|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 0:49:07 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, I believe you share my lack of confidence in a U.S. tariff policy that would be dependent upon mutual international agreements for its enactment and/or its operation.
Any USA policy of general tariffs should be, and IC’s must be a unilateral trade policy with no regard for international opinions. We must expect and accept the world’s general opposition. We enforce all federal regulations prohibiting global trade “dumping” of imports into our nation and further legislate and enact any additional regulations necessary to firm up our regulations.
We can and should retaliate against nations that put USA products at disadvantage to their nation’s imports from other nations’. Although in these cases mutual “most favored nation” agreements may be preferable, we can accomplish this by unilateral policy.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 1:18:28 GMT -6
Tariffs can only assure elimination of such trade deficits if they are drastically high. Tariffs can be expected to reduce exports more than otherwise and drastically high tariffs would significantly reduce our volumes of exports. Why do you say that? Why would Tariffs reduce exports? Unlawflcombatnt, nations will be strongly opposed to anything meant for the reduction of USA’s trade deficit. We may be able to defend our exports products from being at a foreign government’s sanctioned disadvantage to their imports from other nations but we cannot stop their refraining to purchase USA products. Their reluctance to purchase USA products will be directly related to what they perceive as their losses of revenues due to any additional cost attached to their products entering the USA. You contend tariffs rather than ICs would greater increase prices of USA's imports. I suspect that you’re correct. We both agree that tariffs sufficient to entirely eliminate USA’s trade deficit of products subject to the tariffs would be extremely greater than the open market prices of ICs. Such extremely high tariffs would certainly and significantly reduce USA’s volumes of exports. [ICs would certainly eliminate the trade deficits of affected imports, the additional costs to USA purchasers of those imports would be extremely less (than if they were subject to tariffs) and the imports’ purchasers additional costs would effectively leverage additional USA exports]. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 10, 2011 2:51:13 GMT -6
"extremely high Tariffs" would not be necessary to eliminate trade deficit.
Moderate to high tariffs on slave-wage countries would be sufficient.
And the last thing the US wants is a trade surplus, not with 7+ trillion dollars in CASH floating around outside US borders. Can you say "direct inflation"?
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 4:28:57 GMT -6
I think 2 big advantages of Tariffs over ICs is that imported goods would still be available at a higher price, there would be no "real" shortages while domestic production ramped up and the US wouldn't be held hostage by the Big Exporters, they would be able to determine what goods were imported. They would basically be in complete control of Imports and if they didn't want to "sell" their IC' (hoarding don't ya know), they could create shortages and do all sorts of manipulative shenanagins. IC's are a scheme and should not even be considered. Nail bender, the beginning of your first sentence, “I think 2 big advantages of Tariffs over ICs is that imported goods would still be available at a higher price, there would be no "real" shortages while domestic production ramped up” is correct. After that I believe you’re contending that an individual or a group can manage to control what products are imported into the USA. If you believe that I suppose you also believe that those exporters could similarly determine from which nations the selected products would be imported from? All of that is entirely incorrect. In order for that to be done, an enterprising entity must be able to corner the IC market. Individuals and other entities have on occasions taken advantage of special circumstances and/or induced or exacerbated such circumstances so as to temporarily “corner the market” of particular commodities. By doing so they were able to gain unjustifiably great profits. The mechanics of cornering the market for a specific corporation’s common stock differs from that of a commodity but the concept’s similar and the principles that those concepts are based upon are exactly the same. Import Certificates are issued to exporters of USA goods that agree to pay the federal fees (that fund all federal expenses due to the IC policy) and their face value is equal to the assessed value of the exporters’ goods. The face value of an IC is the value of goods that will be permitted to enter the USA if the importer surrenders the IFC, (which is then cancelled). There are innumerable different USA products that could be exported from the USA. A half million dollars of U.S. produced Pyrex dishes or corn or beef or Caterpillar tractors or aircrafts all enable their exporters to acquire a half million dollars face value ICs. Refer to reply #85 for further discussion of attempting to corner the IC market. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 5:17:52 GMT -6
Nail bender, if some clowns hoarded ICs and somehow could significantly increase the open market prices of ICs in order to make a “huge” profit, Corning glass would immediately ship to Canada every Pyrex dish they had or could produce.
All wholesalers and retailers would Also try to ship there’s. They’d continue shipping their goods out of the USA and reselling their ICs over the internet as fast as they could until they couldn’t obtain any more products to ship out of the USA or the market prices of ICs plunged down to normal.
They’d try to sell the goods they were shipping out of the USA to foreigners and greatly reduced prices (because they had profited so much from the high priced ICs).
After the prices of ICs plunged down and if they needed the inventory of goods they shipped out of the USA, they’d have the option, (depending upon the prices of Pyrex dishes in the USA), of purchasing ICs at the now lower market prices and restocking their USA inventory or leaving their stock in Canada for their export market and restocking from additional USA production.
While all of this is occurring with Pyrex dishes, it would similarly be occurring with drug products or home shampoo kits.
I doubt if any of this would ever occur because it makes no sense to hoard ICs or to stuff U.S. currency under the mattress.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 10, 2011 12:38:19 GMT -6
Nail bender, if some clowns hoarded ICs and somehow could significantly increase the open market prices of ICs in order to make a “huge” profit, Corning glass would immediately ship to Canada every Pyrex dish they had or could produce. All wholesalers and retailers would Also try to ship there’s. They’d continue shipping their goods out of the USA and reselling their ICs over the internet as fast as they could until they couldn’t obtain any more products to ship out of the USA or the market prices of ICs plunged down to normal. They’d try to sell the goods they were shipping out of the USA to foreigners and greatly reduced prices (because they had profited so much from the high priced ICs). After the prices of ICs plunged down and if they needed the inventory of goods they shipped out of the USA, they’d have the option, (depending upon the prices of Pyrex dishes in the USA), of purchasing ICs at the now lower market prices and restocking their USA inventory or leaving their stock in Canada for their export market and restocking from additional USA production. While all of this is occurring with Pyrex dishes, it would similarly be occurring with drug products or home shampoo kits. I doubt if any of this would ever occur because it makes no sense to hoard ICs or to stuff U.S. currency under the mattress. Respectfully, Supposn So the Government would just print more IC's to hand out to the exporter. What's so Free Market about that. The definition of "Free Market" in some anarcho elements in most anarcho-capitalist circles is to allow a monopoly to corner a market and squeeze customers. Only a fixed number of IC's, similar to some who want a fixed number of dollars, would truly only be "Free Market". If you're going to use political cliches you have to understand what a political cliche means to certain groups.
|
|
|
Post by nailbender on Mar 10, 2011 17:48:46 GMT -6
supposn wrote: Post #85 The point of cornering a market is to be able to obtain high prices for what you’re selling thsat’s in short supply. If there’s no immediate need for ICs, buyers .aren’t sufficiently desperate and they won’t pay extraordinary prices for what your selling. Some people can become paranoid about anything but judes, you needn’t concern yourself about some extraordinary scheme to corner an IC market and destroy our economy.
Entraprenuers are likely to act as brokers and sell ICs over the internet. I suppose almost anything can be sold over the internet. Importers whon need ICs will find a way to get them.
Read more: unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=display&thread=8551&page=3#ixzz1GF5b6Ztt
Schemes and scams with the IC's are only limited by the imagination. US exporters will determine who and what get to import goods to the USA. Exporters that hold IC's will be in complete control of what gets imported, can't you see this? The holders of IC's will basically control import policy. Your claim that importers will "find a way" to get IC's is a MYTH based on wishful thinking. There will be approximately $800 Billion dollars worth of imports that won't find IC's. This will lead to abrupt shortages of something. This IC scam will be gamed in many ways. Just look at the Pyrex scam you outlined above, only get more "creative". Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 10, 2011 23:14:32 GMT -6
Nail Bender, other than what Unlawflcombatnt wrote in his reply #96, I think that I understand the tariff policy he prefers.
He prefers a tariff upon all but food and raw materials goods with a tariff rate sufficient to eliminate USA’s trade deficit of the aggregate total of goods subject to the tariff. He will accept importers’ affidavits or copies of what they claim to be the actual purchase contracts in order to establish the values of each item within import shipments at USA’s port of entry. I don’t understand his reply #96 but to the extent that (I believe) he explicitly stated what policy he envisions, I try to respond.
Nail Bender, other than you are a proponent of tariffs, you have written nothing explicit regarding how you believe they should operate and/or to what extent you would accept (what’s in your opinion) a lesser policy. If I understood that I’d better try to respond to you.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 11, 2011 2:45:27 GMT -6
other than what Unlawflcombatnt wrote in his reply #96, I think that I understand the tariff policy he prefers. He prefers a tariff upon all but food and raw materials goods with a tariff rate sufficient to eliminate USA’s trade deficit of the aggregate total of goods subject to the tariff. He will accept importers’ affidavits or copies of what they claim to be the actual purchase contracts in order to establish the values of each item within import shipments at USA’s port of entry. I don’t understand his reply #96 Supposn, What part of #96 didn't you understand? I proposed that if we used ICs, we could set the value of imports they allow at less than the value of the exports. For example, $100 billion of exports might only allow for $70 billion of imports. Also, I suggested that there be NO free market price of ICs. If, as in the example above, the import value of $70 billion of imports costs $100 billion of exports, then the $70 billion import value of the IC could only be sold for $100 billion--no more, and no less. But just to prevent any misunderstanding about my own position, I'm still not advocating ICs over Tariffs. I still think Tariffs are a much better way to go. All I'm doing is suggesting a mechanism that would make ICs more helpful, should they ever be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 11, 2011 8:51:19 GMT -6
You all, if the U.S. Congress should pass a tariff or an IC trade policy that choice would require some method of determining the values of USA’s imported goods. An IC policy additionally requires a method for determining the values of exports and it would be undesirable to evaluate imports and exports differently.
The chosen method of determining the values of goods is not dependent upon the choice between a tariff or an IC trade policy. Whatever method’s satisfactory for one of policy is likely to be equally satisfactory for the other.
Thus the method chosen to evaluate goods' U.S. dollar values at U.S. ports is inconsequential to the choice between tariffs or an IC trade policy.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 11, 2011 15:21:36 GMT -6
You all, if the U.S. Congress should pass a tariff or an IC trade policy that choice would require some method of determining the values of USA’s imported goods. An IC policy additionally requires a method for determining the values of exports and it would be undesirable to evaluate imports and exports differently. The chosen method of determining the values of goods is not dependent upon the choice between a tariff or an IC trade policy. Whatever method’s satisfactory for one of policy is likely to be equally satisfactory for the other. Thus the method chosen to evaluate goods' U.S. dollar values at U.S. ports is inconsequential to the choice between tariffs or an IC trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn No, a Tariff wouldn't require anyone to evaluate or "assess" the value of products. A Tariff is a percentage of what the importer pays to import something regardless of what the government thinks the value of the import is. A Tariff is based on a true "open market" value of goods.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 11, 2011 15:24:45 GMT -6
Schemes and scams with the IC's are only limited by the imagination. US exporters will determine who and what get to import goods to the USA. Exporters that hold IC's will be in complete control of what gets imported, can't you see this? The holders of IC's will basically control import policy. Your claim that importers will "find a way" to get IC's is a MYTH based on wishful thinking. There will be approximately $800 Billion dollars worth of imports that won't find IC's. This will lead to abrupt shortages of something. This IC scam will be gamed in many ways. Just look at the Pyrex scam you outlined above, only get more "creative". Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Yup. I could imagine some export companies forming conglomerates with import companies to tyrannize IC's. Last thing we need is bigger international corporations monopolizing all forms of business.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 11, 2011 21:22:01 GMT -6
You all, many (if not most) governments that levy tariffs or sales taxes use some sales contracts, bills or invoices for determining values of their sales transactions or shipments.
There are problems inherent to this practice and I’m acquainted with the many instances of fraud when this practice is employed with regard to sales taxes levied within the USA. [Two paragraphs of reply #84, 7Mar11, 5:03PM, were devoted to a brief discussion of these problems and a third paragraph discussed a possible alternative concept for evaluating goods’ dollar values].
I believe that almost all, (if not all) governments that levy sales taxes or tariffs based upon such alleged "actual" information perform or have other agents perform oversight auditing of commercial entities for tax enforcement purposes.
I know that both NY and NJ will randomly audit the transactions and books of enterprises for the purpose of enforcing state sales tax laws. They actually attempt to “assess” the values of the goods and service products. They do not only depend upon the documentation and affidavits of transactions’ principle parties to confirm products values.
The chosen method of determining the values of goods is not dependent upon the choice between a tariff and an IC trade policy. Whatever method’s satisfactory for one of policy is likely to be equally satisfactory for the other.
