split the 6.8 million … George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. (for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute), the University of Wyoming (for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation), and Capital Partners for Education (for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area).
BUT HERE”S THE KICKER … the Cheneys, by entering into a Gift Administration Agreement which assigns a gift administrator to direct the funds, divested themselves of the economic benefit of the options (the method of the gifts) and granted the gift administrator full discretion, power and control over the options. The Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys … please understand that they could have set this up to recieve further benefits (other than offset of taxes) … they didn’t … this seems to be for one of two reasons; 1) they aren’t the evil cronies most think and are actually just other people trying to do what they think is best or 2) they knew they’d be criticized for any gains recieved on these gifts and so they organized it to avoid any criticism. Hope this helps.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:43 amC Stroms, can’t you understand that anyone who has as much money as Cheney made it at the expense of someone else?
I wanted to take you to task with this comment, madam. Earning money is not a zero-sum game. Because I hypothetically go from 150K to 200K this year DOES NOT mean that some other goes from 100K to 50K (or any combination of peoples). Some argue that the stock market is a zero sum game … but it is one that rewards patience and measured decision making.
If you mean to say that those who earn large sums of money must consider that somewhere along the chain of those funds could possibly be another who is being oppressed or abused which then facilitates the earning of money … I would cede this possibility, but it is by no means a certainty. However, you are taking macroeconomic concepts (eg. Scarcity) and transfering them to microeconomic circumstances (one individual’s earnings) … these ideas and concepts certainly correlate to a degree, but I would hesitate to ascribe the causality that you casually do. Lastly, your call for moderation and a sense of simplistic living is valid and reasonable … i cannot disagree in any way with that. He who dies with the most toys just dies.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:53 amOh, one more thing. Cheney earned 8.8 million and donated 6.6 million … I would submit that donating 75% of ones earnings should qualify one as a charitable person (at least in 2005). I would hope ALL could recognize that this was a generous amount of giving for the Cheney family … give the devil his due, if you will … it, of course, doesn’t mean you have to change your opinion of the man, but I would hope it would INFLUENCE it. Granted, he still has 2 million … but he doesn’t have to give a dime.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:58 amGiacomo,
Stop with all the bloated theory and take a look at the reality. It’s a fact. The divide between the wealthy and the poor is a direct result of the poor making less and the wealthy making more. If the government doesn’t add more money to the system, then it is limited. And in any limited system is is GREEDY to take more than you need. Accept it. And then leave your rich white fairytale neighborhood for once to see that there are children starving because their parents who work full time cannot afford to feed them adequately because the prices of gas force them to choose. It’s all about money. Sorry if you feel guilty, but don’t try to hide the truth to exempt yourself from that.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:00 amGranted, he still has 2 million … but he doesn’t have to give a dime.
Comment by Giacomo — April 18, 2006 @ 9:58 am
He doesn’t have to TAKE it when he doesn’t need it in the first place either. Therein lies the greed aspect. Sheesh. I there anything you won’t spin to assuage your own habits?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:02 amI make $1000, spend $500 and put $500 in savings. That $500 I spent is going to pay for goods & services and ultimately someone’s salary, too. The $500 I put in the bank is not just sitting in the back. According to your logic, it would be. But, instead that $500 is giving to lets say a business owner who needs a loan. He pays intererest to the bank, and the bank pays interest to me (although not very much – must be Republicans). In any case, that $500 is more than just cash. You’re right. The government doesn’t just print money, but I’m not talking about money. I’m talking about wealth which grows – there is not just one pot.
Liberal economic policy makes sense if there was just one pot of limited cash, but that’s the basis of the flawed thinking, and that’s why liberals always want to take from the rich and give to the poor.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amStop with all the bloated theory and take a look at the reality. It’s a fact. The divide between the wealthy and the poor is a direct result of the poor making less and the wealthy making more.
I humbly submit that you could not be any more incorrect. Your situation is certainly true in a slave state, but our economy is way more nuanced than your allowing for. Maybe this example will help … should a person in New York not fill his jacuzzi tub with water because a person in Kansas is experiencing crippling drought … maybe in some weird spiritual/esoteric sense, but anyone would say that the impact from one to the other is nil. The reason is the many variables that go into being “rich” with water or “poor” with the same … weather conditions, water table, reservoirs, legislation, etc. You can’t say that this person has plenty at the expense of this other person (in either an individual or group sense) in the USA, without accounting for the MANY other variables that play into wealth and poorness.
I would agree that there is such thing as too much money, and I would also agree that the rich should be the most benevolent among us (at least fiscally) … further, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, and greed is pernicious in our society. I cannot agree with your thesis that wealth is created at the expense of others (or that wealth is only the result of unmitigated greed) … this does not need be the case and is very often not the case, especially in the USA. Hope this clarifies my earlier comments.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:23 amC Stroms,
Don’t be an idiot. Your example is not valid. And unless you can have a rational, unemotional discussion, I’m wasting my time.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:32 amGiacomo,
As long as yo insist on arguing with your head in the sand, there is nothing I can say to you that you won’t try to spin into making yourself look like a victim. I am not incorrect. You just don’t like the consequences. It’s why people like you exist. No accountability.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:35 am#37 – “I would agree that there is such thing as too much money, and I would also agree that the rich should be the most benevolent among us (at least fiscally) … further, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, and greed is pernicious in our society.”
I concur. I also applaud your proper use of “pernicious”! You’ve got a good vocabulary. I guess that’s from the “liberal” education you were provided by “the state”. (I couldn’t resist that jab! My failure as a liberal! ;-)
“I cannot agree with your thesis that wealth is created at the expense of others (or that wealth is only the result of unmitigated greed) … this does not need be the case and is very often not the case, especially in the USA. ”
Creating or building wealth does not necessarily equal unmitigated greed. Nor does it necessitate the expense of others. The question is: how is the “expense of others” defined when comparing (excessive) wealth to (excessive) poverty?
This is a question that is not easily answered. Those at the bottom tend to blame those at the top for their poverty. Those at the top refuse to consider their actions as perpetuating the hierarchical fiscal status of those below themselves.
What I question is those at the pinnacle (uber-wealthy) who complain about having a tax bracket that doesn’t impact their lifestyle in any appreciable way. When they make multi-millions, why do they complain about the difference between 35% and 39%? Don’t they want the government to have the fiscal capability to continue to support the society that allowed them to amass the massive wealth they control?
This is a problem that has no easy answer, no matter which side you find yourself supporting.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:36 amDemocrat Soldier,
Well said. As someone in the middle, I think that there’s no need for anyone to make millions of dollars a year when there are starving children.
I’m not saying that we should all have an equal amount of money, that competition breeds invention – but that it should be limited. When someone else’s ability to accumulate mass wealth impedes on the ability of others to eat, I see a huge problem. And ofcourse those with the huge wealth are going to say that they earned it by working harder, which is the biggest load of nonsense. No one works 100,000 times harder than someone else. There simply aren’t that many hours in the day.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:03 amUnbelievable,
Excellent arguments. I’m an idiot, irrational, and emotional.
Giacomo has a head in the sand, is somehow a victim, and has no accountability.
I don’t konw about Giacomo, but it’s hard enough for me to take liberals seriously. I do enjoy good debate though, so I thought I’d give it a shot. But I guess you’re not interested in a real discussion.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:06 am#42 – Don’t worry, it even harder for me to take “neo-cons” and the new “conservatives” seriously. Ever since “conservatives” abdicated their stand as fiscal conservatives and become whores for big-government, mega-corporations, and the uber-wealthy, I’ve realized that this can only be a sign that they’ve sold out for continued political manipulation in favor of their particular brand of special rights.
I disagree with “Unbelievable” over limited mass wealth. I just expect those who amass that level of wealth to have common decency to pay their fair share of taxes. When those people are making millions of dollars monthly, then I find it hard to cry a river for them having a 39% tax bracket. Just because they’ve got a higher share of taxes does not mean they’re being discriminated against. It just means that they’ve got the where-with-all to provide more help than the “lower 99%” of the income earners.
I do, however, agree that the “we work harder to make our money” to be a disingenuous argument. Do they REALLY work 100,000 times harder than myself?!? Get real. . . .
Don’t worry. You’re not the only “conservative” on this site. I think the only difference is they’re more willing to debate the topics and don’t “cut & run” quite as easily when their arguments are undercut. Come back when you’re ready to debate!
Don’t worry. You’re not the only “conservative” on this site. I think the only difference is they’re more willing to debate the topics and don’t “cut & run” quite as easily when their arguments are undercut. Come back when you’re ready to debate!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:40 amI don’t konw about Giacomo, but it’s hard enough for me to take liberals seriously. I do enjoy good debate though, so I thought I’d give it a shot. But I guess you’re not interested in a real discussion.
Comment by C Storms — April 18, 2006 @ 11:06 am
If I weren’t interested in debate, I wouldn’t have bothered to type all that above and post a link. It takes time. I also wouldn’t hang out here.
But you didn’t address my argument to you, you started trying to spin it and extract what I’d said into something I didn’t mean. Those are not debate tactics, they are dodge and evade tactics, and I don’t fall for them or play into them.
Giacomo and I have a history. There are other people I’d rather talk to than get into a slapping contest with him again. I figured someone else here would be happy to engage him, and someone did.
If you want a debate, then let’s talk economics and moderation, otherwise, you’re right, it won’t happen with me.
For the record, I grew up Republican. I’m ‘Left of Center’ and not an extreme liberal.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:41 am#43 – Pardon me for my double-posting of my last paragragh!
I freely admit that I’m not perfect!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:43 amDon’t worry, it even harder for me to take “neo-cons†and the new “conservatives†seriously. Ever since “conservatives†abdicated their stand as fiscal conservatives and become whores for big-government, mega-corporations, and the uber-wealthy, I’ve realized that this can only be a sign that they’ve sold out for continued political manipulation in favor of their particular brand of special rights.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 18, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Well said. I think that’s it in a nutshell.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:44 amI think it’s funny how many conservatives come here and toss around the stereotypes. Without realizing that they are able to post here because of our inclusive nature. Some of the people here have had comments stricken from ultra-conservative websites because they did not agree with the party’s ideology.
The thing is, if there’s a god, he was brilliant enough to know that diversity is the spice, and the requirement of life and would not be in favor of homogenizing the people or the universe. And i happen to agree.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pmWow– very silly comments from a couple of the lefties here. (As a way-leftie myself, I take no pleasure in this judgment.)
Congress was probably wrong to temporarily eliminate the limits on deductible charitable contributions for the last three months of 2005, and then not require contributions over the limit to have at least something to do with Katrina relief.
But Cheney would be an idiot if he DIDN’T take advantage of this opportunity. He’s been saying for ages he was gonna get rid of his (useless to him, since he’s said all along he’d donate the proceeds) Halliburton stock options, and picked a pretty good time to do it.
The dude just gave away almost 80% of his earnings for 2005. The underlying reason is not the best I’ve ever heard (to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest), but he did it. And he gave it to a legit set of nonprofits. He did a good thing, and nobody got shot.
There are lots of reasons to be mad. This is not one of them.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:39 pmThere are lots of reasons to be mad. This is not one of them.
Comment by Matt G — April 18, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
No one is mad. Just having a discussion. Nothing silly about greedy. In fact, there’s probably very little attention to give to that subject. It is in a grey box, after all.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:21 pmFor anyone interested please visit http://www.iwilltryit.com. When this country is finally thrown into anarchy thanx to BushCo I will still be asking…”Who actually voted for these thieving pricks!!” We are about to enter the era of the New World Order. A barrel of crude will top $100.00 as Ceo’s AND Politicians reap huge profits. Annie, get your gun!!!!
April 18th, 2006 at 8:33 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pmPay Day Loans
Quick auganite payday loans for Astronauts
March 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pmJessie
The most comprehensive info I have found on this subject on the net. Will be back soon to follow up.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:07 am