|
Post by sue on Apr 6, 2011 16:12:41 GMT -5
"you're an excellent example of people who make the necessary choices to live within their means without expecting help from anyone." Thanks... I do wonder though... what happened? When did this stop being the norm? And more importantly, how do we get back on track? I really think part of the problem is welfare benefits... too much is paid out to people who make enough money to be self-supportive, but don't have to be because someone else is paying. Lower benefit amounts and increased income qualification levels would be a blessing to this country.
|
|
|
Post by lisaa on Apr 6, 2011 16:18:19 GMT -5
we can provide safety nets for people that are unable to provide for themselves.
And this is an entirely different thing from providing for those who are unwilling to provide for themselves. Or not even unwilling, but those who see providing for themselves as unnecessary, because if they don't, we will do it for them. I am all for providing a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves. But it needs to end there. If you are able bodied, you need to fend for yourself.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 16:21:17 GMT -5
How do you define that safety net, lisaa?
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 6, 2011 16:27:41 GMT -5
It isn't a thing we can easily solve but I think if you look at the populations and where the people are living more and more in the past 40 years you will find that less and less people live in the middle of the country where the COL is the lowest. The populations are predominately on the east and west coasts with some around the border states both north and south maybe they are really more MCOL. I read somewhere that less people as a percent live in the middle of the country now than did during the 1800's.
So all those people are living in CA and NJ and Mass and DC and Seattle etc. Most of those places renting an apartment starts at close to $12000 a year. And except the people who live in NYC, San Fransisco and maybe Seattle you need a car. I have the cheapest auto ins possible with high liab only and I haven't had an accident in decades and it costs $2000 a year.
I am not saying that it is impossible but it quickly becomes almost an impossible task for a head of household with a couple of kids to try and make it without help on less than $40K a year.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Apr 6, 2011 16:30:05 GMT -5
<<raises hand>> I didn't have near the income when my husband left, but because I didn't have to cover all his expenses (cigarettes, alcohol, etc, etc) my standard of living shot up immediately! Financially, life has been much easier without him, even though, when he left 10 years ago, he had just started making $26 an hour (a lot of money for us at the time).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 16:33:22 GMT -5
I think a basic quality education is one in which the teachers are masters of their subject and good at transmitting knowledge, where the buildings have heat and water and aren't falling down, where children have access to schoolbooks and librarians, where the instructional hours are sufficient, where children have art, music and physical instruction, and where class sizes are appropriate to the age and subject. (Where I'm living we have H.S. math classes with 40+ kids in them. How do any of them get individualized help understanding the problems?)
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 16:34:42 GMT -5
So all those people are living in CA and NJ and Mass and DC and Seattle etc. Most of those places renting an apartment starts at close to $12000 a year. And except the people who live in NYC, San Fransisco and maybe Seattle you need a car. I have the cheapest auto ins possible with high liab only and I haven't had an accident in decades and it costs $2000 a year.
I am not saying that it is impossible but it quickly becomes almost an impossible task for a head of household with a couple of kids to try and make it without help on less than $40K a year.
Yeah but a very big part of the point of living in a HCOLA is that the salaries are (usually) correspondingly higher. I loved living in a tiny little PA town, but I only made $800 a month there. Try retiring on that.
If DF and I could make the same salaries we make in the Bay Area in a M to LCOLA we'd be gone in a heartbeat. Right now we follow the money. Naturally the COL is higher. If you're paying for a higher COL without making more money to compensate, that's silly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 16:44:45 GMT -5
A lot of the salaries aren't high enough though - and many people have moved away from their families so they don't have help with childcare. I think I remember you saying that your fixed expenses were somewhere around 2500 a month. Wait until you add 3k a month for a mortgage and property taxes, 1k a month for childcare for 1 kid, and a few hundred a month for a college plan for that kid because your income will make financial aid low if they get anything at all.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 6, 2011 16:46:23 GMT -5
That''s what one would think, unfortunately it isn't very often much higher. I live in NJ and my COL is probably 2-3 times as much as if I lived in a LCOL but our income is only a small fraction higher. The median income as of the last census in my county was $50K a year but the median home was $300K just as an example. The math gets pretty tough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 16:47:20 GMT -5
"But how do you propose we pay for everyone to get a college education?"
