Not the imposter Linda

United States

#143 Dec 24, 2012
Better yet bored why don't you hang out with your boy toy to the rainbow club and shove some jam up there with ramen accept that answer don't let her do that you tell me it's been 2 years with the board at show you that edge I really feel your putty wussy.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#144 Dec 24, 2012
...I don't know...anyone think, we may have a mental health problem, in these here, United States?.....lol...
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#145 Dec 24, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> I can still recall, a certain feeling of serenity...when we would get snowed in for a coupla days, as long as we had supplies and power....and the crunching sound the snow made, when you finally stepped outside.....somehow purifying everything, for another year....
The only feeling I had was the sense of dread at the thought of having to clean up afterwards. 5-6" of wet snow with a 1/2" of rain on top of it made for some ugly shoveling.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#146 Dec 24, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
...I don't know...anyone think, we may have a mental health problem, in these here, United States?.....lol...
Thankfully, just about anyone can walk out of the local gun show with a new bushmaster!
Not the imposter Linda

United States

#147 Dec 24, 2012
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>Thankfully, just about anyone can walk out of the local gun show with a new bushmaster!
Your so full of $h!t Jason sandy nuts. Prove it!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#148 Dec 24, 2012
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankfully, just about anyone can walk out of the local gun show with a new bushmaster!
Actually the Bushmaster is a kinda lightweight rifle, next to alot of stuff at the gun show...I've seen BAR's and Kalishnikov's, though you have to have the tax stamp for some stuff....they are right about the bigger magazines, they are a moderately new thing for some of these handguns...especially 9mm, 22LR and .380's....I have a coach shotgun, that i am surprised is legal, as the barrels are so short, a 12 guage, side by side...they used to use them on stagecoaches, so the guard could spin and fire, without hitting the driver.....the look of those two big black holes staring back at ya, is a knee wiggler...lol....

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#149 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Merry Christmas and a great New Year to you also.
I can point to where the higher tax rates along with the write-offs encouraged business(es) to re-invest back into their business rather than pay a "high" tax rate whereas now the lower tax rates don't make it "worthwhile" to re-invest back into the business, rather bank the profits and increase the lifestyles of those who already have the highest lifestyles, but obviously it would make no difference.
I can, and have shown on here, how over the past 40 years the middle class/working class incomes have stagnated, even dropping during some periods, while the incomes of the top that are now screaming they lose their temporary reprieve has increased 437%. Again it will make no difference. As it hasn't when I posted it before.
Obviously there must be this huge misconception and the country is amply employed and the economy is doing just fine. I mean we all know the top 10% will hold the countries economy up and the rest are just not needed.
Good points except the tax issues have nothing to do with large corporations that invest in significant R&D amounts. The tax increases are going after those who are very wealthy and small business owners. The individuals aren't getting a paycheck and can move money around in order to pay the amount of tax they wish. They don't need to sell stocks/bonds to live so they can avoid whatever portion of a tax they don't want to pay. That's why the IRS has shown that when rates on these folks go up, actual revenues go down. The small business owner will get hit with a higher tax, so their expenses go up. When expenses go up they either reduce other expenses (payroll) or increase income (raise prices). Net is that the tax increase isn't about raising revenue or creating jobs. Even if Obama took 100% of everyone's income who is making over $250,000 that wouldn't run the government for one year. It's a personal attitude called jeaousy.

Middle class has been hit hard by technology. It used to be that one could get out of HS and get a middle class job. Today that isn't easy to do. Previously a company had 20 welders making middle class wages. Today they have robots doing the work run by one person. Second issue is basic math. My daughter and I both invest in the same stock but because of age/income difference I invest $10K and she invests $1K. Two years later we have both tripled our money. So my $10K is now $30K and her $1K is now $3K. Bad news. Even though we did the exact same thing and had the same results, the income disparity grew. To overcome the math the middle class needs to stop spending, lower their standard of living and invest for their kids, not themselves. Or try the liberal route and just penalize the wealthy and reward the takers.

The recession ended in 2009 and so yes, for 51% of folks they believe the country is amply employed, the economy is doing just fine and they want more of the President's prescription. Reid hasn't passed a budget or anything related to jobs in 3+ years. The President hasn't focused on jobs or the economy since he took office and couldn't care less about people's lives.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#150 Dec 26, 2012
It is disingenuous to make a generalized stand on the idea that the middle class needs to lower their standard of living. You don't see the disconnect that those who are at the top don't need to lower THEIR standard of living?...and they would still be living better than those below them.

So it's better to downgrade to a shanty in the poorest areas than it is to downgrade to two houses than the three, or more?

