Tax burden shifts to the middle...from a NON-partisan source....hmmmm

[reeds]

Tax burden shifts to the middle
New report could roil presidential campaignBy Jonathan Weisman

Updated: 12:04 a.m. ET Aug. 13, 2004WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Indeed, the study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

Stark conclusions
The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members of both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.

They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.

"Are the rich paying their fair share?" asked one GOP aide. "Yeah. They're paying more."

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

Limits to analysis
The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

Congressional Republican aides said that the CBO analysis has its limitations. For instance, it assumes that the beneficiaries of business tax cuts passed in 2002 and 2003 are the taxpayers who own stocks, bonds and other stakes in the businesses that received the reductions. But that analysis does not consider new workers hired because of the tax cuts, or higher wages that may have been granted because of the boost to the bottom line.

It also does not reflect that during the 1990s, the tax rates on lower-income households fell considerably due to an expansion of the earned income tax credit and other forms of low-income relief. In that sense, GOP aides said, tax cuts for the wealthy were overdue.

Besides, Holt said, looking narrowly at the distribution of tax cuts ignores the broader benefits -- such as investment, consumer spending, and job creation -- that flow from leaving more money in people's hands and which are spread far more evenly through the economy.

"Tax relief is about fairness, but it's also about economic growth," he said. "So the president's tax relief was both fair and effective, when it comes to bringing us from recession to growth."

But Republicans predicted that Kerry will make the report a major political event, and Furman said the results will be too stark to spin.

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before," he said.


Kerry should POUND POUND POUND on this during the debates...Bush cannot deny the fact that his tax cuts clearly favor the rich, leaving the middle class towing the line....

[kg_veteran]

EVERYBODY is paying less in taxes. EVERYBODY's effective tax rate is coming down. Trying to skew it as the "tax burden" shifting to the middle class incorrectly implies that they're getting screwed. They're paying LESS.

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

If you pay less in taxes per household, you get less back. That's pretty simple.

This is a pitiful example of an attempt to create class envy.

[Mavdog]

What is interesting to notice is the increased share of the tax obligation by those in the middle:

taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The tax cut should have been structured to maintain the same share. This study shows that the higher income households benefitted inordinately more than any other income group.

The mantra of the Bush Administration was that all income groups should benefit from the tax cut. I can see the fairness of that. However, clearly the result of these tax cuts is something different, that being the wealthy benefitted more than any other income group. out the window goes that idea of fairness....


edit: made a correction, input error

[reeds]

At a time when some people badly could use help, Mr Bush's tax cut mostly will help those who need it least- I just dont feel this makes any sense at all... sure everyone gets a cut, but why not wipe out the rich's share or dramatically decrease it, helping those who could use it more?

[dude1394]

Why not just tax them at 60%. You wouldn't be happy unless they did.

[reeds]

thats crap dude and you know it. What part of my statement set you off this time? You all come on here and say that I wont debate, that I only bring up crap, blah blah blah..well, whats crap about saying that Bush's tax cuts make no sense? Making the rich richer doesnt help the majority of the United States population-period.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
thats crap dude and you know it. What part of my statement set you off this time? You all come on here and say that I wont debate, that I only bring up crap, blah blah blah..well, whats crap about saying that Bush's tax cuts make no sense? Making the rich richer doesnt help the majority of the United States population-period.

He wasn't just talking about this quote. He was talking about all your other quotes in which you claim, even though they are receiving extra money from the government that Bush's policy makes the poor "poorer".

Making the rich richer doesnt help the majority of the United States population-period.

It has been proven many, many times that "trickle-down" economic policy helps everyone. You shouldn't be qualified to make these kind of statements taken that you know absolutely nothing about economics. Stop saying stupid foundationless crap.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
thats crap dude and you know it. What part of my statement set you off this time? You all come on here and say that I wont debate, that I only bring up crap, blah blah blah..well, whats crap about saying that Bush's tax cuts make no sense? Making the rich richer doesnt help the majority of the United States population-period.

Well tell me how much the "rich" should pay? Why stop at giving them back their money from bush's tax cuts. Why not raise their taxes even more to give to the rest of americans who are so downtroddern? Surely that after the bush tax cuts are rescinded, the "rich" will still make too much money? I dont' understand where your standards lie, what's your reasoning that the "rich" need to pay more?

If we raise the top bracket to 35% will that be enough for you?

[reeds]

He wasn't just talking about this quote. He was talking about all your other quotes in which you claim, even though they are receiving extra money from the government that Bush's policy makes the poor "poorer".


Stay out of it mavsman

[reeds]

Well tell me how much the "rich" should pay? Why stop at giving them back their money from bush's tax cuts. Why not raise their taxes even more to give to the rest of americans who are so downtroddern? Surely that after the bush tax cuts are rescinded, the "rich" will still make too much money? I dont' understand where your standards lie, what's your reasoning that the "rich" need to pay more?

If we raise the top bracket to 35% will that be enough for you?



I feel the rich need to pay more for the simple reason that they can pay more..that money could go to many other useful things for this country- Health care, social security for example...and hitting up the rich would not cripple the economy- it would help it by others being able to thrive...just my thoughts

[reeds]

It has been proven many, many times that "trickle-down" economic policy helps everyone. You shouldn't be qualified to make these kind of statements taken that you know absolutely nothing about economics. Stop saying stupid foundationless crap.

Mavsman- someone still in high school should not accuse anyone of not knowing anything about economics- PERIOD..unless you have already had macro and micro economics in college- just keep your trap shut...because someones opinions differ about taxes certainly dont mean they know nothing...All democrats that beleive the rich should pay more in taxes are all "know nothings" huh?? grow up twit

[LRB]

Ah the Reeds theory, which is very similar to the DNC theory of how to best benefit everyone. Let's not raise up the wealth of living for the lower part of society, but rather concentrate on lowering the upper part of society.

Your whining is stupid IMO. The rich already pay a disproportionate about of taxes. With a flat tax the rich would pay much more that the poor portionately. However that's not good enough for the reeds of the world. So now we deal with the stratified tax brackets where the more you make the higher percentage of money you pay. I'm sure the Reeds of the world won't be satisfied until there are no rich in the world. Then we'll all be poor. Oh what a lovely world that will be, a world where everyone is on welfare only there's no one with any wealth to pay the welfare. But old Reeds and the ones like him will be happy because those rich bastards will have gotten theirs. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
Well tell me how much the "rich" should pay? Why stop at giving them back their money from bush's tax cuts. Why not raise their taxes even more to give to the rest of americans who are so downtroddern? Surely that after the bush tax cuts are rescinded, the "rich" will still make too much money? I dont' understand where your standards lie, what's your reasoning that the "rich" need to pay more?

If we raise the top bracket to 35% will that be enough for you?



I feel the rich need to pay more for the simple reason that they can pay more..that money could go to many other useful things for this country- Health care, social security for example...and hitting up the rich would not cripple the economy- it would help it by others being able to thrive...just my thoughts

Well you ragged me when I said 70% now, you ignore my question? Is 35% enough? Would you be happy with that ?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
It has been proven many, many times that "trickle-down" economic policy helps everyone. You shouldn't be qualified to make these kind of statements taken that you know absolutely nothing about economics. Stop saying stupid foundationless crap.

Mavsman- someone still in high school should not accuse anyone of not knowing anything about economics- PERIOD..unless you have already had macro and micro economics in college- just keep your trap shut...because someones opinions differ about taxes certainly dont mean they know nothing...All democrats that beleive the rich should pay more in taxes are all "know nothings" huh?? grow up twit

HAHA! Don't get me started. It doesn't take a macro economics class to understand how trickle down economy works. A basic economics class should be able to prove to anyone who pays attention that when rich people spend money it benefits <u>everyone</u>. Your theory that giving the poor tax breaks makes them poorer is downright stupid and childish. Stop blinding yourself to the truth just because you hate our president.

Isn't kind of ironic that you, reeds, is telling somebody else to grow up?

I feel the rich need to pay more for the simple reason that they can pay more..that money could go to many other useful things for this country- Health care, social security for example...and hitting up the rich would not cripple the economy- it would help it by others being able to thrive...just my thoughts

OK, now explain, after saying this, why you're so incredibly opposed to giving the rich more money to spend.

