Home | Community | Message Board



Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Welfare to Workfare
    #2019826 - 10/18/03 04:59 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I've been thinking alot about the welfare situation after reaing other posts, and I think I"ve come up with a solution ;-) Tell me what yo uall think about this

I call it "workfare".

First, the premise. Currently every welfare recipient recieves a check, food stamps, and free or reduced charge medical coverage throuh the state. They are being paid and given benefits not to work.

Now, my plan is to have people on welfare do some work for their keep. The able-bodied men can be out picking up trash along the side of highways, shoveling the snow at municipal buildings. Women can watch children for other welfare recipients so that they may go out and find jobs, and not need to be on welfare anymore. People with skills could educated other people in a trade, so that they can go be a member of the workforce. Bottom line, every person on welfare would be given specific things they are required to do in order to recieve their checks. These wouldn't be sweatshop conditions, or grueling backbreacking inhumane tasks, they would just be the welfare recipients way of giving back to the society they were 'taking" something from

I feel that this would encourage people on welfare to get off of welfare and back to a 'real' job, and it would also provide them the childcare and the education / skills / job training that they need to do so

A major part of this belief system is that the GOAL of welfare is to help people when they need the help rather than creating a systematic dependance on "the government"
If you don't think that this system is a good idea, do you think it's because of parts of it, or my main statement?



--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2019842 - 10/18/03 05:12 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Addendum: Obviously people that are disabled and unable to work will be excluded.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStarter
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2019869 - 10/18/03 05:46 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

It already exists (at least as a proposal and semi-similar), in Australia, it's been coined "working for the dole".

The parasitic days, up until the late 1980's, are over. The days where people could pick up a dozen welfare cheques from a dozen offices in a dozen towns in a dozen names as nothing was computerised, as they travelled about like a rolling stone enjoying the life style of the coastal towns they targetted. Welfare cheats are now cracked down on. Thus, the welfare system has gotten tougher. In that, the 'work for the dole' concept is ready to make sweeping changes.

It will have to happen as the population ages. It will not be able to throw out the welfare as it does now. Even the old age pension will be dead in the water. It is now the responsibility of all to seek self funded retirement. This is why both Labour (the left) and *Liberal (the right) in Australia, have both pushed super-annuation as govt policy.

The writing is on the wall. The pot is near empty. There just isn't the birth rate to carry tomorrow and sure as shit, immigrants of today & tomorrow, coming to Australia, do not want to carry old people of tomorrow.

* For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.


--------------------
Convert Metric and Imperial.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2019899 - 10/18/03 06:09 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

So you put thousands of people out of work and replace them with people on the dole.

Yeah, that makes sense  :rolleyes: 

HOW WELFARE HELPS "THE REST OF US"
-- Nathan Newman, newman@socrates.berkeley.edu

The current debate on welfare is stale, tired and, ultimately,
missing the economic point.

Let's be clear what welfare is and is not. Welfare is not charity.
Welfare is a system of payments made to the poor not to take any job if
its pay is so low that it underbids wages for those who have jobs. When
linked to other policies like the minimum wage, welfare is (and should be
seen as) an economic tool by society to keep wages high.

Progressives need to stop appealing just to the compassion of the
public in defending welfare and start playing on their self-interest. The
economic reality is that decent wages for "the rest of us" depend on
having a decent welfare system. Without that welfare system, all wages go
down under a flood of workers desperate to take jobs at any wage in order
to keep their families from starving.

Conservatives try to argue that even if kicking people off welfare
causes some erosion in wages, it's cheaper than increasing the taxes
needed to pay people on welfare. The obvious response is to point out how
small a portion of the federal budget is taken up by programs like AFDC
and other payments to the non-working poor. Out of a $1.6 trillion
federal budget, only $19 billion goes to AFDC, just over 1% of every
federal dollar spent.

But that's a defensive argument and progressives have to get off the
defense and on the offense. We have to sketch exactly how supporting the
welfare system, even expanding it, can be used to reverse the wage erosion
workers have faced in the last two decades.

Let's start with the minimum wage. Conservatives use the fear of
unemployment to oppose it. In the recent debate on the minimum wage,
opponents of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour have
argued that employers would lay off hundreds of thousands of workers
(roughly 1-2% of minimum wage workers in their estimates) if forced to
raise wages for the rest. Now, a number of solid economic studies, most
recently by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, have shown that modest
raises in the minimum wage actually have no effect on employment.

But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore those economic studies
and target our economic program at those who might buy conservative
arguments that 1-2% of minimum wage jobs will be lost if the minimum wage
is raised. Even with that assumption, if we create a strong welfare
system, everyone, including the taxpayer, gains from the increase in the
minimum wage. Follow the math on this and you'll have the strongest
argument in countering conservatives attacks on both welfare and the
minimum wage.

Buying the conservatives' assumptions of 2% unemployment, it means
that for every 100 minimum wage workers initially making $4.25 per hour,
we will end up with 98 workers making the new minimum wage of $5.15 per
hour and 2 workers unemployed.

Breaking that down by hour, week and year, for every 100 workers
who initially make $4.25 per hour ($170 per 40-hr week, $8840 per year),
the total combined wages of all 98 workers who stay employed initially
equals: $866,320 per year ($8840 per year x 98 workers).

After the raise in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour ($206 per
week, $10,712 per year), total wages will increase to $1,049,776 per year
($10,712 per year x 98 workers). Those 98 workers will see an individual
gain of $1872 per year in wages and an com bined gain of $165,776 in
wages.

If the two newly unemployed people are supported with welfare
payments equal to their previous yearly wage of $8840 (much more generous
than present welfare systems), the total cost will be $17,680--far less
than the $165,776 net gain in wages for the other 98 workers. In fact,
that $17,680 is far less than what the federal government would receive in
increased income and payroll taxes on those increased wages.

So even using the conservatives' own estimates of job loss, the
minimum wage with a strong welfare system can be used to increase wages
while protecting the incomes of those left unemployed.

To translate this into the slightly messier real numbers of the
overall US economy, there are 12.3 million workers who make less than the
proposed new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. They make an average of
$4.67 per hour, so if 98% of those workers have their wages increased to
the new minimum wage, the aggregate increase in wages will be $12 billion
yearly. This is far more than any welfare costs that might be needed for
income and training funds if any workers are left unemployed.

These numbers have all assumed the rather miserly increase in the
minimum wage proposed by Clinton. If instead of $5.15 per hour, we
increased the minimum wage another dollar to $6.15 per hour (about the
inflation-adjusted level back in 1969), we can see even more dramatic
effects.

There are 20.8 million Americans making less than $6.15 per hour. If
all of these workers (with an average wage of $5.10 per hour) had their
wages increased to a $6.15 per hour minimum wage, the net increase in
wages would be $45.6 billion annually. Even if we assumed a worst-case
assumption of 10% of those workers were left unemployed, this would still
leave a potential $40 billion for welfare and retraining funds--an amount
DOUBLE the entire present AFDC budget.

In fact, all these numbers understate the overall gains in wages,
since it ignores the effect of the minimum wage on higher wage workers.
But the reality is that the mass of workers making a bit more than any new
minimum wage are able to demand a wage increase to maintain a "spread"
between them and less skilled workers now making what they used to make.

So where are these increased wages coming from? Some of it comes
from increased growth due to higher consumer demand, some from increased
costs passed onto consumers, but in the end, in highly competitive markets
employing minimum wage workers, the largest chunk come out of the profits
and executive compensation of corporate stockholders. And there's the
reason why both welfare payments and the minimum wage are opposed so
vociferously by corporations and their legislative allies.

It's no coincidence that conservatives support both eliminating
welfare payments and lowering the minimum wage. Moving people from
welfare into the workplace drives down wages, and the last thing
conservatives (supported massively by low-wage employers) want is to have
the government prevent wages from falling. And by keeping welfare payments
low or non-existent, they can create fear of unemployment from raising the
minimum wage or supporting other policies to raise wages.

Of course, there are ways to improve welfare, including providing
work instead of income payments, but that work has to be at a living wage
that, instead of driving down wages, helps to bolster wages in society
while delivering services that the market fails to provide.

Look at the debate over Wisconsin's proposed welfare plan, a plan to
end welfare for everyone in the state and replace it with work
requirements. Where is the headline-grabbing debate over the fact that
this flood of new additions to the workforce will be making less than
minimum wage and even replacing workers who previously made much higher
wages?

The enthusiasm for welfare "reform" would chill significantly if
people recognized that shredding the safety net also meant shredding their
own wages. If the Wisconsin-style plan was extended nationally, the
effects would trash wages across the coun try. Even as welfare payments
have declined in the last two decades, average hourly wages have dropped
by over 10% and wages for less-skilled job have fallen even more. Imagine
all four million plus adult recipients of AFDC being dumped in the labor
market tomorrow on top of present unemployment, or even gradually over a
year or two.

The key thing for progressives to argue is that unless the policy
is to spend MORE to provide real jobs for all, it's cheaper for working
families to pay people not to work than to force them to work at wages
that drive down pay for all of us.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 months, 22 days
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
    #2019905 - 10/18/03 06:12 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.





Those crazy upside-down Aussies. :rolleyes:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStarter
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2019970 - 10/18/03 06:34 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
Quote:

For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.





Those crazy upside-down Aussies. :rolleyes: 




Well Bush better get the Liberal thing right, as in how the capital "L" changes the meaning to what he knows it as. He'll be here this week!!

He's already been told some whack, i.e. that "Australia is a little like Texas" and the American journalists have called PM John Howard "PM John Major". He'll look a goon if he says "PM Major", and there's more too. It's been circulated that there's souvenirs of boomerangs and koala skin toys. Despite koala skin and any product from them being illegal.

Knowing the total goof that Bush is and the ignorance he's fed, he'll screw up something. I'll get a chuckle, that's a sure bet. :smirk: 


--------------------
Convert Metric and Imperial.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2019981 - 10/18/03 06:39 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
So you put thousands of people out of work and replace them with people on the dole.

Yeah, that makes sense  :rolleyes: 





How would the program that I described put people out of work ?Also, if you disagree with people on the dole having more job opportunities than us working folk, what do you think about Americas "Welfare to Work" programs, where companies that hire people who were recieving any form of government support are given tax credits for their actions? Wouldn't this be hurting the chance of those people at work you mentioned?

Also, please describe your thoughts on the system that I mentioned, I'd like to hear what you have to say. 


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStarter
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2020020 - 10/18/03 07:05 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I would like to see work for the dole programs on green belt tree planting. This will serve to reduce salination of soils, which not only destroys habitat and kills biodiversity, it destroys asphalt and concrete paving which means greater costs on taxes to fix vehicle/pedestrian roads. It would also reduce soil erosion. This is a real environmental problem in Australia and it's costing millions in construction and agriculture, not to mention the impact on eco-tourism as sediments fill rivers and wash out over coral reefs.

In other words, I would like to see welfare go to environment. Nothing like getting people into hard yakka, they'll be looking harder to get out of it.

I don't see this project step on the toes of the private sector, as the private sector won't go near any program that's unprofitable in the short term.

Say 2 days out of their 5 days of the working week so they have 3 days to search for work. That's more than fair. 3 days is 24 hours of actual working week to search for work in a 9am to 5pm regime.

This would instill a work ethos, an appreciation of doing a day at the grind and the feeling that they're part of something important. The left & the greens would have to agree to this as it meets the environmental agenda and I'm sure the conservatives would be happy as it won't cost them anymore than the welfare already does. What's more, all sides would at least recognize that there will be an appreciable long term economy return with salination and erosion beat. The only ones who wouldn't like this are the people who don't want to actually work. It's a win-win. :smile:


--------------------
Convert Metric and Imperial.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
    #2020030 - 10/18/03 07:19 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

*claps* Exactly! You grok it fully! This program is designed that peple that WANT to work, but can't, WILL BE. The only people that won't like this system are, as you say, peopel that don't want to work. The only way this could be justified is if the pro-welfare people in here think that it's GOOD that welfare recipients aren't working, and want to encourage laziness in them.

The workfare participants won't be given jobs that already exist and are filled by people, they will be given jobs that don't currently exist. Tree-planters, cleaning up parks, babysitting or daycare operations, staffing at centers that other workfare recipients are using (work-stations, day care, vocational training).

I think that if their is any psychological impact from this on the people, it will be positive. Alot of hardworking people that are 'down on their luck' don't want to ask the government for a handot, but they'd be happy to be out planting trees and doing an honest days work for pay while they got back on their feet.

In summary, welfare is designed as a way to assist people that are temporarily out of work due to unforseen circumstances, or have other ways fallen on hard times. It is the "net" that is designed to "catch" them, while they look for a way to resume or attain self-support. This system gives people a way to be in that "net", while at the same time give something back to the system that is helping them out. The people have hgher self-esteem, because they are working for a living, the other citizens aren't upset about paying into a program that pays people (and bestows upon them other benefits that would usually require a job) for doing nothing, society would reap benefits from having more trees planted, more senior citizens walkways shoveled, anything. The only group of people that wouldn't like this are, as stated, the peple that are making a career out of getting free money and enjoying not having to work for it.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 months, 22 days
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2020589 - 10/18/03 03:31 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

So how come prisoners picking up trash on the side of the road hasn't caused the economy to collapse yet?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2020711 - 10/18/03 04:20 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

wow, that actually sounds like a good idea!

I'm proud of you, lysergic.

Although i would point out that welfare recipients might not always be the best babysitters.


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2021039 - 10/18/03 07:19 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

*beams with pride* Thanks DoctorJ :smile:

I agree about that, actually. In my program, people with experience babysitting or running a daycare would run the facilities and train other women, as part of their "workfare" program.  The bottom line isthat we are paying these people to do nothing, so any labor or return we get from it is a beneficial thing to us, no matter, really, what is it.  If they rake old peoples lawns, we are getting SOMETHING.  I think thta using them for social projects is a very good idea, to keep the liberals happy at actually making somone work for their handouts.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
    #2022466 - 10/19/03 12:23 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

So what happens to experienced babycare people when thousands upon thousands of welfare recipients are dumped in the babycare labour market? Why would anyone pay someone the going rate for the job when you can get slave welfare labour?

End result - thousands more people on welfare.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2022470 - 10/19/03 12:29 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

He is merely giving examples of some of the work that could be allocated to people on welfare not actually outlining a policy.
We have a similar system overhere you can get an ?15 per week on your DHSS money if you do conservation work such as fencing planting trees..

The simple point of this is, people on benefit should be made to earn their handouts by engaing in activities or tasks that benefit others.

Benefit for a Benefit



--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2022475 - 10/19/03 12:31 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Why not simply employ someone to do the job and pay them a living wage if it needs doing?

Why put everyone already doing conservation work out of a job?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2022480 - 10/19/03 12:34 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Then they wouldn't be unemployed.... :rolleyes:


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2022484 - 10/19/03 12:35 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

No, you misunderstand. If someone is a babycare assistant earning ?7 an hour, what happens when the welfare babycare assistant comes along who you only have to pay 50 pence an hour to?

Get the idea yet?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2022490 - 10/19/03 12:40 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

The government would be paying the welfare assistant in the form of her benefits for looking after a previous benficiary's child.
It is only one of the possible ways benefit recipient's could be given work that benefits others. Your focusing too much on the hypothetical aspect of one point rather than the actual topic of this thread.


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2022492 - 10/19/03 12:45 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

No, I'm focusing on how you introduce thousands upon thousands of people into the job market without affecting people already doing those jobs.

Babycare assistants is a simple example. Introduce thousands of babycare welfare recipients and you put thousands of employed babycare assistants out of work. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
    #2022499 - 10/19/03 12:50 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

It is only one of the possible ways benefit recipient's could be given work that benefits others. Your focusing too much on the hypothetical aspect of one point rather than the actual topic of this thread.


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush: More Work for Welfare starptv23 458 1 05/20/05 05:24 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* A few "welfare" myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Xlea321 8,123 177 07/30/03 07:19 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Welfare in tribal societies
( 1 2 all )
somebodyelse 2,921 36 06/27/03 04:35 PM
by Xlea321
* welfare/poverty
( 1 2 all )
JonnyOnTheSpot 1,984 21 06/13/03 04:21 AM
by Xlea321
* Fuck Welfare!
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 1,671 35 06/05/03 05:54 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* State-Run Welfare and Libertarianism retread 568 4 10/22/04 07:27 PM
by Ancalagon
* New Orleans And Welfare
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,340 55 09/04/05 07:41 PM
by Smallworlds
* An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State lonestar2004 668 8 09/02/05 04:41 PM
by Adden

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
2,407 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.065 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 20 queries.