HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Strong opposition among y...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:16 AM

Strong opposition among young people to raising the Social Security retirement age

http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2012/12/12/strong-opposition-among-young-people-to-raising-the-social-security-retirement-age/

A significant majority of voters indicated strong support for two proposals: raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000 (60% favor), raising taxes on corporations (64% favor).

Voters also opposed raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits, with 64% against the idea. Interestingly, strong opposition came from young people age 18-29, 66% of whom opposed raising the retirement age. Opposition was strongest among Gen Xers (30-44) and those nearing retirement (45-59), at 69%.

?w=725

49 replies, 4060 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Strong opposition among young people to raising the Social Security retirement age (Original post)
eridani Dec 2012 OP
Laurian Dec 2012 #1
Lasher Dec 2012 #2
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #19
B Calm Dec 2012 #42
DCKit Dec 2012 #3
exboyfil Dec 2012 #5
toby jo Dec 2012 #23
exboyfil Dec 2012 #27
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #20
SheilaT Dec 2012 #35
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #39
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #4
redwhiteblue Dec 2012 #6
Mariana Dec 2012 #29
life long demo Dec 2012 #36
jumptheshadow Dec 2012 #7
stlsaxman Dec 2012 #10
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #18
standingtall Dec 2012 #11
HockeyMom Dec 2012 #17
JoeyT Dec 2012 #32
eridani Dec 2012 #44
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #13
gkhouston Dec 2012 #31
Renew Deal Dec 2012 #34
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #49
JHB Dec 2012 #8
xchrom Dec 2012 #9
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #12
another_liberal Dec 2012 #14
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #22
Selatius Dec 2012 #15
wishlist Dec 2012 #16
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #21
plethoro Dec 2012 #24
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #25
patrice Dec 2012 #26
duffyduff Dec 2012 #28
closeupready Dec 2012 #30
life long demo Dec 2012 #33
blkmusclmachine Dec 2012 #37
kimbutgar Dec 2012 #38
midnight Dec 2012 #40
King_Klonopin Dec 2012 #41
burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #46
dkf Dec 2012 #43
burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #45
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #47
Javaman Dec 2012 #48

Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:25 AM

1. What is going on with the over 60 folks?

48% favor and 48% oppose? Is this another case of "I got mine, to hell with everybody else"? I'm over 60 and I am embarrassed by this poll result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:41 AM

2. Don't be embarrassed.

Those 48% in favor are all Republican assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 AM

19. Exactly. If they don't believe in the concept

how would they feel about just ending the system altogether.

Of course, in that case, it is "get your filthy government hands off my Medicare."

Ignorant, selfish bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:54 AM

42. or retired from the government. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:43 AM

3. It's "I got mine, fuck you."

 

If their benefits were being directly threatened, it'd be 98% against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:59 AM

5. I attended a budget conference with my Representative

He had us work on proposed budget cuts to balance the budget. I remember one table (all mid 50s plus) joking about increasing the retirement age. I was ready to stand up and say you folks need to have some skin in the game as well. You are in a room full of people (me included) that has had every dollar earned for our entire working career withheld at 6.2%/6.2% (except the last two years but that was a mistake in my opinion). Many of them had withholding rates at less than 4%/4% for much of your working career. Those in my situation (and even more so for two $100K earners) are carrying the system. I support the system as much as someone making $100M dollars now. That is just not right.

A balance needs to be achieved between the high earners who should be expected to at least support the system as much as the medium high earners (those making $105K), those in the $50-$105K range who carry the system, and the young who should not be expected to see withholdings at much greater than current rates. Those making less than $50K really don't have anything to contribute - we are already asking alot of them.

In other words start with removing the cap. I would go with a lower withholding rate for those dollars with no addtional increase in the benefits formula. Next move towards reduced benefits for those in the $50K-$105K (my group) - that includes all members of that group including current retirees. Finally upping the withholding rate to no more that 7.5%/7.5% on the young. Leave the COLA alone. Leave the retirement age at 67. Do not adjust the benefit formula upwards for the lower earners.

Do not needs test beyond the current tax code. That is counterproductive towards individuals saving for retirement.

Make the system Pay as You Go with an eventual draw down of the Trust Fund. Reduce withholding rates to achieve Pay as You Go. I don't want to see another Trust Fund bubble used to disguise the actual deficit.

That is my suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:57 AM

23. I agree with remove the cap.

But, as you said, ' the young who should not be expected to see withholdings at much greater than current rates' are then expected to see an uptick in withdrawals to 7.5%?

I don't have your charts, but leave the young alone, no? It's hard getting a leg up today, those college loans are high, the cost of living has gone up and the benefits of wealth creation has largely gone to the top 2%.

A "lower withholding rate with no increase in the benefits formula" on top wage earners is a salable point. That could well fly.

Great post, thanks exboyfil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toby jo (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:03 PM

27. The increase in withholding is after

the other things are done, and we still can't make the current benefit structure work. The young will have to have skin in the game as well. I don't like it because I think ultimately we could drive away our best and brightest if taxes get too high. I would prefer to see all income go to 6.2%/6.2% first (the high earners lose their lower percentage).

Thanks for the complement. I proposed this to Rep. Braley and one of his staffers, but they did not seem too interested (chased away by the cap removal I think), but he is still a very good congressman.

The one thing I can't understand is the talk about Social Security now. Medicare and Medicaid are the real issues that need to be addressed (along with cutting the bloated defense budget).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:33 AM

20. And remember, these are the people we call "the greatest generation"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:06 PM

35. Actually, no. The so-called

"greatest generation" are mostly gone, as they're those who were adults during WWII.

I used to read old Life Magazines. The single most educational thing I've ever done. And I have to tell you that it was clear from reading them that that generation, once the Great Depression had ended, benefitted enormously, far more than is recognized, by the economic boom of the war itself and after.

They also took on a lot of consumer debt, which is also not acknowledged, but which we Boomers are blamed for.

I think the core of the raising the retirement and medicare age idea is that older people, already in the system, and who tend to vote in large numbers, will go along with it because they won't be affected. I'm outraged at that idea, and I'm 64 myself, and less than a year from Medicare. I do plan to keep on working and postpone taking SS as long as possible, at least to age 66, hopefully to age 70. But once Medicare kicks in, I'll seriously look at leaving my current part-time job and take up doing temp work, so I can work for a few weeks or months and then take time off to do some travelling. Without Medicare I definitely wouldn't have that choice. And I'm very healthy, no pre-existing conditions of any kind, so I'm far better off than a lot of people my age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:41 PM

39. Exactly. Sadly, you see that from all age groups

I have seen a lot of posts from boomers that basically imply "I don't care if the system runs out of money, as long as I get every penny I was promised." I can't recall one post with someone saying that they were concerned about whether it would be there for their children.

And some young people say "why should I pay into it; I'm never going to see a dime."

So it's not just seniors who can be selfish. It's sad that the Bush folks went and blew the surplus, making it basically inevitable that at least one age group is going to get screwed to protect another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:52 AM

4. your question was my 1st thought.............

 

man we got some selfish old bastards here & I (@52 yo) am joining the club.

If anything cut DOD budget by 80% lower the age to 55 get more young people w/ student loans jobs & help vets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:24 AM

6. What is going on with the over 60 folks?

I also ask what is going on with us seniors. Ryan came out with his budget wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security and many other benefits we now have. The old folks hurried down to vote for him. What is wrong with them?(us)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redwhiteblue (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:26 PM

29. Better than voting for a

Black Communist Kenyan Muslim. An awful lot of people in that age group are Fox News and RW radio junkies. Those poor deluded sods would rather starve in the streets than vote for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redwhiteblue (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:13 PM

36. I'm with you redwhiteblue

BTW welcome to DU. I can not understand why anyone who is retired or close to retiring and who also isn't independently wealthy, would vote for a republican, ANY republican. Social security would be flushed with money if the US returned all the money it borrowed. See my reply further down the page on how much was borrowed during Bush's admin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:46 AM

7. I will fight like heck for the younger generations

I don't know what's wrong with people over 60 who would favor a measure like this. We need to fight to strengthen our legacy to younger people. While the boomer generation didn't have it easy, the kids are growing up in a far tougher world. I am deeply concerned about my nieces and nephews, and I was rich, I would pay their education loans.

I feel passionately about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:23 AM

10. They're probably buying the lie (soc sec going broke) and scared...

and will do anything to "save" it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stlsaxman (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:21 AM

18. That sounds right. They think it might go away any second.

So raise the age for those 55 and under, and that "protects" them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:27 AM

11. Repukes tell them their age group is safe on social security


their attitude they got theirs screw everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to standingtall (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:11 AM

17. They don't have children?

They don't care that will will affect their kids and younger relatives? Or maybe they are so blinded by I got mine attitude they forget about that?

I will turn 65 in 2013, so I am "safe". SO FRIGGIN WHAT? I have kids in their 20s and 30s, and nieces and nephews in their 40s, and I care about them too, and other younger people. This is why I am a DEMOCRAT and not a Repuke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:57 PM

32. Most of them do,

they just don't care what happens to them after they're gone. That also fuels their opposition to any kind of environmental efforts, any kind of conservation efforts, and any kind of sustainability efforts. As long as the resources are spent keeping them as comfortable as possible, everyone that comes along later can get fucked. I've got family that are like that, and it's pretty much strictly a right wing thing, which is why we find it so baffling. I don't even have kids and I don't want the people that follow me to suffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to standingtall (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:23 AM

44. Yep--and they are fucking stupid to believe that

You might as well believe that if you give the school bully your lunch money for the first week of school, he'll let you alone for the rest of the year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:42 AM

13. "I've got mine, FUCK YOU!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:42 PM

31. As you get older, your ability to detect a con decreases. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:06 PM

34. The "Me" generation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:09 PM

49. That is exactly what it is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:11 AM

8. I think it's the MSM/squishy center(-right)/FOX echo chamber at work...

...maybe call it the "Pete Peterson Pied Piper effect."


Since you posted it I traced the links back to the actual survey, and have been looking over the crosstabs and tables to try to get a sense of it.

Admittedly, I'm not a statistician and know just enough about polling to either avoid or get into serious trouble, and if anyone more knowledgeable wants to hand me my ass, it goes best with Dijon mustard and a dark ale, but here's my take:

The breakdown against (political) "Partisan" puts "Hard GOP" at 37% in favor (by 369 poll respondents), "Soft GOP at 50% (by 92 people), "Ticket Splitter" at 30% (58 people), "Soft DEM" at 30% (70 people), and "Hard Dem" at 28% (413 people). (Total of 1002 poll respondents).

Generally, it rates high with conservatives, but among "identify with Tea Party movement" it rates highest among "No" (but not "No/strongly", which had more people than the other categories put together): "Yes/strongly" 37% in favor (160 people), "Yes" at 41% (51 people), "Unsure" at 19% (58 people), "No" at 45% (185 people), and "No/strongly" at 30% (547 people).

Judging from some other categories that I'm not going to recopy here, I think a big factor in the difference with 60+ is the years (decades) of drumbeat in political circles about the "crisis" for Social Security and how Responsible People Say Something Needs To Be Done To Fix It. That's been prominent in mainstream news outlets for decades now (from both political parties), right-wing ideology is always looking to get rid of it (being a successful example of "Big Government"), and liberal/left critiques have had very limited visibility.

In other words, for people who think of themselves as "basically conservative" but "don't really pay attention to politics", all they really hear is that something needs to be done to save SS, and raising the age seems "least painful" (and especially so if you are personally over the threshold where an increase would take place).

In other words, a big part of that bad number is basically-good people operating on really bad information, IMO.

(BTW, experience shows JHB derriere flambe also works with a nice Cabernet Sauvignon, should it prove necessary).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:19 AM

9. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:42 AM

12. So much for that RW talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:48 AM

14. This is great news!

This is great news for the country's future! It means a solid majority of American youth are not buying into the Republicans' lie that Social Security is "going broke." I was a little afraid the opposite might be true, and that young people would make the mistake of letting Wall Street take over their Social Security money to finance more investment boondoggles and bubbles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:08 AM

22. That's because...

their parents are smart enough to know it's a lie and they're encouraging their kids not to buy into it. I know because I'm one of those parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:50 AM

15. I think if they simply moved the SS payroll cap up to 200,000 from the current 110,000, it'll be OK.

As far as the wider issue of taxing the rich, I believe it should be left separate from the discussion of Social Security. Taxation of the rich would more precisely be in the realm of generating revenue for the General Fund that Congress controls. I am in no way going to try to tie Social Security's solvency to the issue of the General Fund running chronic deficits because I believe that's just a backdoor way for Republicans and right-wing Democrats to attempt to build an argument to cut SS in the name of "reducing deficits."

It's why I favor letting the Social Security tax holiday expire. SS should be self-funding and not reliant upon the General Fund for covering short-falls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:07 AM

16. As other pensions disappear SS is more important

Does the older generation realize that younger people won't be getting generous company and govt pensions as do many current seniors? Only corporate upper management will get any kind of retirement payout as pensions for average folks working for a company 25+ years will be gone. Public pensions have been on the chopping block too. The Federal Civil Service pension system became less generous for newer hires years ago when Feds began paying into SSand Republican senators advocate total elimination of Federal pensions for new hires so SS would be the only pension.

With such low interest rates not keeping pace with inflation, building up enough savings on your own for retirement is virtually impossible now except for higher earners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:37 AM

21. Raise or eliminate the cap and the problem goes away.

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:23 AM

24. To me, this is surprising.........nft

 

ddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:44 PM

25. Let's increase our Social Security paypents and payouts! I can't rely on my 401k to

get me through my retirement!

And raise the cap, duh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:53 PM

26. We need authentic ENTREPRENEURSHIP & responsibility. GIVE IT A FOUNDATION =

Social Security in its present configuration with new financial foundations; Medicare for ALL; Free, lifelong, comprehensive and appropriate education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:15 PM

28. I don't believe that poll

Note who sponsored it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:28 PM

30. We should be talking about lowering the age, lifting the cap,

expanding coverage, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:04 PM

33. I found this tibit of information on Social Security

How much money did George W. Bush borrow from social security?
Congress authorized the spending about $98,700,000,000 that was borrowed from the Old Age and Survivors' Trust Fund during the 8 years of the Bush administration.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_did_George_W._Bush_borrow_from_social_security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:17 PM

37. Democrats:

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory!

.

Operation Northwoods: The 9/11 You Never Knew

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:03 PM

38. You raise the age and a lot of these young folks would have to take their parents in

Before social security families had to take their parents in when the parents could no longer work. The parents cared for their grandchildren. But now people move away from their families and there are few inter generational living situations except in Asian, Hispanic and African American. But this does not occur in Caucasian families too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

40. Isn't that something that the older people are more ok with raising the age...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:43 AM

41. Do you ever get the feeling

that most of the Baby Boomer generation has grown up
to be the most selfish, self-centered, unempathic, spoiled,
narcissistic, entitled, greedy fuckers who have ever walked
the planet?

I'm 53 years old, and I've been paying into S.S. and
Medicare since I was 18.

I have been setting aside my own private savings for
retirement since 1995, but I have saved only $70,000
in 17 years -- barely enough to live on for 2 to 3 years
if I were to retire today. I lost 75% of my IRA in the first
"bubble" burst of 1999-2000.

I could not afford to buy my own home until I was 46, and
thus I will be paying a mortgage until I am 76.

I already anticipate that I will have to work past the age of
65 because of the damage that their greed has already left
behind for my generation -- the debt, the losses in the
stock market which ruined IRA's and pensions, the loss of
home equity, etc.

The Baby Boomers have always been catered to. Their parents
survived hardships of WWII, and their grandparents survived
hardships of the Great Depression. But they have reaped the
best of everything that was handed-down to them ...
and pilfered the rest.

Their self-indulgence has left a huge mess for all generations to follow,
and now they have no shame in telling us all to work until we're dead
in order to pay their tab. I'm not surprised that those poll results reflect
a "piss on you" attitude.

Retirement age and Medicare eligibility age should both be set at 62.

So then, what has that generation bequeathed to us?

Unpayable Debt.
Increased Burdens.
A Lower Standard of Living.
A generation that will fare more poorly than the previous one.
Endless War.
Pollution.
Climate Disasters.
Increased Poverty.
The death of "the commonwealth".
A celebration of greed, self-interest and irresponsibility.
Hatred for the poor and working class.

If the WWII generation was "the greatest", then the Boomer
generation has to be the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:41 AM

46. I agree. The things that indict them

most deeply are the huge claims they made for themselves on the society, and other outrageous claims about possessing unique virtues in their youth.
They insulted the generations that came after them instead of teaching them.
They alienated and even condemned the generations before them instead of providing a global, honest critique.
I understand that there was a betrayal between ww2 and Korea that stretches into the present day, and that we are carrying out a curious genocide against our young people by way of unnecessary war.
Still, this situation was not a unique assault against one generation, but against at least four to five beyond it. An assault the boomers did not stop no matter how many questions they asked.
I also blame them for the undermining of union authority, and the lamb-like acceptance of Taft-Hartley.
The worst baby-boomer of them all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:09 AM

43. Aka tax anyone but them. But the jokes on the young people who are the workers that fund SS.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:34 AM

45. Of course, because

young people are not the stupid, narrowly self-interested lot that Paul Ryan wants them to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:24 PM

47. not surprising at all since those are the people who would be hurt by it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:33 PM

48. Forethought is forewarned.

I guess no one told the latest generation that concept.

their own throats cut with the help of plutocrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread