Democrat Signs Tax Pledge… Where are the Republicans?
This is almost sad… despite the fact that only ten of the 52 Republicans in the Assembly have been willing to say that they will not vote for a budget that includes any tax increases or any fee increases that aren’t directly related to the cost of delivering the service, we now have our first unsolicited Democrat to sign on.
Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer is going to stand by the taxpayers and oppose any budget that includes tax increases. He says:
Owen:
Please add me to your “not gonna vote for any budget with any stinkin’ tax increases"list.
Call on me as needed.Thanks
Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer
D-Manitowoc
25th Assembly District
PS Make sure they don’t water down the property tax levy limits either.
Now there are 11 members of the Assembly willing to stand against tax increases. It’s beginning to be a bit disturbing when some Democrats are willing to draw a harder line on tax increases than Republicans. Here are the 11:
Rep. Vukmir
Rep. LeMahieu
Rep. Lothian
Rep. Pridemore
Rep. Lasee
Rep. Zipperer
Rep. Nass
Rep. Kramer
Rep. Nygren
Rep. Gunderson
Rep. Ziegelbauer
Please join me in letting these Assemblyfolks know that we support them because they support us.
Here’s an updated map of Wisconsin. The red areas are represented by Assemblyfolks who are willing to oppose tax increases.
Owen, please describe the level and mechanism of taxation that uou think is appropriate, i.e., the point at which you and yours will stop whining about it. Also, please provide some sense of a budget that would meet the state’s needs and function on your suggested level of taxation.
Thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0016 hrs
Girlie men Republicans need to grow a pair and stop being afraid of the big, bad Road Builders.
Posted by pdigaudio on May 29, 2007 at 0458 hrs
Actually, knowing the politics of some “Republicans” vs. my cousin, I won’t call it sad.
I’d call it predictable.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on May 29, 2007 at 0630 hrs
Great job Owen - keep it up. I urge everyone to contact their legislator and ask them why they are not on the list, or if they are - thank them for their pledge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0646 hrs
Bob if taxes are so great you are free to pay more hell give all your money to the government if you chose. I love how lefty such as yourself just love to give other peoples money away.
You say if you want to keep your own money instead of giving it to the government you are whining What did the government do to earn that money Bob why are they entitled to more of it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0659 hrs
Wow, it’s almost as if Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable. Like maybe neither party has a consistent platform about anything and that there are significant differences between members of the same party to the same degree that there are differences between members of different parties. Could it be that party politics = stupid?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0753 hrs
A Democrat committed to keeping taxes down?! What on Earth could this lead to? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!
Posted by Nick on May 29, 2007 at 0816 hrs
Owen, did you send the letter to Democrats as well? Also, did you send the letter to all Republicans in the assembly or just around the Milwaukee area?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0903 hrs
Owen, I think you should send your letter to the dems as well.
Posted by Matt on May 29, 2007 at 0911 hrs
Chris - can’t you address the question? Or is bumper sticker sloganeering all ya got?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1017 hrs
jesusisjustalrightwithme makes an excellent point. Political parties are simply organizational structures…they are necessary tools for coalescing power, but do not necessarily define philosophy. Our country has seen changes in party names in the past, but the basic difference has always been the same - government power vs. personal freedom.
Kudos to Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer for standing on the side of the taxpayer. I only wish Rep. Strachota (my Assemblyman) had done the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1221 hrs
Dan,
I just sent it to Assembly Republicans. Bob ought me out.
Matt,
Not a bad idea.
Bob,
I have given you countless examples on this blog of spending that I would cut from transportation to 4k to SeniorCare. I have also told you wholesale changes I would make in the structure of state government. Do you want me to draft a bill, or what?
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1254 hrs
Anyone holding their breath waiting for Strachota to listen to her constituents is nuts. Rather than listening to her constituents on this, she is taking orders from her leadership. Of course, that’s no surprise. Her willingness to do whatever she’s told is the very reason Huebsch brought her onto the leadership team in the first place.
Strachota is just a rich woman with no political sense. A grassroots conservative could challenge her in the primary and have a real shot. Strachota doesn’t want her spot badly enough to bust her ass to keep it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1331 hrs
wiaggie, if the difference between the Republicans and Democrats had anything to do with government power vs. personal freedom, I’d probably be able to pick a party. Maybe it was possible to draw that distinction at one time, but now it is very very clear that both parties want big government and lots of limits on personal freedom. The borrow-and-spend Republicans, for example, want big government to limit your personal freedom to do drugs, have certain medical procedures, become a citizen, say certain things etc. etc. The tax-and-spend Democrats want to use big government to limit your personal freedom to carry a gun, trade with certain people, pay a particular wage to your employees, smoke in certain places and say certain things. From the standpoint of someone who always supports policies that favor personal freedom (unless the harm principle applies) I find the two parties virtually indsitinguishable.
I like your pledge here Owen. I think you should invite the Dems to sign on. Some Dems just might favor low taxes. Afterall, some Republicans do and that goes pretty much against their party philosophy too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1331 hrs
I heard a rumor about someone looking to challenge Strachota in her next primary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1350 hrs
Strachota is just a rich woman with no political sense. A grassroots conservative could challenge her in the primary and have a real shot. Strachota doesn’t want her spot badly enough to bust her ass to keep it.
I heard a rumor about someone looking to challenge Strachota in her next primary.
Interesting! I thought that she got elected because she was riding on Glen Grothman’s tail. Wasn’t that the election where supposedly the only thing preventing the adoption of TABOR was Mary Panzer’s attempt to compromise with the Democrats? I wasn’t too fond of Panzer, either, I thought her downfall was losing touch with the electorate & that provided an opportunity for Grothman to upgrade his career.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1359 hrs
Owen, if you are willing, and you are, to make sweeping statements about how high taxes are, I think you oughta offer the big picture of how you think taxation should look (other than lower) and how we get there other than random pot shots at the occasional news item.
I think its all well and good when broad generalities fly about. Who’s gonna put some detail or meaning to it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1447 hrs
Bob… seriously… are you not reading? I have put up both specific cuts that I would support and proposals for changing the structure of state government. Again… do you want me to write a budget or something? I really don’t know what more you want. Perhaps you should write your own budget bill.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1816 hrs
Owen, i am loyal reader. But no, I see no hint at any comprehensive ideas that could possibly support the broad and unqualified statement you’ve asked legislators to sign on to.
Its the easiest thing in the world to convince folks that they pay too much - until you need to actually make government work and provide the very same folks want provided.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1823 hrs
Fine. How about this for a start:
- Can SeniorCare
- Begin the process to cut state spending for K-12 and let the local districts pay for their own schools.
- Cut transportation spending by $1 billion.
- Eliminate Shared Revenue.
- Make the UW Regents elected or privatize the university system.
- Eliminate sick leave benefits for elected officials.
- Buy something cheaper for the State Patrol than Dodge Chargers. Come to think of it, doe Gov. Doyle really need his Tahoes to have so much bling?
- Eliminate the Stewardship Fund.
Is that enough of a start for you? By doing these things, we could start to reduce our tax burden.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1842 hrs
The comment about Pat Strachota listening to the GOP leadership is interesting. I would have thought people would have learned the lesson of Mary Panzer. It’s about representing your people, not keeping the power structure in place.
There is still time to sign on Pat…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1858 hrs
Number of those cuts accomplishable in a bipartisan political environment? Zero. Okay, maybe 1 - perhaps the Dems would give on the State Patrol vehicles.
That’s the problem out here. Everyone sits on the sidelines and acts like getting the job done is a piece of cake. Wave your magic wand, cut a few billion, and still make it home in time for dinner.
Climb in the ring and see how you’d fare. I’m willing to bet that you, like most of the other partisans, would be planted firmly on the sideline while the grown-ups try to get the job done.
Woe be unto the person that has to sell your “agenda” in any district that isn’t at least 60% GOP. It - and the candidate spouting it - would be DOA.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 29, 2007 at 1906 hrs
Recess,
Unlike you, some of us are actually interested in enacting good public policy instead of just being a good “team” player or building “consensus.” I was saying what I would do in a perfect world in the name of good policy. I am perfectly aware of the political realities of those proposals. At the same time, I am more interested in working toward good public policy than focusing on getting along with the other folks under the Dome. Your mindset is clearly one of someone who spent far too much time working for politicians.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1920 hrs
I’ve known Pat Strachota for a number of years and sent her an email on Thursday saying I was disappointed she didn’t sign the pledge. No word back from her yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1929 hrs
Don’t worry, Tony. You’ll receive a letter in the mail as a response… at taxpayer expense, of course
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1935 hrs
Owen, that map is very interesting. Let me add something to your list, here are the victory margins of the people that have signed up:
Rep. Vukmir - 61.7
Rep. LeMahieu - Unopposed
Rep. Lothian - 53.7
Rep. Pridemore - Unopposed
Rep. Lasee - Token Opposition
Rep. Zipperer - 71.0
Rep. Nass - 64.0
Rep. Kramer - 55.8
Rep. Nygren - 54.2
Rep. Gunderson - 68.6
Rep. Ziegelbauer - 56.6Note that Rep. Hahn (150 votes), Rep. Williams (200 votes), and Rep. Davis (250 votes) have not signed up. Neither have Rep. Moulton (51%) or Rep. Murtha (51%).
Terry Moulton knows that he outspent by a ton an opponent that ran on little support other than the skin of his door knocking knuckles and won because he was the only Republican to emphasize health care reform in his ads.
John Murtha knows that he won thanks to a massive firebombing radio campaign from WMC targeting his weak opponent.
Both were extremely lucky to be running in an area with so many hot races that there was just not enough money to pursue all the possible targets.
You guys are 600 votes away from the minority. Do you really think it’s a good idea to let southeast conservatives in safe seats drive the agenda, ignoring the people that are holding on to your Assembly majority by their fingernails?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1941 hrs
I’ll be honest, Jim. I don’t care. I’m a taxpayer who is overburdened. Silly me, but I want to spend more of my own money instead of sending it to government to spend on my behalf. I want the Republicans to retain the majority because I believe they are generally better at being fiscally responsible. At the same time, if this current batch of Republicans are going to be as bad a the Democrats, I don’t really care if they are sent back to the private sector to relearn Republican principles.
You make the assumption that those Republicans in tight districts are in that position because of their unwillingness to tax and spend like Democrats. I think that many of them can be replaced with stronger fiscal conservatives and still keep the seat for the GOP.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 1947 hrs
I think that many of them can be replaced with stronger fiscal conservatives and still keep the seat for the GOP.
And that shows your complete lack of experience in Wisconsin politics. Additionally, you are so upset with only get certain percentage of what you want from Madison that you are willing to help the Dems take back the Assembly. This will result in you getting none of what you want for many years.
At the same time, if this current batch of Republicans are going to be as bad a the Democrats, I don’t really care if they are sent back to the private sector to relearn Republican principles.
Spoken like a someone with no concept of Dem control. You make silly statements about not being able to tell the parties apart. A couple of sessions with Robson, Doyle and Kreuser shoving taxes and social programs up your ass and you will not be spouting about all your great contacts in the Capitol.
On one hand you toss the recess supervisor aside because he worked in the building and then brag about all of your insider information from those same staffers you just chided.
Agagin, this is chess. You are playing checkers. It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to accept the fact your brand of idealogy is a solid 39 to 40 seats - which gets you absolutely nothing in Madison. That is just how Wisconsin is politically.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2019 hrs
You make silly statements about not being able to tell the parties apart.
Prove that statement and maybe I’ll take you seriously.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 2030 hrs
I respect where you’re coming from, Owen. My point is simply that governing takes a lot more than just throwing out some unachievable ideas and then going home if people don’t give you what you want. That’s what you do when you’re in the minority.
If you think that a lot of these Republicans who barely won would’ve been better off being more conservative last fall, I would respectfully suggest that’s coming from the part of your brain that said Mark Green by 7. Your beliefs are clouding your ability to see what’s really there. Me, I’ve seen enough of both sides to know that I don’t have a side. I’m the dreaded split-ticket voter.
While Republicans are muddling around, Doyle’s gonna have 10,000 kids signed up for Wisconsin Covenant by July 1. At that point, Republicans have to fully fund it or it turns into a media nightmare. Republicans have no comprehensive health care proposal that addresses both cost for middle-class families AND access for those who are in that grey zone that puts them outside of government programs but way out of position to purchase private care. Many rural school districts are quickly approaching insolvency, and the GOP has no ideas for them. Well, consolidation, but rural GOP leggies will tell you that dog won’t fight. You can’t tell a constituent that you want to put their 8-year-old daughter on a bus for 50 minutes one way to get to school and then expect to get their vote.
I’ll grant you that a much better job needs to be done prioritizing spending. Republicans could’ve started years ago by just listening to the suggestions they were getting from the Legislative Audit Bureau - but they never really did. Now, other than some meek whining about taxes, whining that nobody believes considering the people leading the chorus, Republicans have nothing to sell. It doesn’t take a political expert to open the papers, look at the polls, and see that when it comes to the budget, Jim Doyle is eating the Republicans’ lunch. All Republicans have left are a bunch of goofy sex offender bills. The GOP agenda is totally laughable.
This isn’t Texas. It never will be. Perhaps it’s owing to our largely German and Scandinavian heritage that we are a bit less sketpical of government and are a bit more inclined towards communitarian approaches to problem solving. Perhaps it’s because we were never infused with that Wild West spirit of individualism and adventure. Who knows, really? But it is what it is. Has Wisconsin ever had a conservative governor? I don’t think so. It probably won’t anytime soon.
So your options are probably to work with what you’re given - a legislature where moderate Republicans are the key to holding the majority, and the closest you’ll get to a conservative Governor is a populist - or hand the keys to the Democrats indefinitely.
Tough call. The minority is definitely liberating from an ideological perspective. It’s easier to articulate a message. But you also have no power to change anything.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 29, 2007 at 2041 hrs
Recess,
You’re missing the my point. I am trying to push this state into something that my neighbors and I can afford. If being in the majority means higher taxes and rampant government spending (as the previous Republican Congress meant), then I don’t see the point in supporting them. If the long term prospectus for Wisconsin is a perpetual tax hell, then there will come a point when I will take my family, my assets, and my income to another state. In an increasingly virtual workforce, my physical location matters little to my earning power. If politicians don’t begin to wake up to this fact, they will find themselves in an endless cycle of taxing poor people to pay for a welfare state as the earners have moved elsewhere.
So you and Becher can take your “let’s all get along” bullshit elsewhere. It doesn’t fly with me.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 2051 hrs
When the parties become indistinguishable, change is required. Sometimes it takes the form of a third party (Whigs, Progressives, even the Reform Party) and other times it merely requires a leader at the national level (Reagan, Gingrich).
What is certain is that no one becomes a leader by being the greatest compromiser or the best consensus-maker. The pledge simply drives home the point that, if you don’t have the votes, you need to fall back on your principles (assuming you have some).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2055 hrs
Prove that statement and maybe I’ll take you seriously.
Really? QEO? Levy limits? Universal Health Care? Minimum Wage? Abortion? Tribal Gaming? Beer Tax? Crime Laws? Medical Malpractice caps? Business Liability?
How many examples do you need?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2131 hrs
Ummm… you stated, “You make silly statements about not being able to tell the parties apart.”
Where did I state that?
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 2139 hrs
I agree with the posters above that Wisconsin is a unique state where a large contingent of people love to spend taxpayer money because of a socialist/utopian heritage.
However, I’m not willing to write off last fall’s election as some sort of referendum in favor of higher taxes and bigger government. A big part of the democratic successes last year was due to one issue only. Iraq.
If the GOP “mainstream” as they characterize themselves on this blog can’t pledge to freeze taxes, how about then introducing a bill to do the equivalent of “mutual fund” disclosure statements yearly to each taxpayer? This would be a statement that would show side by side typical taxes paid last year versus this year for each resident. i.e. State income tax, property tax, gas tax, car registration fee tax, etc. Mail out a statement or “bill” each year to every citizen showing what increases if any have occurred in these items. Shed some sunshine on things. Mail that out to every taxpayer each year and let’s see how strong our “socialist” heritage truly is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2144 hrs
Owen, believe me, I get your point. You’re not misunderstood. Nobody can misunderstand you Owen, you’re about as subtle as a sledgehammer, the talking doll that only says one phrase.
“Me no like taxes.”
And that phrase is fine. Tom DeLay liked it too. And my point is that you can’t do anything about that without power, and you can’t get power unless you can convince moderates that they’re better off with your team than the liberals. Even Newt understood that.
But it’s good to know that you’re finally admitting publicly that you don’t give a flip about being in power. That alone should speak volumes to those in government who are foolishly heeding your words. You’ll march them off a cliff just to be right.
- RS
P.S. I haven’t talked to Becher for nearly a month. You’ve got 20 sources, and I’ve probably got just as many. You’re right. Transparency is a great thing…
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 29, 2007 at 2210 hrs
Hmmmmm, RS… a bit sensitive? Try a nice salve of realism. The rest of us deal with it every day.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2007 at 2214 hrs
- Can SeniorCare
- Begin the process to cut state spending for K-12 and let the local districts pay for their own schools.
- Cut transportation spending by $1 billion.
- Eliminate Shared Revenue.
- Make the UW Regents elected or privatize the university system.
- Eliminate sick leave benefits for elected officials.
- Buy something cheaper for the State Patrol than Dodge Chargers. Come to think of it, doe Gov. Doyle really need his Tahoes to have so much bling?
- Eliminate the Stewardship Fund.
Does it matter to you that (1) the vast majority of people want some of these things? And, more importantly, you simply shift the tax burden the local level. This is all smoke and mirrors - eliminate shared revenue? Cut funding to schools? Boom, Owen, you just tripled my property taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 0108 hrs
“...shift the tax burden to the local level.”
Yes, the local level, where real genuine actual taxpayers may have a say in the matter and choose not to spend so frivilously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 0742 hrs
BV - Fine - than let Owen and his fellow travelers speak more forthrightly - its not about lower taxes, its about where they are levied and paid, a much much different issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 0933 hrs
its not about lower taxes, its about where they are levied and paid, a much much different issue.
No, it’s about both. Local control of taxes makes it much easier to achieve lower taxes.
Posted by Jed on May 30, 2007 at 0938 hrs
Jed - then, can someone tell me what the right level and mechanism of taxation would look like and how it would work?
And by the way, your suggestion that this is easier to control at the local level is wrong. First, county and town/city governments have obligations they have to meet and the money must come from somewhere, You are missing the fact that a very direct relationship exists between the levels of government that make these issues a lot more complicated than you folks admit.
Owen’s idea to killed shared revenue and reduce school funding will require local governments to rachet up taxes big time. This whole simplistic “All taxes are always too high” thing is all smoke and mirrors. But, this is what happens when a discussion about a complex issue has to fit on a bumpersticker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1113 hrs
Which, of course, is why conservatives in Wisconsin were frothing at the mouth about TABOR for a few years. Because they all believed that local control of taxes makes it much easier to achieve lower taxes.
Yup. Local control and Wisconsin conservatives. Those two go hand in hand.
I agree with you completely Jed. Unfortunately, Republicans up here sold out on the concept of local control, and made political enemies out of a whole bunch of long-time allies, especially in rural areas. What’d they get to show for it? Nothing.
Just another in a series of terrible political moves made by John Gard.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 30, 2007 at 1117 hrs
Received a letter today from Sue Jeskewitz stating she would not sign the Pledge. RINO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1204 hrs
Jed - then, can someone tell me what the right level and mechanism of taxation would look like and how it would work?
I notice that you like to ask these broad questions knowing that a thorough answer cannot be achieved in a comment or single blog post. I suggest you learn to use the search feature of this blog. It’s at the upper right.
Our views on taxes, including what we believe to be the appropriate levels and mechanisms have been amply covered over the last four years. We’re not going to attempt to condense them down to a comment for you.
Posted by Jed on May 30, 2007 at 1212 hrs
Wasn’t it JFK who said “You cannot tax your way to prosperity”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1216 hrs
Eliminating Shared Revenue has been tried already. Pick up a newspaper from Marchish of 2002 and see how well it went over. I don’t think it is a bad idea, just a really really tough sell to people who think that West Bend will cut fire service as opposed to not re-painting city hall. Democrats (and too many non-thinking Republicans) killed McCallum for that proposal. So to balance the budget he raided the tobacco fund. Programs were not cut and taxes were not raised.
Of course, the tobacco raid in 2002 was about the 6th straight budget where programs were not cut and taxes were not raised and instead those in Madison found different ways to make no one happy.
I don’t want to see taxes go up, but I dont want my schools to be like Texas and my roads like IllinoisPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1236 hrs
Wasn’t it JFK who said “You cannot tax your way to prosperity”?
...and de Tocqueville wrote that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1301 hrs
Bob, local versus state taxes, and the level of taxation overall are not separate issues. Local spending is far more transparent, and the people doing the spending far more accountable. In this environment, I submit that spending and taxation are inevitably lower.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0725 hrs
Strachota isn’t concerned about her district…she wants to be important, and thats why she’s in leadership. She has no agenda, no conservative bone in her body, no empathy for the average taxpayer in her district, no ideas for reducing the size and scope of government, no cause she is championing, and deep down, she is probably a dem who knew she had to run as a Republican to win. The fact she has represented West Bend more than one term is a disgrace. Can’t anyone take her out in 08? How about Owen???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2007 at 2033 hrs
Thanks, Liz, but Owen isn’t running. There are a few people in the wings, but Strachota’s voting record is pretty strong. If her votes begin to waiver, it won’t take long for someone to emerge.
Posted by Owen on June 21, 2007 at 2037 hrs
Why raise taxes? That is a good question and I would like a good answer to my question. The only for some to pay taxes would be to start a new job for an online stock trading company.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2008 at 1114 hrs
Total Entries: 19648
Total Comments: 129784
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 11:52 am
Most Recent Comment on: 02/09/2012 04:56 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/09/2012 06:38 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).