[reeds]

LRG- you are totally jumping to conclusions. "So now we deal with the stratified tax brackets where the more you make the higher percentage of money you pay. I'm sure the Reeds of the world won't be satisfied until there are no rich in the world. " Where did that come from?? The rich will all the sudden no longer be rich if the tax breaks for them were taken away?? Dont think so, lets be realistic for a moment. If the tax breaks makes them pay an extra 50k a year, that will not make the rich become poor, but it could help the country in other ways, using that money for something useful- affordable drugs, social security, etc...


And DUDE- i think the tax brakets during the Clinton years would be just fine for the rich..deficits were nothing and the economy was booming...proof that these tax breaks for the rich are not the only way to a healthy economy..

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
LRG- you are totally jumping to conclusions. "So now we deal with the stratified tax brackets where the more you make the higher percentage of money you pay. I'm sure the Reeds of the world won't be satisfied until there are no rich in the world. " Where did that come from?? The rich will all the sudden no longer be rich if the tax breaks for them were taken away?? Dont think so, lets be realistic for a moment. If the tax breaks makes them pay an extra 50k a year, that will not make the rich become poor, but it could help the country in other ways, using that money for something useful- affordable drugs, social security, etc...


And DUDE- i think the tax brakets during the Clinton years would be just fine for the rich..deficits were nothing and the economy was booming...proof that these tax breaks for the rich are not the only way to a healthy economy..

Reeds what you adamently refuse to do set a limit on what is enough to tax the rich. So no you want to tax everyone making 250k + per year an extra 50k. Is that it? Will that suffice, or when things fail to improve are you going to be back asking for more? How much is enough? 35%? 45%? 55%? 65%? 75%? 85%? 95%? just what amount is the ultimate, you will never advocate taxing the rich more than this limit?

Your rants make you sound like you hate the rich. You constantly advocate taxing them more and more. Define you limits please.

Personally I don't think any one or any entity should pay more than 30% of income as income tax period, no exceptions. If we need more money for something then we need to cut something else. I'm not exactly happy about the 30% but that's my personal max. Name yours.

And BTW since John Forbes is so concerned with the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, did he and Terry take advantage of those tax breaks? They are among the wealthiest 1% of all Americans. Just curious.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
LRG- you are totally jumping to conclusions. "So now we deal with the stratified tax brackets where the more you make the higher percentage of money you pay. I'm sure the Reeds of the world won't be satisfied until there are no rich in the world. " Where did that come from?? The rich will all the sudden no longer be rich if the tax breaks for them were taken away?? Dont think so, lets be realistic for a moment. If the tax breaks makes them pay an extra 50k a year, that will not make the rich become poor, but it could help the country in other ways, using that money for something useful- affordable drugs, social security, etc...


And DUDE- i think the tax brakets during the Clinton years would be just fine for the rich..deficits were nothing and the economy was booming...proof that these tax breaks for the rich are not the only way to a healthy economy..

So then you are saying a 35% top bracket IS high enough for you!!!!!!!! geeezz are you john kerry or something?

[Mavdog]

The issue in the article above is how the middle class saw their share of the tax burden increase while the wealthiest class saw their share decrease. An equitable tax cut would be neutral in its affect on the different income brackets tax share.

BTW an interesting article of how the Pres and VPres saw their taxes go down. Kerry's went up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
President Benefits From His Tax Cut
Bushes' Payment Drops 15 Percent On 2003 Return; Kerry's Taxes Triple

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A04


Last year's tax cut proved to be a significant windfall for its main architect and political instigator, saving President Bush tens of thousands of dollars on his 2003 return.

Meanwhile, for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democrat seeking to drive Bush from the White House, his tax burden more than tripled on income that surged with the sale of a million-dollar painting.

Bush and first lady Laura W. Bush had income totaling $822,126, down 4 percent from the $856,058 they reported last year, according to tax forms released yesterday by the White House. But the president's taxes fell much more. His federal income tax payment last year dropped $41,229, or 15 percent, from the 2002 level of $268,719.

In all, the tax cut Bush signed into law last summer saved him and his wife $30,858, according to Robert McIntyre, executive director of the labor-backed Citizens for Tax Justice.

Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported income of $1,273,334, up $102,965, or nearly 9 percent, from 2002. Their tax burden dropped sharply, to $253,067 from $341,114, a decline of more than $88,000. Although the Cheneys were easily in the top tax bracket of 35 percent, their effective tax rate fell from 29 percent in 2002 to 20 percent in 2003.

But the Cheneys' declining tax burden was due to other write-offs and was not directly related to the new tax cut, according to Terrence O'Donnell, an attorney for the vice president. The cut would have lowered the Cheneys' tax payments by an additional $35,400, but they ran afoul of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax designed to ensure the affluent pay their fair share. The Cheneys' AMT hit totaled $47,198.

"The AMT ate their tax cut," McIntyre said.

Kerry's income totaled $395,338 last year, up from $144,091. Because he filed a return separate from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, income from her substantial fortune is not included.

The increase in John Kerry's income was almost entirely from capital gains worth $145,805. Those gains came almost exclusively from the March 3 sale of a painting by the Dutch baroque artist Adam Willaerts, which fetched $1.35 million. Kerry's tax payment was $90,575, up from nearly $30,000 last year.

Kerry opposed Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, but he was a beneficiary. Dividends last year worth $11,047 would have cost him as much as $2,600 more in taxes without last year's cut. His $147,818 salary put him in the 28 percent tax bracket, which was 30 percent before the 2003 tax cut was enacted.

The release of the White House tax returns provided a clear window into the Bushes' and Cheneys' finances, as well as a glimpse at the impact of their economic policymaking. Last year's tax cut lowered the top rate -- paid by households earning more than $311,950 -- from 38.6 percent to 35 percent.

The Cheneys' wages totaled $454,301, including the vice president's $198,600 salary as well as $178,437 in compensation from Halliburton Corp., the oil services giant the vice president once headed. Mindful of the billions of dollars in contracts Halliburton has in Iraq, Cheney's office said that his deferred compensation was set in 1998 and that it "is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings in any way."

The Bushes' salaries totaled $397,264.

The tax cut also slashed the tax rate paid on dividends from 38.6 percent for the Cheneys and Bushes to 15 percent, and cut tax rates on most capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Bush reported dividends subject to the new rate totaling $10,959. Cheney's qualified dividends were valued at $84,132.

Spokesmen for Bush and Cheney did not dispute the benefit the tax cut accorded the two. O'Donnell cited two other factors driving the vice president's plunging tax burden: charitable contributions that jumped from $121,983 in 2002 to $321,141 in 2004 -- 39 percent of taxable income -- and tax-exempt interest payments totaling more than $627,000 last year. But, he said, the lower income tax rate was another significant factor, worth $16,800.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan also noted the president's tax cut.

"Like every American who pays income taxes, the president received tax relief, and in keeping with the progressive nature of tax cuts, his percentage cut was less than the average reduction that American taxpayers will see in their returns."

Bush's $31,000 tax cut equaled 11.5 percent of his 2002 tax payments, a considerably smaller income tax cut in percentage terms than lower-income taxpayers, according to the Treasury Department. But measured against all federal taxes, including payroll taxes, Bush's cut was slightly higher than most taxpayers' 10 percent and 11 percent cuts, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

Americans with taxable income of $14,000 or less and no children did not receive a tax cut last year, since their 10 percent tax bracket did not change.

Both the president and vice president are earning considerable amounts of money outside their day jobs. Bush's taxable interest totaled nearly $402,000 last year, most of it from a blind trust in the oil industry called the Lone Star Trust. He also received oil royalties of nearly $4,000.

The Cheneys' finances are more complicated, with interest and dividends coming from 10 sources. Royalty income, especially from Lynne Cheney's books, totaled $338,518. Income from foreign sources topped $27,000

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: reeds
i think the tax brakets during the Clinton years would be just fine for the rich..deficits were nothing and the economy was booming...proof that these tax breaks for the rich are not the only way to a healthy economy..

You are putting the horse in front of the cart. The economy was booming because the stock market was hot - the stock market was hot because of internet stocks. The bubble burst on internet stocks and the stock market returned to normal which cooled off the economy. Granted Clinton did nothing to artificially cool down the stock market but he certainly did not start the boom.

