Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow, are you seriously that stupid?Meh, socialism is trickle up poverty. No thanks.
Fine, let's examine Cuba:
The GULLY Americas CUBA What Castro Found
Before the revolution:
- 75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.
- More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.
- 85% had no inside running water.
- 91% had no electricity.
- There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.
- More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.
- Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.
- The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.
- 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.
- 25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.
- 1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).
- 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.
- Racial discrimination was widespread.
- The public school system had deteriorated badly.
- Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.
- Police brutality and torture were common.
___
After the Revolution: (This data is OLD, it's even better now)
“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.
Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.
-
It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.
By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;
Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.
Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.
“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”
Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.
“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”
It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.
There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.
The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.
“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”
Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.
The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.
“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.
No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.
The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.
The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.
Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.
No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
You do, recall, that Reagan then raised taxes, right? That over the course of his 8 years the % of GDP paid in taxes was actually higher than it was under Carter?The problem with Greece is that no one PAID their taxes.
dear, we pay our taxes and we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Please just read these posts but don't respond to them. Thanks
You were given tax cuts by Reagan despite his increases in spending, not the least of which was his escalation of the Cold War. You were given tax cuts by GW Bush despite our being faced with the extra costs of two wars to fight. Both McCain and Romney wanted to cut taxes while increasing military spending.
See the pattern here. Since Vietnam, we stopped paying for the wars we fight and the costs of the military that supports our fighting those almost incessant wars.
THAT is where this country went wrong fiscally. Period.
Trickle down is supply side economics. I would ask you to google it but you are not bright enough to understand economics to begin with.There is no such thing as "trickle down theory", Nimrod. It is merely a term used by liberals who dont understand economics. It's like social darwinism. Only liberals use the term.Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics
I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
What the fuck does that have to do with Reagan?
I am pointing out the "trickle down theory" term was not invented for Reaganomics. In fact, Reaganomics wasn't invented by Reagan or his staff. They just rebranded it.
The "trickle down theory" (Reaganomics) and those who have derided it, have been around for over a century.
The "trickle down theory" name was invented long before Reagan.
You do, recall, that Reagan then raised taxes, right? That over the course of his 8 years the % of GDP paid in taxes was actually higher than it was under Carter?The problem with Greece is that no one PAID their taxes.
dear, we pay our taxes and we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Please just read these posts but don't respond to them. Thanks
You were given tax cuts by Reagan despite his increases in spending, not the least of which was his escalation of the Cold War. You were given tax cuts by GW Bush despite our being faced with the extra costs of two wars to fight. Both McCain and Romney wanted to cut taxes while increasing military spending.
See the pattern here. Since Vietnam, we stopped paying for the wars we fight and the costs of the military that supports our fighting those almost incessant wars.
THAT is where this country went wrong fiscally. Period.
Trickle down is supply side economics. I would ask you to google it but you are not bright enough to understand economics to begin with.There is no such thing as "trickle down theory", Nimrod. It is merely a term used by liberals who dont understand economics. It's like social darwinism. Only liberals use the term.Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics
I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
What the fuck does that have to do with Reagan?
I am pointing out the "trickle down theory" term was not invented for Reaganomics. In fact, Reaganomics wasn't invented by Reagan or his staff. They just rebranded it.
The "trickle down theory" (Reaganomics) and those who have derided it, have been around for over a century.
The "trickle down theory" name was invented long before Reagan.
No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Here, they use small words, maybe you will get it:You do, recall, that Reagan then raised taxes, right? That over the course of his 8 years the % of GDP paid in taxes was actually higher than it was under Carter?The problem with Greece is that no one PAID their taxes.
dear, we pay our taxes and we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Please just read these posts but don't respond to them. Thanks
You were given tax cuts by Reagan despite his increases in spending, not the least of which was his escalation of the Cold War. You were given tax cuts by GW Bush despite our being faced with the extra costs of two wars to fight. Both McCain and Romney wanted to cut taxes while increasing military spending.
See the pattern here. Since Vietnam, we stopped paying for the wars we fight and the costs of the military that supports our fighting those almost incessant wars.
THAT is where this country went wrong fiscally. Period.
Trickle down is supply side economics. I would ask you to google it but you are not bright enough to understand economics to begin with.There is no such thing as "trickle down theory", Nimrod. It is merely a term used by liberals who dont understand economics. It's like social darwinism. Only liberals use the term.Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.
I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:
What the fuck does that have to do with Reagan?
I am pointing out the "trickle down theory" term was not invented for Reaganomics. In fact, Reaganomics wasn't invented by Reagan or his staff. They just rebranded it.
The "trickle down theory" (Reaganomics) and those who have derided it, have been around for over a century.
The "trickle down theory" name was invented long before Reagan.
No, Honey Boo Boo. "Trickle Down" is a derisive misnomer mocked up by the Losing Side in the Cold War (that's your side)
Right. Capitalism is both supply side and Keynsian economics. Both are capitalist principles and both claim to bring about economic growth.No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
They're Progressives, they HAVE to be uneducated or they'd never be part of a Party that intends to turn them into either slaves or fertilizer
Trickle down is supply side economics. I would ask you to google it but you are not bright enough to understand economics to begin with.[/QUOTE][
There is no such thing as "trickle down theory", Nimrod. It is merely a term used by liberals who dont understand economics. It's like social darwinism. Only liberals use the term.
Capitalism is neither supply side nor Keynesianism. Capitalism is an economic system that features a marketplace and private ownership of the means of production.Right. Capitalism is both supply side and Keynsian economics. Both are capitalist principles and both claim to bring about economic growth.No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
They're Progressives, they HAVE to be uneducated or they'd never be part of a Party that intends to turn them into either slaves or fertilizer
No source quoted=invalid assertion.
"Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit."
Capitalism is neither supply side nor Keynesianism. Capitalism is an economic system that features a marketplace and private ownership of the means of production.Right. Capitalism is both supply side and Keynsian economics. Both are capitalist principles and both claim to bring about economic growth.No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)
Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015
Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
They're Progressives, they HAVE to be uneducated or they'd never be part of a Party that intends to turn them into either slaves or fertilizer
Supply side and Keynesianism are economic theories. They differ chiefly in that Keynesianism has a histiorcial record of failure while supply side economics succeeds every time.
You mean when taxes were not cut, regulation not reduced? Yeah, that's what happens when you dont do those things.Capitalism is neither supply side nor Keynesianism. Capitalism is an economic system that features a marketplace and private ownership of the means of production.Right. Capitalism is both supply side and Keynsian economics. Both are capitalist principles and both claim to bring about economic growth.Of course trickle down doesn't work. It has never worked to improve anyone but those already filthy rich.
What most Americans don't know or realize is simple basic economics.
No business is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing. The only reason a business is going to hire people is if there's more work to do than the existing staff can do in a normal work week. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If they're having more sales then the business is making more money and the last thing that business needs is a tax cut.
The only thing that happens when the already rich get a tax cut is the rich are going to put it in their bank accounts or send it overseas.
None of which helps America or our people.
Meanwhile the tax cuts deny the country much needed revenue to pay the nation's bills and maintain our nation.
Which is why our nation, our infrastructure, our education system and so much more has been reduced to being mostly ineffective and we have bridges falling apart.
Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
They're Progressives, they HAVE to be uneducated or they'd never be part of a Party that intends to turn them into either slaves or fertilizer
Supply side and Keynesianism are economic theories. They differ chiefly in that Keynesianism has a histiorcial record of failure while supply side economics succeeds every time.
Really succeeded greatly there in 2007 -2010, didn't it?
Taxes were cut and regulation reduced. That was what Bush did when he was elected.You mean when taxes were not cut, regulation not reduced? Yeah, that's what happens when you dont do those things.Capitalism is neither supply side nor Keynesianism. Capitalism is an economic system that features a marketplace and private ownership of the means of production.Right. Capitalism is both supply side and Keynsian economics. Both are capitalist principles and both claim to bring about economic growth.Here's a clue for you since you are sorely lacking in clues:
Trickle down isn't about tax cuts only, and capitalism isnt only trickle down economics.
Seriously, how can you people be so uneducated?
They're Progressives, they HAVE to be uneducated or they'd never be part of a Party that intends to turn them into either slaves or fertilizer
Supply side and Keynesianism are economic theories. They differ chiefly in that Keynesianism has a histiorcial record of failure while supply side economics succeeds every time.
Really succeeded greatly there in 2007 -2010, didn't it?
Turd.
