Forum Post: Another Rich Republican Not Paying His Fair Share...
Posted 12 years ago on April 20, 2012, 6:31 a.m. EST by tep22
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Oh wait, no, it's a Democratic Party Icon....
More Money, More Problems MSNBC host Al Sharpton’s 2004 campaign owes nearly $1 million to creditors and federal government, records show April 18, 2012
MSNBC’s Al Sharpton is reeling in debt and back taxes.
The liberal provocateur owes nearly $1 million to creditors and the federal government as a result of his failed bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
His campaign’s unpaid bills exceed $888,000, according to federal filings.
It is unclear why Sharpton has not paid his creditors. He does not lack for income.
Sharpton has his own primetime talk show on liberal network MSNBC, a platform he used to drive the Trayvon Martin shooting story that rocked the nation and led to the arrest of Democratic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.
In August 2011, Sharpton took over the 6 p.m. slot from Keith Olbermann, who earned more than $4 million per year working in the same slot at the network. Sharpton also drew a $240,000 salary from his nonprofit group, National Action Network, in 2011 even as the group racked up nearly $1 million in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest, and penalties.
NAN has dealt with major finance issues in the last few years. The nonprofit raised $3 million in 2010, and paid off its state back taxes in 2011, but still owed $883,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes in December. The group also owed more than $200,000 in loans to one of Sharpton’s for-profit enterprises.
Sharpton, who has endorsed President Barack Obama’s calls for taxing the rich, has his own tax issues. He owed the IRS $2.6 million in income taxes in December 2011, as well as almost $900,000 in New York state taxes.
Sharpton financed his presidential run, in part, by borrowing large sums of money from his struggling nonprofit.
Sharpton borrowed more than $181,000 from NAN—money that is now supposed to be refunded. Sharpton also loaned $145,000 to the campaign to finance a fundraising push.
His largest creditor is the federal government; the campaign owes the Federal Elections Commission and the U.S. Treasury Department more than $225,000.
Sharpton could not capitalize on his national reputation as a rabble-rouser in the 2004 Democratic primary, losing out to Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.). But he did make waves in the race, slamming then-frontrunner Howard Dean for not having enough minorities on his campaign—a charge that has also dogged the Obama campaign—during an Iowa debate.
Sharpton skipped out on debts big and small. In addition to the six figure sums he borrowed from his nonprofit and leveraged from campaign consultants, he has not paid a $0.33 charge to a group called Xpedite, as well as a $2.50 ATM fee to Amalgamated Bank.
Sharpton’s presidential committee owed more than $900,000 to creditors late in 2011, according to Politico, after paying down the $208,000 in civil penalties the campaign owed the FEC for “failing to report accurately all receipts and expenditures, receiving excessive and prohibited in-kind contributions and accepting impermissible corporate contributions,” according to the FEC. The campaign has established a payment schedule to address the fines for campaign violations and other federal charges, according to the FEC.
“Now that the civil penalties have been satisfied, the campaign is contacting vendors to construct a debt resolution plan that must be submitted to the FEC for approval,” spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger told Politico in November. “While Rev. Sharpton, as candidate, helped to raise the money to resolve the civil penalties, the additional debt will be reviewed by the campaign and remedied in accordance to FEC’s rules and regulations.”
Calls to Sharpton’s creditors have not been returned.
Yup. goes to show that the whole system is corrupt, and both Republitards and Democrats are corrupted by it. Only right wing morons, though, defend that system.
Sharpton, of course, is not an elected representative, and the problem lies with them, now, doesn't it? So just another attempt to distract and distort by a right wing troll. What a surprise! Who could have guessed that would ever happen?
they're all corrupt. If you still subscribe to the pipe dream that one side is worse than the other then you're a dipshit.
Not entirely true. Both may be corrupt, but it is to varying degrees, and one side is actively evil. If you don't see that, you're simply a victim of inchoate rage.
both sides are evil.
I don't agree (not entirely, anyway). There are some differences and they are not inconsequential. I would absolutely agree that there is way to much overlap, but I feel your brush is too broad.
I won't keep arguing about this, though. So say whatever you want. Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind about it.
I repeat....Have fun endorsing war this year. A vote for either is a vote for someone to be at work and get a phone call that their fuckin kid was blown up. Or their parents.
Sheep like you are the reason for everything right now.