That was Al Gore. Because everyone knows he invented the internet? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Still waiting reeds??

So then you are saying a 35% top bracket IS high enough for you!

[mavsman55]

Reeds you are the only person on this board who could ever misspell LRB.

[reeds]

"Reeds you are the only person on this board who could ever misspell LRB."

Mavsman- you are a perfect example of why I am pro-choice.

[reeds]

"Still waiting reeds??

So then you are saying a 35% top bracket IS high enough for you! "

Dude.... I would say 35% on "wealthy" taxpayers, couples whose adjusted gross incomes (AGI) exceed $250,000 and single taxpayers whose AGI's exceed $150,000...that sounds fair to me....

[dude1394]

Reeds, thanks for the answer. Someone else agrees with you as well. President Bush. Welcome the fact-based party reeds. Come on in, the waters FINE...
tax rates

Tax Brackets
35%
33%
28%
25%
15%
10%

[reeds]

The president has repeatedly called on Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, saying failure to do so would amount to a tax hike and threaten prospects for a robust economic recovery capable of generating new jobs. Congressional analysts say that making the tax cuts permanent would cost over a trillion bucks over the next 10 years. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to do away with the tax breaks to the people making over 200k a year..Bush also wants the dividend and capital gain tax breaks permanent- 15%..way too low..the amount on dividend income by the rich in this country is stagering- i dont recall the figure at this moment- but I will look it up- the amount is huge- about 50 billion dollars. You raise that 15% back to 20% and the amount is staggering..That all adds up..its not just the tax rate- its other perks he is giving the filthy rich

[Drbio]

Hey reeds....where is your Texas village?

[dude1394]

You are one jealous person reeds, you need to talk to someone about this.

[reeds]

Dude- what is 5% of 50billion? chickenfeed???

[reeds]

Hey reeds....where is your Texas village?

ask your wife

[reeds]

Oh- DUDE...dont forget large corporations!!! Or is Warren Buffett just exagerating???DONT THINK SO...

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - Billionaire investor Warren Buffett accused the Bush administration Saturday of pursuing tax cuts that favor large corporations and wealthy individuals. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning," Buffett said in Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual report. Except for 1983, the percentage of federal tax receipts from corporate income taxes last year was the lowest since data was first published in 1934, Buffett said.
"Tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said.

Buffett said many large corporations now pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35 percent.

In an April 2 speech, Pamela Olson, assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury, referred to "a certain midwestern oracle" when she said Buffett played the tax code "like a fiddle."

However, Buffett said in the report his investment company pays its taxes and is almost certainly among the country's top 10 taxpayers. The company will pay $3.3 billion in 2003 corporate income tax, he said.

"Alas, my 'fiddle playing' will not get me to Carnegie Hall - or even to a high school recital," Buffett said.

Buffett also accused mutual fund managers and directors of using policies that hurt investors, said chief executives generally continue to be paid too much, and said recent reforms aimed at ensuring independent boards of directors will not work.

Berkshire owns businesses and stock in a wide variety of industries, including insurance, furniture, restaurants, candy and newspapers.

[Drbio]

Wow reeds. Wife jokes? At least if you are going to go there make sense.


What a f*cking moron.

[reeds]

i never make sense- forget already?

[dude1394]

Reeds.... All I was trying to get you to do was to make a stand on what was an acceptable tax rate, you did 35%, it just so happens that is what it is with bush's tax cuts. Welcome aboard, get off the class-envy socialist kick and go out and make YOUR fortune.

You do know that a capital gains tax of 15% has brought in MORE revenue to the treasury right? You know people will actually cash it in if it's not exorbitant.

[Murphy3]

Tax burden shifts to the middle

Good thing I'm not in the middle class.

[Drbio]

You cannot educate the pathologically stupid dude. Reeds is hopeless.

[reeds]

You cannot educate the pathologically stupid dude. Reeds is hopeless.

and if you are smart Dribio, I hope I am hopeless for life....

[Drbio]

At least we can agree on that. You are clearly hopeless...in a dumbass kind of way.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
i never make sense- forget already?

Truer words have never been uttered.