United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Heritage Budget Expert Debunks Bush Tax Cuts-Deficit Myth
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.libertycentral.org/herit ... -tax-cuts-deficit-myth-2010-07
Published: Jul 13, 2010
Author: libertycentral
Post Date: 2010-07-13 15:30:47 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 10272
Comments: 102
Brian Riedl, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, takes on the assertion made by many Democrats that it was the Bush Tax Cuts and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that drove our federal deficit to monstrous levels. Riedl writes that there was never an actual surplus that was removed by the cuts, and that President Obama’s assertions about the Bush administration’s impact on the size of the debt before he took office are simply incorrect. Instead, it is the decline in revenues from a down economy and increased government spending that have pushed the deficit to these levels. The Democrats routinely assert that the Bush tax cuts wiped out the budget surpluses that existed under the Clinton Administration. This idea is simply not true because the surplus never existed. It was a projection made by the Congressional Budget Office which assumed the continued late 90’s economic growth and record high tax revenues. Out of the total swing of $11.7 trillion dollars from the CBO estimate to our current $6.1 trillion deficit, the Bush tax cuts accounted for only $1.7 trillion of the shift. The majority of the change comes from economic revisions and new spending. Other factors include interest on the debt, as well as President Obama’s stimulus bill. The sudden explosion of a budget deficit in 2009 to over $1 trillion dollars came from falling revenues and stimulus spending. President Obama’s targets are also arbitrary, ignoring the massive debts being placed on the American people by Social Security, Medicare, anti-poverty programs and other discretionary spending. The current administration’s policies will grow our projected deficit to $13 trillion, with only $4.7 trillion attributable to the policies of the Bush Administration (the tax cuts, wars and the Medicare drug program). The administration also intends to continue spending, averaging 20.3% of GDP while taking in only approximately 18% in tax revenue. This means that the administration’s current policies will continue to dig our deficit hole deeper and deeper. While the Bush administration is far from blameless in the growth of our national debt, it is a straw man for the Democrats to point at while they continue their free spending policies that have accumulated more debt in one year than George Bush did in eight.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
How many times does this need to be debunked for you?
It's pretty laughable that you think a left wing tax and spend advocacy group is debunking anything through their promotion of higher taxes.
The deficit is down almost 8% this year BTW.
So your answer is it will need to continue being debunked because you can't accept the reality that the tax cuts were stupid.
First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.) Second, the president's $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare "doc fix" (i.e., no reimbursement cuts). Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims. Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion). There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit up. • Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 2020—slightly above the historical average. They will continue growing afterwards. Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won't remain as stable. Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter. Accept that.
It has 'Bush' in the description...which means you are dealing with Derangement Syndrome. Why bother?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Paddy...the tax cuts were stupid...they weren't needed and they exploded the debt...war spending was done off budget so the true deficit was never really admitted to during your hero's reign of error. And, as you note, the budget deficit was still $161bln [oddly, tho, you don't seem to mind what you claimed was budget gimmickery in calculating Clinton surpluses if it shows deficits falling during Boy Blunder] and that was after 3 years of solid "growth". If anything, it reveals that the growth was illusory, fed by debt rather than capital.
Apples and oranges. Bush's growth was very real and happened between 2003 and 2007. The discussed Clinton "surplus" was simply a CBO projection from the 2000 economy and was never real. The tax cuts did not "explode the debt"? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.) You've been shown the numbers and you still deny them? Do you argue with sign posts?
(chuckle)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
It wasn't real, it was on paper.
What a dumb statement. Your words define you as a statist enemy of the constitution. Day after day.
Chuckles...watch monkey type..
You've been shown the numbers and you still deny them? Huh? The deficit of $161bln was calculated using the same methodology as the surplus that was discounted, Puddin'. YOU were shown the reality. CBO's analysis. Treasury Department analysis. All concluded the same thing: The tax cuts were harmful. Public and Private debt EXPLODED in that period, Puddin'.
People keeping what they earn is not harmful. Obama is harmful. You are harmful.
Not paying for wars, medicare expansion, and shoveling debt onto the next generation is harmful.
I've disputed that notion where?
According to Paddy and a blogger and Stone that isn't what happened. Everything was 5x5 until 1/20/09.
Look right above your words. You cut and pasted it. Are you drunk?
The next generation doesn't owe it. Dead people owe it. Collect from them for your nannie state.
Stop dancing. Answer a question for a change.
And moreso Obama owes it. It is his illegal debt. Put him on pay for view and give him 1 lash per dollar.
You posted it. You quit dancing fool.
I've posted a lot of things. PING me when you're off whatever it is your on. Thanks.
You said tax cuts were harmful. Did you know that people who pay taxes earned that money? Guess not. You're drunk or stupid.
Are you aware of how much of YOUR tax dollars is going to pay interest on the debt? Are you aware how much YOUR taxes could be cut if you weren't paying for the debt explosion that started under Reagan?
