Skip to main content

This has been commented on before, but, listening to Obama's live broadcast on the fiscal cliff, and hearing how the media parrot what he said, I cannot refrain.  And, yes, I suppose it's honeymoon time and all this wonderfullness is just to much to let go of, but I don't care.

What I'm talking about is how Obama describes his tax plan as increasing taxes on those (or those families) who earn more than $250,000/year.  THAT MISREPRESENTS HIS PLAN AND IT FRAMES HIS PLAN IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY (although I suppose he could just say he wants to tax rich people to show them what for).  

According to his plan, INCOMES, NOT FAMILIES OR INDIVIDUALS will be taxed more.  In other words, EVERYBODY - EVERY FAMILY - GETS A TAX BREAK.  Those making more than the cut off pay more on that amount over the cut off.

Some will say that's too nuanced.  Well, I'm not one to give the American people too much credit (or any at all for that matter) for being able to get nuance, but what about simply saying "EVERYBODY GETS A TAX BREAK ON UP TO $250,000 IN INCOME AND INCOME ABOVE THAT IS TAXED A BIT MORE"?  I cannot imagine anyone not understanding that and,if they do, to hell with all three of them.

Why does this matter?  It matters because it makes the Repubs approach even more reprehensible.  It matters because it accurately portrays the policy as more fair.  It also doesn't play into the hands of those shouting "class warfare."

What is wrong with Obama and his supposedly snap communications staff that they cannot get this right?  Once again they hand the Repubs a frame that suits the Repubs instead of the Dems or the people.  If this is how Obama is going to start off his second term, it bodes poorly for the next four years.  Next thing we know, entitlements will be on the table and Obama will be pre-capitulating on the fiscal cliff.  I hope I'm wrong.  Time will tell.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:41:43 PM PST

  •  Why can't he say . . . (4+ / 0-)

    "I want to cut taxes for everyone, so I will propose raising the "personal exemption" . . . but those stupid tax cuts for only the wealthy will have to go" . . .

    He might go after the special treatment of "capital gains" too, even if only as a "bargaining chip" . . .

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:52:49 PM PST

  •  If it aint broke, dont fix it (6+ / 0-)

    Polling shows most people agree with Obama's stance. Dont make it more nuanced, and risk screwing that up.

    •  Also, in addition to confusing things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phonegery

      I think liberals would be upset if Obama framed the issue as the rich being able to keep the lower tax rate on the first 250k of income.

      •  People want to tax the rich more and changing how (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, mike101

        is described doesn't change the fact that the rich will be taxed more.  He had a perfect opportunity to explain - and it doesn't take much explaining - what it is he's actually calling for.  I can imagine Ronald Reagan explaining this in one or two sentences.  He weakens his case by not being accurate and by continuing to mislead.  

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:03:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why? That's Classic Progressive Taxation. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv, accumbens, divineorder, Chi, mike101

        What liberals are upset about is top marginal rates well under 50%.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:16:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No - just that Obama's not the greatest salesman (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grayday101, dfarrah

          For some reason, Obama is humble to a fault!

          He has so much to feel good about, within himself, but he is reminding his audiences consistently that he isn't worthy, that he's not that good, that his staff is better than him, etc.

          He is kind of like the stereotypical "70s man" on steroids - meaning that he is so gentle and so sensitive and warm hearted that he seems afraid to even say what it is that he wants, or if he does, then instantly feels almost guilty about it and wants a group "kumbaya" singalong.

          Today, right now, what we Dems need in the White House is a clever, savvy "boxer" type.   Bill Clinton could handle a situation like this well - he's a mental (kung fu) boxer - uses mental judo to perplex his opponent and use their own energy to make them fall flat on their faces.

          So Obama doesn't need to become the violent brutal boxer type - that's not the point.  But he is still stuck in his admiration for the ultimate wimp/simp Tom Daschle, who won the absolute contempt of all Americans for having the spine of a jellyfish.  Why Obama has stuck with the Daschle approach to government is a perplexing puzzlement.

          His passivity and willingness to allow Boehner and McConnell to overpower him has gotten to the point that it makes a lot of his followers feel semi-nauseous.  And his opponents cannot believe what a self-made victim Obama has made himself into.  They are bullies, and they are sadistic, and so they are not only not going to back down, but are going to amp up on the bullying.

          Our President is still in a honeymoon glow, and it will last a few more weeks, but before too long, if he doesn't learn how to stand up for himself (and for us, his constituents), he is going to get the sh*t kicked out of him.  And, like most kids who get bullied, the victim will earn nothing but contempt, and the bully will get away with it once again.

          What Obama needs, since he has really shown himself to be a repeated victimizee, is a kind of political bodyguard.  This could have been Joe Biden, and still could be, but Obama's team won't let Biden play that role.   There are a host of other guys like Ted Strickland who could jump in there and handle a lot of the boxing that needs to be done.    The best bodyguard type would be Bill Clinton, because he is the absolute master of politcal ju-jitsu.

          Obama is actually setting himself to be kicked around, and no one in the rough and tumble world of politics seriously believes in the idea of bipartisanship.   It is an intensely partisan world, and that is just the way the game is played.  Boehner will come out and box him every day, and Obama just stands there, and he will look like a fool with an increasing number of bruises and broken bones every day.

          Not a lame duck yet, but his appeals for cooperation have already fallen on Boehner & McConnell's deaf ears, and as a result, he could become lame so quickly that his lame duck years begin almost as soon as he is inaugurated.

          •  "His passivity ... (0+ / 0-)

            makes a lot of his followers feel semi-nauseous"?

            A "self-made victim"?

            A "repeated victimizee"?

            He "will look like a fool"?

            Wow.  

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:53:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's endemic to preserving the ignorance (6+ / 0-)

        ...that Americans have about business accounting.

        Businesses get to write off all expenses (including health care and salaries for the people they hire) BEFORE they pay taxes on their PURE  take home  corporate profits. For godsake.

        Why is this stupidity grandfathered into society -- so that bullshit like "we can't hire because taxes" can be spewed day after day without being challenged?


        A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

        by Pluto on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:19:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, in this case, it's "if it's already broke, (0+ / 0-)

      don't fix it."

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:06:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  preznit Obama, yr doin it rong! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sophie Amrain

    meh.

  •  We're less than 1500 days out from a (6+ / 0-)

    presidential election, and you're posting stuff like this?

    (Just kidding.)

    I think the plan he is talking about would be to keep the current tax rates, except for income over 250K.  So there is no further tax break.  If you make less than 250K, you pay the same, if you make more, you end up paying more.

    Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

    by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:57:38 PM PST

  •  The "if it ain't broke" comment is the problem (11+ / 0-)

    Good enough can be made better.

    The diarist is EXACTLY right, and Paul Krugman or Robert Reich or both need to be in the West Wing as coaches for this fight.

    Seriously. It's not nuance. It's principle. It's the whole idea.

    If a win told Obama he doesn't need to listen to anyone's advice, that's a bad thing.

    •  It was always broke. It's been broke since he (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, mike101

      started talking about it.  So what the "if it ain't broke" argument here really is is "if it's already broke, don't fix it."

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:05:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This drives me nuts too! eom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    accumbens, Pluto
  •  Yep. So many bizarre frames. (8+ / 0-)

    I still can't figure out why the entire administration kept the ACA under wraps after it was passed. Did not explain it to Americans. Sell its features. Defend against the lies and propaganda.

    It is the greatest political mystery of my lifetime.


    A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

    by Pluto on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:05:29 PM PST

    •  We Paid For It Again Tuesday. Every Age Over 39 (5+ / 0-)

      voted Republican, including Gen X and Boomers, as did those concerned about medicare and social security.

      It's a mystery if it was done by a progressive team. If the team wasn't progressive then it makes a lot of sense.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:19:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Certainly the Supreme Court decision (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, Chi

        ...presented absolutely no mystery. One could see that coming a mile away. But why not PR the good parts? Not to win the election -- that was in the bag. But to comfort the American people, and protect them from all the distress.


        A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

        by Pluto on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:29:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree... (0+ / 0-)

        If "every age over 39 voted Republican" that would mean 100% of every person in every age bracket voted Republican.

        In my age bracket (I'm 41) slightly more people voted Republican than Democrat. But in every age bracket over 39,  there were people who voted Democrat.

