EPTThe US debt (proper debate) - Page 52
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
| ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
Just read your last message. Nothing left to discuss. We are in agreement that the government should institute spending cuts long term, but any spending cuts should also come with tax increases on the top 1%. I would prefer significant taxes on this percent and redistribute the income to pay for new infrastructure and pay of the deficit. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:39 cfoy3 wrote: @xDaunt You know what else economist's caution against? Drastically cutting government spending. Look of course we are not going to get out of this by simply taxing the rich. No one here is saying that. We do need entitlement reform, however can you really say that the rich shouldn't contribute? Further, the thing about tax cuts for cooperations and the rich is that while yes they may have more money. They are under no obligation to spend that money or even to reinvest it back into the US. Their is absolutely no constraints on that. Remember cooperations do not care about you. They care about only more profit. Just look at the airline industries. Taxes were reduced. GOP ideology states that passenger tickets should decrease. But that isn't what happened. The airlines just pocketed the money. All that really happened is that the government got a less money (money that could be used to pay down the debt),and a whole bunch of construction workers and air traffic controllers may lose their jobs. This is a clear falsification to this line of logic and a debunking of GOP theory. I am eager to hear your rebuttals. And here's where the complications set in: we need to get the fiscal house in order without jeopardizing the economy. You need massive spending cuts, and at the same time you can't afford massive spending cuts. Though all of that is pretty irrelevant since this is a discussion about the actual debt, hence the title. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:39 cfoy3 wrote: @xDaunt You know what else economist's caution against? Drastically cutting government spending. Look of course we are not going to get out of this by simply taxing the rich. No one here is saying that. We do need entitlement reform, however can you really say that the rich shouldn't contribute? Yep, I agree about the rapid drastic cuts. However, we don't really have much of a choice, do we? The bond markets and credit agencies are making it fairly clear that we can't keep running 40%+ budget deficits. As for increasing taxes on the rich, it probably has to happen. However, there are two considerations that most people miss here. First, how much do we reasonably expect to gain in revenue from new taxes on the rich? $100 billion annually? $200 billion annually? Neither comes close to closing the $1.4 trillion budget gap. It's a simple numbers game. Second, taxing the rich generally means taxing employers. Such taxes will put financial pressures upon employers to lay off more employees, which further erodes the tax base and eats at other tax revenues (ie laid off employees no longer have incomes on which to pay taxes). Again, do we really want to be discouraging employment in this economic environment? On August 03 2011 12:39 cfoy3 wrote: Further, the thing about tax cuts for cooperations and the rich is that while yes they may have more money. They are under no obligation to spend that money or even to reinvest it back into the US. Their is absolutely no constraints on that. Remember cooperations do not care about you. They care about only more profit. Just look at the airline industries. Taxes were reduced. GOP ideology states that passenger tickets should decrease. But that isn't what happened. The airlines just pocketed the money. All that really happened is that the government got a less money (money that could be used to pay down the debt),and a whole bunch of construction workers and air traffic controllers may lose their jobs. This is a clear falsification to this line of logic and a debunking of GOP theory. See, this is another great misconception about the "rich" and "corporations." People with money don't sit on their money and hide it under their mattresses. They leave it in various investment funds and financial institutions where the money can appreciate. That IS reinvesting money into the economy. The simple act of depositing money into a basic savings account at a bank is "reinvesting money into the economy." Why? The bank takes that deposit and then lends out to third persons who need loans for mortgages or for their businesses. In this way, the money held by the "rich" generates and contributes to commerce in America. The airline industry is a poor example to use for your illustration. The problem is that the airline industry as a whole (ie THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY) has never been profitable. When you're unprofitable, you obviously are going to pocket whatever savings that you have instead of passing it on to the consumer. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:43 Trajan98 wrote: Ill take the non response from xDaunt that he knows that the supposed 50% of Americans that pay no taxes, in reality pay taxes! I thought you'd actually take my advice and quit bringing this up, but if you really want to keep looking foolish, I'll happily oblige you. AGAIN, go re-read my last post. I said 50% of American pay no federal income taxes. In your previous post, you cited excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Guess what those all of those taxes are not? They are not federal income taxes. So please, explain again to me how you have rebutted the statistic that 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes? Better yet, just quit bringing this up. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:34 xDaunt wrote: This may be the funniest thing that I've ever seen argued in a debate about the federal deficit and federal budget: the numbers are "meaningless." I may only be a lawyer -- a profession notorious for being bad at math --- but even I know that "budgeting" is fundamentally a mathematical exercise. Typically math involves numbers. Also, I haven't argued that taxes shouldn't be raised. In fact, I've said the contrary many times in this thread. My point is only that taxes cannot fix the problem. Spending cuts will necessarily be the primary solution for the budgetary -- or mathematical -- reasons that I set forth above. I haven't read the thread. I've read your responses to me. It's funny to you because you're laughably short-sighted and can't see my point. You know perfectly well I'm not calling numbers meaningless. In fact, my posts to you had more numbers than your posts. Quit playing dumb. Your use of numbers was: -You defined the numerical value of GDP -You defined numerical value of deficit -You defined percentage values of spending -You concluded what spending is most important to cut, failing to define implications of cutting spending in certain areas (like Medicare which I brought up, only to have you respond by carrying on and on about how "no one said anything about totally cutting Medicare" - all the while giving no reasonable ideas concerning by how much to cut Medicare and in which ways) Are you kidding? On August 03 2011 12:57 xDaunt wrote: First, how much do we reasonably expect to gain in revenue from new taxes on the rich? $100 billion annually? $200 billion annually? Neither comes close to closing the $1.4 trillion budget gap. It's a simple numbers game. Consider the top 1% of taxpayers. Even in a year that the Wall Street Journal acknowledges "was a bad year for the economy and thus for tax receipts," the top 1% reported to the IRS an AGI of $1,685 billion dollars, amounting to 20% of the total reported household income that year, and around 12 percent of GDP. On this sum they paid $392 billion in taxes, an average tax rate of 23%. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008. The money received by the richest households is vast, and higher taxes on the rich will make a major contribution to closing the deficit. Nobody says that the rich should carry the entire tax burden or that spending cuts shouldn't play a role. So, taking that 23% and hiking it up to, say, 35%, then compounding that with reforms in other spending areas (including Medicare - in the correct way), military spending, etc... Now you have a real recipe. You can't simply scoff at, say, $400 billion in tax revenue. It DOES contribute immensely. I really don't understand your position at all that because it isn't some arbitrarily 'huge' number like, say, $1 trillion, it isn't worth noting importantly. Now, sorry to say, but on the other side of things, the arguments you're regurgitating from the hard-republican side of the issue concerning taxes being detrimental to big companies gets nowhere, I realize, just as it gets nowhere on the hill. It's not fact that companies are affected in that way. It's not fact at all. Whatever. I suppose I could copy paste the cookie cut response to that cookie cut criticism of tax hiking. This discussion now reminds me of "does god exist" debate. Gets nowhere. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6253 Posts
I actually see the USA slowly decaying and it's possible that in my lifetime, it will no longer be the no. 1 superpower. In my opinion, USA needs to go back to what made the country great: - Minimal govt intervention, i.e. cut govt spending. - Reform the legal system: compensation claims + lawsuits are wasting a lot of money. As for taxing the rich, I'm against it. What made the USA powerful today is the "American Dream". Increasing the burden towards the rich shifts away from this ideology. It is a myth that the rich don't contribute. The money they have are invested heavily back into the economy. What made them rich is their ability to wisely make decisions on how to use their capital. In general, govts don't make these good decisions. | ||
|
thepeonwhocould
Australia334 Posts
If an individual is in debt, what advice would you give them in order for them to get out of debt? Cut all non-critical spending and start paying off your debts. Same rules apply to countries. What's the governments solution? Raise the limit on their credit cards. How long do you think that's going to last? | ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
On August 03 2011 13:04 xDaunt wrote: I thought you'd actually take my advice and quit bringing this up, but if you really want to keep looking foolish, I'll happily oblige you. AGAIN, go re-read my last post. I said 50% of American pay no federal income taxes. In your previous post, you cited excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Guess what those all of those taxes are not? They are not federal income taxes. So please, explain again to me how you have rebutted the statistic that 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes? Better yet, just quit bringing this up. Because you rebutted my post where I said that it is often claimed usually by republicans that 50% of Americans pay no taxes!! not no federal income taxes. So if you want to nitpick like that then just look at my original post please and stop trying to make yourself look right when you are clearly wrong in every way. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 03 2011 13:10 thepeonwhocould wrote: This whole issue is alot simpler than people make it out to be. If an individual is in debt, what advice would you give them in order for them to get out of debt? Cut all non-critical spending and start paying off your debts. Same rules apply to countries. What's the governments solution? Raise the limit on their credit cards. How long do you think that's going to last? Well perhaps if you looked at hard analysis rather than what certain media outlets feed you, these ideas would make more sense. Of course it sounds like a bad idea if construed that simply and distorted. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:09 xDaunt wrote: Please, just stop posting when you don't even know how it works. Yes, taxes are taken out of their paychecks. However, the ENTIRE AMOUNT (and sometimes more) is then refunded to them. 50% of Americans not paying federal income taxes isn't some number that conservatives made up. It's something reported by the federal government annually. Correct, about half do not pay federal income taxes. However, payroll taxes are an entirely separate issue. Payroll taxes are not technically part of federal income taxes. While some do receive them back as a credit through the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) the number is no where near 50% of Americans. And keep in mind that payroll taxes are very significant at 15.3% (half paid by employee half by employer) and capped at about $100,000. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On August 03 2011 00:40 xDaunt wrote: "Moderate" conservatives are part of the problem. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is nothing more than a brand of moderate conservatism, and look what it got us: more unnecessary social spending and more debt during an economic boom time. We're supposed to be running surpluses during boom times. Here's the real problem with moderation: "moderation" means compromise with democrats and liberals, who simply refuse to roll back fiscal spending to sustainable levels. When you have $1.4+ trillion annual budget deficits, you have a spending problem. As I said earlier in this thread, you can't raise taxes to cover that amount without wrecking the economy when the total US GDP is "only" $14-15 trillion. Yes, taxes will be raised at some point, but any tax increase will necessarily be dwarfed by needed spending cuts. These cuts will necessarily include cuts to the social programs that democrats hold dear, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Democrats and liberals simply won't put those cuts on the table, and they demonize anyone who does (see Paul Ryan). Why should conservatives "compromise" with such lunacy? Democrats and liberals are so far off of the reservation right now that they just need to be written off as a lost cause. I am just happy that the country is finally having the debate that it needs to have concerning fiscal sanity. That attitude is seriously what everyone is talking about in the danger of extremism. What do we get when both sides of the government refuse to compromise? Exactly what we have now, the world almost ending every few months and the government unable to function properly. Paul Ryan got a raw deal, I didn't think it was fair to paint his bill like the Dems did. But I have a pretty hard time feeling sorry for Republicans in the misinformation department... While I commend Paul Ryan for his bravery, a fair criticism is that he's still asking society's most vulnerable to make sacrifices without asking the rich to make any. That's the problem. Entitlement cuts are inevitable, but defense spending needs to be cut too and the rich have to pay their fair share. As a whole package that's much more palatable to everybody. Democrats should be more willing to talk about those big spending cuts, yes. Republicans should be willing to talk about closing tax loopholes and stopping this madness of "trick-down economics". They got a ton of concessions from Obama (as usual) and still walked out over the closing of tax loopholes? That's childish. Pretending that Democrats are the whole problem and Republicans are innocent is lunacy. The problem isn't liberals or conservatives, the problem is extremism. You are right that you can't solve the deficit by raising taxes, but you are ignoring that everyone here agrees about that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of the solution, it can have a substantial impact and lessen the impact of the spending cuts. What we can't do is keep pretending that tax cuts for the rich is good for anybody other than the rich. That economic model has failed, the rich got very very rich, the poor got poorer, and the government can't pay its bills. It's time to put dogma aside and be realistic. | ||
|
icemanzdoinwork
447 Posts
This is both parties fault and I hate to say this, but the tea party was the only party I saw that was serious about the issue. They just need to go ahead and do what needs to be done. Cut spending everywhere, raise taxes on everyone. This whole debt deal crap was a sham in my eyes. They didn't take care of the problem and the longer thy wait. It's going to keep getting worst. Both sides are arguing that they don't want to do what needs to be done. Don't tax the rich Don't tax the middle Don't cut defense Don't cut entitlements We need a whole new party that will do what needs to be done. Tired of politicians who were wrong then, but I'm right now. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 03 2011 13:08 Azzur wrote: As for taxing the rich, I'm against it. What made the USA powerful today is the "American Dream". Increasing the burden towards the rich shifts away from this ideology. It is a myth that the rich don't contribute. The money they have are invested heavily back into the economy. What made them rich is their ability to wisely make decisions on how to use their capital. In general, govts don't make these good decisions. The American Dream is predicated on the notion of equal opportunity for success based on ability regardless of the social class you are born into. Equality of opportunity is actually damaged by widening economic inequality, which has happened because of the tax cuts on the wealthy in the last few decades. Therefore, the tax cuts on the wealthy in the last decades has actually hurt the American Dream, not helped it. What has made the USA so weak in recent years is that the American Dream is dying. For the first time ever, children (specifically the children of the baby boomers) on average now have worse projected socio-economic status than their parents. Social mobility is on the decline. If you were truly in favor of fixing the problem, you would support undoing the root cause: massive tax cuts and deregulation that have favored the wealthy and the corporations while simultaneously mortgaging our future. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 14:22 Senorcuidado wrote: That attitude is seriously what everyone is talking about in the danger of extremism. What do we get when both sides of the government refuse to compromise? Exactly what we have now, the world almost ending every few months and the government unable to function properly. Paul Ryan got a raw deal, I didn't think it was fair to paint his bill like the Dems did. But I have a pretty hard time feeling sorry for Republicans in the misinformation department... While I commend Paul Ryan for his bravery, a fair criticism is that he's still asking society's most vulnerable to make sacrifices without asking the rich to make any. That's the problem. Entitlement cuts are inevitable, but defense spending needs to be cut too and the rich have to pay their fair share. As a whole package that's much more palatable to everybody. Democrats should be more willing to talk about those big spending cuts, yes. Republicans should be willing to talk about closing tax loopholes and stopping this madness of "trick-down economics". They got a ton of concessions from Obama (as usual) and still walked out over the closing of tax loopholes? That's childish. Pretending that Democrats are the whole problem and Republicans are innocent is lunacy. The problem isn't liberals or conservatives, the problem is extremism. You are right that you can't solve the deficit by raising taxes, but you are ignoring that everyone here agrees about that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of the solution, it can have a substantial impact and lessen the impact of the spending cuts. What we can't do is keep pretending that tax cuts for the rich is good for anybody other than the rich. That economic model has failed, the rich got very very rich, the poor got poorer, and the government can't pay its bills. It's time to put dogma aside and be realistic. Here's where I disagree with your argument: the solution to the government's deficit problems is necessarily extreme. I hate to repeat myself so much in this thread, but this point is just too critical: we have a $1.4+ trillion deficit and $14-15 trillion in debt. Those are HUGE numbers. Let's just pretend for a second that taxes are adjusted such that the government gets a huge amount of new revenues. I'll even be generous. Let's say that the increased taxes is equal to $500 billion in new revenue annually (this number is unrealistic). Even assuming this huge increase in new taxes, we would still need to freeze government spending increases and then cut spending by at least $1 trillion annually to balance the budget and begin paying off the principal of the $14-15 trillion in debt that we've already amassed . We've been hearing repeatedly from the media and from politicians (predominantly democrats) that cutting $4 trillion in spending over 10 years is extreme (and let's not forget that, under their baseline budgeting system, those cuts still would not offset automatically slated increases in spending over that same time period). Assuming that the fiscal plan that I set forth above was held in place for 10 years, the spending cuts be scored by the CBO as a $19 trillion cut in spending over that period. ($1 trillion in actual cuts per year for 10 years [$10 trillion] + $9 trillion in "cuts" from immediately freezing spending levels under the baseline budgeting system). Please explain to me in what universe $19 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years would not be considered "extreme." And that's the real problem. We're so fucked right now that the only way out is to implement rather draconian and extreme spending cuts, even with new taxes. Even if our economy starts going gangbusters with growth, we'd still need implement some dramatic measures to start paying off the debt and reducing it to sustainable levels for when the next economic shitstorm hits. What this means politically is that democrats and liberals are going to have to eat a massive shit sandwich for the good of the country and enact spending cuts on the very entitlement programs that they champion. There is no "moderate" solution where republicans and democrats can meet halfway on this. Democrats simply have to capitulate. Will republicans have to to give up defense spending cuts? Yep. But again, most of the action necessarily will be in entitlement program reform. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On August 04 2011 02:07 xDaunt wrote: Here's where I disagree with your argument: the solution to the government's deficit problems is necessarily extreme. I hate to repeat myself so much in this thread, but this point is just too critical: we have a $1.4+ trillion deficit and $14-15 trillion in debt. Those are HUGE numbers. Let's just pretend for a second that taxes are adjusted such that the government gets a huge amount of new revenues. I'll even be generous. Let's say that the increased taxes is equal to $500 billion in new revenue annually (this number is unrealistic). Even assuming this huge increase in new taxes, we would still need to freeze government spending increases and then cut spending by at least $1 trillion annually to balance the budget and begin paying off the principal of the $14-15 trillion in debt that we've already amassed . We've been hearing repeatedly from the media and from politicians (predominantly democrats) that cutting $4 trillion in spending over 10 years is extreme (and let's not forget that, under their baseline budgeting system, those cuts still would not offset automatically slated increases in spending over that same time period). Assuming that the fiscal plan that I set forth above was held in place for 10 years, the spending cuts be scored by the CBO as a $19 trillion cut in spending over that period. ($1 trillion in actual cuts per year for 10 years [$10 trillion] + $9 trillion in "cuts" from immediately freezing spending levels under the baseline budgeting system). Please explain to me in what universe $19 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years would not be considered "extreme." And that's the real problem. We're so fucked right now that the only way out is to implement rather draconian and extreme spending cuts, even with new taxes. Even if our economy starts going gangbusters with growth, we'd still need implement some dramatic measures to start paying off the debt and reducing it to sustainable levels for when the next economic shitstorm hits. What this means politically is that democrats and liberals are going to have to eat a massive shit sandwich for the good of the country and enact spending cuts on the very entitlement programs that they champion. There is no "moderate" solution where republicans and democrats can meet halfway on this. Democrats simply have to capitulate. Will republicans have to to give up defense spending cuts? Yep. But again, most of the action necessarily will be in entitlement program reform. lol Daunt, people don't care about the numbers. The fact this thread even exists and is thriving is proof people don't care about the numbers. They will spout whatever BS is already in line with their entire ideological point of view, but you won't hear them discuss the actual depth of the hole we are in. Most don't even know, or are unwilling to accept it. That's how you get people saying "it's all overblown, there is no problem, this was manufactured by the republicans." I made a thread with plenty of numbers from every reliable source I could think of, from the federal reserve, to the IMF, to the accounting offices... In the end it was called troll bait and ignored. Just give up now, people don't care about the facts, or the numbers. Four legs good, two legs bad. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 04 2011 02:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: lol Daunt, people don't care about the numbers. The fact this thread even exists and is thriving is proof people don't care about the numbers. They will spout whatever BS is already in line with their entire ideological point of view, but you won't hear them discuss the actual depth of the hole we are in. Most don't even know, or are unwilling to accept it. That's how you get people saying "it's all overblown, there is no problem, this was manufactured by the republicans." I made a thread with plenty of numbers from every reliable source I could think of, from the federal reserve, to the IMF, to the accounting offices... In the end it was called troll bait and ignored. Just give up now, people don't care about the facts, or the numbers. Four legs good, two legs bad. Yeah, it's kinda hard for me to disagree with you. | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
On August 04 2011 02:29 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, it's kinda hard for me to disagree with you. Sadly, you're both right :/ Even though this is called proper debate, the numbers and realistic previsions are ignored... We should get off of this thread as this is becomng frustrating | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On August 04 2011 02:40 Diks wrote: Sadly, you're both right :/ Even though this is called proper debate, the numbers and realistic previsions are ignored... We should get off of this thread as this is becomng frustrating Nah, there are plenty of silent readers that know you're right. We need extreme spending cuts. Increased taxes can't even come close to the numbers needed to eliminate the debt. We don't want to do this, though, because actually paying off our debt, cutting spending, increased taxes, etc. is going to lead to a huge recession. So we just keep delaying it by printing more money and raising the ceiling until there's no where left to go but down. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On August 04 2011 02:07 xDaunt wrote: Here's where I disagree with your argument: the solution to the government's deficit problems is necessarily extreme. I hate to repeat myself so much in this thread, but this point is just too critical: we have a $1.4+ trillion deficit and $14-15 trillion in debt. Those are HUGE numbers. Let's just pretend for a second that taxes are adjusted such that the government gets a huge amount of new revenues. I'll even be generous. Let's say that the increased taxes is equal to $500 billion in new revenue annually (this number is unrealistic). Even assuming this huge increase in new taxes, we would still need to freeze government spending increases and then cut spending by at least $1 trillion annually to balance the budget and begin paying off the principal of the $14-15 trillion in debt that we've already amassed . We've been hearing repeatedly from the media and from politicians (predominantly democrats) that cutting $4 trillion in spending over 10 years is extreme (and let's not forget that, under their baseline budgeting system, those cuts still would not offset automatically slated increases in spending over that same time period). Assuming that the fiscal plan that I set forth above was held in place for 10 years, the spending cuts be scored by the CBO as a $19 trillion cut in spending over that period. ($1 trillion in actual cuts per year for 10 years [$10 trillion] + $9 trillion in "cuts" from immediately freezing spending levels under the baseline budgeting system). Please explain to me in what universe $19 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years would not be considered "extreme." And that's the real problem. We're so fucked right now that the only way out is to implement rather draconian and extreme spending cuts, even with new taxes. Even if our economy starts going gangbusters with growth, we'd still need implement some dramatic measures to start paying off the debt and reducing it to sustainable levels for when the next economic shitstorm hits. What this means politically is that democrats and liberals are going to have to eat a massive shit sandwich for the good of the country and enact spending cuts on the very entitlement programs that they champion. There is no "moderate" solution where republicans and democrats can meet halfway on this. Democrats simply have to capitulate. Will republicans have to to give up defense spending cuts? Yep. But again, most of the action necessarily will be in entitlement program reform. Well it sounds like we agree. My point was that you can't just hack and slash without any revenue, and asking the most vulnerable to take all the burden without asking the rich to participate is ridiculous. Everything will need cuts, particularly entitlement reform will have to happen, but we need to start with the obvious parts that we have control over. Defense spending cuts and fixing the tax code to close loopholes and stop giving rich people all the breaks. When the government takes those honest steps toward being fiscally responsible they will have much more credibility when asking the poor and elderly to make sacrifices. So it sounds like we're on the same page for the endgame, perhaps we just differ on the build order. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/sites/default/files/resize/Tax%20Burden-470x354.jpg)