Reagan didn't explode the debt. Worthless piece of shit demoncrats did. Obama's debt for 1 year is more then twice Reagans budget for a year. There hasn't been that much inflation And yes, i'm much better informed then you are. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Wait, wait,t wait. Today. Now. In this instance. On this thread. Deficits are bad? LMAO rolling the floor, slapping my sides! You are lucky that I am here to pay for your reality!
-----------------------------------------------------------
It was a guess Obamabot. Based on Faulty estimates
The millionaires (donors) benefited most you stupid summbitch.
Thanks for the laugh.
Thanks for the laugh. I'm always happy to make someone laugh. Glad to put a smile on your face.
Fred anyone keeping their money they earn is better then the government taking it and giving it away, wasting it, killing people with it.
Good.
I said it tongue and cheek anyways.
Quit changing posters posts. Thanks.
What are you talking about?
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
Tax cuts certainly put an end to the possibility of paying off the debt in my lifetime. Interest on paid the debt in 2008 was $451 billion, for comparison - the Department of Defense’s base budget for the same year was $481.4 billion, and the budget deficit was $454.8 billion. Bottom line, pay down the debt, save a bunch of money on interest payments. Pay off the debt and save a whole lot more and then maybe we could talk about a tax cut that really meant something. I would think people who earned that money paid in taxes would care about that.
No this is the bottom line. We have traitors who ran up an illegal debt. The people who voted for it owe the money. Not anyone else. Time to default on the debt. Then have a huge tax cut. Then Get rid of NAFTA GATT etc. Put Americans first. It is not possible to repay the debt.
Feel free to prove that....and the best way would be to provide CBO's recantation of the intial analysis.
Defaulting on the debt does not put America or Americans first. About two and a half trillion dollars of the debt is owed to your fellow countrymen who have paid into Social Security.
The statements are being made from a Sand Castle...there is nothing unconstitutional about debt: Article I Section 8[b] The Congress shall have the power: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Yes, FDR created the single biggest ponzi scheme in the world, and its about to collapse.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Social Security is not constitutional. You know it isn't.y It is not the fault of my children that people such as yourself were stupid enough to participate in it. My kids don't owe no debt. Pound sand.
Yeah. They have that power FOR TWO FUCKING YEARS. They have no right or power or moral authority to bankrupt people yet to be born. And I will say this. You are on the WRONG SIDE OF EVERY ISSUE. You are an idiot.
Nor is there anything unconstitutional about taxes.
Huh? There is no temporal qualification put on borrowing money in the USCON. The "two years" is in regard to spending money on the military. We violate that with what we've allocated to Israel via DoD. You may vent your outrage at that now.
Actually its an insurance program designed to keep unsightly old people from begging on the street when the market takes a nose dive.
Ah, no. Its a ponzi scheme thats about to collapse.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
No, I don't know that at all.
I predict 2 things will happen with SS in the next 10-20 years. The income cap will be removed and all income will be subject to taxation. You will be means tested before you can receive it. In other words, it will be reformed into a welfare program instead of a retirement program.
I agree with one but only partially with the other. Means testing will only reduce benefits to a floor not to 0.
I've been saying for a decade this should be done. Sorry, Bill Gates doesn't need a SS check each month when he 'retires'.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Then let me teach you a lesson. There is no constitutional authority for it. If I am wrong show me the constitutional authority.
Where is the constitutional authority for an Air Force? That asked: Article II Section 2[b]: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The US Congress has the power to create executive departments and officers. The Social Security Act was passed by the US Congress.
So they could make an office of say round up the niggers and execute them? Or the office of round up the jews and gas them. Or the office of stick a penis in wars mouth. Those powers have fall within the limits placed in other parts of the constitution.
Nope. There are several amendments to the USCON that is supposed to prevent that but several Muslims in US custody may disagree.
Yes they could. Because of this. Your own quote. That asked: Article II Section 2[b]: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...
Where are the amendments to the constitution that prevent an office of stick a penis in wars mouth? Keep this in mind. That asked: Article II Section 2[b]: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...
What proscriptions or hinderances do the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments put on government power?
Social security is unconstitutional.
The first amendment creates a wall of separation on government's power to interfere with anyone's right of association. Are you going to get any smarter any time soon in this conversation? Maybe a cup of coffee will help?
You've offered nothing to support that contention.
Quite making stuff up. An office of stick the penis in wars mouth is just as constitutional as the office of social security. That is a fact you can take to the bank.
Yes I did. It is called the constitution. There is no delegated power for it to force you to set up a "government retirement plan" What you quoted only authorizes the office of stick a penis in wars mouth. You haven't showed any prohibitions for the office of stick a penis in wars mouth.
You've offered nothing to support that contention.
Why can't Irish Gays and Lesbians march in the St. Patty's Day parade here?
I pointed out the section of the USCON which vests Congress with the power to create executive departments and agencies.
The first amendment creates a wall of separation on government's power to interfere with anyone's right of association. Are you going to get any smarter any time soon in this conversation? Maybe a cup of coffee will help? I pointed out the section of the USCON which vests Congress with the power to create executive departments and agencies. . So that proves that a department of stick a penis in wars mouth is constitutional.
I pointed out the sections of the USCON which clearly PROSCRIBE such an exercise. And thanks for answering the question. Your "No, I'm not" is duly noted.
You've offered nothing to support that contention. I poinited out the sections of the USCON which clearly PROSCRIBE such an exercise.
You haven't cited any section of the USCON.
You haven't cited any section of the USCON.
#55 reveals you to be a liar.
55 is your post not mine. I haven't responded to it.
Should Obama be impeached for using the air force?
Duh. I haven't responded to it. Post #56 which is a direct response to #55 reveals you to be a liar.
Is it a high crime or misdemeanor for doing so?
Duh. Duh. You said it proves I am a liar. How so...duh It will prove you to be a liar if you don't say Obama should be impeached for using the air force for something you quoted was unconstitutional.
You claimed that I did not cite any section of the USCON. I did so in #55.
Is it a high crime or misdemeanor for doing so? It is you who said that the air force is unconstitutional. Using an unconstitutional branch of government to bomb and kill people would be a high crime. So here is to consistency. Your next words (if you are honest) is that Obama should be impeached. You are in the corner with no way out. So I expect you to lash out instead of telling the truth.
You need 'proof' at this point? (laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I claimed that you didn't cite the constitution in relation to what I responded to. However I will take still respond. You said the air force isn't constitutional. That isn't in the constitution.
In what post did I so state? I ASKED you a question about constitutional authority vis-a-vis an Air Force. A question that you didn't answer, btw.
That is not a constitutional cite.
You were wrong. The Congress created the SSA.
So everything congress creates is constitutional just by the merit that congress passed it?
Huh? The US Air Force was created by AN ACT OF CONGRESS [NSA Act of 1947] under its Section II authority to create EXECUTIVE departments.
As I have pointed out several times on this thread, no. An agency created to round up all niggers [sic] and execute them, while appealing to some, is clearly unconcsitutional as it a) deprives life without due process which is repugnant to 5A b) is cruel and unusual which is repugnant to 8A and c) violates equal protection which is repugnant to 14A.
But the cuckoo's nest would like it.
Chyea...
So the office of stick a penis in wars mouth is constitutional. If passed by congress. Got ya.
(chuckle) There's a lobbying group...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
What part o "NO" didn't you get. I'm beginning to understand why you believe Muddbutt is Einstein. Next to you he's beginning to look like a fucking genius.
The Constitutional authority claimed when the issue was argued before the SCOTUS is Article 1, Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. An alternate authority was Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, but the government went with the former.
They've also cited the authority I cited in Article II.
It doesn't matter, Stone will continue to claim there is no Constitutional authority.
trumped by your fourth amendment rights. To be free from unreasonable searches and your papers persons effects. Or however it is worded. They require you to give them that information without probable cause or any court order. Unconstitutional.
What information?
your birth date, residence and every other bit of info they want when you sign up for a card. There are other reasons. But that is all that is needed. Besides I have a method of being 99 percent certain if something is correct or not. Ask war and take the opposite side.
You get it at birth now.
That explains why you weren't this stupid when I first got here.
#2. To: war (#1)
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Out of the total swing of $11.7 trillion dollars from the CBO estimate to our current $6.1 trillion deficit, the Bush tax cuts accounted for only $1.7 trillion of the shift. The majority of the change comes from economic revisions and new spending. Other factors include interest on the debt, as well as President Obama’s stimulus bill.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
#5. To: war (#4)
But Mr. Obama's assertion fails on three grounds.
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#5)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#5)
(Edited)
#8. To: war (#7)
oddly, tho, you don't seem to mind what you claimed was budget gimmickery in calculating Clinton surpluses if it shows deficits falling during Boy Blunder]
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Do you argue with sign posts?
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Bush's growth was very real and happened between 2003 and 2007.
#11. To: war (#7)
..the tax cuts were stupid...they weren't needed
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Apples and oranges.
#14. To: war (#13)
YOU were shown the reality. CBO's analysis. Treasury Department analysis. All concluded the same thing: The tax cuts were harmful.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
People keeping what they earn is not harmful. Obama is harmful. You are harmful.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(Edited)
People keeping what they earn is not harmful.
#17. To: go65 (#15)
Not paying for wars, medicare expansion, and shoveling debt onto the next generation is harmful.
#18. To: war (#16)
#19. To: go65 (#15)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#21. To: All (#19)
#22. To: war (#20)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#22)
#24. To: war (#23)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#19)
The next generation doesn't owe it. Dead people owe it. Collect from them for your nannie state.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#26. To: go65 (#25)
#27. To: go65 (#25)
(Edited)
Are you aware of how much of YOUR tax dollars is going to pay interest on the debt?
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#28. To: war (#13)
CBO's analysis.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#24)
(Edited)
You said tax cuts were harmful.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#26)
(Edited)
And yes, i'm [sic] much better informed then [sic] you are.
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#30)
And yes, i'm [sic] much better informed then [sic] you are.
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#34. To: Fred Mertz, go65 (#30)
Thanks for the laugh.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)
#36. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
Quit changing posters posts. Thanks.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#24)
You said tax cuts were harmful. Did you know that people who pay taxes earned that money?
#39. To: lucysmom (#38)
Bottom line, pay down the debt, save a bunch of money on interest payments. Pay off the debt and save a whole lot more and then maybe we could talk about a tax cut that really meant something.
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#28)
(Edited)
It was a guess...Based on Faulty estimates
#41. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Time to default on the debt. Then have a huge tax cut. Then Get rid of NAFTA GATT etc. Put Americans first.
#42. To: lucysmom (#41)
#43. To: lucysmom (#41)
About two and a half trillion dollars of the debt is owed to your fellow countrymen who have paid into Social Security.
#44. To: lucysmom (#41)
#45. To: war (#42)
#46. To: war (#42)
The statements are being made from a Sand Castle...there is nothing unconstitutional about debt:
#47. To: A K A Stone (#45)
(Edited)
They have that power FOR TWO FUCKING YEARS.
#48. To: Badeye (#43)
Yes, FDR created the single biggest ponzi scheme in the world, and its about to collapse.
#49. To: lucysmom (#48)
Actually its an insurance program designed to keep unsightly old people from begging on the street when the market takes a nose dive.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#44)
Social Security is not constitutional. You know it isn't.
#51. To: Badeye (#49)
Ah, no. Its a ponzi scheme thats about to collapse.
#52. To: no gnu taxes (#51)
#53. To: no gnu taxes (#51)
You will be means tested before you can receive it.
#54. To: lucysmom (#50)
No, I don't know that at all.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)
There is no constitutional authority for it.
#56. To: war (#55)
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...
#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)
(Edited)
So they could make an office of say round up the niggers and execute them?
#58. To: war (#57)
#59. To: war (#57)
#60. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#61. To: war (#60)
#62. To: A K A Stone (#59)
Where are the amendments to the constitution that prevent an office of stick a penis in wars mouth?
#63. To: A K A Stone (#61)
Social security is unconstitutional.
#64. To: war (#62)
The first amendment creates a wall of separation on government's power to interfere with anyone's right of association.
#65. To: war (#63)
You've offered nothing to support that contention.
#66. To: war (#62)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
(Edited)
Quite [sic] making stuff up.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
You've offered nothing to support that contention.
#69. To: war (#62)
(Edited)
Where are the amendments to the constitution that prevent an office of stick a penis in wars mouth?
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: war (#63)
Social security is unconstitutional.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#71)
#73. To: war (#62)
The first amendment creates a wall of separation on government's power to interfere with anyone's right of association.
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
#75. To: war (#74)
#76. To: war (#74)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
55 is your post not mine.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Should Obama be impeached for using the air force?
#79. To: war (#77)
55 is your post not mine.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#79)
Duh. You said it proves I am a liar. How so...duh
#81. To: war (#78)
Should Obama be impeached for using the air force?
#82. To: A K A Stone (#79)
#83. To: war (#80)
You claimed that I did not cite any section of the USCON. I did so in #55.
#84. To: A K A Stone (#81)
It is you who said that the air force is unconstitutional.
#85. To: war (#84)
#86. To: A K A Stone (#83)
I claimed that you didn't cite the constitution in relation to what I responded to.
#87. To: war (#86)
#88. To: A K A Stone (#85)
#89. To: A K A Stone (#87)
So everything congress creates is constitutional just by the merit that congress passed it?
#90. To: war (#89)
#91. To: Bartcoprules (#90)
#92. To: war (#89)
#93. To: A K A Stone (#92)
#94. To: A K A Stone (#92)
#95. To: A K A Stone (#54)
There is no constitutional authority for it. If I am wrong show me the constitutional authority.
#96. To: lucysmom (#95)
#97. To: war, aka stone (#96)
They've also cited the authority I cited in Article II.
#98. To: lucysmom (#95)
#99. To: A K A Stone (#98)
#100. To: war (#99)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#100)
your birth date, residence and every other bit of info they want when you sign up for a card.
#102. To: A K A Stone (#100)
Besides I have a method of being 99 percent certain if something is correct or not. Ask war and take the opposite side.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]