The method chosen to evaluate goods' U.S. dollar values at U.S. ports is inconsequential to the choice between tariffs or an IC trade policy.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 12, 2011 1:32:47 GMT -6
You all, many (if not most) governments that levy tariffs or sales taxes use some sales contracts, bills or invoices for determining values of their sales transactions or shipments. There are problems inherent to this practice and I’m acquainted with the many instances of fraud when this practice is employed with regard to sales taxes levied within the USA. [Two paragraphs of reply #84, 7Mar11, 5:03PM, were devoted to a brief discussion of these problems and a third paragraph discussed a possible alternative concept for evaluating goods’ dollar values]. I believe that almost all, (if not all) governments that levy sales taxes or tariffs based upon such alleged "actual" information perform or have other agents perform oversight auditing of commercial entities for tax enforcement purposes. I know that both NY and NJ will randomly audit the transactions and books of enterprises for the purpose of enforcing state sales tax laws. They actually attempt to “assess” the values of the goods and service products. They do not only depend upon the documentation and affidavits of transactions’ principle parties to confirm products values. The chosen method of determining the values of goods is not dependent upon the choice between a tariff and an IC trade policy. Whatever method’s satisfactory for one of policy is likely to be equally satisfactory for the other. The method chosen to evaluate goods' U.S. dollar values at U.S. ports is inconsequential to the choice between tariffs or an IC trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn Fine, when they do an audit, they "Assess" the value to get a general idea if someone is cheating. But that "Assess"ed value does not determine what someone pays in taxes, and since that is so, the "Assess"ed value isn't politicized, manipulated by special interests, it's totally neutral.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 12, 2011 4:08:47 GMT -6
Schemes and scams with the IC's are only limited by the imagination. US exporters will determine who and what get to import goods to the USA. Exporters that hold IC's will be in complete control of what gets imported, can't you see this? The holders of IC's will basically control import policy. Your claim that importers will "find a way" to get IC's is a MYTH based on wishful thinking. There will be approximately $800 Billion dollars worth of imports that won't find IC's. This will lead to abrupt shortages of something. This IC scam will be gamed in many ways. Just look at the Pyrex scam you outlined above, only get more "creative". Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail Bender, USA is a technical rather than a policy determination. (Regardless of FredOrBob’s opinion) the IC proposal is market rather than government driven and grants government no discretion of policy. I’m a proponent of a proposal that requires federal issuing of transferable ICs to exporters with “face values” equal to the adjusted value of their US exported goods and if the they’re willing to pay the fees to fund federal expenses due to the IC trade policy. It also requires federally mandated surrender of ICs with sufficient “face value” to cover the value of goods being imported into the USA. The surrendered ICs are cancelled. You can create a shortage of ICs only to the extent that you’re able to stop all goods from being exported from the USA. During the periods when goods are unable to be exported from the USA, it’s likely that goods could not be imported into the USA. During such periods there’d be no use for ICs and they’d have less value. Anyone can directly or through an agent export goods from the USA. It can be within relatively fast. Thus additional ICs can be quickly created (at some cost). There are USA products that are marginally too expensive for the global market. If IC’’s market price sufficiently increases, it becomes financially feasible to export USA products that were marginally too expensive for the global markets. Exporters’ revenues due to the differences between the federal assessment fees and ICs’ market prices enable them to offer USA products to foreign purchasers at reduced prices with no loss of exporters’ profits. ICs are an indirect but effectively leveraged subsidy of USA’s exports. That subsidy and all other federal expenses due to this proposal are eventually paid for by the USA purchasers of foreign goods. When you wrote of IC shortages, you were writing of want rather than effective demand. Many people want Rolls Royces. Few people have the money and are willing to pay the market price for a Rolls Royce. I created the Pyrex scenario to demonstrate how futile it would be to attempt "cornering" the IC market. There will always be ICs available to satisfy USA purchasers willing to pay the USA domestic market prices for foreign goods. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 12, 2011 4:18:24 GMT -6
Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail Bender, counterfeited goods are prevalent with regard to high priced imports but USA products are also counterfeited. Tariffs or ICs offer no remedy for this problem. It would help if more goods were physically assessed with less dependence upon sales or shipping invoices. Such physical inspections would also be of assistance to the enforcement of our drug laws and our port security regulations. These problems will not be solved by adopting tariffs or an IC trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 12, 2011 11:18:38 GMT -6
..................... Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail BENDER, Unlawflcombatnt and you are proponents of tariffs. Tariff revenues would contribute to the federal budget but they also induce export reductions. Tariff rates are fixed rates. Unlawflcombatnt advocates rates sufficient to eliminate all USA trade deficits of all products subject to the U.S. tariff. Such severely high rates will greatly increase prices of imports to USA purchasers, induce great reduction of U.S. exports and additionally they will greatly reduce tariff revenues. I’m a proponent of an IC proposal. Regardless of IC market prices, under this IC policy USA would never experience a trade deficit of the aggregate products subject to ICs. The additional costs of imports sold to USA purchasers are directly related to the market prices of ICs. Those additions to U.S. purchasers of imported products are expected to be generally much less and will never exceed the prices under the tariff policy that Unlawflcombatnt advocates. USA production for our domestic market does not contribute more than similar volumes of U.S. production for export. Under an IC policy the additional price is primarily due to U.S. goods exporters’ additional IC revenues which serve as an indirect leveraged subsidy of U.S. exports. Under both ICs and tariffs, all of the trade policies’ expenses, (Including federal expenses and ICs’ subsidies of U.S. exports) are eventually and fully borne only by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods. In my opinion ICs rather than tariffs would certainly better contribute to USA’s GDP. Nail Bender, you never responded to my question as to the specific details of the tariff policy you prefer. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 12, 2011 13:17:55 GMT -6
..................... Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail BENDER, Unlawflcombatnt and you are proponents of tariffs. Tariff revenues would contribute to the federal budget but they also induce export reductions. Tariff rates are fixed rates. Export reductions (assuming a trading partner raises trade barriers, most likely not), are preferable to export subsidies. Are you aware we have a national debt problem in addition to the trade debt problem?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 12, 2011 13:19:26 GMT -6
Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail Bender, counterfeited goods are prevalent with regard to high priced imports but USA products are also counterfeited. Tariffs or ICs offer no remedy for this problem. It would help if more goods were physically assessed with less dependence upon sales or shipping invoices. Such physical inspections would also be of assistance to the enforcement of our drug laws and our port security regulations. These problems will not be solved by adopting tariffs or an IC trade policy. Respectfully, Supposn Yes Tariffs would help. When a trading partner violates Patent law, you raise tariffs on them as punishment. It's quite simple.
|
|
|
Post by supposn on Mar 12, 2011 13:26:28 GMT -6
"Transforming USA into a commercially isolationist nation would certainly not be to our political and technological advantage." That is a stupid statement. We are importing $6 of goods for every dollar we export. Isolation would make it one for one, and we are large enough with enough resources we need only a few items, like bananas, coffee, oil and rubber. The biggest consumer of oil in the world is the US military. We should cut that by 90%. GB Gray beard, you’re mistake about our goods ratio of imports/export. Depending upon the years we’re looking at it’s been I believe varies from 1.3/1 to 1.5/1 in recent years; but it keeps generally increasing. I’m opposed to an IC or a tariff policy that would be applicable to scarce or precious minerals or the values of such minerals integral to goods subject to ICs or tariffs. Their inclusion within the evaluation of goods’ worth in U.S. dollars would undermine the entire purpose of ICs. The restriction of scarce minerals required for production or the use of other goods may hinder the passage of such an IC or a tariff act. Restriction of trade involving any other materials should be separate issues dealt within separate congressional acts. I see no reason for tariffs or ICs to be waived for woods, furs or bananas. The inclusion or exclusion of rubber within an IC proposal’s list of scarce or precious materials rather than minerals would not be of significant economic consequences to our nation. Its exclusion within a tariff proposal could be of some significant detriment to our nation’s economy. The passage of an act enacting ICs or tariffs should not be hindered upon such materials or goods. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 12, 2011 13:27:14 GMT -6
Schemes and scams with the IC's are only limited by the imagination. US exporters will determine who and what get to import goods to the USA. Exporters that hold IC's will be in complete control of what gets imported, can't you see this? The holders of IC's will basically control import policy. Your claim that importers will "find a way" to get IC's is a MYTH based on wishful thinking. There will be approximately $800 Billion dollars worth of imports that won't find IC's. This will lead to abrupt shortages of something. This IC scam will be gamed in many ways. Just look at the Pyrex scam you outlined above, only get more "creative". Forget counterfeiting IC's, think counterfeiting high value goods that look good, but don't work or function. Just think of the fraud available in producing fraudulent medical related products. How will inspectors know the drugs are placebos or equipment faulty? Tariffs are the way to go, simple and effective with very little room for fraud and provides a great revenue stream for .gov. Nail Bender, USA is a technical rather than a policy determination. (Regardless of FredOrBob’s opinion) the IC proposal is market rather than government driven and grants government no discretion of policy. There's that buzz phrase again, "market driven". There's nothing "Market driven" in forcing companies to use company store notes to make a transaction. Indeed, it would be "adjusted value", it would be adjusted to the point where imports are under-assessed and exports are over-assessed, to the point where IC's are another useless bureaucracy that wastes taxpayer money. What's so "free Market" about that? I think you mean imported. imported I don't think you understand what you are selling. Completely out of thin air too. Yes, lets become like China and subsidize exports at the cost of the American standard of living so we can say, "Behold we have fixed the trade deficit, sorry though, you're standard of living still managed to drop like a rock."
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 12, 2011 13:30:57 GMT -6
Import Certificates is just propaganda to throw people off track and confuse. It was proposed by 2 Democrat Senators after all, you know how corrupt and devious the Democratic Party is.
|
|