Nice of you to jump right in there. You have made your one note bullshit song known before, you have repeated it ad nauseum. At this point there's nothing left to say to you except go fuck yourself.
^ thinks being anti-war is bullshit.
Thinks doing anything about other than what his tiny brain understands is bullshit.
Another pro war guy enters the ring.
You know the country is fucked when the anti war guy is ganged up on by those that claim to be liberal....
Who the FUCK is pro-war, moron?
You are not being "ganged up on" because you are anti war. It is because you are an idiot.
It is not an either/or choice between real reform and incremental reform. No options should be off the table, no action to make things better should be discouraged.
It is in uniting, not dividing, liberals and activists and anarchists and reformers and revolutionaries ALL that we grow strong enough to overturn half a century of decline and entrenched corruption.
All you want to do is divide reformers from revolutionaries. That would KILL OWS, and it is that STUPIDITY that people object to about you.
Bottom line is you will be endorsing war criminals, and I wont.
I know that sucks, but if you really cared, you would do something about it.
Bottom line is you will be endorsing even greater war criminals, and criminals in every single other area of life, and you are too dumb to even know it.
It is not an either/or choice between real reform and incremental reform. No options should be off the table, no action to make things better should be discouraged.
It is in uniting, not dividing, liberals and activists and anarchists and reformers and revolutionaries ALL that we grow strong enough to overturn half a century of decline and entrenched corruption.
^will vote for war criminals of the duopoly
^Will make sure Rebulbitards are in power to start a new war with Iran.
^will cast a vote for war criminals and cant stand it
^Will make sure that greater war criminals get power, and is too stupid to see it.
"greater war criminals"
This is the dangerous talk of someone who clearly doesnt care.
Some parties/people endorse war. Others dont.
It is as black and white as it gets.
No moron, only idiots like you think there is a single way effect change. Your version of "caring" is completely uncaring, since you won;t look at facts that don't support your false self-righteous sense of superiority. You are taking a purely ego-bound position, but are so ego bound you are unable to step outside of it for a fraction of a second. You don't care about war: you care about your ego above all else.
If you were against war, you would work your ASS OFF to make sure those that are pushing for a NEW war, one with Iran, could never gain office. You would make sure that the courts weren't stacked against ordinary people. You would make sure that those RESISTING that jingoism would be in office instead. But you don't see that at all. After all, you might actually be forced to admit that not everything works in the way you decided it does.
^Is fine with voting for, what he/she deems a "lesser" war criminal.
Sick.
^ Is fine supporting the greater evil. And a brand spanking new war.
Sick.
^will vote for war criminals
Thats all anyone needs to say about you. You endorse war criminals.
Disgusting.
Same EXACT thing can be said about you, only worse. You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your actions.
1sealyon
aburrunderyourblanket
aflockofdoofi2
BLOWCHUNKS
Boric
DanielBarton
Dell
engineer4
EricBlair
F350
Farmerbrown
HapteMikael
hchc
Ironboltbruce
JanitorInaDrum
jimmycrackerson
JuanFenito
MsStacy
po6059
Rebdem
RedJazz43
slammersworldwillnotbecensored
slizzo
EricBlair
Wellhungjury
Are these all anti war people you dont agree with?
What you guys don't is that if you want a new party you got to earn it, you do that by taking down one of the big guys.
just a list of the GOP supporters both out in the open and hidden, you've never disagreed with any of them have you? just saying you take the time to chat with me, but these guys you must agree with.
If someone backs the GOP they get the same treatment. I just dont ever see any on here. I did see the F350 guy on here a while ago, saying some dumb shit. I explained to him that his party was a big spending, big gov party also. He didnt like that. I told him the numbers dont lie.
OH - BTW
Run a check on the financials of everyone who runs for office. Failed campaigns still need to be paid for and guess what it takes time. It is not like these things are run cash and carry - for heavens sake - NO - they do it like they want us all to live - ON LOAN.
Wonder how long it will take the current crop of losers to pay off their campaign debt? You Know Ron P. Icky Sanatarium, Michelle O'Bachman the Fig Newton etc. etc. etc.?
No it is not about party it is about politics. It is the same deal for all of them. Huh.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57367330/thousands-of-federal-workers-owe-back-taxes/
Thousands of federal workers owe back taxes
If they can't even collect the income taxes owed from their own employees properly...
What is up with that? I would think those records and accounts would be the most easily kept and rectified.
Huh.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57367330/thousands-of-federal-workers-owe-back-taxes/
There I go again, responding to a liar
this has nothing to do with republiclans - lie #1
this has nothing to do with "fair" share - lie #2
who signs your paycheck? david or charles or grover?
A long lecture that misses one key answer-
While a candidate may be MORALLY responsible,
is a candidate LEGALLY responsible for campaign debts?
Or does the campaign have the same corporate shield that corporations have?
Is Leroy going to pay off all of his campaign debt?
I will not pay taxes, if you come to force me to pay them I will defend myself, I will be shot, I will die, do you want that on your mind, if you are so sociopathic not to care then I can't help you?
"Oh.. NOW its a good idea to say Capitalists aren't PATRIOTS.. Love America? But Not Americans?" The Founder of the Occupy Movement said that first.. "Capitalists are not PATRIOTS." Check it.. http://bit.ly/GXcgpW
Capitalism, free marketers who believe in Free Trade and globalism aren't patriots. Patriotism is a nationalistic sentiment. Globalism and Free Trade are anti-nationalistic in nature. Free Trade is the greatest wealth distribution scheme on the planet.... at our cost.
Al who?
This is news? 2004!
Freebeacon is on the money.
Eight years too late.
NO. This is news from TODAY. He owed the IRS $2.6 million in income taxes in December 2011, as well as almost $900,000 in New York state taxes.
[Removed]
It's not much of a stretch to assume that Dems like new taxes as they are so adept at evading them and Reps oppose new taxes as they tend to follow the law more often.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/15/the-daily-beast-ranks-the-party-democratic-or-republican-with-the-most-tax-cheats.html?om_rid=NIi-Df&om_mid=_BNqJzRB8aU2hHC
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg3-2009feb03,0,49616.column
how about warren buffet,.........he is fighting the IRS and owes about 1billion.
takim (50),
Page 54 section 15 on the report helpfully provided by BetsyRoss (-48) :
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf
Shows a statement about net unrecognized tax benefits (?) and goes on to talk about past appeals to rulings as well as resolved items and subsequent payments ( all standard & legal practice for determining debt. actual or imagined ) stating that there is no unforeseen issue likely to be found - or ( my take ) we are doing well and there are no issues to be concerned about.
Show me where the government is taking hostile/aggressive/legal action to resolve an unpaid tax debt issue. Show me where Buffet is disputing a claimed debt by the government. Where is the law suit where is the tax case?
Prove that statement - post a link to an actual report.
[-] 0 points by takim (50) 36 minutes ago
how about warren buffet,.........he is fighting the IRS and owes about 1billion. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf
The above link is to the Berkshire Hathaway 2010 Corporate Report.
According to page 54 of the company report, as of December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million which equals about $1 billion.
Thanks for the business report BR.
A very detailed report on holdings and earnings - but was there supposed to be a tie-in to supposed unpaid debt to the IRS? I mean a nice report but where is a federal complaint for unpaid taxes?
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf
dka has an agenda and she/he/it is sticking to it. bufet owes the IRS a lot of money, about 1 billion dollars, and dumb barry is using buffet as the poster child to tax the rich.............all the while little warren is fighting the irs to NOT pay what he owes.
I believe what you are looking for [ as 1st you have not proven a fight or substantial disagreement exists ] is a standard appeal of of assertion that a debt exists this is a standard practice any taxpayer can avail themselves of if they feel there is a misunderstanding. Gee I wonder how any sort of misunderstanding could happen in the running and accounting of a Billion plus multifaceted portfolio by either the owner or the government? I mean its just simple math right?
"misunderstanding"? you must work for the democrats.
Nope sorry wrong conclusion I work for the people - PERIOD.
You're trying to discredit Buffet as a way to discredit what is being called the Buffet rule is pretty funny.
Go ahead and demonize him if you want/can. It does not change the fact that the rich need to kick in towards supporting their fair share.
It is funny that you would go after an idea that has merit by going after the guy who suggested that he should be paying more taxes.
ah, you "work" for the people. how much are the "people" paying you? you mean the people that agree with you. if you confiscated all the money that the so called rich have,................ you could run the govt for about 3 weeks. the problem is SPENDING , not taxes.
I receive nothing more than a sense of accomplishment for being here on this forum - my time is given freely to the cause of ending corruption and healing our country and world.
I agree spending is insane and that is another issue we are to deal with. As a starter we need to stop the government throwing money at problems around the world. Instead we need an active responsible and accountable GSA. This group of the government should be given purchase orders from the government for goods and services to be bought from the American private sector to then be shipped to relief areas for distribution training and implementation. We have seen monumental waste in sending money - money which is then put into private accounts and lived off of when the abusive government is chased out of their country by their people.
who knew that being a pawn was a accomplishment. Do you really believe it's only the GSA? How about obamas gambling away billions on " green energy" ? Do you really think that corruption will ever end? it's human nature. Not a good thing, but it's human nature.
Your reading comprehension needs some work ( as a starter ) as you seem to have overlooked the thrust of the rejoinder.
Give away billions on green energy? Don't you mean invest in new technology to reduce our dependance on fossil fuel? You fail to mention the as yet un-cancelled yearly subsidies to Fossil fuel, the obscenely profitable fossil fuel industry.
Corruption end ? No not bloody likely that is why "the people" need to be involved in a major way.
If they were serious about reducing reliance, they wouldnt have just shot down ending the oil subsidies.
Its all a pony show to keep you believing. Because when they have this level of nationalistic propaganda, you HAVE to believe, otherwise it may seem your country is a fraud. And thats tough to swallow.
That is exactly why the public needs to speak-up in Unity that this is not acceptable. We "The People" must reclaim our government and it will only happen with unity in cause.
UNITY. This cannot be stressed enough. And this is why the "Get out and vote for Dems" people here drive me insane.
Occupy was HUGE in the beginning. Dems, Reps, Tea, Libertarians, End the Feders, etc. There is nothing partisan about ending corruption, ending the money in politics, ending the wars, and UNITING THE PEOPLE.
I cannot stress this enough.
Stop talking politics and start talking issues. That is the key to unity.
I only point my finger at those who are beyond the pale in their actions against the health and prosperity for ALL in this country.
I suppose instead of saying repubs in office I should use their names. I guess I may be lazy in not listing them.
the obama criminal enteprise does "invest" in new technology, ,......."green energy" . they use it as a money laundering scheme. There are no subsidies for the oil industry. They use the tax code as does everyone who owns a home with a mortgage and under the tax code is able to deduct their real estate taxes off their income tax filing. The oil companies , acording to the tax code can deduct expense related to exploration or development., equipment purchases , and rig technicians salaries. The purpose of these deductions-as for any other industry or individual- is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.Any other business can do the same thing. There is a difference between tax deductions and subsidies. The " alternative energy" companies the white house is so fond of get federal subsidies. The wind and solar sectors take in about $12.5 bilion anually in direct subsidies.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889 if you aren't too lazy , all you have to do is a simple search,....................type in . does warren buffet ows the irs back taxes?
Is there supposed to be a related story in that link? I ask because the link is not complete the reference link you posted goes to a news site but does not present a Buffet story. Try again.
[-] 1 points by takim (50) 0 minutes ago
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889 ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
go to human envents and do your own search,...................if you're up to it.
Not my issue not my problem. Your accusation - prove it if you care to, or don't if you can not.
Again it's no skin off of my nose. It is your credibility in question.
[-] 1 points by takim (50) 26 minutes ago
go to human envents and do your own search,...................if you're up to it. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
How about Obama? He's wasting TRILLIONS yearly and doesn't give a crap about bankrupting the country.
You can't tax enough to pay for all his idiocy.
oh come on,........obama is a democrat and the darling of the MSM. Do you really espect they would actually report the news instead of printing agenda?
They dont report the truth on either side. Its all fluff.
George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat? Damn Dems are just a bunch of racist profilers who should all be ashamed of themselves.
And,..............................Zimmerman is married to a black woman.
Don't forget about "Buffett Rule" Buffett not paying and avoiding paying 1 BILLION taxes owed to the US government.
So the rule is bad because it is named after someone who is not squeaky clean? When does a rule's name determine anything, as opposed to what the rule actually is?
More transparently fallacious arguments from the right. Yawn.
A rule that raises taxes named after a guy that is avoiding paying a BILLION dollars in taxes... yeah, I like it!
You have yet to prove that point. Saying it is so does not hold water. Show proof of an ongoing conflict. Making up stories to discredit a man who says that he and all those like him should be paying more taxes - by saying he is dodging right now is truly funny. Show proof or shut up troll.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/
Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889
The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N
Good enough for you? Would you like me to teach you how to use Google to search for information?
The proposed law, regardless of its name, is a good one. If anything, it does not go far enough.
Conflating the function of the rule for the name of the rule is simply idiotic on its face. If the law against murder was named the Bundy Law, the name might stink, but the law against murder would still be a good one.
Having a tax cheat say that the rich should pay more in taxes while he avoids his tax obligation is idiotic.
Again with the opinion and no facts. It is what I expect from you though.
Not having a law that says the rich should pay at least part of their fair share is idiotic. Keep harping on the name, not on the substance, idiot. It is what you are known for.
What percent of the money someone makes would you consider a "fair share"?
Won't take you bait, asshole.
BTW if you don't think you can "win" this, it's only because he's trying to take you to his truf, the problem with these guys is they have no mind, when they run into one they're screwed
It's really not even a question of my knowing I can"win". He is simply so stupid, it's completely boring to engage at all.
I can't blame you on that, anyway, I'm reading/posting from Reich's book now, that'll tick them oiff for sure :).
Is that book on line (hopefully for free - I'm flat broke) ? Or are you typing passages from it for us?
(And yes, Reich is very good. So is Krugman. And have you listened to the Warren lecture she gave at Berkeley? Pure gold.)
3 bucks on google, I got it will post excerts, first is up now.
Thanks very much.
just got second one up
Because you cannot or will not give an answer, because the reality is, you want the government to take it all.
If you insist
90% is, in effect, all.
epa has a nasty mouth!
Try as I might, no verbal obscenity begins to match the filth that is the sick brain of a troll.
90% after the first million
How much prior to the first million?
we do both agree that anybody luckely enough to be paying this top rate, .1% or so, should wake everyday and kiss the flag and say thank God I'm an American right?
When you start to take 90% of the money they have earned through their own initiative, they might not be so thankful to be an American.
Why should you not be considered greedy for wanting to take money away from people who have earned it?
Personally, I think anyone who covets what another has is far more greedy and immoral than the person who earns money and wants to use it as they see fit.
really you're cool with that? if so we can move on.
Prove that avoidance statement.
Show where and how the government is going after Buffet for not paying taxes - show where Buffet is fighting the debt - show the conflict as it now unfolds - or just lay it out like it is ( your opinion to throw mud at proposed tax changes to collect money from the rich ).
[-] 1 points by toonces (196) 17 minutes ago
Don't forget about "Buffett Rule" Buffett not paying and avoiding paying 1 BILLION taxes owed to the US government. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/
Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889
The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N
I'm sorry was this supposed to have proved something? You post a link to an OP-ED and links to other OP-Eds quoting the New York Post OP-ED.
"recent New York Times op-ed"
Where is the fact/proof of a legal battle or anything being pursued by the government? OP-EDs? come on!
I gave you several stories that have reported the failure to pay.
You are not participating with me in an honest discussion.
Opinion Editorials are just that Opinion. Why would I find that acceptable?
And like you were told, those article have to do WITH PAST TAXES.
Not the buffett rule, which would be a NEW TAX going forward.
so, since this is ancient history, he should be forgiven and forgotten.
I think it is great a new tax law is named after a tax cheat.
No, I didn't say that.
I'd expect your beloved leader, the magic negro, to actually hold Buffett responsible for the taxes instead of constantly citing him as someone who wants it, and conveniently forgetting to tell the people the REST OF THE STORY in his stump speeches. It's eerily similar to Obama kicking the crap out of General Electric for exporting jobs and not paying taxes while blowing Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE and making him his lead economic advisor.
Do you get my point yet?????????????????????
[Removed]
"Owed to the government"? How? Has it been assessed? NO.
He doesn't owe the billion unless it's part of the tax code. You act like everything everyone earns belongs to the gubment, and Obama letting us keep some of it is through his good graces. Get real.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/
Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889
The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N
You should call the IRS!!
Seems everybody knows but them.
There ain't much I can do about. Taxes are for us little people anyway.
WE should tax and investigate the lot of them, Oooops there goes the debt.
None of the owed taxes have anything to do with the Buffett Rule. Get it?
The Buffett Rule would be in addition to those going forward if it actually passed, but it isn't the law as of today.
What you cited are taxes that he should have already paid.
So, the "Buffett Rule" means that you should promote an increase in taxes but you should do your best to not pay the taxes you owe under the law.... I can live with that. I think we should do the best we can to keep from paying taxes at all.
I'm not sure what you mean.