Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

IRS wants taxes from BP payments to oil spill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cory777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:54 PM
Original message
IRS wants taxes from BP payments to oil spill
Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service says oil spill victims who receive BP payments for lost wages will have to pay up come tax time.

Under current law, BP payments for lost wages are taxable -- just like the wages would have been, the IRS said in tax guidance issued Friday. Payments for physical injuries or property loss, however, are generally tax free. Payments for emotional distress? Taxable, though medical expenses related to the emotional distress are deductible.

BP officials have agreed to create a $20 billion fund for spill victims, as well as a $100 million fund to support displaced oil rig workers.

The IRS issued the guidance Friday to help spill victims sort through the law's complexities. The agency has posted tax information for oil spill victims on its website and plans to hold forums in seven Gulf Coast cities on July 17 to help victims with tax troubles or questions.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/IRS-wants-taxes-from-BP-apf-1927452606.html?x=0&.v=6&.pf=family-home&mod=pf-family-home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. A special bill passed by Congress could fix this
I bet Obama would sign it, and it would pass overwhelmingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why should the payments be tax-free? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Because I don't want to be around to hear the screaming and yelling and pouting
and the endless sob stories (all of which will be blamed on Obama of course, fairly or not) broadcast 24/7 about nice families who lost everything, got a check from BP and then had to cough up 1/3 of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GaYellowDawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. How about
Because that area is going to be destroyed for a FUCK of a long time, and they need the break. That suit you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Oh yeah...the "capitalized fuck" rule. I forgot.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. So where do we stop with the tax breaks?
Do we give them to everybody in the gulf states? How long do we offer them for? I think about 90% of the country could probably use a break right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. A payroll tax holiday would actually do wonders for our economy.
But, of course, we're stuck in deficit hysteria mode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. They shouldn't be
Of course, DU has its own contingent of whiners who think certain people are "special" and should be exempt from paying their fair share. But the rules in place seem fair enough to me. The people receiving compensation for lost income would be liable for taxes on their regular income, so its replacement should be taxable too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
37. I dunno, maybe because of this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
39. Exactly, Everyone should be taxed so it is fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. But the IRS is losing income because of BP. They should sue BP for lost taxes
It's a completely rational request that the Fed should get the lost taxes from BP. Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Sue under what grounds? BP doesn't owe the IRS.
PEOPLE owe the IRS when they generate income.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Lost revenue n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You'll need to be specific.
I think you mean that you want the IRS to sue BP on the grounds that it would have gotten X in receipts had the spill not
happened?

That's silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. OK it may be silly but it's true
If they don't tax the $$ that BP is paying out, then the IRS definitely *should* go after BP for it.

If BP is giving people the same gross dollars that they are losing, then I don't see the problem with taxing it, BUT if BP is giving them less (which I suppose they are) then let the Feds go after BP directly.

Hey, BP said they would pay ALL who lost money, so why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Basically, you want the payments grossed up, then. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Well if they're going to be taxable, then of course.
Don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bergie321 Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. The right wing
Media will complain and blame Obama either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. A given n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. Yeap...
If for whatever reason the payouts are made tax free, they will complain about how Obama is letting the lazy free loaders off (or something along those lines). If they do nothing and tax the payout (which I think they should), then they will complain about how they are "stealing" their money...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Unemployment benefits are taxed by the IRS and the state
so of course they're going to want to tax BP's "wage replacement" payments too


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. yep
the IRS doesn't miss a chance to make you pay up. To hell with those pesky special circumstances. :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. That's precisely why i've avoided unemployment compensation at all cost...
after collecting once and found it was taxable income i paid it up and vowed never again...

so far i've been very fortunate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I am not following you here
At the point you need the money from unemployment, surely taxes are the least of your worries? Are you trying to say that if you became unemployed, you would not seek unemployment compensation, because you would have to pay a portion of it as income taxes?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. sorry... when you get the check- no taxes are taken out. i recieved it for 4 months...
next time i filed my taxes i was about a grand in debt to the IRS and state.

i hate being behind on my taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
17. i wonder how much in taxes BP doesn't havet to pay
since it leases foreign equipment and owns very little outright, uses contractors for almost everything.
And gets our oil for practically free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. rig is registered in Marshall Is. so no US tax there. Also, safety check is outsourced/offshore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Surely its not their rig anyway
Edited on Sat Jun-26-10 02:22 PM by dipsydoodle
BP just rent / lease it - don't they ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. article here gives some info on how it all works with these tax haven rigs
Foreign Rigs, Tax Evasion Dominate Gulf Coast Drilling

House Committee Wants to Americanize Offshore Fleet


by Betsy Glassman
June 18, 2010 ©Words & Pictures Communications

BP’s oil spew and foreign vessel operations on the outer continental shelf (OCS) were the focus of a June 17 hearing held by the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation, which found that foreign rigs dominate drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, creating tax evasion and safety inspection problems.

The Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig that exploded April 20, killing eleven and smothering the Gulf of Mexico in oil, was a foreign mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) built in Korea, registered in the Marshall Islands and owned by Transocean, Ltd., a company incorporated in Switzerland, “it’s assumed to avoid US tax,” said Subcommittee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Transocean’s tax in Switzerland is 16 percent, compared to 35% in the US.

Chairman Cummings stunned with his opening statement: “The Coast Guard can’t say” how many foreign-flagged MODUs are operating on the OCS because “they are not required to announce their arrival.” Devising a rule for such announcement began in 2006 but “it’s not done,” which is “tragically unacceptable,” he added.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) said the number of vessels operating under the US flag has plummeted and many are now operating “under flags of convenience…We don’t know what vessels are in US waters or what they’re doing.”

All foreign-flagged vessels must comply with the laws of their respective nations and the US concerning safety inspections, but Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) noted, “Some have low standards… Who verifies the Marshall Islands is doing proper inspections?” He referenced a dispute between BP and Transocean regarding maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon, and asked if the Coast Guard has the capability to take over inspections from the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS is charged with drilling inspections and according to Mary Kendall, Inspector General for the Department of the Interior, there are currently only 50 inspectors for 4000 rigs operating in the Gulf. Speaking before the House Natural Resources Committee at a separate hearing the same day, she reported “a dearth of regulations” for MMS inspections with “little direction regarding what and how to inspect.”

The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring all other regulations are met by both US and foreign vessels. Rep. Don Young, (R-AK) lamented, “We’ve neglected the Coast Guard all these years. We ask them to do missions like taking on oil spill responsibility without providing the money.” Chairman Cummings said he is working with the Obama Administration to restore cuts to the Coast Guard immediately.

Foreign-flagged vessels including MODUs can operate on the OCS only with a Coast Guard Certificate of Compliance, which requires an annual security and safety examination. Referring to “bribery in third world countries,” Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) questioned whether a piece of paper stating a foreign-flagged vessel meets all regulations is adequate. He admonished witness Admiral Kevin Cook of the Coast Guard, “You don’t know who inspected …it could be no one.”

Cook responded that the Coast Guard inspects documents of all foreign vessels “to the extent we can verify” but admitted, “We weren’t there” for hands-on inspections in foreign countries.

The subcommittee appeared in bipartisan agreement about the need to tighten restrictions on foreign vessels and “Americanize” the OCS fleet. Mr. Young bemoaned the fact that, “Most deepwater rigs are not American.” Chairman Oberstar declared, “We need to Americanize the vessels operating in the US Economic Zone.” Witness David Matsuda, the Department of Transportation’s Acting Maritime Administrator, said that increasing the number of US-flagged vessels “would spur US shipbuilding.” Mr. Young referred to the Jones Act, which restricts foreign vessels from transporting cargo between points in the US, including on the OCS. He reported that many non-US vessels go ashore for supplies, a violation of the act: “The Jones Act is not being enforced and we’re chipping away at the American fleet.” Mr. Young recommended to Adm. Cook that he come up with a specific rule so that “a foreign vessel is out if a US vessel is available.”

OCS regulations require employers of vessels to hire US citizens or resident aliens, but exemptions are allowed if employers can demonstrate an insufficient number of US “qualified and available” personnel. Mr. Cummings stated that more than 6700 foreign workers now man crews under exemptions, representing nearly 10% of vessel workers. He said he could not believe there were not enough American workers to fill those positions.

Congressmen also questioned skimming operations, the number of American vs. foreign vessels available for cleanup and how regulations such as the Jones Act can ensure that US-flagged vessels get most of the work. Mr. LoBiongo said he’s received reports that US vessels were offering to help but were being turned down. Adm. Cook responded he did not know of such cases.

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fl), in contrast, called for large skimmers to protect her state and she didn’t care where they came from. She thought one was in Norway. “I want the big one,” she stated emphatically, holding up a printed photo of a large vessel. “How do I get it---the big one?”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. But BP would have no tax benefit from that as the lessee.
Straight forward a cost against revenue.

Transocean may be avoiding tax being the lessor from the sound of it. However the fact that Transocean own it and lease it out may also not give rise to a profit yet.

I've no idea what the capital value is of lump of metal that size. Despite the fact that Swiss taxes on profits are lower it doesn't follow that the tax benefit isn't more than offset by a corresponding difference in capital allowances between Switzerland and the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. Nothing unusual or new about this.
Edited on Fri Jun-25-10 11:50 PM by JDPriestly
Wages are taxable. That's why money given in lieu of wages is also taxable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Would it differ over your side
if the money was the subject of an insurance claim ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 09:58 AM
Original message
What do you mean?
I am just talking about my own experience. Are you thinking of disability payments? I really don't know about that. I know that, in my experience, in settlements regarding lost wages, taxes have to be paid on that portion of a settlement that is to compensate for lost wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. What do you mean?
I am just talking about my own experience. Are you thinking of disability payments? I really don't know about that. I know that, in my experience, in settlements regarding lost wages, taxes have to be paid on that portion of a settlement that is to compensate for lost wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
26. has BP paid taxes before this disaster? Many reports circulating that the oil cos. don't pay taxes
or don't pay much :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Could be asscociated
with length of time before investments become profitable i.e. when fixed costs of exploration and drilling have been recovered and also capital allowances on plant and machinery etc. BP paid £930m in UK tax on its profits in 2009 which was down on the £1.7bn it had paid in each of the previous three years. SEC filings in the USA for US companies would probably show tax liabilities. To not pay tax at companies would in theory need to show continous losses - somehow or other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. well they do not pay US tax if they're registered in a foreign nation---yet they can operate here
Edited on Sat Jun-26-10 04:41 PM by wordpix
:grr: and their vessels are safety-inspected in their tax-haven nations, too. :grr: Then they screw up in our waters and say, "gee, we're sorry."

Article:

Foreign Rigs, Tax Evasion Dominate Gulf Coast Drilling

House Committee Wants to Americanize Offshore Fleet


by Betsy Glassman
June 18, 2010 ©Words & Pictures Communications

BP’s oil spew and foreign vessel operations on the outer continental shelf (OCS) were the focus of a June 17 hearing held by the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation, which found that foreign rigs dominate drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, creating tax evasion and safety inspection problems.

The Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig that exploded April 20, killing eleven and smothering the Gulf of Mexico in oil, was a foreign mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) built in Korea, registered in the Marshall Islands and owned by Transocean, Ltd., a company incorporated in Switzerland, “it’s assumed to avoid US tax,” said Subcommittee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Transocean’s tax in Switzerland is 16 percent, compared to 35% in the US.

Chairman Cummings stunned with his opening statement: “The Coast Guard can’t say” how many foreign-flagged MODUs are operating on the OCS because “they are not required to announce their arrival.” Devising a rule for such announcement began in 2006 but “it’s not done,” which is “tragically unacceptable,” he added.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) said the number of vessels operating under the US flag has plummeted and many are now operating “under flags of convenience…We don’t know what vessels are in US waters or what they’re doing.”

All foreign-flagged vessels must comply with the laws of their respective nations and the US concerning safety inspections, but Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) noted, “Some have low standards… Who verifies the Marshall Islands is doing proper inspections?” He referenced a dispute between BP and Transocean regarding maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon, and asked if the Coast Guard has the capability to take over inspections from the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS is charged with drilling inspections and according to Mary Kendall, Inspector General for the Department of the Interior, there are currently only 50 inspectors for 4000 rigs operating in the Gulf. Speaking before the House Natural Resources Committee at a separate hearing the same day, she reported “a dearth of regulations” for MMS inspections with “little direction regarding what and how to inspect.”

The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring all other regulations are met by both US and foreign vessels. Rep. Don Young, (R-AK) lamented, “We’ve neglected the Coast Guard all these years. We ask them to do missions like taking on oil spill responsibility without providing the money.” Chairman Cummings said he is working with the Obama Administration to restore cuts to the Coast Guard immediately.

Foreign-flagged vessels including MODUs can operate on the OCS only with a Coast Guard Certificate of Compliance, which requires an annual security and safety examination. Referring to “bribery in third world countries,” Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) questioned whether a piece of paper stating a foreign-flagged vessel meets all regulations is adequate. He admonished witness Admiral Kevin Cook of the Coast Guard, “You don’t know who inspected …it could be no one.”

Cook responded that the Coast Guard inspects documents of all foreign vessels “to the extent we can verify” but admitted, “We weren’t there” for hands-on inspections in foreign countries.

The subcommittee appeared in bipartisan agreement about the need to tighten restrictions on foreign vessels and “Americanize” the OCS fleet. Mr. Young bemoaned the fact that, “Most deepwater rigs are not American.” Chairman Oberstar declared, “We need to Americanize the vessels operating in the US Economic Zone.” Witness David Matsuda, the Department of Transportation’s Acting Maritime Administrator, said that increasing the number of US-flagged vessels “would spur US shipbuilding.” Mr. Young referred to the Jones Act, which restricts foreign vessels from transporting cargo between points in the US, including on the OCS. He reported that many non-US vessels go ashore for supplies, a violation of the act: “The Jones Act is not being enforced and we’re chipping away at the American fleet.” Mr. Young recommended to Adm. Cook that he come up with a specific rule so that “a foreign vessel is out if a US vessel is available.”

OCS regulations require employers of vessels to hire US citizens or resident aliens, but exemptions are allowed if employers can demonstrate an insufficient number of US “qualified and available” personnel. Mr. Cummings stated that more than 6700 foreign workers now man crews under exemptions, representing nearly 10% of vessel workers. He said he could not believe there were not enough American workers to fill those positions.

Congressmen also questioned skimming operations, the number of American vs. foreign vessels available for cleanup and how regulations such as the Jones Act can ensure that US-flagged vessels get most of the work. Mr. LoBiongo said he’s received reports that US vessels were offering to help but were being turned down. Adm. Cook responded he did not know of such cases.

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fl), in contrast, called for large skimmers to protect her state and she didn’t care where they came from. She thought one was in Norway. “I want the big one,” she stated emphatically, holding up a printed photo of a large vessel. “How do I get it---the big one?”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. That's more or less universal
US companies rarely pay much in the way of tax in UK and probably not much if anything elsewhere in the world. They adjust out the profit here by artificially upping the transfer price of their goods or services into the UK subsidiary. That's been going on for living memory and our own IR are touchy about it.

As far as the US /BP situation goes ,on the tax front, its not material where the rig is registered given that the subject here is BP and they just leased that rig probably because it was the only one fit for that purpose in such deep water. See here for info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laylah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. Once again...I only read so far and
I call BULLSHIT! Will those people EVER get out of our pockets and give us an opportunity to thrive? :mad: Rhetorical question, obviously :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
38. Income is taxable. Doesn't matter where it comes from. Nothing has changed.
Fisherman works a year catching/selling fish and makes $50,000 gross. He/she pays $10,000 in taxes.

vs

Fisherman can't work. Gets $50,000 from BP. He/she pays $10,000 in taxes.

No reason for it to be tax free anymore than any other income should be tax free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC