Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by ProudAmericanFirst View Post
    Perhaps Rand did not read HR 25, which is not reform, but replacement. It is 131 pages, riddled with prison, jail and fines.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3570762

    Knowing Rand's record, I am sure once he reads it he would have second thoughts.
    He is proposing a flat tax.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Rand Paul is for the flat tax.
    Both Cruz and Rand Paul are for a flat tax on profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned "incomes"? I though these two were "conservative" and had faith in our founding fathers. Why not support our founders' original tax plan, especially its rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes?

    JWK



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by ProudAmericanFirst View Post
    Perhaps Rand did not read HR 25, which is not reform, but replacement. It is 131 pages, riddled with prison, jail and fines.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3570762

    Knowing Rand's record, I am sure once he reads it he would have second thoughts.
    H.R. 25 also keeps alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned "incomes". In fact, H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption, and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor!


    JWK



    Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr. and Herman Cain, both former ringleaders of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders our national treasury?

  6. #34

    Why has Senator Cruz abandoned our forefather’s wisdom when it comes to tax reform?

    I cannot understand what is in Senator’s Cruz’s mind when he says he wants to close down the IRS and in the next breath he promotes keeping it open with a flat tax on profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes. Is he not contradicting himself?

    When talking about tax reform, shouldn’t Senator Cruz who embraces our Founding Fathers expound upon the brilliance and wisdom of their original tax plan which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world and prevented the countless miseries we now suffer under an unrestrained direct tax on “incomes” which our founders were fully aware of and rejected?

    Would it not be a blessing to hear Senator Cruz when talking tax reform to quote our forefathers thinking regarding the evil nature of direct taxation, an example being what was stated by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:

    "History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

    In fact, our wise founding fathers adopted a rule requiring any direct tax laid by Congress would have to apportioned, just as each State’s representatives are, and is a rule which boils down to representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote, and one vote one dollar ___ a rule which is cleverly circumvented under the immoral and arbitrary flat tax calculated from profits, gains,wages and other “incomes”.

    Why is it that Senator Cruz is unwilling to explore why our founders intentionally decided that Congress ought to raise its revenue from taxes on consumption which allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected for taxation as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No 21?

    “There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


    It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”




    What I cannot understand is why Senator Cruz will not support real tax reform by advocating Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes should be withdrawn by amending our Constitution as follows and returning to our founder's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN :



    “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


    "SECTION 2. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


    JWK




    If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

  7. #35
    I urge all to read johnwk posts above, he knows what he speaks.

    The only real reform: End the fed, eliminate the IRS, repeal the 16th. There is NO need for 131 pages of jail, prison and fines.

    Furthermore, I will add what I posted on the other forums:

    ____

    H.R. 25 is nothing but a national socialist tax.

    From fairtax.org web site:

    - The fair tax is replacement, not reform.

    - Food and medicine are NOT exempt.

    - Yes, of course Congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it does the income tax rate.

    - The FairTax Plan is devised to be revenue neutral for the FIRST YEAR of operation. It raises the same amount of revenue as is raised by current law. After the FIRST YEAR, revenue is expected to rise.

    - What will the rate of the sales tax be AT THE RETAIL COUNTER? 30%.

    - Is there ANY provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax? NO.

    - The FairTax makes the economy much more dynamic and prosperous. Consequently, FEDERAL TAX REVENUES GROW.


    Let’s move on to who sponsored H.R. 25 (the “Fair Tax” bill). Rob Woodall, rated only a 66% Conservative/Freedom Index score:

    - Woodall voted NO on HR 4435 – to prohibit the Indefinite Detention of Americans.

    - Woodall voted YES on H J Res 59 – to INCREASE the discretionary spending caps to $1.012 Trillion and $1.014 Trillion in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

    - Woodall voted NO on HR 2397 Amendment 54 - to prohibit funds to "be used for United States military exercises which include any participation by the People's Republic of China."

    - Woodall voted NO on HR 2397 Amendment 70 - to end the blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act.

    - Woodall voted YES on HR 1947 – to authorize $939 Billion through fiscal 2018, rural development.

    - Woodall voted YES on HR 6018 - The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 authorizes $9 billion for the State Department's diplomatic and consular programs, $1.6 billion for dues to international organizations (about $0.6 billion for UN regular budget dues and about $1 billion in contributions to 43 other UN-system, regional, and non-UN organizations), and $1.8 billion for contributions for UN peacekeeping activities.

    Rob Woodall and his colleagues are not the least bit concerned about you or me. They are only concerned that everybody is not paying “their fair share”, and need MORE money to fund their costly and anti-Constitutional policies. And what better way than a blanket "fair tax", that sounds "appealing" to some? If they WERE in fact sincere, why not vote responsibly, constitutionally, to rein in spending in the first place (see above record)? Why not sponsor a bill that repeals the 16th Amendment and the IRS and leave it at that, WITHOUT polluting HR 25 with 131 pages of words such as “prison”, “jail” and “fines”. The answer: They want your money, They want “no escaping it”. They will postpone, bribe, lie and steal from everybody and anybody to get it. This bill is merely a ploy to sidetrack those of us who want to abolish the IRS, Fed, 16th and 17th.

    Everybody here should know by now that more laws, different laws, governments, only make things worse. That is precisely why we are where we are today. The only solution is to begin REPEALING some the millions upon millions of laws that are already in place - NO replacements necessary.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What I cannot understand is why Senator Cruz will not support real tax reform by advocating Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes should be withdrawn by amending our Constitution as follows and returning to our founder's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN
    The material that precedes the portion of Federalist 21 that you quoted is an indictment of the requisition system that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation and that would still prevail if we were to rely on requisitions to make up the inevitable shortfall that would exist by relying initially on duties and consumption taxes. In effect, Hamilton’s observations rebut your description of the Founders’ “original tax plan”.

    The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative…

    The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry, these circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.
    This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.
    In Federalist 30 Hamilton later reemphasized the weakness of the requisition system:

    What the consequences of this system have been, is within the knowledge of every man the least conversant in our public affairs, and has been amply unfolded in different parts of these inquiries. It is this which has chiefly contributed to reduce us to a situation, which affords ample cause both of mortification to ourselves, and of triumph to our enemies.

    What remedy can there be for this situation, but in a change of the system which has produced it in a change of the fallacious and delusive system of quotas and requisitions? What substitute can there be imagined for this ignis fatuus in finance, but that of permitting the national government to raise its own revenues by the ordinary methods of taxation authorized in every well-ordered constitution of civil government? Ingenious men may declaim with plausibility on any subject; but no human ingenuity can point out any other expedient to rescue us from the inconveniences and embarrassments naturally resulting from defective supplies of the public treasury.

    The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined. I believe it may be regarded as a position warranted by the history of mankind, that, in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation, in every stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its resources.

    To say that deficiencies may be provided for by requisitions upon the States, is on the one hand to acknowledge that this system cannot be depended upon, and on the other hand to depend upon it for every thing beyond a certain limit. Those who have carefully attended to its vices and deformities as they have been exhibited by experience or delineated in the course of these papers, must feel invincible repugnancy to trusting the national interests in any degree to its operation. Its inevitable tendency, whenever it is brought into activity, must be to enfeeble the Union, and sow the seeds of discord and contention between the federal head and its members, and between the members themselves. Can it be expected that the deficiencies would be better supplied in this mode than the total wants of the Union have heretofore been supplied in the same mode? It ought to be recollected that if less will be required from the States, they will have proportionably less means to answer the demand. If the opinions of those who contend for the distinction which has been mentioned were to be received as evidence of truth, one would be led to conclude that there was some known point in the economy of national affairs at which it would be safe to stop and to say: Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?

    Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged. We will presume, for argument's sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union. Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out. What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency? Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defense of the State? It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety. To imagine that at such a crisis credit might be dispensed with, would be the extreme of infatuation. In the modern system of war, nations the most wealthy are obliged to have recourse to large loans. A country so little opulent as ours must feel this necessity in a much stronger degree. But who would lend to a government that prefaced its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? The loans it might be able to procure would be as limited in their extent as burdensome in their conditions. They would be made upon the same principles that usurers commonly lend to bankrupt and fraudulent debtors, with a sparing hand and at enormous premiums.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The material that precedes the portion of Federalist 21 that you quoted is an indictment of the requisition system that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation and that would still prevail if we were to rely on requisitions to make up the inevitable shortfall....
    The apportioned tax is not a requisition. It is a direct tax. There was no enforcement power under the Articles of Confederation Congress to collect a requisition. Under our existing Constitution, Congress is granted power to enforce the payment of a direct tax apportioned among the States.

    For an example of an apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each state’s obligation is determine.

    And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


    And with reference to our Founders expressed intentions and feelings in favor of a requirement to apportion any direct tax, I will let out Founders speak for themselves:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

    JWK


    Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
    Last edited by johnwk; 03-25-2015 at 03:08 PM.

  10. #38
    I don't dispute that direct taxes must be apportioned. The issue is whether Congress should resort to direct taxes when imposts, duties, and consumption taxes are insufficient. You have argued that instead of relying on income taxes, the federal government should resort to direct taxes to make up the shortfall. This is precisely what Hamilton argues against in Federalist 30.

    With respect to Hamilton's objections, there is little difference between an apportioned requisition/quota and an unapportioned one. Either type is subject to the same criticisms that Hamilton discussed.

    Of course, it's possible that a direct tax could be in a form other than an apportioned requisition. For example, Congress could choose the revenue target, determine the amount to be raised from each state on the basis of population, and choose the tax base (real estate, income, or some other economic factor). But the problem with this kind of tax is that it will inevitably result in different tax rates from State to State. For example, suppose Maryland and Louisiana have the same population, so that their share of the apportioned direct tax will be equal. Suppose further that Congress chooses widget values as the tax base, but that the total widget value in Maryland is twice that of Louisiana. Guess what? The tax rate in Louisiana will be twice the rate used in Maryland. This would be grossly unfair, since the higher tax rate would be imposed in the State having the lower per-capita value. You can see how this same problem would exist if some other factor were used as the tax base -- say, real estate values.

    The only kind of federally-designed direct tax that would avoid this problem would be a capitation, which is automatically apportioned and which has a uniform rate. But any such tax would inevitably involve exemptions (e.g., persons over or under a certain age or whose income is below a certain threshold), so rate inequality could still exist.

    And just how is Congress to enforce an apportioned requisition if a State doesn't comply? Will the President federalize a State's national guard and send it to arrest the Governor?

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I don't dispute that direct taxes must be apportioned. The issue is whether Congress should resort to direct taxes when imposts, duties, and consumption taxes are insufficient.
    Hamilton never argued against the apportioned tax if imposts, duties and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet the public exigencies. Additionally, under the Articles of Confederation, requisitions were not apportioned. Each State's share was based upon the assessed value of land, which is a wealth based tax and an unequal tax, just like Senator Cruz's flat tax on incomes. Hamilton was arguing against a wealth based tax as found in the Article of Confederation!

    VIII of the Articles of Confederation:

    All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.



    Are we through talking about Hamilton's alleged rejection of the apportioned tax as found in our Constitution?


    JWK



    If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
    Last edited by johnwk; 03-26-2015 at 07:01 AM.

  12. #40

    Will Senator Cruz ever answer the following questions?

    Wouldn't it be great if someone in our big media would ask Senator Cruz the following questions?



    How does he proposes to close down the IRS by promoting a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes?


    I also wonder if Senator Cruz considers the wages labor earns as a profit or gain.


    JWK



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41

    Steve Forbes still promoting the immoral, arbitrary and socialist flat tax

    See: Steve Forbes Says Flat Tax Fairer Than Fair Tax


    March 23, 2015

    ‘Forbes, who has long been a vocal advocate for the "Flat Tax," joined The Costa Report to explain just how complex the current tax system has become. He says the 4 million-word code is the tip of the iceberg because it doesn't take into account millions of additional pages of interpretations, analysis, legal rulings, and other data experts must navigate to comply with the law. According to Forbes, growing complexity has increased the number of errors reported. He pointed to a recent government investigation which discovered that agents who monitor the IRS Hotline were wrong 20-30% of the time, and the IRS taxpayer assistance program had a 61% error rate.”


    What Mr. Forbes refuses to acknowledge is his flat tax does not end the arbitrary interpretations of what is and what is not taxable income, or why a person’s gross annual wage is considered taxable profit or gain in its entirety without first allowing the deduction of all necessary outlays and expenses to arrive at a taxable profit or gain.


    In addition, the Forbes flat tax does not end the immoral direct tax levied upon individuals which is used by folks in government as a political weapon against political foes or as a tool to intrude into a person’s private affairs, not to mention how it is used to manipulate the private lives of the American People and Americas' businesses while upsetting the advantages of a free market system which our founders established.


    Finally, Mr. Forbes refuses to acknowledge his flat tax on incomes still requires a massive and costly IRS to collect the tax, and businesses and individuals to waste $BILLIONS each year to comply with income taxation. The cost of preparing and filing all business and personal income tax returns is now estimated to be $250–$300 billion each year!


    It should also be noted that Mr. Forbes makes some absurd comments to defend his flat tax against the "Fair Tax" and why the fair tax is “problematic”. While I agree the “fairtax” is problematic, it is not because of Forbes’ absurd comments. One of the major faults of the “fairtax” [H.R. 25], is because it would establish two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other lawfully earned “incomes”.


    It is interesting to note that Steve Forbes also ignores as “tax reform” going back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world by encouraging Congress to follow sound fiscal policies.


    JWK





    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

  15. #42

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Ben Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax
    By johnwk in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2015, 08:28 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2015, 06:44 PM
  3. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 09:18 AM
  4. Senator Cruz: keep income tax, lower top rates.
    By johnwk in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 09:26 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 12:32 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •