The principal rationale for selecting Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate is that she would have united Democrats behind their nominee at a time when they have a substantial advantage in party identification. John Kerry received 89 percent of the Democratic vote in 2004; if Barack Obama can get within a couple of points of that, even to 86 or 87 percent, he will be very difficult to defeat.
However, Joe Biden might do nearly as good a job as Clinton of uniting the party, while perhaps paying less of a price among independents.
Rasmussen has fresh approval numbers out for Biden, as well as several other Democratic short-listers. Here, borrowed from Rasmussen's invaluable subscriber service, are their approval scores by party:DemocratsClinton has the highest favorables and highest net score among Democrats; Biden has the fewest unfavorables. Generally speaking, Clinton and Biden blow the other three candidates out of the water.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Clinton 77-22 (+55)
Biden 65-17 (+48)
Bayh 45-25 (+20)
Sebelius 35-19 (+16)
Kaine 35-29 (+6)RepublicansAmongst Republicans, the ratings are very nearly the reverse. Joe Biden will not have a terrific amount of crossover appeal. On the contrary, though the animus might not be as personal as in the case of Senator Clinton, Biden will be seen by many GOPers as a partisan blowhard. One can argue, however, about whether this really matters. The notion that Obama was going to win over some large number of "Obamacans" had not realistically been in play for a couple of months now, as the GOP base has begun to rally behind John McCain.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Kaine 29-30 (-1)
Bayh 23-43 (-20)
Sebelius 14-45 (-31)
Biden 22-63 (-39)
Clinton 21-75 (-54)IndepedentsWhere Biden might do some good is among independents, among whom he has the highest favorables and highest net rating, although a couple other candidates had lower unfavorables. But Biden certainly performs better amongst this critical group than Hillary Clinton. One can argue that Biden is very well positioned within the Democratic party, probably just slightly to the right of the average Democratic senator. Liberal Democrats certainly won't be pleased with his votes on the AUMF or the bankruptcy bill, but they still essentially trust him, which they wouldn't necessarily with a more identifiably centrist choice like Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine. But on the other hand, Biden cannot so easily be characterized as a liberal to turn off independent voters; in fact, independents and moderates like him pretty well.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Biden 42-29 (+13)
Bayh 31-21 (+10)
Kaine 24-23 (+1)
Sebelius 18-21 (-3)
Clinton 39-57 (-18)
Let's take one more, slightly different take on this. This time, we'll look at impressions of the candidates based not on party ID, but rather, based on who the voters had intended to vote for in November. Let's make the following assumptions:
- For each McCain voter that has a very favorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to Obama.
- For each McCain voter that has a somewhat favorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to Obama.
- For each Obama voter that has a somewhat unfavorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to McCain.
- For each Obama voter that has a very unfavorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to McCain.
Does that sound reasonable? It sounds reasonable to me, though I really have no idea. But let's run the numbers and see what we get:
VF = Very Favorable
SF = Somewhat Favorable
VU = Very Unfavorable
SU = Somewhat Unfavorable
... McCain Voters Obama Voters
Candidate VF SF VU SU Net Margin
Biden 4 20 5 10 +2.00
Bayh 4 19 4 16 +0.75
Kaine 8 21 8 20 +0.25
Clinton 11 14 13 14 -0.50
Sebelius 3 13 5 13 -0.50
8.23.2008
Can Biden Out-Hillary Hillary?
@ 1:45 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments
Stephen,
Please don't bring up Powell..he is a non-starter. Powell is pro choice, pro affirmative action, pro gun control, anti- torture, and public admits he tried to convince Bush not to invade Iraq, he calls the Neocons in the Bush admin a bunch of fucking crazies. There is zero chance Powell will be a VP. The Republicans that float his name on this site or in the media don't know his views that are unacceptale to the base of the party.
Sorry, no.
If I didn't like country music, that might be a cultural prejudice.
If I thought grits were gross, that might be a cultural prejudice.
Many people believe in both evolution and God (I am one of them).
But when you simply reject a proven scientific theory, feel free to be a preacher or talk show host. But that kind of closed mind should not have the second most important job in the country.
stevie314159 said:
"Mike Huckabee does not believe in evolution.
That disqualifies him from being a High School teacher, let alone VP."
Believing all matter in the universe emerged from a highly condenesed speck of dust only to generate an infinite amount of power and energy and for life to emerge out of non-living particles, and for it to evolve from very simple, single-celled organisms, into walking, talking self-aware organisms with imaginative and intelligent behavior disqualifies that person from being taken seriously in any real discussion.
Rob Portman--
Bush's Trade Representative and Budget Director.
2007 Trade Deficit = $711 Billion
2008 Budget Deficit= $400 Billion (est)
Good job, Portie.
stevie,
There are two uses of "evolution." The something from nothing kind and the generic theory that a species changes over time. I hope you are not suggesting the "something from nothing" kind as "proven" as that's patently false and impossible to "prove."
I would concur with the assertion that "species DO change over time." And I believe that Huckabee is in that camp. I think he acknowledges the generic "species change" evolution but does not hold to the "something from nothing" brand.
Let's get that straight before we talk turkey.
Pete, you say:
McCain should pick portman and let him distiguish himself as a thoughful man who is above attack poilitics and really show up the obama team.
McCain made that pledge in April...unfortunately, he teamed up with Rovian scholar Steve Schmidt, wrapped his lips around the asses of the swiftboaters and decided to take this campaign into the gutter. The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't have done this.
I believe you can reasonably discuss quite a few of Bush´s actions from 2 points of view (Iraq, tax breaks, conservative judges,...) but there is NO argument that makes Bush´s finance policy a success.
".... there is NO argument that makes Bush´s finance policy a success."
Sure there is: the Bush tax cuts allowed more capital to remain in the most productive place -- in the hands of taxpayers. Reductions in marginal rates spurred growth and income tax revenue was stimulated by that growth, being higher than before the cuts. Classic supply-side win-win.
Rudy,
I'm with you but good luck using the words "supply-side growth" and "win-win" in the same sentence in here and being believed.
Mule, science is troubling to you, isn't it? LOL. Keep the faith, brother!
VirCon, Granholm's approval is in the mid-30s. Boosh's is at about 22% in Michigan. But, please, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get on the phone to your rightwing buddies and start spreading the buzz that Romney must be chosen. Please?
Oh, and please let's stop with the Sarah Plain nonsense. The Alaska legislature voted to hire an independent investigator over the state trooper scandal. She's, uh, not going to be the choice.
I hear ya Mule, but just because some people want to remain in partisan denial of the growth effect of supply-side policies over the past 25 years, will have to find some data support.
Yes, I know they'll try changing the subject by pointing to the deficit, but that's a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Laffer Curve has been empirically proven correct.
Mule - Most of your explanations for the failures of Republican governance boil down to one word: "corruption".
The problem with your lofty conservative principles is that they fail to take into account that the tendency towards corruption is inherent in human nature, as history has repeatedly shown, and of which the results of the Reagan-Gingrich-Bush-DeLay-McCain governance is just the latest example.
2002-2006 gave you an historic opportunity to put all of your principles to the test. You yourself are displeased with the results. Imagine how the rest of us feel.
The fact that the people you voted for to enact those principles fell prey to corruption was not an unfortunate accident - it was the inevitable outcome of your flawed logic. Take the privatization of the Iraq effort for example - the rebuilding of that country as a beacon of democracy failed less due to governmental and military incompetence that it did due to extreme corporate competence. Halliburton & Co. did a fine job for their shareholders - brilliantly maximizing the bottom line - electrocuting soldiers without legal liability - getting paid for providing electricity to Iraqis while not providing it, etc. That's privatization in action. A corporation will always do what's best for its bottom line and when you give it the power of a government agency, it creates endless irresistible opportunities for windfall profits at the expense of the common good.
But let's cut to the chase. You've already said that you agree that the Bush Administration's application of conservative principles has been a disaster - why do you think a McCain Administration would be any different?
"science is troubling to you, isn't it? LOL"
Science is troubling to me? Because I don't believe all life originated from non-living matter? And because I don't believe all non-living matter originated from...well, no one really has a God-damn (note the irony) clue about that one either, do they?
Because none of the above has been proven to be remotely possible, much less probable. And even if elements of a non-matter to matter or non-living to living "creation" were recreated in a laboratory by some scientist, wouldn't that prove it took an intelligent life for (shall I say Intelligent Life Form?) it to happen and it didn't just happen randomly by chance with no outside guidance?
Keep the blinders on, my man. Looks like you are the who is troubled.
the Bush tax cuts allowed more capital to remain in the most productive place -- in the hands of taxpayers. Reductions in marginal rates spurred growth and income tax revenue was stimulated by that growth, being higher than before the cuts.
The problem is that there's no proof that that's really what happened. One could also argue that the Clinton tax hikes stimulated the economy because, well, the economy grew. Conservatives said the tax rates would kill the delicate economy that was just coming out of recession. That claim was clearly wrong; there was no drag on people trying to get into the top tax brackets.
One could also argue that the Bush tax cuts put revenue almost entirely in the hands of the wealthy while doing very little for anyone else. So now they're squeezed, and we've lost one of our major economic engines. Add to that the debt which has weakened the dollar and contributed to high gas prices, pus adding pressure on interest rates which curb growth.
I think the evidence shows that the economy just isn't very sensitive to a change of a couple of percents in marginal income tax rates. But those rates sure can blow a hole in the budget from which it can take years to recover (see, e.g., Reagan).
If Bush had come up with a way to pay for the tax cuts, we might be in a different situation. But apparently tax cuts are free, as are wars, as are prescription drug benefits.
If 80% of americans think that the country is on the wrong track, these 80% must be extremely self-loathing (obviously they criticize the way they spend their own money). The income tax revenue calculation would have been correct....if the stimulation effect had been about 400 Billion Dollars stronger.
"The fact that the people you voted for to enact those principles"
Uh, that's not a fact. I didn't vote for "these people." I never have. I've never voted for any national office, particularly the President, but I like how you just assume that. I voted in one election and one only, and it was a local something-or-other for county judge, tax assessor, etc., and I don't even remember the people involved.
Corruption may be inherent in human nature, but you're still moving the goal post of the discussion of laissez faire capitalism (free market) and privatization versus government control and (quasi-)socialism. You can have a free market without corruption. That's where there should be a strict rule of law. And you can have a strict rule of law that punishes corruption without having the (grossly inefficient and likewise corrupt) government run everything.
And lastly - "why do you think a McCain Administration would be any different"
I don't. I just believe an Obama administration would be much much worse.
Mule rider,
You obviously were sleeping in science class. Ofocurse then you fall back on the bull shit of intelligent design. I guess you missed the case where the best "believers" of intelligent design were ripped a new one as they basic principles of it were ripped to shreds by science.
Biden will do great. Obama is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as weak on foreign policy. Biden is probably the most compelling speaker on foreign policy in Congress. Obama is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as lacking experience (though there were plenty of experienced people in the Bush administration, so experience clearly is no substitute for judgment). Biden has tons of experience.
Yeah yeah, McCain is already running ads quoting Biden as saying Obama's not ready. Well, they could have done a lot more of that if Obama had picked Clinton. I was disappointed by Biden's vote on bankruptcy legislation several years ago; well, he has constituents to please in Delaware.
Everyone has drawbacks. Biden brings to the ticket far, far more than he detracts from it. Solid pick.
And I find the comments about a "thin" Democratic bench puzzling. There are many picks that would have been fine. Certainly the bench is no thinner than the Republican's, if one were to make a comparison.
"were ripped to shreds by science"
No. They were ripped to shreds by people with an agenda. I guess I should work on the assumption that you are one of the few atheists/agnostics in this society. Anyway, science can not be used to "disprove" intelligent design because it can not prove some of its own facets of existence without an outside force.
Saying science has disproven intelligent design (and hence a Deity) is false. Maybe intelligent design people haven't "scientifically proven" there's a God, but that does not make Him not real, nor does it mean science has proven Him non-existent either.
Dsimon, I agree that it's impossible to isolate the exact effect of tax cuts. Economics is complicated and there are always a lot of moving parts. But is is fair to say that tax increases have hurt the economy much more often than not and that tax cuts, in practice, have been invariably positive for the economy.
What would really be nice to know is at what point the laffer Curve turns down, such that tax cuts would produce lower revenue. It's probably a moving target, depending on other economic conditions. However, I think it's safe to say that we would rarely, if ever, reach that point because politicians won't allow it.
OTF,
There are oodles and oodles of scientists who believe in God. You can believe in science and God. Contrary to what some might think, it's not a mutually exclusive belief system.
I said I believed in the evolution of species, the changing of traits/characteristics over time. Science has "proven" that for the most part. The simple fact humans were an average of 5'2" tall 300 years ago and are now an average of 6 inches taller represents change.
But to say that all matter originated the way it did in the form it's in or to say that life originated from non-living substances that just happened to be favorably charged the right way at the right time and for those substances to slowly evolve into millions of different species with a variety to traits/characteristics and the ulitmate of which being a self-aware organism with the imagination and intelligence to do some of the things it has done, science has done ABSOLUTELY ZERO in COMING REMOTELY CLOSE to PROVING anything resembling such a hyperbolic guess.
Further, dsimon, because it's so counterintuitive for a lot of redistributionist types to fathom the power of tax cuts, they've blumted the impact.
Unfortunately, because income tax rates for lower-income Americans are already so low, there's just not as much stimulative effect left there as there is for those who pay higher marginal tax rates, and those are who the left needs to villify.
The concept of "paying for" tax cuts is a flawed idea, because it ignores the stimulative effects, treating them as static. The effect is lagged, so it is true that there is some first-year drop in revenue, which is made up in spades in later years.
The Obama idea of doing exactly the opposite of what the Laffer Curve would suggest hopefully will be increasing recognized as dangerous by income tax-paying voters.
Mule - I wrote a long reply which somehow got nuked.
The main points:
1) You blame many of the failures of Republican governance on corruption as if it were some anomaly, when corruption is in inevitable outcome of unregulated privatization.
2) You bemoan the fact that the Bush Administration has not applied your conservative principles as you would have had them do. What makes you think McCain and Phil Gramm would be any different?
I've never voted for any national office, particularly the President, but I like how you just assume that.
Your active participation in a forum on presidential elections led me to said assumption.
Can we assume that you're not going to break your streak by voting for McCain? And in either case, in which state do you reside?
And why the hell don't you vote?
Mule rider,
You are a creationist/intelligent design person. Intelligent design is a provem fraud. Creationsim isn't science it's theology.
Btw, Miller Urey experiments if you don't remember that while sleeping in science class.
Rudy:
But is is fair to say that tax increases have hurt the economy much more often than not and that tax cuts, in practice, have been invariably positive for the economy.
I don't think it's safe to say that at all. The Reagan tax cuts left us with crippling debt where 14% of every tax dollar was going to debt service. H.W. Bush did the responsible thing to get the fiscal house under some control, and it probably cost him the election. Clinton raised rates further, and a balanced budget led to low interest rates, a strong dollar, and good conditions for growth.
The fact is we were paying our bills under the Clinton tax code. And now we're not. And while I doubt that raising the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.6% will produce any significant drag on the economy, it could go a ways to restoring our nation's fiscal responsibility.
The concept of "paying for" tax cuts is a flawed idea, because it ignores the stimulative effects, treating them as static.
I've heard that argument before, but there's little agreement on how stimulative the cuts are. So the responsible thing to do would be to pay for them when enacted and reap the benefits later. To do otherwise is to entail some risk of fiscal disaster. But we like thinking that everything is free.
And I don't think history is on the side of tax cuts paying for themselves. The Reagan ones certainly didn't; we landed in a recession. (How many years lag time do you propose? Because eventually the economy will turn up, so any tax cut can get credit eventually. Or so could any tax hike.) Plus you seem to state that any stimulative effect is blunted because tax cuts almost by necessity go to people who pay more of them and so who are least likely to spend them. If that's true, we'd get a bigger stimulative effect for our tax buck by giving more money to working class families.
The Obama idea of doing exactly the opposite of what the Laffer Curve would suggest
But you say that we don't know where on the Laffer Curve we are. The curve is obviously correct on the extremes, but what happens in the middle and were we are on it is anyone's guess. And once again, the Clinton years should show that the tax rates of those times were not a significant impediment to strong and sustained economic growth--even when just coming out of a recession.
I think it's a fair argument to say that Obama's suggestion that we get our fiscal house in order will have a far more beneficial effect on the economy than more tax cuts to add onto the ones that were never paid for in the first place.
We are living beyond our means, both in personal debt and national debt. These trends are simply not sustainable. As a member of the wealthy, I can assure you we won't be hurt if our top marginal rates go up by a few percent and we stop getting such beneficial treatment on our long term capital gains. We all did fine in the 90s.
Mule Rider: Saying science has disproven intelligent design (and hence a Deity) is false.
But that's not the question. The question is whether intelligent design has any scientific basis. Since it cannot be disproved (any discrepancy can be explained away with "that's how the designer did it"), it's not science.
On the other hand, the fossil record is compelling evidence for evolution. It's amazingly consistent. People can argue over the details, but at least it's evidentiary support, and if something were really out of place it would cause some serious rethinking or disposal of the theory.
Read some Richard Dawkins. Then get back to us.
Last post of the evening, I swear...it's been fun, but I gotta go...gonna tie up the loose ends first.
obsessed,
Yes, it's natural for you to assume that since I'm on here posting, and that's the point of this site...so I'm sorry for being a little snippy.
I currently reside in Tennessee. As for my "streak," I haven't made up my mind yet. A small part says to vote for McCain. A small part says a 3rd party candidate. And the bigger part of me says stay home again.
I haven't voted in the past because I just have seen much from the current two-party system that gives me any encouragement. I guess I'm waiting on things to improve somehow, which I feel will take place when there's an even greater disillusionment by the general populace with the two-party system and there is a coup of their power and more rational, independent parties starty having a bigger say.
In the meantime, I just keep my head down, and that seems to work, as life's dang good for me right now. Honestly, I don't think my success (or anyone's) has hardly a thing to do with who's in office. All this talk about being better or worse off after every 4-year turn is poppycock. It's how you live your life...not who's running the country.
To OTF,
Dude, you are reaching. Yes, creationism is theology and not science. I never said it wasn't, but science has proven zero facts about the origin of life, so I don't see where there's a leg up by anybody. I like the idea of intelligent design being offered as an alternative, but that's far from being a make-or-break issue for me, as I don't really put much effort into caring whether or not it should be taught in schools. Knowing it is being taught at home is good enough for me.
Miller Urey? That's a joke, right? Those experiments still didn't prove anything. And keep in mind these are intelligent beings doing the experimenting. So I defer to my previous post, if they were able to recreate what they thought/believed to be how life originated from non-living substances, that would still indicate it took an Intelligent Being way back when to put us here and it didn't happen by chance.
I'll pray for you.
Dsimon, the Laffer Curve represents middle ground, and what I said about it was that economics is so highly complex, you can't do point-to-point conclusions. But it does stand to reason that you'd keep with a policy until it stops working. Tax cuts are still working every time they're tried, which isn't often enough.
One of the problems with our income tax system is that it's already steeply progressive and sub-50th percentile taxpayers already pay very low rates and only pay THREE PERCENT of income tax revenue. So there's just not that much more to gain by "soaking the rich" without increasing their incentives to find ways to game or get out of the system, and that's what would happen.
Even unaffected people recognize that entitlement reform, which is the crux of any long-term budget problems, requires more substance than a knee-jerk increasing of taxes. That's why the Republican campaign will focus upon poking holes in those arguments. They usually win those in national elections.
It is indisputable that tax revenue increased sharply in the years after the Reagan tax cuts. The same is true after every US tax cut ever. The Laffer Curve has worked in spades, creating the longest peacetime economic expansion in US history.
I don't know where you're getting your info about the supposed disatrousness of the Reagan tax cuts. We were in the recession before the cuts, and they brought us out of it. I think you fell into the trap of looking at deficits, not revenue, which I warned of earlier. Same is true with your other assertions involving deficits. Most economists agree that Clinton benefited from wind-at-the-back from the earlier tax-cut-driven growth plus the one-time productivity gain from the internet economy explosion. there's no evidence to suggest tax increases stimulated any of that growth, just that they weren't big enough to derail it. Big difference.
Mule Rider,
Don't pray for me pray for yourself and your kids been brain washed in learning intelligent design. Thank goodness we keep the crazed like from imposing their bullshit trying to pass as science out of our classrooms. Intelligent design has been blown away as garbage trying to pass as a science and fringe religious rights as yourself trying to pass it off as science. They tried to pass that crap off as science in PA to be taught in school. You might want to read the transcripts of the Dover PA US District Court case. You can also ge ta synopsis from the 2hr NOVA special on the case against intelligent design. The testimony ripped your bullshit of intelligent design to shreds. Leaving the intelligent design backers hemming and hawing with no answers, as science proved them to be the fringe religious zealots that they are.
Tax cuts are still working every time they're tried, which isn't often enough.
Again, where is the evidence? The argument that revenues usually increase when taxes are cut is not cause and effect; after all, revenues go up when taxes go up too. The reason revenues go up is because population growth, economic growth, and inflation counter the effects that a few percentage points of change in the income tax. I believe there was a good NY Times article within the past year or two on how the tax cutters' claims simply were not backed up by the evidence once other factors are taken into account.
One of the problems with our income tax system is that it's already steeply progressive and sub-50th percentile taxpayers already pay very low rates and only pay THREE PERCENT of income tax revenue. So there's just not that much more to gain by "soaking the rich" without increasing their incentives to find ways to game or get out of the system, and that's what would happen.
That's a nice argument. Unfortunately, it's not backed up by the Clinton years. Most of the rich didn't game or try to get out of the system. Those rates were simply not onerous enough to inspire that kind of activity generally.
And our overall tax system is not steeply progressive. About 3/4 of Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income tax. So since you say that we'd get more bang for the tax cut buck at the lower ends, we should be looking at a payroll tax cut first. But few tax-cutters propose such a thing.
Most economists agree that Clinton benefited from wind-at-the-back from the earlier tax-cut-driven growth plus the one-time productivity gain from the internet economy explosion. there's no evidence to suggest tax increases stimulated any of that growth, just that they weren't big enough to derail it.
I've heard plenty of economists say that balancing the budget--which would never have happened without the Clinton tax rates--was instrumental in creating the economic conditions for sustained growth. By contrast, the Bush tax cuts have led to a weak dollar and high gas prices (which is an implicit tax hike, except that we don't get the revenues).
Even unaffected people recognize that entitlement reform, which is the crux of any long-term budget problems, requires more substance than a knee-jerk increasing of taxes. That's why the Republican campaign will focus upon poking holes in those arguments.
Most responsible budget-watchers know that entitlement programs are a long-term problem. But I don't see Republicans proposing any responsible solutions either. (Bush's Social Security privitization scheme totally glossed over the gargantuan transition costs with no clue as to how they would be paid for.) It's not like Democrats have a monopoly on avoiding the tough issues.
We were in the recession before the cuts, and they brought us out of it.
Again, the confusion of correlation with cause. Perhaps we would have come out of the recession anyway, and without the huge deficits that helped contribute to the G.W. Bush recession (surely he wasn't in office long enough for that to be his fault--or was it the "lag time" from the Reagan tax cuts?).
With the Biden VP pick, McMain has to pick Romney now. Biden will eat Pawlenty for lunch during the debates, and Pawlenty won't net MN anyway. Romney pick will pit two rich out-of-touch guys who can't stand each other against two guys who will drive the middle class economic message from now thru Nov 3rd. Evangelicals are more suspicious of Romney than they are of McCain
Rudy,
Two more things about tax cuts.
First, the argument that the progressive tax system is too steep because the lower half of income earners pay only 3% of the nation's income tax leaves out an important number: how much the lower half of income earners actually make. One reason that the top income earners pay so much of the national income tax is, well, because they make a lot more than everyone else. That's the definition of being among the top income earners. The lowest quintile make so little that I don't think anyone (even flat tax proponent Steve Forbes) believes they should pay any income tax (which means few people really believe in a flat tax at all). Progressivity tilts the percentages, but a lot of the disparity in who pays what is who makes what, not just who is taxed at what rate.
Second, the whole idea that the Bush tax cuts were designed to be stimulative is a canard. The tax cuts were originally proposed to give the surplus back to those who earned it. When the tech bubble burst and the economy slid, those same tax cuts (with only minor revisions) were sold as a stimulus package. My recollection is that most economists said (and would say today) that giving tax cuts to higher income people is a poor stimulus proposal. We wound up taking on unproductive debt because of it. It was simply a bad choice on how to restructure our tax code. You seem to agree that the most effective stimuli are aimed at middle and lower income groups, so I don't see how a tax cut that was aimed so predominantly at the wealthy (as McCain said at the time) was a wise decision.
Dsimon, I'm not sure if you really believe the counter-assertions you're making, or if you're just volleying with me to try to blunt my arguments. Your facts aren't facts.
Regardless, this is too complex of a discussion to hash out on a board like this. As we agree, economics is complex, and we agree that unlimited tax cuts eventually hurt revenue if they're not able to produce sufficient growth, just as tax increases hurt revenue by stifling growth.
We can never say what would have happened otherwise in any scenario, just as we can't isolate the effects of a single action on the economy. We must look at the history and the weight of the evidence, and that shows broad support for the logic for the power of lowering marginal tax rates stimulating growth and increasing tax revenue. That is mostly plainly evidenced by comparing growth in the US since the Reagan tax cuts with growth in high-tax economies over the same period. You can pick at some of the details, but the macro picture is clear.
As you probably know, supply-side tax cuts are all the rage in Europe right now, so we'll see if those economies can replicate the same growth effects that the US has had. If not, that would be among the first evidence of ineffectiveness of such tactics.
What concerns me most about Obanm's stated tax policy is that it would revert to failed strategies. Sure, because of the 1-2 year lag effect, raising tax rates would produce higher short-term revenue, but at two significant costs: lower future growth and exacerbation of the entitlement problem resulting from lower growth.
You say Republicans haven't been willing to face that entitlement monster either, and to some degree that's correct. Politicians of all stripes have found the path of least resistance (for them) to not keep as good a handle on spending, creating this time bomb.
However, growth-oriented tax policy is the best hope for solving this problem without damaging the economy, a concept that the class-warfare types completely dismiss, I think through ignorance.
I'll let you have the last word in this thread (if you're still monitoring), but we're sure to revisit this topic often, as it is so critical.
Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.
This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..
And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com
Team McCain, well done!!!
Rudy:
Dsimon, I'm not sure if you really believe the counter-assertions you're making, or if you're just volleying with me to try to blunt my arguments. Your facts aren't facts.
I'm not arguing for the sake of being combative. I've seen many articles, including in the NY Times, on studies saying that tax cuts simply do not pay for themselves in most circumstances. I saw time and time again economists saying that if one wanted to stimulate the economy, the Bush tax cuts were a poor way to do it (which makes sense since they were not designed to be stimulative to begin with and so did not go to those most likely to spend it). I believe the last point is relatively uncontroversial. If one wanted to stimulate the economy through tax cuts, cutting the wage tax would have been more effective.
I believe that it's also relatively uncontroversial that even if tax cuts may be stimulative, large government debt is an economic drag since it increases competition for selling debt and drives up interest rates.
I don't think the marco picture is clear at all. Taking the argument to the extreme, which you do not, would imply that cutting taxes to zero would pay for itself, which it obviously would not. Why, then, conclude that the Bush or McCain tax cuts would necessarily pay for themselves? There are plenty of well respected economists who say they don't. And until we see the benefits, the responsible thing to do would to require spending cuts in the package.
Obama's tax plan would leave most of the Bush tax cuts in place. Consequently, I see little reason to conclude that they would have such a dire effect on the economy. Most people I know among the wealthy simply aren't sensitive to a few percent difference in our top marginal rates.
Even without the entitlement time bomb, we're living beyond our means as a nation right now, and this path is unsustainable. And we don't know where we are on the Laffer Curve, so it's entirely possible that further tax cuts will further reduce revenues. Not to balance tax cuts with spending cuts is to risk making an unsustainable path even less sustainable and so require an even more painful fix to deal with the result. That's a chance that we as a nation should not take when we can lower the risk by acting in a fiscally responsible manner.
But Republicans, like Democrats (who have at least instituted a weak form of pay-as-you-go for now), aren't willing to ask us to make the tough choices ourselves, and therefore they can't make them either. And that's a bipartisan failure of leadership.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購,A片,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,A片,av,情趣用品,a片,情趣用品.A片,情色
愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,色情聊天室,色情小說,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,色情,色情遊戲,情色視訊,情色電影,aio交友愛情館,色情a片,一夜情,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊,視訊美女,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,情人視訊網,影音視訊聊天室,視訊交友90739,成人影片,成人交友,美女交友,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人貼圖,成人電影,A片,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,UT聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,男同志聊天室,UT男同志聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,6K聊天室,女同志聊天室,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,同志聊天室,聊天室交友,中部人聊天室,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,寄情築園小遊戲,AV女優,A片下載,免費A片,日本A片,麗的色遊戲,色色網,情色論壇,嘟嘟情人色網,色情網站,成人網站,成人論壇,成人小說,微風成人區,色美媚部落格,正妹牆,正妹百人斬,aio,伊莉,伊莉討論區,成人文章,成人圖片區,免費成人影片,成人遊戲,成人影城,本土自拍,自拍,癡漢俱樂部,AV,做愛,做愛影片,av片,a漫,av dvd,線上a片,日本美女寫真集
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購
免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛
A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片
av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟
情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,整型,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,學英文,英文社團,英語俱樂部,學習英文,英語會話,英文演講,English Club,學英語,學英文,美語社團,英語社團,英文讀書會,Toastmasters,Toastmaster,英語讀書會,拍樂得批發,拍樂得飾品,拍樂得化妝品批發,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
Post a Comment