        You're applying EV logic to age brackets. They don't award electoral votes to age brackets. ;-)

        The Baptist Death Ray (wrightc [at] eviscerati [dot] org) "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
        - Edward Young

        by The Baptist Death Ray on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:57:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chris VanH and Schummer always seem to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    accumbens, phonegery, divineorder, Chi

    have to come along behind Obama and explain this to people.  Obama can say it correctly in the first place and point out that the first 250K protection is a boost to small businesses, really small businesses, not all those military contractors who routinely have their cakes over-iced.

    Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

    by judyms9 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:05:43 PM PST

  •  Why can't he say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, Chi

    That he isn't going to cut Social Security or Medicare for a senior trying to live on $20K?  Those voters in Cleveland and Toledo are not making $250K.

    •  Well ... perhaps because he's not willing to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, divineorder, Chi, dfarrah

      commit to keeping entitlements off the table.  Now, who was it that created the cat food commission and put one of the rabid anti-entitlement people as a co-chair.  Lemme think ....

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:15:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but willing to sell us down the river? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        Somehow, to seem bipartisan and to try to please everyone (most importantly his opponents), he is willing to let all of his supporters and constituents down?

        Why?  To appear bipartisan?  

        Did Lincoln do that?  Did Roosevelt?

  •  it's not a bug, but a feature (7+ / 0-)

    His positions are stated in the most ambiguous way possible to give him the maximum leeway to compromise with the opposition.

    He is not interested in policy, only in process. For him, Third Way bipartisanship is an end in itself; policy is secondary. Therefore his policy positions are extremely flexible, because that makes it easier to achieve his goal: arriving at a bipartisan compromise which will make everyone in the Beltway happy.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:16:36 PM PST

    •  Right, that's why he's obtained so many (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, PorridgeGun

      bipartisan compromises.  And made the Beltway pundits so complimentary.

      •  Can't fault him for trying ... and trying and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, dfarrah, limpidglass

        trying and trying.  He did succeed, however, in one thing - moving the discussion and frames to the right.  Time will tell whether we got the original, before the beginning Obama now or just the same ol'.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:42:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well hasn't he? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tapu dali, dfarrah

        Let's not forget that a Bush-appointed Chief Justice of the United States cast the deciding vote in favor of Obama's health care plan--a plan that was based on the plan Romney himself championed as governor of Massachusetts; that Cheney praised his national security policies after the death of bin Laden; that on innumerable occasions he was the one to initiate negotiations with the Republicans and signal his willingness to compromise, as he did on the first major act of his administration: the stimulus bill.

        The pundits frickin' love him now. Are you kidding? Sure, they pretended to puff up Romney because they wanted a close race, but they always were rooting for Obama.

        And they'll love him even more in his second term.

        When the economy tanks, they'll shower him with praise for making "the hard decision" of taking a chainsaw to Social Security and Medicare, and having the guts to stand up his out-of-control, spendthrift liberal base.

        The more he does to transfer wealth from the 99% upward, the more passionate this lovefest will become.

        By the time his second term is over, he will have usurped Reagan's place in their hearts. The Great Communicator will have finally been supplanted by the Great Compromiser. But for the rest of us, I suspect our feelings will not be quite so warm.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:54:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What are you smoking? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:33:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about the following framing ... (7+ / 0-)

    "Under my plan, everyone, including millionaires, gets a tax cut on their first $250,000 in income.  But that's where it stops - we just can't afford to give rich people tax cuts that people making under $250,000 don't get."

  •  Boo. (3+ / 0-)

    He won the election with the same framing.

    I'm reminded of that old saying: if it's on the Internet, someone's jerking off to it. If Obama says something, someone will find fault with it.

    Have you googled Romney today?

    by fou on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:23:26 PM PST

    •  Come now. He also won "because" of the framing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      accumbens, divineorder, Chi

      This administration is very smart. No one is questioning that. We're on level two, here.


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:32:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Smart in getting elected, yes, but smart....? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, dfarrah

        smart in setting an agenda and following it through in the face of determined opposition?

        Not sure if he has the inner fortitude to fight the opponent to a TKO.   He doesn't want to be seen as a fighter, except in foreign policy.

        But the Americans know that we need a fighter in domestic policy now.

        He ain't that guy, because he doesn't want to mix it up with Boehner.   But the people will lose respect for him, and we will be absolutely devastated in 2014 this way.

        Someone has to step in and be the bully-chaser.

    •  George Bush won too. What does winning prove? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, Chi, tapu dali

      And one could argue Obama would have won more handily if he had actually communicated this stuff properly.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:44:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Relax. Obama has campaigned on the theme (0+ / 0-)

    and it seems to have worked.

    He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

    by Sophie Amrain on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:31:38 PM PST

    •  The theme did not work with me (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, Chi, mike101, dfarrah

      Besides the election is over.  It's not about themes.  It's about whose ox gets gored and I can't think of anything more despicable than throwing the elderly off the fiscal cliff.   And it doesn't matter that you balance throwing the elderly widow off the cliff with a cosmetic adjustment to the billionaire's 1040.

    •  How do you know. Maybe he would have won (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      even bigger if he actually communicated about this accurately.  In any case, to say he won is proof that this particular issue is what won it for him is not much of an argument.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:46:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama got lucky... (0+ / 0-)

        with Romney as an opponent.

        If the repubs had run a decent candidate with even half the appeal of, say, Reagan, that candidate would have wiped the floor with Obama.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:41:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama has been lucky with just about every (0+ / 0-)

          campaign he's run  Hillary was the exception although it was more she imploded trying to find a hook.

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:30:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with you and in fact Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, elektra

    has explained it the way you suggest. However, in this particular debate to do it that way would suggest you're trying to sell your plan or that you're trying to persuade someone.  Obama's point of view is that he has already persuaded the people to go with his plan and received their support in the election.  He isn't persuading Boehner. He is compelling Boehner.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:33:53 PM PST

    •  I think you can count on one hand (or less) how (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, mike101

      many time he's explained it this way.  And if he wants to believe that people are persuaded, I've got a health reform plan to sell you. Also, do you really want to defend him misleading people?

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:48:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope that you write these ideas up (0+ / 0-)

    (ideally in a still-direct but more "helpful" tone) and send them to the Obama team. I am sure that they keep an eye on DK but people do respond to actual input differently than to background complaining, however thoughtful and well-informed. (I'm not assuming you haven't already done this!).

    I've been sending in occasional feedback throughout the campaign. I haven't sent anything since, but I have a few items in mind to send in this weekend. I mention the funding contributions I've made and the time I've put in on canvassing etc.  What I figure is, if you have an important idea, make it easy for them to take it in.

  •  If the tax cuts for the middle class are kept, (0+ / 0-)

    But the rest of the Bush tax cuts expire, capital gains taxes rise to 20% and dividends are taxed at ordinary income tax rates so taxes on higher incomes will go up. In addition, inheritance taxes will be re-instated.

     So it would not be true ton say that everyone's taxes will go down. There is more to taxes than the marginal tax rate.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:35:54 PM PST

    •  Are you saying your scenario is a bad thing? (0+ / 0-)

      because it sounds pretty decent to me.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 02:20:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, I think they should go up. (0+ / 0-)

        I think that is one of the most unfair parts of the tax code. Just saying that there is more in play than just the marginal rate to raise the effective tax on the upper 2%. And that even though the upper 2% get the benefit of lower rates on the first $250,000, these provisions would offset that cut for most of them.

        And to clarify, if the Senate bill is the one passed, cap gains and dividends will both go up to 20%, but if the tax cuts expire, cap gains will go up 20% and dividends to ordinary income. Of course, they could and might change that if they start with a new bill, but hopefully, they would at least keep it the same as the current Senate bill, though ideally, they would  raise dividend rates (and cap gains) to ordinary income.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 03:40:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •   (3+ / 0-)

    "If this is how Obama is going to start off his second term, it bodes poorly for the next four years.  Next thing we know, entitlements will be on the table and Obama will be pre-capitulating on the fiscal cliff. "

    How the hell do you get from point A to Point B. that's a bit of stretch...

  •  stop being so fucking (0+ / 0-)

    fatalistic

  •  I totally agree. I mentioned that to a republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101

    and you know what they said? "Really?" They warmed up to  Obama for a fraction of a second. Nuance matters.

    •  Yes, quite often it helps to include more than (0+ / 0-)

      just the facts.
      People who aren't closely following something complicated like that need to have facts and often conclusions pointed out to them...usually when you do that you can see a light go on. Sometimes they let it go out but sometimes not.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:35:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site