Oh, i wasn't advocating new programs. I'd listen if anyone had one. But currently we provide pell grants for low income students, subsidized loans and unsubsidized loans which have capped interest rates... I think the max federal loans for an undergraduate degree are 35K. These programs do cost us money, but i think that they are worthwhile and should continue to exist. I think you should be able to get higher level training/college degree (A.S/B.S...) for 35K in loans easily if you work and use community colleges/state schools...
|
|
Clifford
Established Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 15:19:53 GMT -5
Posts: 422
|
Post by Clifford on Apr 6, 2011 16:56:10 GMT -5
I think that "unabe to work" is both a problem at the individual and at the corporate level. I have 100 people that work for me. There are still things that I need done for which none of us seem to have the time. I say let all businesses make a list of un-skilled labor that they need done, and let the unemployed work at these for their entitlements. Or let them do public sector service activities. Many states use non-violent offenders to do some of these tasks. Those receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies/entitlements could do the same.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 16:59:05 GMT -5
A lot of the salaries aren't high enough though - and many people have moved away from their families so they don't have help with childcare. I think I remember you saying that your fixed expenses were somewhere around 2500 a month. Wait until you add 3k a month for a mortgage and property taxes, 1k a month for childcare for 1 kid, and a few hundred a month for a college plan for that kid because your income will make financial aid low if they get anything at all.
Oh, I don't expect my kids will get much aid at all, if any. I didn't, and DF and I already outearn my parents.
My point, though, is that if the salaries aren't high enough to make a significant difference in lifestyle, you should stay in a M to LCOLA because otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Especially if you leave family and free childcare.
As for median home prices, no one says that you need to buy a home in the median price range if your income isn't high enough to swing it just because it's "normal" for your area. Find a home in your price range or don't buy at all.
Oh, i wasn't advocating new programs. I'd listen if anyone had one. But currently we provide pell grants for low income students, subsidized loans and unsubsidized loans which have capped interest rates... I think the max federal loans for an undergraduate degree are 35K. These programs do cost us money, but i think that they are worthwhile and should continue to exist. I think you should be able to get higher level training/college degree (A.S/B.S...) for 35K in loans easily if you work and use community colleges/state schools...
I don't want grants and loans to go away either! But grants and scholarships are usually based on merit. You have to earn them. That's different from a handout.
I thought you were suggesting that everyone is entitled to a state education FULLSTOP, regardless of financial circumstances or merit or anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 17:00:45 GMT -5
True that. But most people have trouble actually doing it when kids enter the picture.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 17:06:20 GMT -5
Generally speaking, I think people need to be exceedingly careful about when and with whom they have children. That would solve an awful lot of problems right there. It's not exactly a nice thing to say but it's my honest belief.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 6, 2011 17:10:02 GMT -5
My point, though, is that if the salaries aren't high enough to make a significant difference in lifestyle, you should stay in a M to LCOLA because otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Especially if you leave family and free childcare. I think just the opposite, provided you do certain things. For example, 15% of my pay is saved for retirement. Period. We'd live in a tent at a campground before that amount comes down. For the most part I don't care where the rest of the money gets spent. We can blow it on crap, save it, whatever. Doesn't matter, as long as retirement saving comes first so I can do what the hell I want to do starting at 55ish. Given that, I'm far better off living in a high cost area and saving 15% of $100k than I would be living in a low cost area and saving 15% of $60k, even if in both cases it takes the entire remainder of my pay to have the exact same standard of living. Sure, from a day to day perspective I'm no better off earning the extra $40k because it all gets swallowed up by increased prices, however my retirement accounts have a whole hell of a lot more real dollars in them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 17:15:43 GMT -5
Federal loans are pretty much open to anyone, and the kind/limits of federal grants and loans are based on monetary need. I would like to make sure that these programs are used for accredited programs that would be more likley to end up in adequate jobs... there was a new oversight to make sure that kids in schools that just take kids money and don't give them an appropriate education could not get federal loans... but i think that funding for that is one of the things being cut? ...
The thread is about what we are entitled to... I think any 18 year old who has studied and applied himself enough to get into a higher ed program should be able to access one, regardless of their financial situation... so that's what i meant... I think we currently do that fairly well... we can always fine tune most programs though...
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 17:18:29 GMT -5
I agree with you, Dark. It wouldn't be an issue if that 15% was automatic for everyone the way it is for you. It's only an issue if you move to a HCOLA from a MCOLA because you expect to make more money in the new area... and then don't. For a lot of families retirement saving is the first thing to go in that situation, not the last.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 17:20:11 GMT -5
The thread is about what we are entitled to... I think any 18 year old who has studied and applied himself enough to get into a higher ed program should be able to access one, regardless of their financial situation... so that's what i meant... I think we currently do that fairly well... we can always fine tune most programs though...
Fair enough - I fully agree that they should have access to loans. I tripped over the part about automatically having access to the money they need because it sounded like you were saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it.
Absolutely they should have access if they worked hard to prepare themselves. But while they're entitled to an education for their efforts, they're not entitled to a FREE one.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Apr 6, 2011 17:24:03 GMT -5
I can not believe anyone would even suggest college education as one of the things "we" are entitled to.
""And more importantly, how do we get back on track? """
We won't. No one is going to win any elections saying that they will start taking from the poor. People win elections saying that they will make those evil people pay.
Lena
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 6, 2011 17:28:33 GMT -5
What are we entitled to, if anything? That's tricky. We're entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I mean at the federal level it was originally congress, a small military, and the post office. That was really about all the feds did. The real question is what should we be getting for the amount of money we have to pay? Back in the day income tax didn't exist. Sale's tax was pretty much unheard of. All you had to pay was property tax, which was really low, and the federal government was funded mostly by import taxes. The government was tiny and didn't provide much, but nobody was paying that much to sustain it either. Nowadays we pay quite a bit. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more than a military, some roads, and a post office that most of us don't use much anymore anyway.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 17:34:10 GMT -5
Lena, you're a woman after my own heart ;D
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Apr 6, 2011 17:42:18 GMT -5
First let me state that I am LIBERAL. If you are likely to be offended by LIBERAL opinions, you should probably not read this post. At the same time, if I could find a candidate who would actually be financially responsible, not just trying to gut the "other side", I'd vote for that person regardless of party. In my mind, that includes spending less on our military-industrial complex, and I say that coming from a family where every male has served, going back to the Revolution.
So, what do I think people are entitled to? Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Life I don't think any child in this country should be going hungry. I don't think any child in this country should have to face medical problems due to malnutrition. I think all children are entiteled to addequate medical care in a timely fashion. I remember a story from a few years ago of a child who died from a tooth infection. His tooth hurt. He didn't make a big deal about it, so his mom didn't freak, she just made the next available dentist appt. Sadly, the child was on medicaid and the only dentist who took medicaid didn't have any open appts for something like 3 months. The infection spread to the child's brain and he died. Not only did the family pay a huge price (a child's life) for lack of timely care, so did the rest of society. Think of how much less it would have cost if he could have gotten in to a dentist and had the toothache treated, than it ended up costing with ER services and brain surgery. I believe that women should have access to quality pre-natal care, but should also have the right to choose whether or not to bring a new life in to this world. There are multiple studies that show that every dollar the government spends on family planning saves multiples of that in the long run. Speaking soley from a FISCAL point of view, this includes giving women the right to choose an abortion. An abortion is drastically cheaper than the costs of the state then having to care for a child because the parents can't or won't. (I don't want to get in to a moral debate here.) I believe children and those unable to take care of themselves (the mentally and physically disabled) deserve to live in safety, in places where their lives are not in danger. We obviously can not control every possibility (see Liberty), but children should not be left in abusive and neglectful homes. Regan closed most of the state run mental hospitals. I'd like to see them opened back up. Much of our nationwide homeless population is made up of people who honestly do not have the means to take care of themselves. Institutions were closed on the theory that the majority of these people were not a danger to themselves or others. However, that decision put them directly in the path of danger. I believe unemployment benefits fall under this category. They are meant for people who are laid off due to no fault of their own, in order to allow them to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, clothes on thier back. Loss of any of those things can quickly result in the loss of life.
Liberty This means we can't put unreasonable expectations on those who need gov't assistance. Yes, we can require that people don't break the law - ie drug tests, but we can't require people to be sterilized just because they need help. We also can't force people in to work camps, requiring them to live only where we say they can live and only do the jobs we say they can do.
Pursuit of Happiness This is where it gets tricky. I believe education - a quality education, pre-K-12 is something we as a society must provide our children in order to allow them to pursue happiness. While college education is becoming something closer to a requirement for a good job nowadays, I don't believe it would be if we could offer all students and quality pre-college education. I personally believe in nationalizing our public schools, so that each public school gets the same amount of funding, has access to the same quality of programs and teachers, so that poverty stops being a factor in our public education. Because it is a public education. If parents want to buy their children a better education, they can pay for that themselves, but if we want to ensure equality of opportunity, poor children attending public schools should not be coming out with a worse education than middle class kids attending public schools, which is what we have now. This is also the section where there's a tricky balancing act. All state child services agencies are legally required to have the main goal of reuniting children with their birth families. This is because the majority of children do better in their birth families, even when not in ideal situations, than they do in the foster care system. I used to think that the state should have a much easier time removing parental rights than it does. Then I met some people... I won't go in to their story here, but lets just say it reminded me of why we use "innocent until proven guilty" as the bar for our legal system, and why its important to keep a similar mindset when it comes to dealing child protective services.
Additional Comments For those of you who said you had no issues with UE as long as people were made to work for it, I won't call you on the contradiction in terms. For those of you who want very short, disappearing benefits, so that people will be incentivized to get jobs, I'd like to remind you that only works when there are jobs available. That wasn't the case during the depression, and it hasn't been the case in the last few years. If you then want to require people to do "volunteer" work in order to earn their UE benefits, isn't that the same as the government creating programs, ala the New Deal, in order to give people jobs in order to justify giving them money? Not that I'm against these programs. I'm all for them. However, most politicians who label themselves "fiscally responsible" are against government job creation.
For the person who said that Medicare should only cover proven, effective treatments - it already does. I work in healthcare and I'm all for Medicare reform, but one thing Medicare already does is require medical necessity review for all non-standard treatments. Medicare doesn't just cover whatever people ask for. However, one thing we don't do is set a value on life. That means that we don't look at old people and say that 6 more months of their life is only worth X dollars, so we won't spend 3X dollars one this treatment that only improves their life expectancy by 6 months. Believe it or not, I think we should. I know that England does this. They have a formulation to determine, under their state healthcare system, what they will pay for life saving treatment and what they won't. I am also a huge fan of end of life planning. I have talked to both of my parents multiple times about getting DPOA and end of life care documents in place. But again, the supposed fiscal conservatives were against these ideas, calling them death panels, and how dare we take into account dollars and medical opinions about the efficacy of treatment when talking about people's lives.
To go along with all of this, I don't believe in the Germany solution of telling people to have more kids so that there will be more taxpayers so that the country doesn't go bankrupt supporting people who are living on average, 10+ years longer than they were supposed to when social security and universal healthcare programs were put in place.
We need to find a balance. If anyone can point me toward a politician whose working on that, please do. (I don't believe Paul Ryan qualifies because his budget proposal doesn't touch any Republican sacred cows, but I am thrilled he put it out there. And I can only hope that the Democrats respond with an equally well thought out counter, and that our government can work the way it was intended and a good faith, honest compromise can be made.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 17:42:32 GMT -5
We can cut costs in programs without cutting off the poor.
But you know what... i think its a bit wrong to contemplate cutting WIC and education and children's health programs, etc... while at the same time contemplating another 10% reduction in the top tax bracken, given the top 1% current make more than the bottom 50% combined...
You can vote to slash education, nutrition, health (including CDC), and get rid of labor supports, including child labor laws... but you can't do that and maintain a democratic repulic... its just not possible...
But not i'm going a bit P&M... better head back over there... lol
|
|
998fbird
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 6, 2011 17:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 138
|
Post by 998fbird on Apr 6, 2011 17:44:54 GMT -5
I vote with Pig and CraftySarah...Lately I've decided that my politically leanings are conservative socialist. I have always believed that there should be safety net programs to catch you when you fall, not a hammock to lie in. I also believe that taxes should be progressive and yes, $250,000 is, if not rich, very well off. 'To those whom much is given, much is expected'. In America the more you have the better the system works for you, so you should pay more for the services. If you live in a well to do area you have better schools. better police protection, better roads and better recreation resources.
There does need to be a limit on AFDC, at one time in my state you could have as many kids as you wanted, but your 'benefits' were capped at a particular number and didn't increase.
As for reducing UE then you better start prosecuting all of the companies that are practicing age discrimination during this current recession. Also pass laws that make it illegal to run a credit check on job applicants unless they have direct access to money or financial information where embezzlement can happen. I have a friend who has exhausted UE and between her wrecked credit and age has not been able to date to get a job. She is now qualified for food stamps, but surprise, while she can get plenty of food, she can't buy TP or kleenex with the benefits, guess she's supposed to use discarded newspaper for butt wipe.
So before you start screaming about how overly generous public assistance is, first you better hope you never need it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:21:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 17:47:34 GMT -5
I think the model of a K-12 education system is falling by the wayside. We educate kids because we need a competent workforce. But we don't need a whole lot more workers with a 12th grade education. We will always need some, but that is the old economy. For the most part, we need people with specialized trade skills and people with college educations. So we need an education system that helps people gain those skills.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 6, 2011 17:53:21 GMT -5
For the most part, we need people with specialized trade skills and people with college educations. So we need an education system that helps people gain those skills. We already have that system. What we really need are students who aren't lazy. Students and parents who actually give a crap about education. A few teachers who focus more on science and math at early ages would help too.
|
|
998fbird
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 6, 2011 17:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 138
|
Post by 998fbird on Apr 6, 2011 18:01:16 GMT -5
I also want to give a big thumbs up to Shenendoah and GG. I'd give you both karma (although she can be a really huge b*tch if you cross her) if I could figure out how.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 18:05:05 GMT -5
Speaking soley from a FISCAL point of view, this includes giving women the right to choose an abortion. An abortion is drastically cheaper than the costs of the state then having to care for a child because the parents can't or won't. (I don't want to get in to a moral debate here.)
Leaving morals aside, I agree with you 100%.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,714
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Apr 6, 2011 18:36:25 GMT -5
I think adults who can work should support themselves and their families. If they have a legitimate disability that is another story. I'd also like to change that system bc I know of someone who could probably physically work 15-20 hours/wk in a low stress, office environment (heart condition that has improved a little) but if she did she would lose all benefits. 20 hours a week won't pay rent, quarterly cardiologist visits or all the medicines she has to take. Instead of making it a dollar for dollar reduction though its all or nothing.
I don't think children should suffer because of their parents dumb decisions. Yes, giving the parents money allows some bad parents to continue to prioritize beer, cigarettes, and other things but we do a pretty crappy job when we remove kids from their homes. And this is what would happen bc there are some "parents" who still wouldn't take care of their kids. The foster system is pretty bad in this country.
I think kids are entitled to grow up in a safe place where they have food, shelter, and an education. Children never ask to be brought into our messes and they pay the price. I saw an article in the paper Sunday about young adults in their early 20s who are retarded (mental capacity of a 1st grader) bc of suffering from lead poisoning in public housing as toddlers. These kids were born after the EPA banned lead paint. I suppose I am sheltered but to me it is so wrong that in this country people close to my age are screwed for life because of something that didn't have to happen. No child should suffer that fate. I think children are entitled to better than that. Because we didn't protect them when they were children now we have to support them for the rest of their lives.
The kid who's mom couldn't find a dentist that took medicaid is heartbreaking. Some good did come of that though. A dental chain, Small Smiles, was busted for strapping kids down and doing unnecessary procedures on them. I first learned about this during a working lunch. I thought I was going to lose my lunch literally. This is why I go to work and do what I do to stop scumbags like that from taking advantage of vulnerable groups like children.
|
|
kgb18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 8:15:23 GMT -5
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by kgb18 on Apr 6, 2011 18:52:44 GMT -5
Well said wvu!! I would like to see some measures put into place to stop some of the abuse that goes on when it comes to public assistance. I look at social safety net programs as a "There but for the grace of God go I" type of thing. I've never needed it. I hope I never do. But I also realize that I have been very blessed and lucky in my life, and you should never say never. I think people deserve a hand up, but not a lifestyle built on hand outs.
|
|