a rebate isnt income redistribution, unless of course you cap it like this one.

Income redistribution is a democratic model, they constantly bring up class warfare and lack of self responsiblity.

1/24/2008 4:53:16 PM

I dont know what else you call giving people money out of a pile of money they didnt contribute to.

1/24/2008 4:55:01 PM

well a "rebate" should by definition should go to those who paid something. During the first refund, it was the dems that pushed to get it to those who didnt contribute, which they won out and called it a "child credit" instead. LOL

1/24/2008 5:06:17 PM

Bush and congress are thieving scum. The cap makes the whole thing a complete and perfect socialist nightmare.


Bush and congress: If you graduated from college, FUCK YOU

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 6:02:03 PM

Quote :

"I dont know what else you call giving people money out of a pile of money they didnt contribute to."

Luckily only a small fraction of those receiving the rebate checks would be those that didn't contribute anything. <20%. As someone making $70K , which is 5K below the cutoff is paying around 28% JUST to the federal gov't.

1/24/2008 8:23:09 PM

some of my friends and I have resolved to put the check directly in the bank when we get it and save it for as long as we can.

Just to undermine the purpose of it.


Cashing it and putting all the money under your mattress is the best way to not help the economy though.

1/24/2008 9:27:15 PM

Other than "spite," what exactly is your goal in doing such?

1/24/2008 9:30:32 PM

^^ not true. by stuffing it in your mattress, you remove excess liquidity and thus reduce inflationary pressures. butterfly flapping wings causing a hurricane on the other side of the world...



[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ^]

1/24/2008 9:30:40 PM

This sounds a lot like "Why don't we just print more money?"

1/24/2008 9:34:22 PM

Quote :

"some of my friends and I have resolved to put the check directly in the bank when we get it and save it for as long as we can. Just to undermine the purpose of it."

Apparently you and your friends are huge idiots. What do you think the bank does when you deposit it?

1/24/2008 9:45:33 PM

Quote :

"Tax Rebates: Old Wine in Old Skins By Wolfgang Grassl 1/25/2008 Here they go again. According to the news, the federal government intends to sprinkle $145 billion piecemeal among taxpayers in order to "fight recession." The details of tax rebates are still to be worked out, particularly who exactly should benefit from the public largesse. But regardless, it is the principle that is rotten, and for reasons of economic logic. The main culprit of the recession — whether already officially declared or not — is the policy of monetary expansion that has been practiced for the better part of the past two decades. Low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve translated into monetary injections into the banking system, which in turn pressed them onto consumers in the form of cheap credit. For many years, American households and businesses have been inundated with credit offers that neither reflected the true cost of money on international markets nor individual creditworthiness or the expected profitability of projects. It has all led to a severe distortion of economic calculation by consumers and businesses alike. If credit no longer reflects the true scarcity price of loanable funds, consumers will shuffle balances from one credit card to the next, and ultimately take out equity-backed lines of credit, until all equity they may once have held is consumed, and businesses will use supplier credit and ever more sophisticated financial instruments until they must face the unavoidable and declare bankruptcy. At the level of the economy at large, this activates the cycles of booms and busts that Austrian economists have analyzed so perceptively. The consumer price index rose 4.1 percent in 2007, compared with a 2.5 percent increase in 2006. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported (1/16/2008) that, discounted for rising prices, the wages of American workers fell 0.9 percent between December 2006 and December 2007. And stock market indexes have been sagging for weeks, not even to mention depressed values of real estate. Just as the effects of credit expansion were predictable, it can be said with almost equal certainty that the proposed cure will be ineffective at best and pernicious at worst. Fighting easy money with even more of it? This has been done before in many countries, and always with the same effects. It was last practiced in the United States in 2001. Based on all historical evidence (and supported by simple economic logic) one may expect that opening the Keynesian toolbox will lead to even greater disaster, and for the following reasons: First, about 70 percent of economic growth over the past years was a result of consumption. Now that consumption is slowing down — with lower retail expenditure during the Christmas season and dropping charges to credit cards — a tax rebate will again fan consumption. It will not do a thing to increase savings, from which future investments can be made. We all know by now that the way out of a recession is through the building of capital goods, not through the temporary fattening up of American retailers and Chinese manufacturers. Second, government can finance its largesse only by either raising taxes — if for political reasons not now, then in future years — or by borrowing even more. Already today, total public debt amounts to over $9 trillion, or two thirds of annual GDP. About 44 percent of it is owed to foreign entities. It will have to be paid back — whether through years of lower consumption, or domestic inflation, or a reduction in the external value of the dollar. Third, spending oneself out of a recession never works. Consider only the case of Japan, where the central bank engaged in no fewer than ten stimulus programs over the 1990s that totaled over 100 trillion yen — with economic growth being as paltry as it was before. All this would counsel government not to sprinkle $145 billion piecemeal among taxpayers, even if rebates are added for businesses. It reinforces the exact mentality of a happy-go-lucky spending behavior that is the proximate if not final cause of artificial booms. Now the economy must work itself out — through the reduced expenditure paths of millions of households, the sale of assets to reduce debt, the resizing or closing of firms, and the reduction of government programs, until such time as savings can again be built, new waves of investment can start, and product innovation leads to export revenue. Making consumers and businesses appreciate the real value of assets is the way out. There are no shortcuts, only placebos. But realizing this seems to require more than can today be expected of any government — with a "conservative" label or any other. Wolfgang Grassl is professor of business administration at St. Norbert College in DePere, Wisconsin. "

Not what you'd call a "feel-good" solution.

1/27/2008 10:50:04 AM

ok let me get this straight, correct me if im wrong in principle....

but, to stimulate the economy, the govt is giving out money

the money has to come from somewhere, right?

so its all negated, eh?

1/27/2008 12:48:59 PM

yeah i am kind of curious as to where this money will come from

1/27/2008 3:07:29 PM

so according to this thread, people putting this money under their mattress won't hurt the economy, putting it in the bank won't hurt the economy...

I guess the economy just grows whenever there's a rebate in a perfectly casual relationship.

1/27/2008 3:22:21 PM

its black magic

1/27/2008 4:54:02 PM

No, icanread... The gov't will print the money out of thin air. literally. And somehow, by devaluing the dollar, we will make the economy stronger. My driving inflation sky high, the economy will recover magically.

1/27/2008 8:56:17 PM

I don't know why you guys are so confused. In August or so we get $$$ and a little later in the year we vote.

The politicians took a look at the American population and decided that most of us think that the government's job is to give us stuff.

For example, many of us have been conditioned to think so since our childhoods where we learned implicitly by the example of government schools. Where better to learn that government funded mediocrity was a fact of life, a needed facet of our existence. And don't even draw the comparison of NCSU to public schools you simpletons, forgive me if I don't remember the public schools drawing the best and the brightest minds from across the world to teach and research.[\Rant]

Ok, there is that whole economic slow-down angle, but really, I think my explanation is more realistic.

1/27/2008 9:20:34 PM

disregarding the fact that US gov does not pay for public schools are you suggesting that the citizens should not be supplied with Free Education opportunities.

1/27/2008 9:33:50 PM

^^Yeah, I agree. Public schools suck gigantic balls. You can't express a thought for shit...please PM a list of your public school teachers so I can keep an eye out for them when I have my own children.

1/27/2008 10:06:18 PM

Quote :

"disregarding the fact that US gov does not pay for public schools are you suggesting that the citizens should not be supplied with Free Education opportunities."

The federal gov't sets national standards (no child left behind.. etc) and enforces them by dangling our tax-money in front of state gov'ts. So they do influence local education.

I take it by the term "Free Education Opportunities" you conclude that no one pays for it?
As I've repeated, education is way too important to entrust it to Ted Kennedy, George Bush and the Teacher's Union bigwigs. We should stop taxing people to death, phase out the public school system and let the market for education handle itself.

1/28/2008 12:21:21 AM

Quote :

"The federal gov't sets national standards (no child left behind.. etc) and enforces them by dangling our tax-money in front of state gov'ts. So they do influence local education."

well i disagree with the federal putting a hand in state ran public schools also. Teaching to the test and NCLB is such crab and does nothing but give politicians numbers to show off while the teachers are getting the shaft.

Regardless as libertarian as i view many of my political issues i fail to see a net benefit of the removal of public schools. We'd regress to 13 yr olds working in the factory again b.c i do not see the private sector being able to accommodate the masses that may not be able to see the benefit or have the money to pay for their children to attend school through 12th grade.

Quote :

"you conclude that no one pays for it"

you are right we pay for them. Education is one of the few programs i fully support in the gov't role of applying tax payer dollars into. As education is more of an investment into future productivity, increased civil stability, reduction in criminal activity, and less leeching on embedded social programs currently funded.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : l]

1/28/2008 12:57:06 AM

Quote :

"i do not see the private sector being able to accommodate the masses "

The private sector feeds the masses, it builds houses, it creates wonder drugs, it entertains. Why can't it educate the masses?

I agree with you that education is very important. But just because something is important doesn't mean you have to always automatically turn it over to a bunch of politicians. Wouldn't you agree?

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 1:18:36 AM

Quote :

"disregarding the fact that US gov does not pay for public schools "

oh really? i wish.

Quote :

"Education is one of the few programs i fully support in the gov't role of applying tax payer dollars into. As education is more of an investment into future productivity, increased civil stability, reduction in criminal activity, and less leeching on embedded social programs currently funded"

agreed, at least on face value. i disagree that government is always (or maybe even usually) the best instrument by which to run schools, although I'm all for government largely footing the bill for education. I do maintain that the federal government should stay out of the business altogether, unless we amend the Constitution to make a provision allowing such involvement (which I don't think would be a good idea, unless it was very restrictive and very explicit in what would and would not be allowed).


i went to a private school through 2nd grade. at that point, my parents were struggling financially and were being crippled by the tuition bills, but they felt that the sacrifice was worth it to make sure I got the best possible education. Finally, to make a long story short, a friend of my dad's (who was the headmaster or somethingorother at the time of a prominant private school in the raleigh area) told him that the amount of money spent per student in public school absolutely dwarfed (by an order of magnitude or two, if i remember correctly) the amount spent per student in this prestigious private school, and that between that and certain economies of scale, the public schools could offer resources that a private school could not hope to compete with.


The point is that the quality of education received at public and private institutions is probably about equivalent, but private schools are far more efficient with their budgets (anyone surprised?) If the bigger hammer approach of throwing money at public schools was coupled with at least some private sector competition, efficiency, and innovation, I'll bet that the results would fall somewhere between beneficial and stunning.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 2:15 AM. Reason : and maybe past the point of financial diminishing returns, where we could actually spend LESS]

1/28/2008 2:14:16 AM

Quote :

"Teaching to the test and NCLB is such crab. . . ."

HUR

But, yeah, I don't like those things much either.

1/28/2008 2:37:21 AM

my mom said i had to make 3 grand to get 300 back....i only made like 2400

1/28/2008 3:31:16 AM

Quote :

"i disagree that government is always (or maybe even usually) the best instrument by which to run schools, although I'm all for government largely footing the bill for education. I do maintain that the federal government should stay out of the business altogether, unless we amend the Constitution to make a provision allowing such involvement (which I don't think would be a good idea, unless it was very restrictive and very explicit in what would and would not be allowed)."

I mean yeah that would be the optimal scenario if the gov't funded privately ran institutions maybe with a voucher system thus allowing schools to compete for gov't funded vouchers.

Quote :

"The private sector feeds the masses, it builds houses, it creates wonder drugs, it entertains. Why can't it educate the masses?"

W/o any public funding I fail to see the private sector coming to the rescue for every child regardless of their parents income level. A lot of people do not even have health insurance what makes you think they would spend their money on sending their kids to school if they had to pay a few 1000 per year.

i mean you do care about having an informed ele

btw

theDuke866

Quote :

"oh really? i wish."

Quote :

"However, federal funding accounts for little of the overall funding schools receive. The vast majority comes from the state government and from local property taxes.Property taxes as a primary source of funding for public education have become highly controversial, for a number of reasons. First, if a state's population and land values escalate rapidly, many longtime residents may find themselves paying property taxes much higher than anticipated. In response to this phenomenon, California's citizens passed Proposition 13 in 1978, which severely restricted the ability of the Legislature to expand the state's educational system to keep up with growth. Another issue is that many parents of private school and homeschooled children have taken issue with the idea of paying for an education their children are not receiving. However, tax proponents point out that every person pays property taxes for public education, not just parents of school-age children. Indeed, without it schools would not have enough money to remain open. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Funding_for_K-12_schoolsctorate, and promoting the general welfare by creating a more skilled workforce don't you.



[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 9:56 AM. Reason : a]

1/28/2008 9:52:01 AM

^ I too think that the private sector would do a better job educating kids. However, without the govt forcing kids to go to school, and funding, many irresponsible parents wouldnt send thier kids to school regularly. Hell, I have school nurses bring in kids because the parents wont take them to doctors...and it cost them nothing. At least with schooling they have a chance, whether they take it or not is another issue.

1/28/2008 10:06:19 AM

agreed

1/28/2008 10:11:18 AM

Quote :

"However, without the govt forcing kids to go to school, "

I'd be OK with that as a start. Let the gov't collect the money and then allow parents to choose from the variety of school options that would be created in the free market.

It would be important to make sure gov't cannot mandate what has to be taught at these private schools. If it is, you will end up with another mess like the health care industry..where gov't mandates minimum coverage requirements for employer plans...many of which include things which many people (mostly younger) don't need.

1/28/2008 10:30:36 AM

what about Christian schools....

1/28/2008 10:39:49 AM

^well if every child is given a credit to apply towards a school, and every child is given the same amount, then the parent could choose where to send thier kid. I think with standardized tests and college entrance exams if the school didnt teach well, then kids would stop going.

The problem with govt policies is that people are treated differently, which creates resentment in society. I would love to see the govt take a balanced approach towards everyone.

1/28/2008 12:04:16 PM

what needs to be done is for school curriculum needs to be changed from the "standardized test, and prepping everyone for college" system.

I'd say we need a branched system where starting in say high school or even middle school students are broken up with input from parents wishes, guidance counselor, and the students shown amplitude. Some kids will be put on the college prep track, while other kids are put on a vocational track aimed at providing them with skills to join the work force after graduation.

1/28/2008 12:31:51 PM

Kids already have that ability to take electives in high school. I guess where I disagree with you is why not prep the kids to go to college, then if they choose to do something else they can. instead of being prepped for vocational school, then deciding to go to duke later, but its too late. You could always learn a skill at a community college later, but dont close off the opportunity for them.

1/28/2008 12:37:36 PM

Quote :

"instead of being prepped for vocational school, then deciding to go to duke later,"

Having a mother has a career in teaching it is very apparent about what kids regardless of socioeconomic status are capable or even willing to do college prep and which ones will be getting a job out of h.s.

Yes currently students get electives but in NC the "core" curriculum is even stricter then when I was in school. 4 years english, math, history, science, etc. Especially in the last 2 years when students are old enough to drop out more options should be given in vocation skills education. This would probably help the drop out rate and make students more skilled for better positions out of high school instead of having to hit up a community college paying out of pocket for two years. As of right now the current core curriculum is merely a by-product of schools trying to adhere to NCLB and raise their standardized score test for funding.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ;]

1/28/2008 1:00:53 PM

addition by subtraction! smaller rebates so they can give money to old people

Quote :

"Senate May Add to Stimulus Package January 28, 2008 - 12:44pm Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, right, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, second from left, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, center,and Sen Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., left, speak to reporters at the White House, Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008, in Washington, after meeting with President Bush about the global market turmoil. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds) By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats will move to add to a $150 billion economic stimulus package rebates for senior citizens living off Social Security and an extension of unemployment benefits, setting up a clash with the White House and House leaders who are pushing a narrower package. As the House planned a vote Tuesday on a plan that would speed rebates of up to $600 to most income earners _ more for couples and families with children _ the Senate was planning to draft its own measure with the add-ons, said senior Senate aides in both parties, speaking on condition of anonymity because the package is not yet final. The move was in defiance of admonitions from the Bush administration not to risk derailing the deal with changes, and it threatened to slow what was shaping up as an extraordinarily rapid trip through Congress for the stimulus measure. The president and House leaders agreed last week on a proposal to provide rebates to 117 million families and to give businesses $50 billion in incentives to invest in new plants and equipment. The goal is to help head off a recession and boost consumer confidence. A meeting of the Senate Finance Committee to draft a new version of the bill could come as early as Wednesday. Adding rebates for senior citizens living solely off Social Security checks _ who are ineligible under the plan hatched by House leaders and the White House _ would likely mean doling out smaller rebates overall, shrinking the size of the payments from $600 to $500, according to aides familiar with the emerging proposal. President Bush planned to use his State of the Union address on Monday night to call on Congress to move quickly on the agreement, the White House said. Bush will tell "Congress, and specifically the Senate, not to delay or derail this agreement," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. Still, pressure from the elderly and labor unions _ both politically potent forces _ is spurring senators from both parties to call for the extras. The House plan leaves out some 20 million seniors, according to the AARP. The Senate measure is likely to include a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and a 26-week extension in states where the unemployment rate exceeds 6 percent, the aides said. The White House has warned against tinkering with the agreement reached with House leaders last week. "I don't think the Senate is going to want to derail this program," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Bush's pointman on the deal, told CNN on Sunday. "And I don't think the American people are going to be anything but impatient if we don't enact this bipartisan agreement quickly." But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said the Senate would consider adding to that plan, including extending unemployment benefits, boosting home heating subsidies, raising food stamp benefits and approving money for public works projects. Senate Republicans and Democrats _ kept on the sidelines as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, cut the deal with Paulson last week _ were eager to put their stamp on the high-profile package. Several wish-lists were floating around Capitol Hill, but the unemployment extension and rebates for seniors appeared to have the most bipartisan appeal. Some senators also were pressing to add to the business tax breaks in the package, including restoring a measure dropped during the House negotiations that would let businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously paid. (Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.) By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats will move to add to a $150 billion economic stimulus package rebates for senior citizens living off Social Security and an extension of unemployment benefits, setting up a clash with the White House and House leaders who are pushing a narrower package. As the House planned a vote Tuesday on a plan that would speed rebates of up to $600 to most income earners _ more for couples and families with children _ the Senate was planning to draft its own measure with the add-ons, said senior Senate aides in both parties, speaking on condition of anonymity because the package is not yet final. The move was in defiance of admonitions from the Bush administration not to risk derailing the deal with changes, and it threatened to slow what was shaping up as an extraordinarily rapid trip through Congress for the stimulus measure. The president and House leaders agreed last week on a proposal to provide rebates to 117 million families and to give businesses $50 billion in incentives to invest in new plants and equipment. The goal is to help head off a recession and boost consumer confidence. A meeting of the Senate Finance Committee to draft a new version of the bill could come as early as Wednesday. Adding rebates for senior citizens living solely off Social Security checks _ who are ineligible under the plan hatched by House leaders and the White House _ would likely mean doling out smaller rebates overall, shrinking the size of the payments from $600 to $500, according to aides familiar with the emerging proposal. President Bush planned to use his State of the Union address on Monday night to call on Congress to move quickly on the agreement, the White House said. Bush will tell "Congress, and specifically the Senate, not to delay or derail this agreement," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. Still, pressure from the elderly and labor unions _ both politically potent forces _ is spurring senators from both parties to call for the extras. The House plan leaves out some 20 million seniors, according to the AARP. The Senate measure is likely to include a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and a 26-week extension in states where the unemployment rate exceeds 6 percent, the aides said. The White House has warned against tinkering with the agreement reached with House leaders last week. "I don't think the Senate is going to want to derail this program," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Bush's pointman on the deal, told CNN on Sunday. "And I don't think the American people are going to be anything but impatient if we don't enact this bipartisan agreement quickly." But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said the Senate would consider adding to that plan, including extending unemployment benefits, boosting home heating subsidies, raising food stamp benefits and approving money for public works projects. Senate Republicans and Democrats _ kept on the sidelines as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, cut the deal with Paulson last week _ were eager to put their stamp on the high-profile package. Several wish-lists were floating around Capitol Hill, but the unemployment extension and rebates for seniors appeared to have the most bipartisan appeal. Some senators also were pressing to add to the business tax breaks in the package, including restoring a measure dropped during the House negotiations that would let businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously paid."

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&sid=1324635

1/28/2008 1:39:57 PM

for those that still have faith in this country, please excuse the following....

but i say we all take our magical rebates and immediately spend them overseas

the saving/putting under mattress/etc ideas are good and all in that they wont help the economy

but this way, not only are we not helping our own economy, we are helping the economies of other countries

aight?

1/28/2008 5:33:27 PM

Old people need to die right now. Fuck them.

1/28/2008 7:00:02 PM

"Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer"

yeah, screw getting some $$ back

1/28/2008 7:37:39 PM

Quote :

"The problem for free-market economists is that their policy recommendations at the dawn of recession are not too sexy to the political mindset. They involve either doing nothing to hinder price adjustments, or actively removing extramarket barriers to price adjustments that already exist. This often involves short-term pain in exchange for long-term solutions, when politics rewards short-term solutions that result in long-term pain. -Christopher Westley"

1/28/2008 10:51:53 PM

how long before we get that money?

if i make over $10k a year how much should I get?

1/29/2008 7:04:49 AM

^ thank you, my son, for being part of the problem

1/29/2008 8:02:35 PM

1/29/2008 10:05:50 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: ^well if every child is given a credit to apply towards a school, and every child is given the same amount, then the parent could choose where to send thier kid."

How are parents going to have a choice?

Private schools would be required to accept everyone who applied? First come, first serve?

And schools could only charge the amount of the credit from the government?

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : sss]

1/31/2008 1:25:54 PM

Quote :

"How are parents going to have a choice?"

Because ther would now be a higher demand for private education. All sorts of various private schools will be formed and compete for the parent's vouchers. They would run ads, send out information...entice you to send your kids to their school.

Quote :

"Private schools would be required to accept everyone who applied? First come, first serve? "

Keep the gov't out of it. The schools will try to attract their target market.

Quote :

"And schools could only charge the amount of the credit from the government? "

The schools would charge whatever the market would bear. You could try to send your kid to a snooty, expensive school..you would, of course, have to cover any extra charge above your gov't voucher.

Or you could send your kid to a moderately priced school, whose tuition pretty much covers the voucher.

1/31/2008 11:26:01 PM

Quote :

"how long before we get that money?"

I heard on the news you could potentially get a check in June. So my guess is sometime right before Christmas.

2/1/2008 8:15:33 AM

^^ I like the plan but the problem is the majority of school system money is paid by the state/local

2/1/2008 10:08:52 AM

Quote :

"How are parents going to have a choice? Private schools would be required to accept everyone who applied? First come, first serve? And schools could only charge the amount of the credit from the government? "

I dunno bridget, how do you choose where to eat? How did you choose where to go to school? Some man from the gubment come to your house to tell you?

Private schools could accept whoever they want, and charge whatever they want. Of course, without the govt getting envolved the market would dictate it. Kinda like sony can charge 10k for a tv if it really wants, but its competitors offer a similar product for much less. There is a thing called the free market, which when allowed to work, works best.

2/1/2008 6:01:19 PM