| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
9 |
Wally
Nomad
Posts: 182
Registered: 3-15-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
|
I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis.
Things changed when Kennedy died. |
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government
can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to
vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their
jobs."
P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.
[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally] |
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more
wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater
numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by
the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by
the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have
sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the
three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the
people and not from state governments.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_origina...
and:
What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end)
to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha
Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five
months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
- See more at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real... |
This may, very possibly, be the most absurd response ever.
The senate does Budgets. Budgets. Budgets. Got it!
For 2 years, Democrats held a majority of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate...AND the Presidency.
Your "filibuster-proof" reference is rubbish.
go bark at someone else.
.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by Wally]
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
|
I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis.
Things changed when Kennedy died. |
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government
can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to
vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their
jobs."
P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.
[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally] |
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more
wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater
numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by
the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by
the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have
sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the
three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the
people and not from state governments.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_origina...
and:
What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end)
to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha
Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five
months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
- See more at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real... |
This may, very possibly, be the most absurd response ever.
For 2 years, Democrats held a majority of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate...AND the Presidency.
Your "filibuster-proof" reference is rubbish.
go bark at someone else.
. |
Definitely hard to debate opinions...
I suppose you still stand by your facts about the origination of spending bills
|
|
|
Wally
Nomad
Posts: 182
Registered: 3-15-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
|
I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis.
Things changed when Kennedy died. |
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government
can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to
vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their
jobs."
P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.
[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally] |
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more
wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater
numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by
the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by
the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have
sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the
three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the
people and not from state governments.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_origina...
and:
What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end)
to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha
Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five
months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
- See more at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real... |
This may, very possibly, be the most absurd response ever.
For 2 years, Democrats held a majority of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate...AND the Presidency.
Your "filibuster-proof" reference is rubbish.
go bark at someone else.
. |
Definitely hard to debate opinions...
I suppose you still stand by your facts about the origination of spending bills |
what a clever person you are.
Revenue? Spending? Budgets? Majorities? You'll always win the argument by changing the subject.
Semantics? Right?
tiresome.
You know what???
You are completely right.
I surrender.
You win!
.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18145
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
Obama blamed Bush for his dismal failure on the economy
his first term.
Now he needs someone to blame for this term since he can't blame Bush anymore.Looks like it will be Boehner and the Republicans.
|
funny how GOP has inability to look inward and see their own failures,... GOP always says it is democrats fault!
GOP is still waging a homophobic, racist, elitist (1%) agenda -- how' that working out for the GOP?
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
I am not a Republican.I call it as I see and feel it.My investment income has dropped by 50%!.Looks like I won't be building a" trophy truck" in the
near future. |
what happened to your investments?....I've been riding the Obama express stock market the last couple of years and made more than ever. might change
that soon since the Congress has decided to stalemate things.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
Now he needs someone to blame for this term since he can't blame Bush anymore.Looks like it will be Boehner and the Republicans.
|
It's all of them....a bunch of unconcerned losers who care more about their party status than the country. 
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
It's all of them....a bunch of unconcerned losers who care more about their party status than the country. |
WORD!
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by woody with a view]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
When it comes to economics, you guys, you have to be able to discern cause and effect and the timing of cause and effect. The huge error many make is
to look at a given action or circumstance and misjudge completely when the effect takes place and how long the effect lasts and when it ends.
From 1980 to 2007, the public income from compensation was flat and meager, but the spending money that powered the GDP and the economy during that
period came from the public borrowing on credit cards, department store credit, car loans, education loans and ofcourse home loans. The spending
money source from home loans soared and eclipsed the other free flowing sources of money due to MBS, derivatives and the shadow banking system
duplicating in spades the efforts of FNMA and GNMA together with the boom of toxic lending and other malfeasons that accompanied the shadow banking
system.
The point is, people, the 27 years of economic growth from 1980 to 2007 was a faux economy supported by crazy money, that is to say borrowed money and
not wage earnings...now, everyone is in debt and cannot borrow any more. Student loans are maxed out, credit cards are maxed out, home loans are
maxed out and many homeowners are under water together with depressed realty values. There is no borrowing going on because everyone (not the top
2%'ers, but the bottom 98%'ers) is maxed out on debt...that's a different situation than existed in 1970. The overly indebted public finally couldn't
borrow anymore to fund the economy and down came our economy in 2008. The economic status that breached in 2008 is still with us. That bust that
happened because of public overleveraging led to unemployment and a Great Recession...and the overindebtedness still exists and earnings for the botom
98%ers are still as flat as ever. That's why we are still in the economic abyss!
Now, having two unfunded wars, one of which broke records in duration, at the same time that Bush decreased taxes and provided an unfunded Medicare
Part D that prohibits bargaining with Pharma doesn't help the economy either. Be advised that this is the first time in history we waged a war
without increasing taxes to pay for it! These wars are lasting forever and then not to pay for it? Ask yourself..."Would that have anything to do
with the National Debt balance we have today? You know, 2 wars and a tax break? Come on, man.
Now, if you can't see the salient facts for what they are, if you can't take the meager amount of time to read books on what caused the 2008 meltdown
and verify the big picture stats (readily available on the internet) that coincide with GDP growth, household incomes from earnings , credit card
debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt and the related household tracking of household debt, and distribution of wealth among individuals in
percentiles between 1970 to 2008 and see for yourself what the real facts are, then how can you authoritatively cast your opinions on what the
mistakes were, what factors are at work underlying our current economic malaise...when did those factors start, how long is the duration of their
existence, when did those effects from those factors begin, how long are they the case, and how long will they be reasonably expected to continue?
I don't see how anyone can logically blame one administration over the other with any credibility if you don't know the festoring history of the
factors and facts and the underlying micro and macroeconomics at play.
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Terry28
Senior Nomad
Posts: 824
Registered: 8-25-2007
Location: S.Calif mtns.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Thirsty
|
|
MItch, Finally I agree with a lot of what you have to say...you just left out the wall street scandal and the deregulating of the financial
institutions, they sure helped the recession along....
Mexico!! Where two can live as cheaply as one.....but it costs twice as much.....
|
|
|
nbacc
Senior Nomad
Posts: 770
Registered: 12-27-2008
Location: Northern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
AND, the question is "will the border wait get longer"? Nancy
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Terry28
MItch, Finally I agree with a lot of what you have to say...you just left out the wall street scandal and the deregulating of the financial
institutions, they sure helped the recession along.... |
The point is, people, the 27 years of economic growth from 1980 to 2007 was a faux economy supported by crazy money, that is to say borrowed money
and not wage earnings...
_______________________________________________
..and don't forget that all those dot coms were part of that "crazy" money during the '80s and 90s.
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.
Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.
Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551]
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.
Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.
Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551] |
Not sure about where you live but housing prices are increasing as well. I recently heard that San Diego is expecting more revenue than predicted.
In addition, the State of California is expected to have a budget surplus in the next year or two....and go figure...they just raised taxes
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Quick Economy & History Review
When tax RATES are lowered, tax revenue increases... because more people are working and paying tax... also buying more stuff, which helps EVERYONE.
Raise taxes (on the 'rich', but is really mostly small business) and less jobs are created, more people lose jobs, less people paying taxes... what we
have now.
You can't solve this by ever increasing taxation of small businesses and the few 'rich'. Nearly HALF of adult Americans pay NO taxes at all, and they
are the ones that take most of the benefits of government programs.
As it is now, the top 2% pay (almost) 50% of the taxes... just how greedy is government going to get (before every 'rich' person or business really
LEAVES)?
The Reagan tax cuts created the greatest peacetime boost to the U.S. treasury in history. Our coffers didn't swell because the Democrats reneged on
their promise to not increase spending as they were in control of congress... More money came in, and more money went out.
Bush '1' was fooled by the Democrats when they tricked him into signing a tax increase, after he promised 'no new taxes', then they used that to
defeat him and bring in Clinton... who looked great to voters on his re-election BECAUSE Republicans were in power after his first term (Americans
wanted to stop Hilary-care) and our country was on sound financial ground with a balanced budget (Republican congress/Democrat president).
His VP (Al Gore) nearly won in 2000, but no matter how many times they recounted the Florida votes, they never could pull it off, hanging chads and
all... even the Supreme Court had to stop the third or fourth recount and let the new guy get on with it.
Bush prevented 9-11 from destroying our economy by reducing tax rates again... and it worked... and Republicans got control of congress after (the
people were so jazzed). Then, the Republicans began to spend like Democrats... same thing, more $$ came in and too much went out. The people fired the
Republicans for not being conservative, so in came the Democrat congress of 2007, they made things worse, said it was Bush's fault (he was still
president)... people fell for that... McCain (not a conservative) was all we could put up against Obama who dazzled so many, and then you had a full
leftest government until 2011 when we got the House back for some counter-measure.
Sadly with National-Socialism intruding into the lives of everyone (Obama-care), and us not having a dynamo to win in 2012, it is really now scary for
us and our children's future...
Isn't it funny how when Bush was president, the shouts from the leftist media was "How are you going to pay for that?" Why do we NEVER hear that from
the media when a Democrat is president and he not only spends more than Bush, but spends more than all presidents since George Washington...
COMBINED!!???
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by David K] |
Just a clarification...if you are not working as much as you were in the past, does that make you one of the people not paying taxes Should we follow the rhetoric and come after you? No, we should close corporate
tax loop holes as well as invest in our economy...yes investing in our economy.
Each month I invest money in the stock market, in housing, and to pay down my personal debt...funny thing....I also strive to increase my
revenue....what a crazy concept...reduce spending, invest, and strive to increase my revenue....
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by Bajaboy]
|
|
|
CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.
Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.
Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551] |
The stock market is not doing well using traditional PE ratios. It is purely an emotional buy and not from strong economic principals used for
years. It is kind of like going to vegas. In vegas, you are either a slot machine player, hoping that you have the luck of hitting the jack pot. Or
you play Craps or Black Jack becuase there are hard facts of how to win and the player has control of how to move forward with bets and options.
Many in the stock market today are playing the same game, including me.
Investing, in my opinion, is like have a series of buckets in front of you and they are labeled:
Real Estate
Mutual Funds that cover, Prescious metals, Foreign stocks, Domestic Stocks, Petroleum, dividends etc.
Real holdings of precious metals
Options (to bet against the market)
Cash
Foreign Currency
The only guy to listen to on TV that tells it as it is is Jim Krammer, the rest of them have no clue!!
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CortezBlue
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.
Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.
Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551] |
The stock market is not doing well using traditional PE ratios. It is purely an emotional buy and not from strong economic principals used for
years. It is kind of like going to vegas. In vegas, you are either a slot machine player, hoping that you have the luck of hitting the jack pot. Or
you play Craps or Black Jack becuase there are hard facts of how to win and the player has control of how to move forward with bets and options.
Many in the stock market today are playing the same game, including me.
Investing, in my opinion, is like have a series of buckets in front of you and they are labeled:
Real Estate
Mutual Funds that cover, Prescious metals, Foreign stocks, Domestic Stocks, Petroleum, dividends etc.
Real holdings of precious metals
Options (to bet against the market)
Cash
Foreign Currency
The only guy to listen to on TV that tells it as it is is Jim Krammer, the rest of them have no clue!! |
I agree with you to some extent....seems like there is so much market manipulation whether it be the Street, real estate, commodities...you name it.
But what about the companies sitting on piles of cash? What about the record profits from a lot of companies...it's not all smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
The only thing I want to know from this thread is the actual border wait at the US/Mexican border longer due to the sequestration or is it about the
same?
The other stuff about Bush being a great President is funny. Bush ran the US economy into the ground, and put the US on a brink of another deep
depression with stock market values losing nearly 50 percent on the major indexes.
Obama has been busy digging the US out of the hole Bush put America in, and a byproduct of Obama's work are great stock market returns the last few
years, and it's looking good again this year.
My goodness what is CortezBlue talking about when he says, " The stock market is not doing well using traditional PE ratios. It is purely an emotional
buy and not from strong economic principals used for years."
CortezBlue doesn't tell us how he uses the PE ratio, but traditionally stock market pros look for stocks with low PE's, and they look at high PE
ratios at being a sign the stock is over heated and it might be time to sell. Of course when a stock is hot, the PE ratio is often ignored for awhile
and other stock market signals or factors are looked at.
The PE of S&P 500 ratio is not too high, and in fact it's looking pretty good, and not out of line of the last few years, and the PE average of
17.27 in 2013 is nowhere near the PE levels of the late 90's, and early 2000's that often had high PE ratios in the high 20's and 30's during the
stock market's bull market of the Clinton years, and the stock market bubble that started to go south during the end of Clinton's second term, and
busted during the Bush years, and 911.
There is no Las Vegas mentality with stock market fundamentals like the PE this year, however there is macroeconomic issues worldwide that could hurt
the US stock market at any time.
S&P 500 PE Ratio by year:
http://www.multpl.com/table
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | The only guy to listen to on TV that tells it as it is is Jim Krammer, the rest of them have no clue!! |
I
hope that's a joke. Jim Cramer is the guy who was telling people to buy right up until the market tanked, then told everyone to get their money out of
the market at precisely the best time in fifty years to get into the market.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
People are investing in the stock market because it is one of the few places you might get a decent return.Money market,cd's ,bonds,traditional
savings account interest rates are next to nothing.If I remember right,banks were even charging you to deposit money. |
Exactly right whistler, fed interest rate policy has forced anyone looking for a yield on their savings, into a mob owned casino to
be fleeced.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
I guess I will see how the economy is doing.Going to put a half dozen Penn Internationals on ebay.Reel prices are a good indicator.Want to get rid of
a Tiagara 20 and a Trinidad 40 also but they are at my place in Mexico. |
Real prices or reel prices. Why sell the reels? no more fishing? You can advertise them on this forum except many here apparently are not working,
are broke or would like them donated.
[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
9 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
