Holly2003 07.09.2008 11:47 |
link I'd be interested to know how republican/conservatives view this. This is undoubtedly one of the biggest socialist measures since the TVA in the 1930s. It seems to me that conservatives are always outraged whenever the poor get anything from the fed. government but never complan when the government underpins or subsidises big business interests. Socialism for the rich? |
pittrek 07.09.2008 14:26 |
So what, socialism for the poor is better ? |
Music Man 07.09.2008 15:19 |
Holly2003 wrote: It seems to me that conservatives are always outraged whenever the poor get anything from the fed. government but never complan when the government underpins or subsidises big business interests.If anything, conservatives are against subsidizations and corporatism (note that this has nothing to do with the business entities which are known as corporations) far more than they are against welfare. Just note that *both* these things are bad for *both* the rich *and* the poor, and everything in between. |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 10:54 |
Well, being that I work in this industry, I have mixed feelings on the takeover. Primarily why I'm against it, is because the US Taxpayers are the ones who are footing the bill. If it works, great! If not, I don't need to pay more taxes in this crappy economy! What is nice, is that interest rates have gone down over a point in the last 2 days, so the phones are ringing again and the refinance boom is on like Donkey Kong. I don't see the "Socialism for the Rich" tie in, though. Mortgages are not just for rich people OR middle class. In fact, we tried to "lower the bar", if you will, to allow people who really had no business getting a loan... i.e. the poor and uncredit worthy. And it backfired. That's why we're in this mess in the first place. Can't blame "the rich" for this one. |
Music Man 09.09.2008 14:24 |
Microwave wrote: And it backfired.And Microwave wins the understatement of the year award... |
Haystacks Calhoun II 09.09.2008 14:42 |
The US debt just doubled overnight.... The days of if you had a pulse, you could get a home loan are thankfully over. I just think that it's a disaster to make hard working middle class folks like me, who pay their bills on time, who don't have credit card debt, who were smart and bought a home that we could afford, even if things went south in the economy for a while, and live within their means, pay for it. If you went out and did something incredibly stupid, both as a home buyer who did it stupid, and as the lender to made stupid loans, why should we have to pay for that? It's just silly. It is socialism. That said, it seems that is the way this country is moving. The mortagage system was broke, government steps in. The Health Care system is horribly broke, what will happen there? It's obvious that the free market system is pricing middle class folks like myself out of the picture. We'd like to have another child, but, between what I pay now for my family policy, plus the deductibles and co-pays, we cannot afford it. Yet, if LaQuanda gets knocked up with her 3rd or 4th kid, she gets a bigger check at the 1st of the month. Yet again, middle class America gets screwed by the big guy. Every time. |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 15:27 |
Yes, but Haystacks, the Healthcare System does not drive the economy... mortgage backed securities do. You're not being punished. On the contrary. You're being saved the expense that these homeowners are having to go through right now. 2-3 years ago, you could have gotten your mortgage loan. YOU made the choice not to do that. Not the government, the bank, or rich people. The Fed really had no choice but to step in, since Fannie & Freddie fund more than 1/3 of all mortgage loans in this country. And yes, you're going to have to pay for it, if you're a tax payer. Of course, a lot of the rate hikes will be in capital gains, P&L, and other forms that will probably not affect you too terribly much... unless you would have bought that house! Healthcare needs government intervention? I don't think so. I have medical insurance, dental, life and vision as well. All I had to do was work for 90 days and I've had it ever since. Yes, it's gotten more expensive because my insurance pays less, but the same goes with my car insurance!!! Do we need auto insurance reform as well? I've always made THE CHOICE to work somewhere that offers a comprehensive insurance plan. Why should everyone be "entitled" to that? Where's the incentive to find a good job/career and make a better life for oneself and his/her family? Plus, if you make every employer provide coverage, you're only decreasing the amount he'd be able to pay in wages. So punish the business owner by taking it out of his profit margin? That would be Communism. |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 15:36 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: We'd like to have another child, but, between what I pay now for my family policy, plus the deductibles and co-pays, we cannot afford it.You might want to talk to your insurance company. I pay no more if I have one child or six. My deductable is $250. My co-pay is $20 per visit. I'm not bragging, but that seems pretty affordable to me. If I didn't have any insurance, why yes, it's outrageous! Kind of like the "vet bill". Everyone wants a dog. Dog food is cheap. Let's get a dog. But if you can't afford to have your dog fixed, examined, groomed, and all the other little stuff like clipping his nails, wiping his drool, most poor people get the dog anyways and don't bother with anything but feeding it. I'm sure LaQuanda has a dog or two. Probably cable TV and internet as well. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 09.09.2008 16:10 |
I'm talking about the out of pocket cost of having another kid. What I pay for that coverage won't change. Just absurd. Our daughter born in 1999 cost me $110. Another today would cost me thousands upon thousands....and, you have to fight tooth and nail to get things covered that should rightly be without question. There is no one in their right mind that can argue that our health care system in the US is seriously flawed. It should fall solely on the lenders who made bad loans to begin with, and the failed policies that led to that happening, as well as the fools who took out loans that they know they couldn't afford when it came time for the rates to increase... The rate that I pay on my home is the same rate that I signed up for when we purchased it in 2002, which is still lower than rates are today. So, why should I have to pay for others stupidity? Furthermore, why is it that I have to choose NOT to have another child, knowing full well that anyone collecting government checks at the first of every month can pop them out like it's their job, and get a BIGGER check to do it. I'm tired of footing the bill for stupid people. |
Micrówave 09.09.2008 17:11 |
I hear ya, Stacks. And yes, it has gotten a lot more expensive. But the government stepping in like they did with Freddie & Fannie wouldn't ease that cost at all. In fact, with all the changes and policies they'd institute, one might find the costs even higher. And they have punished Lenders. Very harshly. Even the ones that didn't make the bad loans have had multiple programs stripped. We're using the same interest rate as everyone else, so we're paying. My company, the 6th largest bank in the country, currently has suspended all construction loans. That's a huge loss of business revenue. But if you keep punishing them, there won't be any loan programs left, so you can't do that. |
thomasquinn 32989 10.09.2008 16:48 |
Topic Starter: there's a very, very large gap between a mortgage bank being taken over by the government and socialism. Even though hard-line rightists will certainly call it red. |
Holly2003 10.09.2008 18:02 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Topic Starter: there's a very, very large gap between a mortgage bank being taken over by the government and socialism. Even though hard-line rightists will certainly call it red.Hey that's me! Woo who! Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of govt. intervention, but I'm not suggesting the US is a socialist country. Just that whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard. BTW, what do you call the government bails out a private business with taxpayer money? |
Music Man 10.09.2008 18:28 |
Only Holly is calling it socialism... |
Holly2003 10.09.2008 18:42 |
Music Man wrote: Only Holly is calling it socialism...Yes, that's correct. I don't come to Queenzone for political insight, but I stay for the hypocrisy. |
Music Man 10.09.2008 19:51 |
But where is the hypocrisy...? |
Holly2003 11.09.2008 08:23 |
Music Man wrote: But where is the hypocrisy...?"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard" |
Poo, again 11.09.2008 09:28 |
How typical of America to put the needs of the bourgeoisie before the needs of the people. |
thomasquinn 32989 11.09.2008 10:40 |
Holly2003 wrote:I agree. But the term 'socialism' itself implies financial equality. This is more reminiscent of mercantilism, to be quite honest.ThomasQuinn wrote: Topic Starter: there's a very, very large gap between a mortgage bank being taken over by the government and socialism. Even though hard-line rightists will certainly call it red.Hey that's me! Woo who! Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of govt. intervention, but I'm not suggesting the US is a socialist country. Just that whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard. BTW, what do you call the government bails out a private business with taxpayer money?I call that humoring speculators and lobbyists. |
Music Man 11.09.2008 14:16 |
Holly2003 wrote:When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?Music Man wrote: But where is the hypocrisy...?"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard" |
Holly2003 11.09.2008 14:55 |
Music Man wrote:Try this thread:Holly2003 wrote:When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?Music Man wrote: But where is the hypocrisy...?"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard" link |
Music Man 11.09.2008 16:58 |
Holly2003 wrote:Exactly where on that thread are people simultaneously decrying government handouts for the poor while espousing government bailouts for private companies? I must have missed it...Music Man wrote:Try this thread: linkHolly2003 wrote:When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?Music Man wrote: But where is the hypocrisy...?"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard" |
Holly2003 11.09.2008 17:23 |
Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy? |
Music Man 11.09.2008 18:20 |
Holly2003 wrote: Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy?I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae? Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here? I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions. |
Holly2003 12.09.2008 04:17 |
Music Man wrote:On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours.Holly2003 wrote: Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy?I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae? Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here? I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions. And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage? |
Music Man 12.09.2008 04:53 |
Holly2003 wrote: On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours. And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage?You've been on Queenzone a lot longer than me, huh? Even if by some sheer stroke of chance you *have* been on Queenzone longer than me, it's quite impossible for you to have been here *a lot* longer than me, unless you came across Queenzone before it even existed. It's quite cheap to try to justify your attacks by purporting some arcane experience over me. Maybe next time you could try it on a less experienced member, though. That said, if you wish to further stereotype, then it is entirely your concern. However, it should also be your concern how rapidly it depletes your credibility. But hey, it's no concern of mine. Anyway, what have I to address? You'd be very hard-pressed to find a Libertarian who would support such government intervention, myself included. I've never supported this decision, nor have I supported the welfare state...so what would you like me to address, exactly? As far as Republicans go, they are as varied as a box of crayons, and it would be ridiculous to assume they all believe in the same ideologies on every issue. Arranging people by Democrat/Republican is about as useful as arranging people by male/female when it comes to political positioning. Is religion a staple of conservatism? Well, depending on who you ask, so is atheism. |
Holly2003 12.09.2008 09:52 |
What a broad church the Republican party is. No doubt they like country AND western. Still, I must have missed their election manifesto pledge to fully nationalise Fannnie and Fred. |
Yara 12.09.2008 10:03 |
I'd like to have an idea of how all that works...why it generates such a crisis. I can't find an explanation of it in lay terms! Securities are like bonds? So the companies issue bonds based on the value of the real estate? How does it work in the real world...!??? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (Pulling my hair off) It's desperating, really, to read the newspaper and don't understand A THING. Really. I don't know whether the writers working in the newspapers don't grasp it either or they're only assuming that everybody knows what's about. Why don't they make a graphic? A diagram? Like: People X - takes loan from Company Y. And then it goes escalating to see the big picture. Hahaha. I mean, it'd be helpful, I don't know. On the weekend edition the guys could make a kind of special guide explaining the basic economics behind it all and how it works. With maps, graphics, diagrams to help, pictures, baloons, rainbows, I mean, just something that could help me understand the thing! Is it just me? I see these things and I don't know, really, what people are talking about. |
Lisser 12.09.2008 10:59 |
Holly, That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food. In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 12.09.2008 11:00 |
Well said, Lisser. The welfare system as we know it today is horribly broken. It should be a temporary system, not meant to milk for a lifetime. |
Holly2003 12.09.2008 11:12 |
Lisser wrote: Holly, That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food. In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field.This thread or my comment on the other thread was not meant as an attack on you. But your thread quickly became an attack on those on welfare, which I'm sure was not your intention. I see your point: we have the same problem here, and no doubt in other western countries. The line between helping people genuinely in need and the problem of those living off the backs of others is a fine one. All I'm trying to do here is point out that welfare for the rich gets little criticism whereas welfare for the poor gets a lot. I'm genuinely stunned at the lack of outrage by republicans at the actions of the Bush admin: when did 'privatise profit, nationalise debt' become an acceptable policy for republicans? Regards bri |
Lisser 12.09.2008 11:17 |
Holly2003 wrote:Ok, thank you for clarifying. It is very easy to pick on the poor and I think that is why you'll see it more often. The poor often have no voice, they often don't vote.Lisser wrote: Holly, That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food. In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field.This thread or my comment on the other thread was not meant as an attack on you. But your thread quickly became an attack on those on welfare, which I'm sure was not your intention. I see your point: we have the same problem here, and no doubt in other western countries. The line between helping people genuinely in need and the problem of those living off the backs of others is a fine one. All I'm trying to do here is point out that welfare for the rich gets little criticism whereas welfare for the poor gets a lot. I'm genuinely stunned at the lack of outrage by republicans at the actions of the Bush admin: when did 'privatise profit, nationalise debt' become an acceptable policy for republicans? Regards bri As far as the other issue, I am not surprised that there has been not more of an outrage. People are sick of Bush and are counting the days until he's gone and it is to be expected that in his last few months, he'll do a lot that people will not like. Expect more because it will happen. |
thomasquinn 32989 12.09.2008 13:12 |
Holly2003 wrote: -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end --You might not know it, but you just insulted the hell out of jazz alto-saxophone legend Lester Young...who is the one and only person who may use the name "Prez" :P |
Music Man 12.09.2008 14:17 |
Not even Republicans support President Bush, so I don't really understand the point Holly is trying to make. The only Republicans that support him are neo-conservatives, and they are hardly representative of those who support classically liberal tenets on the economy - if they even know what the economy is. Hence my point, that you seem to take lightly - a lot of Republicans (i.e. neo-cons, who represent a vast majority of the party at the moment) couldn't care (or know) less about the economy to even provide an opinion on it, especially on something as profound as market intervention. Additionally, I am willing to privately share and discuss any information I may (or may not) have concerning finance and economics, to Yara or anyone else who is interested. My MSN is sheerheartattack88@yahoo.com, and I'm open to just about anything and anyone. |
Yara 12.09.2008 16:56 |
Music Man wrote: Not even Republicans support President Bush, so I don't really understand the point Holly is trying to make. The only Republicans that support him are neo-conservatives, and they are hardly representative of those who support classically liberal tenets on the economy - if they even know what the economy is. Hence my point, that you seem to take lightly - a lot of Republicans (i.e. neo-cons, who represent a vast majority of the party at the moment) couldn't care (or know) less about the economy to even provide an opinion on it, especially on something as profound as market intervention. Additionally, I am willing to privately share and discuss any information I may (or may not) have concerning finance and economics, to Yara or anyone else who is interested. My MSN is sheerheartattack88@yahoo.com, and I'm open to just about anything and anyone.Thanks a million! That's really kind! Oh...lovely. :op *hug* Take care. |