Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: A $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan, and Not One Word About 'Hire American'

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,242

    A $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan, and Not One Word About 'Hire American'

    A $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan, and Not One Word About 'Hire American'

    By Dan Cadman on February 13, 2018






    The White House has begun its long-awaited push for federal infrastructure legislation by promulgating a plan calling for $1.5 trillion in investment.


    As many observers thought it would, the plan calls for a marriage of public-private enterprise projects. It goes so far as suggesting the sell-off of a number of federally owned items, such as Reagan National Airport, and the energy transmission facilities of the Bonneville Power Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.


    The plan also suggests turning over a number of projects to states to manage and see to completion, via massive block grants and the like.


    The plan is surprisingly detailed — perhaps though, on second thought, this is not a surprise at all, given its breadth. It encompasses federal investment to accomplish all kinds of air, rail, road, energy, and waterway infrastructure projects in both urban and rural parts of the country, and even covers job training.

    As I blogged a bit over a month ago, the challenge is to think holistically when dealing with things of this magnitude, so that each and every item supports one or more of the president's many other important priorities, even when they superficially appear not to have any nexus. In many ways the plan does this, but where immigration control and the "Hire American" agenda is concerned, the plan appears to completely fail this holistic thinking benchmark.


    There are no statements embedded anywhere in the plan that funding to initiate and complete the massive infrastructure projects envisioned must come with strict oversight to ensure that the jobs underlying them will be reserved for Americans and lawful workers, rather than illegal aliens. This is particularly important given the propensity of many construction companies to rely on such labor.


    Nor is there any indicator that companies will be prohibited from heavily relying on cheap foreign guestworkers plentifully supplied by dubious brokers who make tens of millions of dollars connecting such workers in Third World nations with American companies looking to enhance their bottom line.


    Finally, there isn't even a suggestion within the plan that any state or pass-through contract company will be required to use E-Verify as a matter of course, to at least winnow out some of the tens of thousands of aliens who will be using bogus documents to obtain infrastructure-related jobs . Perhaps this failing will be overcome by events, should an immigration bill actually pass both chambers of Congress that contains mandatory nationwide E-Verify provisions. But I wouldn't count on mandatory E-Verify being a part of such legislation — most of the bills to date don't include it. I wouldn't even rely on a bill passing both chambers.

    I am also concerned that within the plan there is a "look-back" provision that would permit the lead federal agency for each project to reimburse states for funds already expended for projects in development that are approved as being within the context of the infrastructure plan. What this means in plain talk is that states — particularly, but not exclusively, California — that have actively thumbed their nose at federal immigration laws, including those requiring use of lawful workers, may actually be rewarded for monies expended on projects that included significant employment of illegal aliens.


    The look-back that permits reimbursement of expenditures ought to contain a proviso that precludes states or pass-through companies from seeking reimbursement until after an audit of their employment eligibility forms I-9 and a review of their hiring and firing records show that they were using a clean workforce.

    We cannot and should not take anything as a given. The only way 1) to ensure that infrastructure project workers won't be unscreened; 2) to be certain that illegal aliens won't occupy significant percentages of the construction and other workforces; and 3) to winnow out cheap foreign guestworkers so that Americans have a shot at the engineering and other technical jobs, is for the White House to embed its expectations into the framework (which, presumably, is this plan) and state for the record that any infrastructure bill passed from Congress to the president's desk for signature must indeed represent a "Buy American, Hire American" agenda, while at the same time advancing the notion that the rule of law is paramount where our nation's immigration system is concerned.


    It is a deep disappointment to not see any of these preconditions in the plan.


    After all, if it is true that jobs are a primary magnet that draws aliens to overstay their visas or illegally cross the border — and make no doubt, jobs are such a magnet — then I can't think of a bigger magnet than $1.5 trillion worth of jobs being created by the magic of a federal infrastructure package.



    https://cis.org/Cadman/15-Trillion-I...paign=addtoany
    Last edited by GeorgiaPeach; 02-14-2018 at 02:49 PM.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  2. #2
    Senior Member Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,527
    Cut off welfare and food stamps...every single one of them has to get a JOB.

    No work...no eat.

    One parent can work days and one parent can work nights.

    Give VOUCHERS to these breeding leeches for a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Taxpayers are sick of paying for your romp in the sack and more mouths to feed. Disgusting people. No more breed and feed programs! And NO delivering food to their door step...dumb idea! Open up food banks, get off your butt and go pick up your box of oatmeal.
    TO BECOME AN AMERICAN YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR VALUES ...NOT YOUR LOCATION

    STAY HOME AND BUILD AMERICA ON YOUR SOIL

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,682
    Then there is this. Right to work states could have problems with this one.

    Jul222011Publication

    Executive Order 13502: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects

    New Federal Initiatives Project
    Sponsors: Labor & Employment Law Practice Group


    Download PDF


    Brought to you by the Labor & Employment Law Practice Group
    The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author or authors. We hope this and other publications will help foster discussion and a further exchange regarding current important issues.

    On February 6, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13502, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects (“EO 13502”). The Executive Order encourages federal agencies to use union-only project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on construction projects, the cost of which exceeds $25 million. On April 13, 2010, the Federal Acquisition Regulations were amended to implement EO 13502. (Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2009–005, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, Fed. Reg. 19168 (13 Apr. 2010) (codified at 48 C.F.R. §§ 2,7,17,22,52)).

    A PLA is a union collective bargaining agreement that all contractors must sign to work on a construction project. PLAs generally require that contractors recognize the union as exclusive bargaining representative of all employees who work on the project; contribute to union pension and healthcare funds; operate under union work rules; follow union procedures for hiring, firing, and disciplining employees; and, in non-Right to Work states, require all employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. A PLA is a species of a union “pre-hire” agreement, as it is entered into without any indication that the affected employees support unionization.

    The use of PLAs is controversial in both the private and public sectors. Proponents usually claim that PLAs ensure timely completion of construction projects by reducing labor strife. Opponents contend that these agreements increase construction costs by excluding from the competitive bidding process all contractors who wish to operate nonunion. In the public sector, PLAs are also criticized as being imposed due to union political influence instead of pecuniary benefits.

    With Executive Order 13202, President George W. Bush banned federal agencies from imposing PLAs on federal construction projects during his administration. Shortly after coming into office, President Obama reversed this ban with EO 13502, opting to encourage the use of PLAs on federal construction projects.

    Both EO 13502 and the administrative rule implementing it grant federal agencies broad discretion with respect to whether to impose a PLA, how to impose it, and what PLA terms to mandate. For example, agencies may require a PLA as a condition of bidding on a project, after bidding but prior to award of work, or after the award of work. The only substantive contract terms required under EO 13502 are clauses prohibiting strikes, establishing a dispute resolution procedure, and binding all contractors and subcontractors to the PLA. Agencies otherwise have discretion to decide what other union terms contractors and their employees must abide to work on a federal project.

    Critics of EO 13502 suggest that a federal agency’s requiring contractors and their employees to abide by a union PLA as a condition of working on a federal construction project may well be subject to legal challenge, and imposing a PLA may violate the Competition in Contracting Act, 41 U.S.C. § 253, by discriminating against bids from merit-shop contractors and their employees who operate nonunion. They also assert that it may conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, which grants employers the freedom to determine whether or not to enter into agreements with unions and does not permit entities other than employers in the construction industry to enter into or impose PLAs. The outcome of these and other legal challenges may depend on precisely how a federal agency exercises discretion under EO 13502 when imposing a PLA on contractors and employees.

    * William L. Messenger is a Staff Attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

    https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...ction-projects
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,682
    From Forbes. 25 million is not a lot on a big project...

