Obama lays down the gauntlet.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Yes. I would be. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

If the choice is secure this good or no good at all, then it's better to secure this good.

But that's not the choice at this point. The choice at this point is do it now versus wait and hash it out some more.

And hey, I'm not saying I think this is an ideal situation. But then again, I'd like all the tax cuts to continue. So I'm cool with waiting a little longer to see if that could be accomplished.

I don't think that the Republicans would allow all the tax cuts to expire anymore than I think the Democrats would.

Hence, game of chicken.

The biggest flaw in this argument is the pretense that the Republicans actually want the tax cut for the 98%. They kept saying they did, but there is no reason to think they want anything but the cut for the top 2%. Obama called them on a lie and now they're having to deal with it.

Sorry, but this is the whole crux of Obama's manipulation, IMO. You've bought it. I haven't.

Furthermore, as I and others have pointed out. Taxes are not the whole of this issue. The biggest difficulties are not the tax increases on the rich, the biggest difficulties come from across the board spending cuts. Those cuts were deliberately created to hurt constituencies of both parties. That was meant to motivate discussion.

Of course taxes are not the whole of the issue. FedGov spending is why we're in this mess, not because they haven't been collecting enough money from Teh Rich People. (Or ANY people.) The spending is the real problem, and what has to STOP. Stop. Spending. More. Than. You. Have. DUH. Also, the economy. Taxing anyone more in a crap economy is going to make things worse, IMO. So is forcing everyone to buy health insurance. But of course we will disagree on this... the derail I don't want to continue.

kaitie · Nov 12, 2012

Republicans are doing this because they are so anti-tax period. They've gotten to the point where they point-blank say that they will not accept any tax increase on anyone as any part of a balanced budget whatsoever.

They're not secretly trying to raise taxes on the middle class. They are trying to make sure that they get their way and guarantee revenue has no part in the increased budget--especially because doing so means that they can get cuts to spending programs they dislike.

We've seen them time and again say "we'll agree to the cuts if you'll cut (every democrat supported program)." That's why there was such a stalemate in the first place. I'm going to be pissed as hell if they keep that up after the election.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

kaitie said:
If it means that the economy is going to be harmed terribly because the law isn't passed, yes, I would be equally disgusted that they were holding out.

Okay, fine.

Like I said above, it's not do or die at the moment. I'm okay with the waiting, but I guess other people aren't.

I'm not sure I really believe either side will let the economy fall to shit, but I am pissed off when any (democrat or republican, and they're both saying it) says that they're willing to let the entire country suffer because they don't get their way. That's not their job. Their job is to get off their asses and figure out a way to solve the problem. Instead of making claims that they're going to let things expire so there, they should be reassuring us all that they're going to find a way out of this period--even if it means making a freaking compromise.

I swear, sometimes I feel like congress is filled with two year olds.

I totally agree.

The whole reason I jumped into this conversation was because I'm unimpressed with what Obama is doing from the standpoint of it being some wonderful offer of compromise. *shrug*

But, hey. Agree to disagree.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

kaitie said:
Republicans are doing this because they are so anti-tax period. They've gotten to the point where they point-blank say that they will not accept any tax increase on anyone as any part of a balanced budget whatsoever.

They're not secretly trying to raise taxes on the middle class. They are trying to make sure that they get their way and guarantee revenue has no part in the increased budget.....

That's right. And it's the ONLY thing I like about the Republican party.

RichardGarfinkle · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
But that's not the choice at this point. The choice at this point is do it now versus wait and hash it out some more.

And hey, I'm not saying I think this is an ideal situation. But then again, I'd like all the tax cuts to continue. So I'm cool with waiting a little longer to see if that could be accomplished.

I don't think that the Republicans would allow all the tax cuts to expire anymore than I think the Democrats would.

Hence, game of chicken.

Sorry, but this is the whole crux of Obama's manipulation, IMO. You've bought it. I haven't.

Of course taxes are not the whole of the issue. FedGov spending is why we're in this mess, not because they haven't been collecting enough money from Teh Rich People. (Or ANY people.) The spending is the real problem, and what has to STOP. Stop. Spending. More. Than. You. Have. DUH. Also, the economy. Taxing anyone more in a crap economy is going to make things worse, IMO. So is forcing everyone to buy health insurance. But of course we will disagree on this... the derail I don't want to continue.

You asked if those of us who support this tax cut would object to games of chicken if the shoe was on the other foot. The answer seems to be that yes we do object. We don't like holding the economy hostage. The tactic itself is immoral.

Your argument is confusing. It's not a question of spending more than you have. You know yourself that people spend relative not to how much they have but to how much they take in. Spending is relative to income. Your argument seems to be that government spending is ontologically bad and taxes are ontologically bad.

So let's start from scratch.
Do you think that the Federal Government should spend any money at all?

If so, on what?

And if so where should the money come from?

If not, then the details of this deal would seem to be irrelevant to your position.

Oh, and don't assume that I concluded the Republicans are lying because of what the President said. I did so by paying attention to what they were saying, remembering, and comparing those statements to the circumstances as they occurred.

sulong · Nov 12, 2012

Spending is relative to income.

Spending is relative to the leverage to ones income.
Maybe not important to the discussion, but something to be aware of.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
You asked if those of us who support this tax cut would object to games of chicken if the shoe was on the other foot. The answer seems to be that yes we do object. We don't like holding the economy hostage. The tactic itself is immoral.

I understand that you are taking the moral high ground here, and that's fine. But see, when you're talking about taking other people's earned income by force, and taking it in different proportions depending upon how much money those people earn, and calling it moral.... I get confused, too.

Your argument is confusing. It's not a question of spending more than you have. You know yourself that people spend relative not to how much they have but to how much they take in. Spending is relative to income. Your argument seems to be that government spending is ontologically bad and taxes are ontologically bad.

The tax structure as it is now, is bad, IMO. So yes, my feelings on spending flow somewhat from that. But also on the fact the government spending is often inefficent and wasteful and unhelpful. The break-your-leg-and-hand-you-a-crutch type thing Don talks about. I couldn't agree more.

So let's start from scratch.
Do you think that the Federal Government should spend any money at all?

If so, on what?

In a perfect world... not much. Don't act like you don't know I'm of the libertarian school of thought.

But, dealing with what we have on the table now: I'd cut military. I'd repeal Obamacare. I'd leave social programs be, or make them stronger. (My major concession to the libertarian ideal, but I would never want to yank the rug out from under anyone.) But I'd make them stronger in ways that could help people get out from under them, as the economy improves. And to improve the economy, I'd lift burdensome business regulations. Not all. But a lot.

And if so where should the money come from?

Taxes of course. But not 40% of people's income.

RichardGarfinkle · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
I understand that you are taking the moral high ground here, and that's fine. But see, when you're talking about taking other people's earned income by force, and taking it in different proportions depending upon how much money those people earn, and calling it moral.... I get confused, too.

The tax structure as it is now, is bad, IMO. So yes, my feelings on spending flow somewhat from that. But also on the fact the government spending is often inefficent and wasteful and unhelpful. The break-your-leg-and-hand-you-a-crutch type thing Don talks about. I couldn't agree more.
In a perfect world... not much. Don't act like you don't know I'm of the libertarian school of thought.

But, dealing with what we have on the table now: I'd cut military. I'd repeal Obamacare. I'd leave social programs be, or make them stronger. (My major concession to the libertarian ideal, but I would never want to yank the rug out from under anyone.) But I'd make them stronger in ways that could help people get out from under them, as the economy improves. And to improve the economy, I'd lift burdensome business regulations. Not all. But a lot.

Taxes of course. But not 40% of people's income.

We're running into an interesting balance of morality. Let's deal with the question of flat tax and fairness.

You say you'd like a single tax rate because that would be fair. But that's only fair in a single dimension (the dimension of tax rate). It's wholly unfair in the dimensions of human need.
For a person on the edge of starvation 10% of income can be the difference between life and death.
For a billionaire 99% of income does not affect their fundamental quality of life, it only affects how much more bling they have.

I maintain that this dimension is far more relevant because we are talking about human lives here which are real. Money is an illusion humans created in order to make transactions easier. It seems strange to rate the illusion as of greater import than the reality.

The reality is that money is not a useful absolute scale because individual possession of wealth does not scale up. There comes a point on the high end where all that stacks up is more luxury, and a point on the low end where all the trade-offs become which slow death one is choosing.

You want to strengthen social programs in ways to pull people off of dependence. I'm mostly with you, except that people never are truly independent. Every thing we have and do depends on the actions of others, past, present, and future. I'm for maximizing human dignity and opportunity to help themselves and each other.

You may argue that payed for dependence isn't dependence, but again, money is an illusion created by human agreement and maintained by human agreement so I don't see the lack of dependence.

Obamacare is a lot of different things. When you say repeal it, what elements do you wish to remove?

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
We're running into an interesting balance of morality. Let's deal with the question of flat tax and fairness.

You say you'd like a single tax rate because that would be fair. But that's only fair in a single dimension (the dimension of tax rate). It's wholly unfair in the dimensions of human need.
For a person on the edge of starvation 10% of income can be the difference between life and death.
For a billionaire 99% of income does not affect their fundamental quality of life, it only affects how much more bling they have.

I maintain that this dimension is far more relevant because we are talking about human lives here which are real. Money is an illusion humans created in order to make transactions easier. It seems strange to rate the illusion as of greater import than the reality.

The reality is that money is not a useful absolute scale because individual possession of wealth does not scale up. There comes a point on the high end where all that stacks up is more luxury, and a point on the low end where all the trade-offs become which slow death one is choosing.

All of the above is your moral opinion and has no place in law. If you want to give every single dime of your own money away that you don't need, then do it.

It's immoral to me that another person should decide, from what I have earned, what I get to keep and what is taken from me.

We will always disagree on this.

And I've never claimed that a starving person should be taxed. I do believe there should be 0% tax rate, and there is. I have no problem with it.

You want to strengthen social programs in ways to pull people off of dependence. I'm mostly with you, except that people never are truly independent. Every thing we have and do depends on the actions of others, past, present, and future.

This is just philosophical stuff.

I'm for maximizing human dignity and opportunity to help themselves and each other.

That's what we're calling it now? Okie dokie.

You may argue that payed for dependence isn't dependence, but again, money is an illusion created by human agreement and maintained by human agreement so I don't see the lack of dependence.

Interdependence, chosen freely.

Obamacare is a lot of different things. When you say repeal it, what elements do you wish to remove?

In theory, I like the regulations on the insurance companies. In practice, I'd like to blow up all the insurance companies' headquarters. Like I've said in other threads, single payer would be infinitely preferable to Obamacare, though I'd like the health industry to go back to being a truly free market directly between doctors and patients. I have no idea how that could ever be, though.

Torgo · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Taxes of course. But not 40% of people's income.

Hard times right now, but the richest of us continue to get richer, and that's a trend that's continued ever since the economy went into meltdown. And these are people who have, essentially, won at life. They have crossed the finish line and are putting their feet up with a mojito in the hospitality tent. The worst that can happen is that they will get sick, and then they'll get the very best care available in the world. They're not going to starve or end up on the streets or die a stupidly avoidable death from some untreated medical condition. It doesn't really matter in terms of their lifestyle how much of their extra gravy income they get to keep. 60%? 30%, as it was back when Reagan came to office? Whatever. Maybe in 2016 they won't have quite so many millions of bucks to throw into Karl Rove's bottomlessly-sucking cash-vortex of fail.

You know what? National emergency. They can pitch in to help. That's the moral imperative here.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Torgo said:
Hard times right now, but the richest of us continue to get richer, and that's a trend that's continued ever since the economy went into meltdown. And these are people who have, essentially, won at life. They have crossed the finish line and are putting their feet up with a mojito in the hospitality tent. The worst that can happen is that they will get sick, and then they'll get the very best care available in the world. They're not going to starve or end up on the streets or die a stupidly avoidable death from some untreated medical condition. It doesn't really matter in terms of their lifestyle how much of their extra gravy income they get to keep. 60%? 30%, as it was back when Reagan came to office? Whatever. Maybe in 2016 they won't have quite so many millions of bucks to throw into Karl Rove's bottomlessly-sucking cash-vortex of fail.

Who cares what they do? We're talking about 2% of the population, and a lot of that 2% are actually amazing contributors to charitable causes. And for those who are all for their tax rate increasing: Here ya go.

You know what? National emergency. They can pitch in to help. That's the moral imperative here.

You mean the fiscal cliff? That's the 2%'s fault? They should be held disproportionately accountable for what FedGov has done?

I don't think some people can see past the dollar signs and all the zeros to the principle of the thing.

Torgo · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Who cares what they do? We're talking about 2% of the population, and a lot of that 2% are actually amazing contributors to charitable causes.

Well, I'd also cite corps who avoid their tax, and the whole philosophy that says it's wrong to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Because what we've been doing for the last decade or so is the opposite of that. We could do with a bit of redistribution at this point. I would cite, again, the statistic that the 1000 wealthiest people in the UK could pay off the entire deficit purely from the money they've made since the crisis began, and still have £35M each left over, and at which point we wouldn't have to squeeze the sick and disabled and elderly and poor of Britain, until the pips squeak, to keep the lights on.

I read today about a man named John who is blind and deaf and suffers from seizures, and has to be fed through a tube and defecate into a nappy. He's just been cleared fit to work and will thus have his welfare cut off, to save money.

They should be held disproportionately accountable for what FedGov has done?

Yeah, I do think they should be held disproportionately accountable. Absolutely. That's yer progressive taxation. I don't want to have to rely on their charitable instincts.

People who are on the breadline are already being held disproportionately accountable for what a bunch of credit-default-swapping, mortgage-repackaging, short-term-gain-chasing assholes contributed to, because if you're on the breadline you're really sensitive to small changes in your income or expenses. The super-rich, not so much.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

I actually read this entire thread... I probably shouldn't have.

Chrissy said:
Here's a different scenario. Say the Dems and Reps are in agreement about reducing taxes for 98% of people, but the Dems also want to increase the Earned Income Credit for the poorest 2%. The Reps aren't willing to do that. The Reps want the Dems to "compromise" by passing the tax cuts for the 98%, and claim they are willing to talk about increasing the EIC on the very poor "later." They both agree on the 98% tax cuts. If they can't agree, they'll be no tax cuts for the 98%, and no EIC for the poor.

Would you (editorial you) be disgusted that the Dems are holding out because they want BOTH?

Nope. I would not necessarily.

You've got to play games at some point, or what the hell are you doing in politics? A precedence for these negotiations was put in place hedged by Boehner during the debt ceiling debacle. The Dems have the advantage right now. If the Dems don't come back at the GOP with equal force, they will look weak in the beginning of Obama's new term. That would set things off very badly for this term.

It's not evil. It's not mean. It's reality.

And I hope the good guys win at the end of the day.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Torgo said:
Well, I'd also cite corps who avoid their tax, and the whole philosophy that says it's wrong to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Because what we've been doing for the last decade or so is the opposite of that. We could do with a bit of redistribution at this point. I would cite, again, the statistic that the 1000 wealthiest people in the UK could pay off the entire deficit purely from the money they've made since the crisis began, and still have £35M each left over, and at which point we wouldn't have to squeeze the sick and disabled and elderly and poor of Britain, until the pips squeak, to keep the lights on.

In the U.S., the proposed expiration of tax cuts on the top 2% would cover 9 days worth of government deficit spending.

We could tax 100% of the top 2%'s income every year, and it would cover about 5 months--of deficit spending. Not the debt. Not the budget. Just the amount of money that the government spends in excess of its current revenues.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
We could tax 100% of the top 2%'s income every year, and it would cover about 5 months--of deficit spending. Not the debt. No the budget. Just the amount of money that the government currently spends in excess of its current revenues.

Added a word in there.

Chrissy, I think I know the answer to this, but which party do you see as being more responsible for the government's excessive spending?

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Gale Haut said:
Added a word in there.

Chrissy, I think I know the answer to this, but which party do you see as being more responsible for the government's excessive spending?

Both, for a certainty. But yeah, Bush really f**ked up.

And thank you for adding the word. That's correct. And I'd say too, that we don't need an increase in tax rates. We need an increase in taxpayers; i.e., a recovered economy.

Torgo · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
In the U.S., the proposed expiration of tax cuts on the top 2% would cover 9 days worth of government deficit spending.

We could tax 100% of the top 2%'s income every year, and it would cover about 5 months--of deficit spending. Not the debt. Not the budget. Just the amount of money that the government spends in excess of its current revenues.

I don't claim to know too much about the situation the US is in, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge. Seems like if you're hurting for revenue, a bit of progressive taxation and a bit of a New Deal might be the way to go.

I still don't agree there's anything morally wrong with progressive taxation.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Both, for a certainty. But yeah, Bush really f**ked up.

And thank you for adding the word. That's correct. And I'd say too, that we don't need an increase in tax rates. We need an increase in taxpayers; i.e., a recovered economy.

It's just so odd to me that the answer is both, and I agree with you to a point. You would just expect that conservatives would not bear the amount of responsibility that they do in our over spending, given who and what they are supposed to represent. What happend to "starving the beast" and what happened to "conservative fiscal ideologies"?

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

Torgo said:
I don't claim to know too much about the situation the US is in, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge. Seems like if you're hurting for revenue, a bit of progressive taxation and a bit of a New Deal might be the way to go.

I still don't agree there's anything morally wrong with progressive taxation.

We shall agree to disagree.

It's me versus most of the world, anyway.

Gale Haut said:
It's just so odd to me that the answer is both, and I agree with you to a point. You would just expect that conservatives would not bear the amount of responsibility that they do in our over spending, given who and what they are supposed to represent. What happend to "starving the beast" and what happened to "conservative fiscal ideologies"?

Exactly. I'm not a Republican. I used to be, when I knew nothing.

I am a fiscal conservative, always have been, but about a year ago (and thanks to P&CE folks) I learned that Reps are full of it when it comes to fiscal conservatism. They spend just as much money, only on different things--military, corporate perks, etc. They mess with the free market as much as the other side.... while claiming not to!

From a personal "wanting good things for people" perspective, I don't object to Democrat spending. However, from logical, economic standpoint, it's doomed to cause more harm than good, and it's unsustainable. IMO.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
Exactly. I'm not a Republican. I used to be, when I knew nothing. I am a fiscal conservative, always have been, but about a year ago (and thanks to P&CE folks) I learned that Reps are full of it when it comes to fiscal conservatism. They spend just as much money, only on different things--military, corporate perks, etc. They mess with the free market as much as the other side.... while claiming not to!

From a personal "wanting good things for people" perspective, I like Democrat spending. However, from a sustainable standpoint, it's all messed up and doomed to cause more harm than good. IMO.

I think you'll be going back into the fold, because the GOP has a whole resurgence of like minded people. I've noticed new republicans with more libertarian leanings on domestic issues without compromising on foreign policy, which seems to be essential for a party to be taken seriously in this country.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

They would have to do a 180 on most of their social policies, too....

RichardGarfinkle · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
It's immoral to me that another person should decide, from what I have earned, what I get to keep and what is taken from me.

We will always disagree on this.

And I've never claimed that a starving person should be taxed. I do believe there should be 0% tax rate, and there is. I have no problem with it.

But you said that taxes are necessary to pay for government actions. And you admit there should be some government actions, therefore you are also for enforced taking of earnings. We're only arguing about amounts.

This is just philosophical stuff.

So is your libertarian ideology.

In theory, I like the regulations on the insurance companies. In practice, I'd like to blow up all the insurance companies' headquarters. Like I've said in other threads, single payer would be infinitely preferable to Obamacare, though I'd like the health industry to go back to being a truly free market directly between doctors and patients. I have no idea how that could ever be, though.

That's the problem. I'd rather have single payer. But that requires the political will to pass it i.e there had to be enough Senators and Representatives willing to pass single payer, or enough people willing to vote in such people. I hope we will eventually get to single payer. I see Obamacare as a stop-gap along the way.

Free market medicine doesn't work, because in practical terms no one except somebody extremely wealthy could save up enough for cancer treatment or even moderate life-saving surgery.

Par example: Several years ago, I had my gall bladder taken out. Without that I might well be dead by now. It cost around $30,000.00 dollars, most of which insurance paid for. I certainly had not set aside that kind of money to pay for that kind of event. Even if I had, tomorrow I or Alessandra or one of our children could be so badly injured or suffer a stroke or get a serious illness, so that we need a huge amount of medical care, possibly for life. There is simply no way for a person who isn't extremely rich to set aside the money necessary to cover possible catastrophe.

Chrissy · Nov 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
But you said that taxes are necessary to pay for government actions. And you admit there should be some government actions, therefore you are also for enforced taking of earnings. We're only arguing about amounts.

I said, I meant, based on what I earn. I.e., you earn more, you pay proportionately more.... you have more success, we take a bigger percentage.... Why?

So is your libertarian ideology.

Nuh-uh!

That's the problem. I'd rather have single payer. But that requires the political will to pass it i.e there had to be enough Senators and Representatives willing to pass single payer, or enough people willing to vote in such people. I hope we will eventually get to single payer. I see Obamacare as a stop-gap along the way.

Free market medicine doesn't work, because in practical terms no one except somebody extremely wealthy could save up enough for cancer treatment or even moderate life-saving surgery.

Par example: Several years ago, I had my gall bladder taken out. Without that I might well be dead by now. It cost around $30,000.00 dollars, most of which insurance paid for. I certainly had not set aside that kind of money to pay for that kind of event. Even if I had, tomorrow I or Alessandra or one of our children could be so badly injured or suffer a stroke or get a serious illness, so that we need a huge amount of medical care, possibly for life. There is simply no way for a person who isn't extremely rich to set aside the money necessary to cover possible catastrophe.

I ask myself: does it COST $30,000 dollars to take out a gallbladder? And if so, WHY? Why do costs for relatively routine procedures continue to go up instead of down? A damn box of Kleenex used during a hospital stay is billed out at $10.

With everything else, technologically speaking, price goes down. In a free market, every business wants to increase its pool of customers, and beat its competitors' prices.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

Gale Haut · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
They would have to do a 180 on most of their social policies, too....

I think they'll have to given the influx of the hispanic vote. They've already begun discussing compromise on immigration policies. And I really think that the view of the GOP is going to become more and more uncompromising over the next two years. Along with that you'll see the Tea Party dissolve into nothing, and former libertarians taking Republican seats in the house.

I'm just speculating.

RichardGarfinkle · Nov 12, 2012

Chrissy said:
I said, I meant, based on what I earn. I.e., you earn more, you pay proportionately more.... you have more success, we take a bigger percentage.... Why?

Nuh-uh!

I ask myself: does it COST $30,000 dollars to take out a gallbladder? And if so, WHY? Why do costs for relatively routine procedures continue to go up instead of down? A damn box of Kleenex used during a hospital stay is billed out at $10.

With everything else, technologically speaking, price goes down. In a free market, every business wants to increase its pool of customers, and beat its competitors' prices.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It costs a lot for a number of reasons:
1. Human skill. It takes surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and a number of other people to run a surgery.

2. Hardware. There were a number of machines keeping me alive at the time and afterwords.

3. Medicine etc. There were a number of drugs necessary to keep me healthy and not screaming in pain.

4. Monitoring. I was in the hospital for several days afterwards being monitored by hardware, software, and skilled humans.

While some of these costs could probably be reduced. But probably not by more than 1/2. And the routine character of the surgery does not reduce the fact that it was surgery.

Surgery is the art of cutting humans open and putting them back together in better shape then when the surgeon started. Given how fragile we are that is a freaking difficult thing to do. Survival chances on gall bladder surgery these days are darned high, but that's mostly because of all the expensive stuff and training involved.

Edit: Philosophy means love of wisdom. So you are saying that Libertarians do not love wisdom. Okay, I'll agree.

Obama lays down the gauntlet.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

With great power comes

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Nurture Phoenixes

It's a matter of what is.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Nurture Phoenixes

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

waxing digital artistic

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

waxing digital artistic

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

waxing digital artistic

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

waxing digital artistic

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Nurture Phoenixes

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

waxing digital artistic

Nurture Phoenixes