The REALITY is the recession only technically ended in 2009. Not in real terms.

And what is being totally ignored is the return to the previous tax rates will not affect the incomes up to $250,000. They will still get the same tax rate as those below $251,000. The reinstated tax rates will not start until $251,000 and upward.

So I categorically reject your contention that only the middle class should lower their standard of living while all the rest should just float along like they always have. To be honest it infuriates me. To even suggest that only the middle class should lower their standard of living? Really?!?!?!

And take a really good look around. Without the middle class the upper-class would have nothing to make their money off of and have nothing except their money. No pharaoh EVER built a pyramid. No king EVER built a castle. No Wall Street financier EVER built the opulent housing they live in or the vehicle they drive are or driven around in. Or the private jet they fly in. It's people in the middle class that "need to lower their standard of living" that built those things. You would have to search long and hard digging deep to find ANY in the class that shouldn't have to lower their standard of living that has built the stuff their "deserved wealth" buys them.
Robert

United States

#151 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
It is disingenuous to make a generalized stand on the idea that the middle class needs to lower their standard of living. You don't see the disconnect that those who are at the top don't need to lower THEIR standard of living?...and they would still be living better than those below them.

So it's better to downgrade to a shanty in the poorest areas than it is to downgrade to two houses than the three, or more?

The REALITY is the recession only technically ended in 2009. Not in real terms.

And what is being totally ignored is the return to the previous tax rates will not affect the incomes up to $250,000. They will still get the same tax rate as those below $251,000. The reinstated tax rates will not start until $251,000 and upward.

So I categorically reject your contention that only the middle class should lower their standard of living while all the rest should just float along like they always have. To be honest it infuriates me. To even suggest that only the middle class should lower their standard of living? Really?!?!?!

And take a really good look around. Without the middle class the upper-class would have nothing to make their money off of and have nothing except their money. No pharaoh EVER built a pyramid. No king EVER built a castle. No Wall Street financier EVER built the opulent housing they live in or the vehicle they drive are or driven around in. Or the private jet they fly in. It's people in the middle class that "need to lower their standard of living" that built those things. You would have to search long and hard digging deep to find ANY in the class that shouldn't have to lower their standard of living that has built the stuff their "deserved wealth" buys them.
Everyone needs to give a little. Is that not what your party is saying?

"The REALITY is the recession only technically ended in 2009. Not in real terms." Wow, is that ever a understatement? Even after the 3 recovery summers which makes this all Obama's fault three times over.

It is you that does not understand that tax increases (or the newest terminology costs)affect everyone. You need to first come to terms with that before anyone can give you the education you are seriously lacking.
Without the rich there would be no jobs for the middle class. BTW people making $250,000 are not rich.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#152 Dec 26, 2012
In response to SeenItBefore:

I said "To overcome the math the middle class needs to stop spending, lower their standard of living and invest for their kids, not themselves." My statement had to do with moving up and out of the middle class because if they continue to do the same things they will get the same results. And one life experience can set them way back. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity, which liberals are awash in. So yes, it is better to move into a shanty in the poorest area so that one can put their kids through college, or invest in their own education, or use the money for something besides more “stuff.” When Jr. is born, put $200/month aside every month instead of spending it on cable, smart phones, etc. and when Jr. is 18 they will have over $150,000 for college instead of a 1,000 friends on Facebook.
The recession ended in both technical terms and in reality. This is what a liberal boom looks like. One of the problems is that liberalism has to fight both math and human nature. I’ve explained the math part but I’ll do it again. Let’s say I wave a magic wand and everyone’s income suddenly doubles. Guess what? The income gap between the middle class and the rich has gotten even wider. The only way to shrink the income gap is for the middle class to increase their income while at the same time the upper income shrinks. That is mathematically impossible.
If you look at the richest folks in the country, very few of them inherited their wealth. And if they did, it was their parent that made the fortune, like Sam Walton. There is very little multi-generational wealth in this country. There is nothing that is stopping you from becoming part of the .1%, except that empty space between your ears. Anyone could have done what Gates, Jobs, or Buffett did. Anyone could have done what Zuckerberg did. Ok, almost anyone. Definitely not you.
And the reason why you have a car, cell phone, computer etc. is because the rich bought them when they were expensive, which employed people and allowed companies to invest in making the products for the masses. You can eat at McDonalds because a rich person invested in the franchise and built one near you. There isn’t anything you have that didn’t start with some rich people buying it and eventually making it affordable for you.
Oh, and the reason they deserve their wealth is because they worked for it, whether it was mental or physical. No one gave them their wealth. But I’ll give you a chance here. Explain how someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ˝ that? The minimum salary for an NFL rookie is over $300,000/year. Explain how Matt Stafford’s $42 million is earned but the $1.35 million the CEO of Coke makes is not.
Robert

United States

#153 Dec 26, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
In response to SeenItBefore:

I said "To overcome the math the middle class needs to stop spending, lower their standard of living and invest for their kids, not themselves." My statement had to do with moving up and out of the middle class because if they continue to do the same things they will get the same results. And one life experience can set them way back. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity, which liberals are awash in. So yes, it is better to move into a shanty in the poorest area so that one can put their kids through college, or invest in their own education, or use the money for something besides more “stuff.” When Jr. is born, put $200/month aside every month instead of spending it on cable, smart phones, etc. and when Jr. is 18 they will have over $150,000 for college instead of a 1,000 friends on Facebook.
The recession ended in both technical terms and in reality. This is what a liberal boom looks like. One of the problems is that liberalism has to fight both math and human nature. IÂ’ve explained the math part but IÂ’ll do it again. LetÂ’s say I wave a magic wand and everyoneÂ’s income suddenly doubles. Guess what? The income gap between the middle class and the rich has gotten even wider. The only way to shrink the income gap is for the middle class to increase their income while at the same time the upper income shrinks. That is mathematically impossible.
If you look at the richest folks in the country, very few of them inherited their wealth. And if they did, it was their parent that made the fortune, like Sam Walton. There is very little multi-generational wealth in this country. There is nothing that is stopping you from becoming part of the .1%, except that empty space between your ears. Anyone could have done what Gates, Jobs, or Buffett did. Anyone could have done what Zuckerberg did. Ok, almost anyone. Definitely not you.
And the reason why you have a car, cell phone, computer etc. is because the rich bought them when they were expensive, which employed people and allowed companies to invest in making the products for the masses. You can eat at McDonalds because a rich person invested in the franchise and built one near you. There isnÂ’t anything you have that didnÂ’t start with some rich people buying it and eventually making it affordable for you.
Oh, and the reason they deserve their wealth is because they worked for it, whether it was mental or physical. No one gave them their wealth. But I’ll give you a chance here. Explain how someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ½ that? The minimum salary for an NFL rookie is over $300,000/year. Explain how Matt Stafford’s $42 million is earned but the $1.35 million the CEO of Coke makes is not.
Excellent post! I can't wait for someone to enlighten us all on that question!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#154 Dec 26, 2012
For FLBeaver;

First off how do you know what my income level is? What is it Beaver?

So what you are saying is when someone like Warren Buffet comes out and says our taxation system is definitely skewed toward the richest he is just another disgruntled of middle class that can't make it and needs to adjust his standard of living? Really?!

Ya see it's the honest and intelligent that see the current system as imbalanced.

Oh, and you show how little you do about me to think I believe "someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ˝ that". But apparently you are ill educated to make a statement like those who employ 100,000 don't deserve 1/2 that. My opinion is what professional athletes get paid is obscene for what they do. The incomes of [the] corporations, CORPORATIONS, are not exactly starving or struggling to figure out how they are going to afford their next European vacation. While many of whom they employ are trying to figure out if they will be able to put food on the table all month long. Much less lower their standard of living so they can educate their children to be among the top 1%. Keeping in mind that it's unusual for any head of a corporation employing 100,000 people owns the company. They too are employees of the corporation.

Your arguments are the usual the rich deserve to be rich while the rest don't deserve a stable standard of living. I've heard every one of your arguments many times before and they don't hold up to scrutiny by any educated standard. Nothing more than the usual excuses.
Ronald

United States

#155 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
For FLBeaver;

First off how do you know what my income level is? What is it Beaver?

So what you are saying is when someone like Warren Buffet comes out and says our taxation system is definitely skewed toward the richest he is just another disgruntled of middle class that can't make it and needs to adjust his standard of living? Really?!

Ya see it's the honest and intelligent that see the current system as imbalanced.

Oh, and you show how little you do about me to think I believe "someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ½ that". But apparently you are ill educated to make a statement like those who employ 100,000 don't deserve 1/2 that. My opinion is what professional athletes get paid is obscene for what they do. The incomes of [the] corporations, CORPORATIONS, are not exactly starving or struggling to figure out how they are going to afford their next European vacation. While many of whom they employ are trying to figure out if they will be able to put food on the table all month long. Much less lower their standard of living so they can educate their children to be among the top 1%. Keeping in mind that it's unusual for any head of a corporation employing 100,000 people owns the company. They too are employees of the corporation.

Your arguments are the usual the rich deserve to be rich while the rest don't deserve a stable standard of living. I've heard every one of your arguments many times before and they don't hold up to scrutiny by any educated standard. Nothing more than the usual excuses.
It is very clear you have no money when your begging to spread the wealth, kicking and screaming to raise taxes on the rich.
It is a progressive tax system of course it is imbalanced.

What does this mean? "Oh, and you show how little you do about me to think I believe "someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year.

Again Corporations usually start out with a individual that runs the risk at starting the business and should be rewarded for it if successful. Employees should be thankful for the job. If they are not happy they can find a different job. In no way have they made that company. They have been hired to prolong the life of the company. Your comments are the usual drivel from the lowly educated. You deserve nothing put in some hard labor and work for what you get u lazy bum!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#156 Dec 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
It is very clear you have no money when your begging to spread the wealth, kicking and screaming to raise taxes on the rich.
It is a progressive tax system of course it is imbalanced.
What does this mean? "Oh, and you show how little you do about me to think I believe "someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year.
Again Corporations usually start out with a individual that runs the risk at starting the business and should be rewarded for it if successful. Employees should be thankful for the job. If they are not happy they can find a different job. In no way have they made that company. They have been hired to prolong the life of the company. Your comments are the usual drivel from the lowly educated. You deserve nothing put in some hard labor and work for what you get u lazy bum!
Like I said, you are irreparably stupid. There is no further point in dealing with you.
Ronald

United States

#157 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, you are irreparably stupid. There is no further point in dealing with you.
Common brother!! I need to know we're they got those exploding bullets!! Ah, you said you were leaving many times and your still here!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#158 Dec 26, 2012
In response to SeenItBefore:

I don't know how much you make nor do I care. I never mentioned your income but for the second time you've shown poor comprehension. And if Buffett really meant what he said he would pay the $1 Billion he owes in taxes. Since the income tax rate he actually pays is 0%, yea he doesn’t pay enough. If he actually paid what he owed he would be singing a different tune.
You may personally feel that professional athletes get paid is obscene but that isn’t what the D’s/Progs in Washington believe. If you can, post an article by the NY Times or other newspaper/magazine that lumps athletes into the 1%. I’d love to see a NY Times article saying the Yankees should swap with the KS City Royals to preserve “equality”. Secondly, why is Matt Stafford’s salary obscene but the worker at Walmart not? Each one is being paid according to what the position is worth (notice, I said position, not person).
For someone who wants to get out of poverty, it’s easy (in the sense that losing weight is easy. Easy to know what to do but not easy to actually do it). Graduate from high school (with a real education), work hard, and get married before you have children and the chance you will ever be in poverty is just 2%. Want to move even further up? Among the top 1%, generally both people have a college education, usually graduate degrees or better. Both work and continued to do so even while having kids. Divorce is much rarer and marriages tend to be long.

You said that “someone who employs 100,000 people doesn’t deserve ˝ that” Assuming you mean $10 mil, why not? That works out to $100 per person they are responsible for. I make a lot more than $100 per person that I manage. I’m willing to bet the manager of a McDonalds makes more than that. The CEO of Coke is paid $1,350,000 to manage about 100K employees. That’s $135 per year per employee. A shift manager at Starbucks has about 5 people they manage. So you feel they would be overpaid at $675 per year? Or is it that since they make about $20K or $4,000 per employee the CEO should be paid $400,000,000? Or is it just the childish jealousy of “that’s not fair” rant that many of us grew out of a long time ago?
This whole idea of who “deserves” what is silly. No one “deserves” anything. Kid’s don’t deserve cancer, the Kardashians don’t “deserve” to make a lot of money. But kids do get cancer and lots of people pay the Kardashians. Even more importantly, no one deserves to say how much someone else should make. Neither you nor the government should be able to say how much Donald Trump or Donald Duck earns.
So no, the rich don’t deserve to be rich. The rich are rich because they made a lot more right decisions than wrong decisions. If we took all the money in the country and evenly distributed it to every person so that everyone had the exact same amount, within five years the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor again. As I said, nothing stopped you from creating Facebook a year before and being a multi-millionaire. But you didn’t. What stopped you is inside of you, and so yes, you have gotten what you deserve based on your decisions, your personality, your choices, and the path you have walked.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#159 Dec 26, 2012
FLBeaver;

It's apparent you have no idea of what you say;
"There is nothing that is stopping you from becoming part of the .1%, except that empty space between your ears. Anyone could have done what Gates, Jobs, or Buffett did. Anyone could have done what Zuckerberg did. Ok, almost anyone. Definitely not you."
Yet you say, "I don't know how much you make nor do I care. I never mentioned your income...." That's not a inference to my income? Again you have no idea of what that "empty space" between my ears and my incapability has accomplished.

Plus you state I said "You said that “someone who employs 100,000 people doesn’t deserve ˝ that”. You said it; "Explain how someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ˝ that?" and I was simply referring back to what you said you wanted explained.

That said I will not engage in this back and forth that you don't seem to be able to follow without inserting your own prejudices and accusing me of them.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#160 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
FLBeaver;

It's apparent you have no idea of what you say;
"There is nothing that is stopping you from becoming part of the .1%, except that empty space between your ears. Anyone could have done what Gates, Jobs, or Buffett did. Anyone could have done what Zuckerberg did. Ok, almost anyone. Definitely not you."
Yet you say, "I don't know how much you make nor do I care. I never mentioned your income...." That's not a inference to my income? Again you have no idea of what that "empty space" between my ears and my incapability has accomplished.

Plus you state I said "You said that “someone who employs 100,000 people doesn’t deserve ½ that”. You said it; "Explain how someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ½ that?" and I was simply referring back to what you said you wanted explained.

That said I will not engage in this back and forth that you don't seem to be able to follow without inserting your own prejudices and accusing me of them.
The issue of you not being able to do what Gates or others have done is because of what is inside you. There is nothing in this country that determines at birth the winners and losers. We, you and I determine that by our choices and actions. Think of Stephen Hawking and what he overcame. Sam Walton, Meijer, Sanders, Sears, etc. People who came from poverty and created companies, jobs and opportunity.

The reason you can't go on is the same with every progressive - you argue emotions not logic. The emotional argument works with children, but until you can present a logical case, you should admit defeat and leave.
Ronald

United States

#161 Dec 26, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
FLBeaver;

It's apparent you have no idea of what you say;
"There is nothing that is stopping you from becoming part of the .1%, except that empty space between your ears. Anyone could have done what Gates, Jobs, or Buffett did. Anyone could have done what Zuckerberg did. Ok, almost anyone. Definitely not you."
Yet you say, "I don't know how much you make nor do I care. I never mentioned your income...." That's not a inference to my income? Again you have no idea of what that "empty space" between my ears and my incapability has accomplished.

Plus you state I said "You said that “someone who employs 100,000 people doesn’t deserve ½ that”. You said it; "Explain how someone “deserves” to make $20,000,000 year playing football and employs no one, but it’s wrong for someone who is responsible for 100,000 employees doesn’t deserve to make ½ that?" and I was simply referring back to what you said you wanted explained.

That said I will not engage in this back and forth that you don't seem to be able to follow without inserting your own prejudices and accusing me of them.
Poor bastard! Once again running away!! "That said I will not engage in this back and forth that you don't seem to be able to follow without inserting your own prejudices and accusing me of them."
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#162 Dec 26, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue of you not being able to do what Gates or others have done is because of what is inside you. There is nothing in this country that determines at birth the winners and losers. We, you and I determine that by our choices and actions. Think of Stephen Hawking and what he overcame. Sam Walton, Meijer, Sanders, Sears, etc. People who came from poverty and created companies, jobs and opportunity.
The reason you can't go on is the same with every progressive - you argue emotions not logic. The emotional argument works with children, but until you can present a logical case, you should admit defeat and leave.
Emotion over logic? So you are being logical making assertions about an income level you know nothing about. That's not emotion to you? Just where does logic enter into that for you?

Again you assert what you evidently know nothing about. Fred Meijer did not come up from poverty. He took over his father's grocery store founded in Greenville (MI) and built it up from then on. Not a large corporation like it is now but certainly not from poverty.

Again, you have zero knowledge from where I came and where I have gone from there. There are many many who recognize the absolute danger wannabe richies are doing to this economy by spreading trash talk gleaned from the entertainers that make it all sound so good while they are making the millions off lemmings.

If it makes your ego swell then you can make up any reason you wish for my not continuing with those who have no clue to the realities. I've spent my time in the past posting dissertations based in logic and rational thinking to no avail shown by the wannbe richies that will swallow hook-line-and-sinker what only serves to make them comfortable in their ignorance.

Go for it dude because I know first hand how far out in the willy weeds you are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 2014 Mini Cooper - Small Wheelbase, Long Legs 3 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 5 hr stewart scott 2,058
News Black Bear Spotted In Hartford 7 hr Mason 1
News Want the city to pay for your pothole damage? (Mar '08) Mon Oneal 56
Meat Pies! Sun GoatMilkSaviour 1
Lets Chat (Mar '08) Sun Hudsonville Friend 40,203
Me . . . Morale Day May 24 bobolinq 1
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]