    MAY 6, 2017 @ 08:30 AM 880

    Here's An Easy Way For Trump To Cut The Cost Of Government

    George Leef ,
    CONTRIBUTORI write on the damage big government does, especially to education. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    The age-old problem of government is that the people in power (monarchs or elected representatives, it makes no difference) will try to use some of the money they collect in taxes to benefit their friends and supporters.

    One of the tactics used widely in the U.S. is for politicians to dictate that on a construction project, the winning bidder will have to sign on to a union-favoring Project Labor Agreement (PLA).

    Instead of just having to complete the work according to plans, schedule, and other requirements in the contract specifications however, a PLA compels the contractors to agree to a host of other terms that are so onerous to non-union contractors that in effect the job is reserved for companies that are unionized. Since only 14 percent of American construction workers are union members, when politicians impose a PLA, they are discriminating against a pretty large segment of the workforce.

    Mandating a PLA is a way for politicians to reward their union supporters by stifling competition that would lead to lower costs. The added expense is borne by the taxpayers, very few of whom notice that government construction projects are eating up more of their dollars than need be. On the other hand, the unions know perfectly well that PLAs secure them lucrative contracts; they will turn around and use some of their dues money to make sure their friends stay in office and come up with more projects for them.

    This sort of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” play has been outlawed in 23 states (most recently Wisconsin) and had been stopped on federal and federally assisted projects under President George W. Bush.

    But in one of his earliest actions as president, in Executive Order 13502, Barack Obama did a favor for his union supporters – he declared that on federal projects exceeding $25 million, PLAs would be encouraged and PLA mandates were permitted on federally assisted projects. Thus, federal agencies were again at liberty to insist on these anti-competitive measures.

    In this 2016 press release then-Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez lauded PLAs, saying that they “are good for taxpayers and workers” and “help provide a good return on investment for the American people.”

    But they are not good for taxpayers and are only good for those workers who get to work on the jobs covered by PLAs. They are not good for the many workers who are shut out because the firms they work for don’t want to agree to such terms as abiding by union work rules (which are notoriously inefficient), hiring workers only from union hiring halls, and paying the benefits earned by the workers into union-managed programs.

    How badly do PLAs affect the costs of construction? Quite substantially.

    Ben Brubeck of Associated Builders and Contractors explains in this April 16 Wall Street Journal op-ed, that when it has been possible to do apples to apples comparisons, the data show that projects done under PLAs cost roughly 15 percent more. A study done in California on school construction work found that those done under PLAs cost 13 to 15 percent more than those bid without them.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#623c4eee75fb


    Beezer likes this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    92,660
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #6
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,563
    DemoQuack Senator lied. It's just one of the options on the table. This 25 cent gas tax increase is a proposal from the American Trucking Association a couple of years ago, not Trump, and is just one option on the table.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    92,660
    MW likes this.
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,563
    It isn't true, but don't let that get in your way, JD2.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #9
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    92,660
    Trump Surprises Lawmakers With Support For Gasoline Tax Hike

    By Mark Niquette
    February 14, 2018, 7:08 AM PST Updated on February 14, 2018, 3:57 PM PST


    • Carper praises president for offering leadership on levy
    • Trump also willing to raise spending request, DeFazio says




    Trump Unveils a $200 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    President Donald Trump surprised a group of lawmakers Wednesday by saying he would support a 25-cent-per-gallon increase in federal gasoline and diesel taxes to help pay for upgrading American roads, bridges and other public works.


    Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Trump unexpectedly raised the idea of the fuel-tax increase several times during a White House meeting with a dozen Republican and Democratic lawmakers from key House and Senate committees.


    “While there are a number of issues on which President Trump and I disagree, today, we agreed that things worth having are worth paying for,” Carper said in a statement.

    “The president even offered to help provide the leadership necessary so that we could do something that has proven difficult in the past.”


    Trump previously has said he would consider raising the federal gasoline tax, which hasn’t been increased since 1993.

    But it’s not been part of the discussion on his infrastructure plan, and it’s an idea that many Republicans and some Democrats have dismissed. Axios reported earlier that Trump endorsed a 25-cent increase during the meeting.


    More Spending

    Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who also attended the meeting, said the president told lawmakers he also would be willing to increase the amount of federal spending beyond the $200 billion over 10 years that the administration is seeking for his infrastructure program.

    A White House official declined to comment on Trump’s discussions in the closed-door meeting but said that all options were on the table to meet the main objectives of the president’s plan.


    “The president made a living building things, and he realizes that to build things takes money, takes investment,” DeFazio said.


    Pennsylvania Representative Bill Shuster, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has encouraged his Republican colleagues to consider raising the gas tax as a way to keep the Highway Trust Fund -- which finances road, bridge and transit projects -- solvent after 2021. He said there was discussion during the meeting about funding.


    “He understands that we’ve got to figure out the funding levels and where the money’s coming from, make sure it’s not smoke and mirrors,” Shuster said of the president.


    Industry Support


    Groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Trucking Associations support the idea of increasing the gas tax as the most efficient and easiest way to generate more money for projects, and the White House has been neutral.

    “We support the president’s big and bold vision for strengthening American infrastructure,” Chris Spear, president and chief executive officer of the American Trucking Associations, said in a statement. “Because it is a user fee, the fuel tax is the most conservative, cost-effective and viable solution to making that vision a reality.”


    But key Republican leaders have already rejected the idea, and other entities, including the political network led by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, are also opposed.


    ‘Wrong Approach’


    “Increasing the gas tax is the wrong approach to addressing our nation’s infrastructure needs,” Brent Gardner, the chief government affairs officer at Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-affiliated group, said in a statement on Wednesday.

    “The American people are just beginning to feel the benefits of the recently passed tax cuts bill," Gardner said. "Instead of undermining the relief taxpayers just received, the president and Congress should focus on smarter spending and breaking through the regulatory gridlock that delays projects and drives up costs.”


    Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he opposes raising the gas tax because not all drivers who now use the roads pay the tax, and not all of the money collected goes toward repairing and restoring infrastructure.


    “Today was the first of many conversations about the president’s infrastructure plan and how to fund it,” Barrasso said in a statement. “Ultimately, the final decision will be made by Congress as a whole.”


    Republican Senator Charles Grassley said raising the tax was unlikely to even come up for a vote in the Senate. “He’ll never get it by McConnell,” Grassley said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

    Revenue from the federal per-gallon taxes of 18.4 cents on gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel has declined over the years as inflation eroded their purchasing power and the average fuel economy of a passenger vehicle increased.

    Trump’s infrastructure plan seeks to revamp how projects are approved and financed by reducing permitting time to two years and allocating $200 billion over 10 years -- mostly as incentives to spur states, localities and the private sector to spend at least $1.3 trillion. The administration released its 53-page plan Monday as a blueprint for Congress to draft legislation.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-t-panning-out

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    92,660
    Trump Open to Raising Gas Tax and Negotiating Tax Overhaul Plan

    By Jennifer Jacobs
    and Margaret Talev
    May 1, 2017, 9:35 AM PDT Updated on May 1, 2017, 11:41 AM PDT



    • Truckers back higher gas levy for highways, Trump says
    • President calls his tax plan starting point in interview


    President Donald Trump said he’s willing to raise the U.S. gas tax to fund infrastructure development and called the tax-overhaul plan he released last week the beginning of negotiations.

    “It’s something that I would certainly consider,” Trump said Monday in an interview with Bloomberg News in the Oval Office, describing the idea as supported by truckers “if we earmarked money toward the highways.”

    Trump released a tax plan on April 26 that would cut the maximum corporate tax rate to 15 percent from the current 35 percent. The same reduced rate would apply to partnerships and other “pass-through” businesses.

    He said he is willing to lose provisions of his tax plan in negotiations with Congress but refused to specify which parts. He also repeated his call for a “reciprocal tax,” which would be aimed at imposing levies on imports to match the rates that each country charges on U.S. exports.

    “Everything is a starting point,” Trump said of his tax plan.
    The Trump proposal also would eliminate the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, cut individual income-tax rates and repeal an investment-income tax for high earners, fulfilling a conservative wish list from the past several years.

    The one-page plan was silent on both a gas tax or the notion of a reciprocal tax. Trump said he has made no commitments on an increased gas tax but, “it’s something I would certainly consider.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday afternoon that Trump isn’t specifically supporting an increase -- but the president is keeping an open mind about it “out of respect” for trucking-industry interests who Spicer said support an increase as a way to pay for needed road improvements.


    Declining Revenue


    The federal per-gallon taxes of 18.4 cents on gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel were last raised in 1993. Since then, revenue from the fuel levies has declined as inflation robbed them of their purchasing power and the average fuel economy of a passenger vehicle increased by 12 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Business and transportation groups have called for increasing the federal gas tax for years to help sustain and increase funding that flows to states through the Highway Trust Fund, which Congress has kept solvent with transfers from other sources. The trust fund is projected to become insolvent by 2021 without additional funding, according to the Congressional Budget Office.


    But previous efforts failed amid opposition spurred in part by a pledge not to raise taxes from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that many lawmakers signed. States have been forced to supply an increasing share of transportation funding, and at least 40 states -- including many led by Republican officials -- have raised their own fuel levies since 1993, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

    ‘Big Believer’


    In repeating his call for a reciprocal tax, Trump emphasized his enthusiasm for the approach, which resembles a system of import tariffs that would match those imposed by other countries on U.S. goods.

    “I’m a big believer in a reciprocal tax,” Trump said. “If a country’s charging us 52 percent and we’re charging them nothing for the same product going back and forth? Nobody can fight it.”


    Trump’s reciprocal concept differs from the “border-adjusted tax” that House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed. Ryan’s plan calls for replacing the current corporate income tax with a 20 percent tax on U.S. companies’ domestic sales. Their imported materials would be subject to that tax, but not their exports -- hence, the “border-adjusted” description.


    Trump hasn’t endorsed the border-adjustment idea, which has been vehemently opposed by retailers and other industries that rely on imports, and it wasn’t part of the outline for a tax plan that his economics aides released last week.


    The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a rough analysis saying Trump’s plan -- in its current form -- could cost $3 trillion to $7 trillion over the next decade. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney dismissed cost estimates of the plan on CNBC last week, saying there’s not enough detail for accurate projections.


    Wants Permanent Cuts


    Because the tax legislation would be unlikely to gain Democratic senators’ support, GOP leaders plan to use a procedure that would allow the measure to pass on a simple majority vote. But under that procedure, legislation can’t add to the federal deficit beyond the normal 10-year federal budgeting window.

    So unless the tax plan balances any tax cuts with enough revenue-raising measures, such as ending exemptions, deductions and credits, the cuts would have to be temporary, possibly expiring within three years, based on a finding last month by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.


    “I’d like them to be permanent,” Trump said. “Don’t forget, OK, so here’s something that’s very important. So we’re doing a very big tax cut. We need it.”


    Trump said the tax cuts he’s seeking, along with renegotiated trade agreements, would serve as a badly needed stimulus to the economy.


    The president called first-quarter economic growth, which the Commerce Department said declined to a 0.7 percent annual rate, “really bad.”


    Although he’s taken credit for monthly job growth figures and stock market gains reported since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump said he’s not responsible for the GDP number.


    “That’s really a left over from -- in all fairness, I just got here,” he said. “So you’re growing at 1 percent or less, so we need a stimulus.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-to-lawmakers

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan could wind up in a ditch
    By Judy in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-15-2017, 03:59 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-2017, 08:00 PM
  3. U. S. INFRASTRUCTURE DECAY: COST $2.2 TRILLION
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 01:07 PM
  4. Union president touts Hire US, American plan
    By vistalad in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2010, 01:19 AM
  5. U.S. Facing $1.6 Trillion Infrastructure Spending Bill
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 09:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •