Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
Posted By: of wealth....plain and simple....nm on 2008-09-12
In Reply to: scarey labeling -- overgeneralization - TTP
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.
too much generalization
Not every rapist is the child of a rapist nor does every child born of rape turn out to be a rapist. Yes, behaviors are passed from generation to generation but that is generally by example, not genetics. Alcoholism is not a fair comparison as alcoholism is a disease. Many children of alcoholics, though, are adamantly opposed to alcohol. violence, you other example, would more likely be passed on as the child witnesses or is subject to the violent behaviors in their formative years. So this might be true if the child lived with a father who was a rapist AND the child was exposed to the aggressive behaviors a rapist would demonstrate in his dealings with women. You state the possibility is there but the possibility is there for any child, not just a child or rape. The possibility is also there that the child would not be a rapist. Let's be fair and open-minded about it.
With your generalization of what
food stamp recipients do all day long, maybe you can feel the frustration of those of us who have paid our bills and mortgages on time, have lived within our means and don't want to bail out those who lived above their means, charging everything in site, thinking the free ride would last forever and now want those of us who are responsible to take care of them.
While I agree with your suggestion in therory, I certainly don't want the gov't telling me what I can or can't buy, where I can or can't live, or telling me how I should live in general.
sweeping generalization
dont fall on your broom like Albert DiSalvo.
Another broad sweeping generalization
Another broad sweeping generalization..I guess you know ALL liberals? Know our values, what we would do under socialism..yada..yada..yada?? Keep these crazy posts coming, Im having a ball reading them..rolling on the floor laughing....what is that..*BAAAAA..BAAAA*..Oh, darn, I think I hear the republican sheep herder calling you...
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.
Your comments cause as much harm to race/political relations as what Bennett said himself.
Again, awful generalization. Your animosity toward anyone
again goes against your other posts. Plus, you're basing some of your own opinions on hearsay from others? Lest you forget, it's the person, not the money. Look at Angelina Jolie, someone we all know has plenty of money. She might not have food sitting out by the mailbox on food drive day, but that might be because she's "walking the walk" in a poor third world country. You don't want to be judged, yet you are doing an awful lot of judging yourself.
Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
against wealth redistribution
I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for. My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes.
Second issue. It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon. The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so. Think about it. Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a mistake? Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected. The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected. This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.
I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government. Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama. He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the hom eless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
Redistribution of Wealth
Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer. Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.
Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?
The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct. I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.
Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.
I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.
You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.
One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...
those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.
I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
FY 2007
Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:
1. Individual income tax 45%.
Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35%
Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Individual's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15%
4. Excise Tax 3%.
Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.
If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
A couple of other points of interest:
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:
Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research. Then come back and talk about it. It's a matter of where the distribution is to go. Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics" and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well. Tell me, who has benefited? Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot." Ya thank????
"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Redistribution of wealth American style.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:
1. Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues. Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues. Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Employee's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues.
4. Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues. Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%. If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes. Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information: Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.
Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."
Socialism
AMEN!!!
The era of socialism
With the bailout by the US government, each and every one of us will be mortgage lenders to the tune of $7000 per taxpayer. We will officially be socialists, brought to you by your favorite political party the REPUBLICANS.
what's so bad about socialism?
bring it on!
You won't get socialism. That is #1....
and frankly my greatest concern with Obama.
McCain is the only one talking about reforming Washington, freezing spending except in crucial programs until we get out of this mess...he is talking about more affordable health care, not government controlled health care. Yes, Obama says you can keep your employer insurance and if you can't, the government will take care of you. HOw long do you think employers will be able to offer insurance under Obama's socialist agenda? Not long, because he is increasing taxes on them. And not accidentally either. One step further down the road to socialism.
And I am ready for naming names and showing some responsibility. Unless Obama is an id*ot, he knows that Dodd and Frank are up to their eyeballs in this mess. He should call for their resignations. THAT would show character, which seems to be important to you. The democratic leadership instead PRAISE them for their roles in engineering this bailout. That to me is a total LACK of character. McCain called for the resignation of the Republican involved...Chris Cox. THAT is character.
I see absolutely nothing but a downhill spiral in an Obama administration. The USSA. Venezuela north. NO thank you.
Not only socialism....
he is not even President yet and his campaign and followers are practicing big-time intimidation. That reporter in Florida had the guts to ask Biden a hard question, the campaign says no soup for you! Cancelled the rest of the scheduled interviews. Said they would not be given access in an Obama administration. A maxed-out contributor to Obama's campaign ordered a background check on Joe the Plumber...just an average American who asked Obama a hard question. People have been threatened when they say anything negative about him. What are these people going to do if they get REAL power? Food for thought.
socialism
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
So it's okay to consistently call Obama a socialist and not Palin? Do you even look this stuff up or is that just you being Mavericky?
socialism
An economics professor at Texas Tech University , Lubbock , TX said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The majority of that class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged, everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try or succeed.
When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure!
Viva socialism!!
if you're going to make a statement gt don't beat around the bush. Just come right out and say it.
I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.
socialism-capitalism
Libby, I have always believed in socialism..socialism and capitalism can work hand in hand. Socialism has nothing to do with communism or dictatorship..it has to do with providing the life essentials to ALL people, shelter, food, health care, a job for all..respect and not poverty for all, oil to heat our homes in the winter so we dont freeze to death! For pete sake..It blows my mind that the richest country in the world allows some to die in the streets, homeless. Families in the streets homeless..Those that want jobs cant find them or if they do, it is minimum wage..How the heck can ANYONE survive on minimum wage? There are just too many capitalists who are making money off of the middle class and working poor and they have strong lobbyists and politicians being paid off to pass bills to help them and companies who no longer care about the workers..
Enough of the socialism accusations
Here's you link expanded.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2. a: A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b: A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Notice that socialism is predicated on the concept of collective/governmental ownership of private property. Here are a couple of links for you. Looks like Obama is pretty much into private ownership. The list below is of title to various economic stimulus plans. They pretty much seem to be centered around free enterprise concepts. Now show me your links where Obama has indicated abolishing private ownership and replacing it with government collective ownership, if you don't mind.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery. We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#home-ownership
Plan to Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud.
Create a New FHA Housing Security Program
Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry
Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure
Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures
Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies
Establish a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund
Provide $10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis to Prevent Cuts in Vital Services
Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators
Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership/Job creation
Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies
Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs
Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies
Raise the Minimum Wage
Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
There are many more examples but I just got tired of cut and paste.
She's smart enough what socialism is all
xx
You got it, Sam.... and socialism will kill our
nm
Socialism IS an issue. nm
nm
No socialism, nobama, no way. nm
nm
Socialism vs dictatorship
Didn't Bush make the comment, "if this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so I'm the dictator." Well, he appointed himself the "decider" didn't he? We're closer to a dictatorship than we've ever been. I will not be totally surprised if we come under martial law before the election takes place. There are major issues at stake here people. Instead of arguing for or against McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden, we need to discussing what we can do to change the course of America and neither of these clowns are going to provide the change we need...that is going back to government of the people, for the people. So long as they can keep us fighting over Democrats/Republicans, we don't have time to address the REAL ISSUES. Our very freedom is at risk!!!!!
We all better study up on socialism..it's on its way
if people don't smarten up and look beyond the promises and pretty speeches.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
Sounds like socialism. nm
nm
"Hopeful" for what? socialism? No, they are
nm
Socialism Question
For those who are crying socialism; how come no one has said that about the credits people get for having children (for how long now)? Childless people are contributing money for that.
Isn't our government suppose to work for the good of all (to the best it can)? I think it's called team work not socialism.
It has to be examined and monitored carefully so there are no gross malfunctions. There have been. It's time to reorganize.
|
