Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
Another thing, if the new tax system makes me pay more, so be it as long as I see a benefit to my country. Although I voted for Obama and the Dems, I will be keeping an eye on them to see what they do with OUR money. Yeah, I can probably manage it better than them, but I know I am not a charity type of guy. I give to charity but only because I started to itemize my deductions when I bought a home. Think about that, you would probably call me a bleeding heart, but I am not giving to charity unless I get something for it or I can see a return on my investment. This is why we need taxes. ----------- the only benefit to more taxes is bigger government and more spending...if you can even call that a benefit no one is holding your feet to the fire for your charity...again it's your money. if the government has to give charity for you, i would assume 20 cents on the dollar goes to where it needs to. you have to pay bureaucrats, support lobbyists to get the "charity" in committee for funding we need taxes for military and general welfare...THATS IT. every other tax is crap...look at your paycheck every two weeks, where does all the money go? Most of the taxes from my paycheck goes right back into my pocket. Like I said earlier, I claim like 9 exemptions (which is conservative), so I get a nice return (almost everything). I suggest buying a house or something. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by gales:
buffett has choosen to legally decide to give away his wealth to a charity thus the gov't gets a big reduction in his estate tax, he never sells his shres in brk/a or b and he doesn't get dividends on that stock either
my guess is that his biggest fear is that he is afraid that when he dies the billions that will go to the gov't will be wasted
he is entitled to give it away , but how can we take him seriously when he says these rates s/b higher when he has done all he can to avoid them?
I think that kind of proves my point about human nature, and why taxes are necessary for the state to survive. Remember earlier, I said that rich people tend to become rich by saving and cutting corners here and their in order to build their savings and wealth. If one works hard enough to build more than $3 mill in your lifetime, they will tend to do everything they can to pass every red cent to their surviving kin. I don't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. This is what you are going to do. I think Mr. Buffett wants the government to set-up a code that makes it a little harder to hide annual income. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
gales, I am not a tax lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. I believe he could give his children non-charitable gift up to like $50K or $100K to each child that cannot be taxed. If he was fiscally smart, which Mr. Buffett is, he could have been doing that every year since he was a millionaire or earlier. That is one way.
|
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Sorry to post too much in a row, but I had to say this. I DON'T MIND TAXING ME WHEN I AM ALIVE, BUT I THINK THE DEATH TAX OF 55% IS JUST PLAIN OUTRAGEOUS. If the government wants to tax my kids' inheritance, keep it the same rate as income tax! Good thing there are tax and estate lawyers who can help me avoid much of the 55%.
|
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by gales:
Slimdaddy - the death tax will revert back to 55% in 2010 when the bush tax expires
I admire Buffett but i think he is double talkin here about he s/b paying more taxes - the vast majority of his wealth is being transferred tax free to a charity run by bill gates , if he lives long eneough and keeps giving more and more away every year to the gates foundation when he does die his vast wealth will not get hammered by the "estate tax" - if he didn't give any of his wealth right now and just held the stock until he died , he would get hit with a massive "estate tax" bill probably the single largest amount in the history of the united states
if he thinks taxes s/b higher , he is entitled to that opinion but why is he giving his money away to bill gates and melinda 1 simple reason - he probably feels that they can do more with his billions for the peolple in this world than a US gov't contorlled by either part could ever do I would never pretend to know why Mr. Buffett is giving his money to a charity. As for the estate tax, there are ways to get around that just like most of the taxes in this country as long as you either have a good accountant or tax lawyer. For expamle, one can give their kids or relatives a cash gift up to $50K or $100K a year virtually tax free, so if one was smart and had the means, they would do that once they reached retirement age. I don't think the government can tax the recipeient for this. Again, that is an advantage to the rich or well-off. Also if you can afford it, a tax lawyer is better because it would be harder for a court to subpena one's lawyer to testify aganst his or her client. The only reason I know this stuff is because I would read on this stuff once my pops started to let me know how much loot he has. Don't get me wrong. I am all about keeping my family's $$$ in the family. I just don't have a problem paying my fair share of taxes. Of course, once the rules of the tax game has changed, one has to find new loopholes to hold on to their money, but if one is rich or well off, their accountant or tax lawyer will find the loopholes. It will be a little more difficult. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
slim - i hope he does well...if he does well, we all do well. i dont think either mccain nor obama would be more than a one termer given the economic climate laissez faire would be ideal but that will never happen so we need watchdogs. happens to be the watchdogs (congress) are more corrupt than the banks. they are also inept and incapable of truly watching out for the public mccain/palin was my team by default...my gop is the party of newt and dick armey and tom delay...the class of 94, not these guys although there are some bright ones there now like eric cantor and paul ryan ------- I am stating that well off is a household income of $70K plus. in what universe? i'm in central NJ...i do financial sales, wife is an attorney, plus i have a side business. housing (what we want) is not affordable for us in my area ask your accountant friends about the PEP phase outs that are a part of obamanomics. those start at 133k joint and about 78k single filer less taxation is good for everyone Well KOAJ, you live in the most expensive metro area in the US. I feel for you, but if I thought like you, I would say that is your choice to live in there. Why not move to a cheaper area like a PA suburb? Hell, you and your wife have the means to move somewhere else. Again, the new tax will not effect me directly. I am married with children, own a home, and make less than $133K. Dude, I have 9 exemptions, and I was being conservative. They would have to come up with a tax system that would be totally over the top to effect me! Another thing, if the new tax system makes me pay more, so be it as long as I see a benefit to my country. Although I voted for Obama and the Dems, I will be keeping an eye on them to see what they do with OUR money. Yeah, I can probably manage it better than them, but I know I am not a charity type of guy. I give to charity but only because I started to itemize my deductions when I bought a home. Think about that, you would probably call me a bleeding heart, but I am not giving to charity unless I get something for it or I can see a return on my investment. This is why we need taxes. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
yef,
How are the socialist healthcare systems doing in Europe?! I don't hear of the healthcare systems in either Sweeden, France, nor Great Britian being flooded with people or them rationing off health care. Not only that, their economies are stronger than ours, and most Western European countries have some form of government control over "basic needs industries". How can they afford it while having low corporate taxes (which is not comparing apples to apples since our corporations have to pay both Federal and State tax)? I mean they have better government programs than us, better roads, better public transportation systems, etc. They all have higher personal taxes than we do! The government does not run on vapors. It runs on cash money just like everyother institution, so they have to get the money from someone; either the people, the corporations or both.
|
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
-buffett pays taxes in capital gains, not income. when you run a fund you can pay yourself capital gains or filing on a schedule c which should be 15% or whatever his effective rate is after the write downs. im sick of the buffett quote. if he wants to pay higher taxes then he can send a check to the IRS. i dont want to pay higher taxes. i dont the government can be more efficient than i can with money. i dont support the bailout, social security, medicare, medicaid or any other program paid for by taxes that is not for the "general welfare" of all americans. roads, bridges, tunnels fine...but no more monthly checks. we dont have the money anymore (So you think you know more about economics than Warren Buffet?! Wow, you are really bold! Don't you think that granting EVERY American the chance to have a good education and health benefits whether rich or poor is not going to benefit the general welfare for America as a whole? If not, than you really are out for only yourself! That is the type of person who has no true alligance to anyone other than yourself. This thing called the US of A is bigger than you or me mister!) -if you believe that obama will only tax people making 250k or more then i have bright in brooklyn to sell you (I never said, "Obama would will only tax people making 250k or more." I said, "IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $250K A YEAR, YOU WILL NOT BE EFFECTED!" That means people who make less than $250K will not pay higher taxes. Jeezz, not only are you close-minded nor can spell, but you also have trouble reading and comprehending.) I understand how captial gains taxes work, but capital gains cuts were some of the biggest cuts under the Reagan/Bush plans. Who do you think would have the most capital gains income the well off or the middle income? Of course, the well off, and that is who benefits from capital gains tax breaks. I am stating that well off is a household income of $70K plus. If your household makes less than $60K-70K a year while raising kids and/or maintaining a house, you don't have money to put into capital gains! The only way those people save is through their 401k. Dude, like I said earlier, you are not making $250K a year (or I seriously doubt it), so your taxes will not go up! What you want is true laissez-faire which is never going to happen. You know why? Humans are greedy by nature. I know you are greedy. Contrary to what you think of me, I am greedy too! If there is true laissez-faire marketplaces, one company will be bigger than the others in any given industry. Once that happens, the biggest and strongest company will buy-up all the smaller companies eventually creating a monopoly. Once you have an unchecked monopoly, that monopoly will practice unethical business practices (i.e. price fixing, supply fixing, etc.) because no one is going to have the authority to keep them in check. KOAJ, you can learn more on monopolies and other pitfalls of true laissez-faire economics by reading a Macro-Econcomics 101 book. Please read on the busting of the Trusts (monopolies) during the turn of the 20th century. Also, read on the Panic of 1896. Btw, I have heard of Arthur Laffer, and he is a smart man. The problem with Art is that he has only worked with Republican leaders, so I will take what he says with a grain of salt for he has an agenda. Plus his experience is pretty limited compared to John Galbraith. The gentleman I referred to, John Kenneth Galbraith, worked with leaders of multipule parties for like 50 years and taught at Harvard for many years, so I am more inclined to believe his views. KOAJ, I truly believe that you are really only ranting and raving because your "team" lost on Tuesday night by a landslide, and you feel like you will have a Democratic President for the next eight years. The beautiful thing about our Democracy is that, if Obama messes up, we can vote his azz out in four years. If you just shut-up, and let Obama do his thing, this all may blow-up in his face and America will vote be glad to vote him out of office in 2012. If you were really confident his plans won't work, you would be cool and quiet until he does something wrong. On the other hand, I think you have fear that his economic plan just might be what the doctor ordered. Then you will have to deal with a Democratic president until 2016 or later. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
slim - obama is not cutting anyone's taxes...he is giving out credits, not cuts. major major difference since credits are government spending and we currently have no pot to piss in. also, you dont get "extra" revenue when taxes go up. higher taxes stifle growth...less growth equals smaller tax base = less tax revenue. obama's plan will not work unless everyone agrees to work for the collective good. since you have an MBA, im sure you've heard of art laffer, so you know the effect of higher taxes. the great mistake the libs make is that they assume economic activity will be the same when you raise taxes, not true at all the rich can still take their vacations? buy cars? how much is rich to obama 250, 200? to biden its 150 and to bill richardson its 120. not sure where you live but if you are anywhere near NYC or within 60 miles you are living paycheck to paycheck if you make 120 and have a house with kids KOAJ, when I said more revenue, I was referring to tax revenue. Plus, tax credits = lower taxes. For example, since I have two kids, I get a child tax credit which lowers my tax. Furtermore, Obama said he will only tax people making more than $250 a year. Please argue against what Obama's economic plan actually is. IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $250K A YEAR, YOU WILL NOT BE EFFECTED! Also, $100k-$250k is upper-middle class these days. $250k is rich! |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
stuckey/be easy/king me - if obamanomics is executed as stated in his documents and he follows through on his rhetoric you will dis-incentivize work and earning (i dont think thats a word yet...it will be) you're preaching to the choir as someone who doesnt have an economics background but has read art laffer, jude wanninski, jack kemp, mises, etc and works in the industry the pick of rahm emmanuel yesterday for chief of staff was AWFUL So KOAJ, you think that people will all of a sudden not want to make $250k a year just because of the tax?! If you believe that, you are dumber than you seem! As long as there are beautiful hot women in the world, men will work hard to obtain a life style that will allow ugly, non-carismatic guy to get one. As long as one sees that, in-order to afford a decent home and live comfortably, one needs to make at least $100k, people will strive to do that. Having the more fortunate pay their fair share of the country's bills is not too much to ask. Even Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, said, "I'm paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life," Buffet said. "Now, that's crazy." Buffett also said the U.S. Government should increase taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the recently-passed bank rescue, which is designed to end the financial crisis. This from Warren Buffet, of all people, who is going to be particularly and directly effected by the Obama taxes. You on the other hand are a rich wanna be who is going to benefit from the new tax code, but you are so dumb and close-minded; you can't see that. |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey:
explain how Obama's economic plan will help spur our economy? I truly want to know. I am a fiscal conservative to the core, but am always open to new and interesting ideas, but I didn't see it when I read Obama's plan. It is idealistic and will drive our economy into the ground. Economies succeed (both nationally and internationally) when there is less regulation and less taxation which creates innovation and freedom. And, please don't tell me about our economy now. The markets are cyclical. Always have been, always will be. When people rely on governments for answers, your country goes backwards. Just look at Latin America. And, another topic, redistribution of wealth is disturbing and nobody should endorse it unless you are lazy and can't get out and do something on your own in this great country. I work 50 hours a week and am currently getting my Masters in Finance and CFA. Yeah, it sucks now and I can't sit on the couch and watch as much tv as some people, but I'll be rewarded in the end. I put the time and work in so please don't touch my hard earned money more than you already do. If Obama's plan is executed to the T, we are in trouble. Yes, the middle class will have less taxes, but they will also have less jobs because corporate profits will be driven into the ground. Let's just hope he learns from people like Emanuel who have learned in the past what happens if you try to take this country too far left. I will be on the edge of my seat for his Cabinet appointments as they will be vital to the direction of our country. Sorry for the rant. Love to hear any responses. And, I'l just listen. I don't argue politics. It gets you nowhere, but I feel as if people can learn from other opinions that are out there. No offense, but you are just shooting down what Obama's plan before you truly understand it. Isn't that the "true" reason you started this thread? Eventhough you seem to be picking a fight, I will take you for your WORD. I am a guy who has minored in Finance and Economics in Undergrad and got a MBA from extremely good schools, so I think I know what I am talking about. Trickel Down Economics is a great extremest capitalist theory, but just like extreme communism, it does not work once human nature gets involved. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." Mr. Galbraith wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. Keynesian theory actually holds that tax cuts can be used as an economic stimulus. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are direct across the entire economy, not towards one specific group. This is all Obama is trying to do, give the masses tax cuts to spur the economy. Since poorer people tend to not save as much as richer people, they will more than likely use this money to pay a bill or buy some stuff they do not need. This increased spending will put more money in the hands of the business owners and the rich. The extra money the business owners and the rich get from the extra spending will cover most of what they are paying in new taxes, so they can still take their extravagant vacations, continue their country club memberships, and drink their Crystal. You know what is really funny. All you guys in here who back trickle-down economics do so not because you guys are rich, but you do it because someday you wish to be rich, and you don't want to be hurt when you are rich. Let me do you a favor and give you a reality check. Most people in this Great Country of ours do well if they have a better financial life than their parents. Yes, in America, one can grow-up very poor and end up rich, but that is still the exception and not the norm. My parents did it, so I know first hand it is possible. Plus, my dad will be hurt just like Warren Buffet will be hurt by the new tax code, but they are the type of men who feel that it is richer people's duty to help those who are not as fortunate. The higher taxes paid by folks making over $250K a year should be used to help pooer people eventually go to College or Trade Schools. A more educated US populous will eventually make our economy better. Also, the increased tax revenue will help us fund our War on Terror in the way it should be. We should never, ever, ever fight a war and not provide our troops with what they need to be victorious! We just have to make sure the government uses the extra revenue in a way that is better for the country! |
Stuckey | 135 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by bandit1010:
Seriously, are you kidding me?? Where is the economy? Where are the WMD??? Where have all the American job went? That arrogant little GW Bush will soon be gone. I cannot believe people can be SO brainwashed that they can't see through BUSH. All he ever, cared about was the elite, and himself. Anyone, who votes straight democrat or republican, is just an idiot, and does not deserve to be an American. Seriously? Every democrate is better than every republican, or vice-versa? Wow, go to the middle east and study Islam....they would LOVE single, narrow minds like these.
I usually vote Democrat, but I don't always. I voted for an Independent or the US House here in NV. My reasoning was that both the Democrat and the Republican are known as corrupt, so I was not voting for either. |
StraightShooter | 75 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by SoonerFan54:
Hugo - We've had this discussion about deficits and revenues before in this forum, I guess you missed it. Congress passes spending bills, the Pres. can only sign or veto them. Reagan - He had a democratic controlled congress. He did veto at least 1 budget proposal because of the level of spending in it. Clinton - started with a dem congress and 2 years later hd a rep. congress. result, less spending lower deficits and eventually a surplus. Bush - rep congress to start, spending went through the roof for the wars and economic stimulation bills and congressmen started buying votes. They got voted out and now we have a Dem congress. 1 Party rule is BAD for America. Not enough checks and balances, we need some budget hawk conservatives to counteract the tax and spend it all liberals. Sooner, I see you tried to be non-parisian in your message. I commend you on that. It is hard to do, but you were not totally accurate on the Reagan discription. Spending went through the roof, not because of the Democrats, but mainly because of the Arms Race which heated up between us and the Soviets. It was a necessary evil, and it destroyed the Soviets. That coupled with the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's are why the deficit was so high when Bush Sr. took office. BTW, I do agree with your one party rule statement, but it is not totally necessary. I think, if Obama were to appoint a moderate Republican as Secretary of the Treasury and/or Secretary of Defense, he could maybe bring the two sides of the isle together. America is its strongest when we work together, and we sure need that now! |
VGPOP | 91 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by SecondAgain:
nice to see tonyturf and koaj aren't bitter They are soo pissed; it is actually funny! |
VGPOP | 91 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by lobosrule:
at least it is a good thing to have the world be happy with the US for a change... i guess that's the first change of the Obama administration...
What I said earlier about how America is the greatest country on Earth is not meant to be a shot at anyother country. Although I am proud of my country, I am not one of those who think that we can prosper without having ohter countries help us. Going at it alone leads to the Armed Forces being spread too thin. That was a major contributor to the fall of Rome, and we should learn from Rome's mistakes. After all, as far as power in the world goes, we are Rome right now! |
VGPOP | 91 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by hugo:
Sooner, are you just awakening from hibernation or what. You want to put the friggin Neo-Cons back in power in 2010. They have amassed 100% of our national debt since WW11 and you want them back in power to further bankrupt this nation. My God that was the main reason they were thrown out (among others) this time around. That is the single most uninformed post I have ever read in this forum and there have been plenty of them. Either go back into hibernation or read the U.S. Budget report. Why, anyone would want those wild borrow and spend lunatics back in power ever again is beyond me and thankfully the vast majority of our citizenry, at least those beyond an 8 th grade education.
As an aside, I made a post many months ago that the GOP base these days consisted almost entirely by the redneck ,billy southern and plains states and was immediately criticized by KOAJ and other Neo-Cons. A look at the electoral breakdown from yesterday shows exactly that. I rest my case.
Hugo, I totally agree with you. If you take a look at this electorial map, ir looks irronically much like the 1860 electorial map. In-case some of the less educated in this forum don't know, that was the election before the Civil War. Just looking at the current states that were states back then, McCain carried basically all the former slave states while Obama carried the same states Lincoln did execpt Obama carried DE and MD. Interesting, isn't it? |
VGPOP | 91 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by maddbeale:
rick3117, I've witnessed stupidity at it's highest level. Being a Black person, most blacks voted for Obama simply because of the color of his skin. How ignorant is that!!!!! Their voting rights should be revoked!!!! Most people don't actually have a reason why they voted the way they did except that hated bush and obama gave them hope!!!!! WOW!!!!!! Unbelievable.... Should safty be everyone's #1 priority!!! Apparently not, and we will suffer for it!
maddbeale, I really don't know where to start responding to this. Wow! I assume that you are a Republican which is your perrogative. I cannot believe, that as a black person, you would say that any citizen should have their voting rights revoked! You have just insulted ALL of your ancestors who fought, marched, and protested in-order for your unappreciative a*ss to just spit on their graves! Besides that, you are the one who is ignorant. If you look at every presidential election since the Civil Rights Bill was passed, you will see that blacks vote Democrat at around a 97%+ rate. In this election, Obama got around 98% of the black vote, so you see that the usual percentage of blacks voted Democrat again. Just like most Republicans, you say inflamatory things in order to make your points which are not vaildated by anthing real! If you need an example, go look at Bush's WMD calims about Iraq before the war. Also, Obama could not have won without getting the normal percentage of white votes for a Democratic candidate, and he did just that! Plus, although we all know that hispanics and blacks don't truly see eye-to-eye, he pretty much got most if not all the Hispanic vote! Just face it, you guys lost! As McCain admited, "the best man won." = Staunch Republicans = Everyone else |
StraightShooter | 75 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
“You fuckin' people… you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today. That’s all you did. You put people’s lives in danger. Sweet dreams.” I caught the end of A Few Good Men yesterday and that quote popped in my head while I was watching Obama’s speech tonight (good speech by the way). That being said, I hope Obama does a great job. I honestly do. I hope he can help get our economy back on track and maybe he’ll have better luck finding Bin Laden than Bush did. As a black man, I am very proud of what happened last night, but this moment is deeper than just a black man being elected president of the United States of America. Something greater happened last night for America. Now everyone around the world now has a concrete reason to believe that American is truly the "Land of Opportunity" for all men no matter one's racial or ethnic background! And that my fellow American makes the US of A more powerful than any Army or weapon could. Have we totally conqured the race issue? Hell no, but yesterday proved that Americans will not have race be a barrier any longer. I think that all Americans; white, black, hispanic, conservative, liberal, etc. should take this moment to step back and be proud to be an American and not take shots at President-elect Obama. I do understand that the political machine in American runs 24-7, so I am not angry at any of you who take shots at President-elect Obama. It is also your consitutional right to oppose the controlling party. Anything else would be truly un-American. Now for anyone who thinks that American is not the greatest nation in the history of the world better study their WORLD history. I always say that US of A is like Rome, Macedonia, British Empire, and Egypt all in one. What does the US have over these great nations? The answers are "The Bill of Rights" and the fact that since every citizen has the right to vote, America can correct itself. Oh by the way, criticizm of the party in power is also what makes America great. I also cannot forget to mention that another strength of America is that we have people from various ethnicities and countries around the world. |
StraightShooter | 75 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by ChanceP:
The thing these "black panthers" dont realize is that all the "progress" and "change" we're about to experience with Obama winning theyre basically just spitting in the face of that trying to take us back in time. Also looks like they feel justified because "one of their own is about to be leader". Pretty sad and ignorant really.
I just hope none of the blacks in this forum support this action, which I dont think any of them do. I just hope WHEN Obama wins that many more "scum" like this dont come out of the woodwork and feel theyre justiffed to act like animals cuz "one of thier own is in charge now"
With that said, GO Obama. Change this fucking place like you promised. Id support a Black, a woman, hell even a fucking hobo if he could fix this mess. Lets do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ChanceP, I think you make a great point. As a black man I am very saddened by what the so called "Black Panthers" did. Every American has the right to vote no matter the color of their skin or their background. No, as an American, I am sadden by these facts. That being said, these are radicals acting on their own just like any white extremist going to people's homes and scaring them to go to the polls. It is just plain sickening! |
woopdurritis | 110 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by tonyturf:
You people that continue to put your $ into bodog are completely insane...
Most of us aren't putting money in those accounts, but we are going to play what we have left in the account. Bodog sends me offers all the time trying to get me to put more money in that account. No way, I will put money in the account, but I will withdrawl for good when I gain a nice profit on them. |
Crashdavis565 | 166 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.