Bail Out Money

  • Thread startermuleman
  • Start date
The whole mark to market accounting method receiving the blame for the current financial crisis is a red herring.

The crisis was caused by bad lending, primarily in sub prime loans, that reduced the value of assets held by financial institutions. These institutions were fine with market prices when real estate prices were rising and reflected well on their balance sheets.

The same institutions that were artificially propping up their balance sheets by buying and selling these derivatives at market prices, although many of them were based on bad loans and doomed to fail, are the same institutions that can't sell these derivatives today because of a depressed market caused by mortgage defaults.

Now they don't want them valued at market price since the bad loans have come home to roost. For years they traded these derivatives amongst each other, inflating their values and garnishing huge profits. Unfortunately the underpinning assets were mortgages that should have never been made in the first place. Suddenly, no one wanted to buy these derivatives any longer as the housing market collpased.

Now the banks want to make believe these assets are worth more than they actually are. Although market pricing was in fact used during the housing boom (by buying and selling these risky investments on the market), now they want to value these assets at what they paid for them, which was artificially inflated by a market they exploited.

The fact is, that they didn't know when to get out of the market for these derivatives, they thought the ride would go on forever. Now the ones holding the derivatives are holding the proverbial bag and vastly overpaid for these assets due to defaults on the loans.

Incidentally, FAS 1157 allows for not valuing assets at market prices when those prices reflect distressed or ****** sales. Unfortunately, so many bad loans were made, as evidenced by default rates, market prices have indeed dropped to realistic levels and can no longer be considered ****** or distressed.

Bottom line - they made bad loans by the bucketload, they artificially inflated the value of the derivatives by exploiting that market, and now don't want to take the write offs that their risky investments caused. They want to value these inflated assets at what they paid for them, not what they're really worth. That kind of accounting magic will only come back to haunt them and their investors at a later date.

The piper had to be paid eventually and the eventuality is now.

Regarding bonuses - $100 billion of the $165 billion in bonuses that AIG handed out did in fact go to the very division that did the trading in derivatives, the balance to the rest of AIG. These derivative division employees were smart enough to have a bonus plan not based on whether derivatives lost money or not.

I find all these bonus indignation to be a bogus problem sidetracking us from the real issues anyway. We've bailed out AIG to the tune of $150 billion dollars and we're outraged over them spending $165 million?? Doing the math in my head, that's what, about .1% of the bailout? Let's get real, 165 million isn't even a pimple on this baby's ass. All these damned politicians should just deal with our real problems and stop pandering to this emotional nonsense.
 
RoSquirts said:
The crisis was caused by bad lending, primarily in sub prime loans, that reduced the value of assets held by financial institutions.

Bottom line - they made bad loans by the bucketload, they artificially inflated the value of the derivatives by exploiting that market, and now don't want to take the write offs that their risky investments caused. They want to value these inflated assets at what they paid for them, not what they're really worth.

The piper had to be paid eventually and the eventuality is now.
Click to expand...

You are right as far as you go Ro but the way you state it puts all the blame squarely on the banks. The question is: Why did these banks all of a sudden go out and make all these bad loans all at once (then package them so they could get rid of them to other banks with the last bank holding the most losing the most).

Is it true that the Clinton Admin. ****** the banks to make home mortgages available to people who would not otherwise be able to afford a mortgage? And indeed they couldn't afford the homes they bought. Was Obama suing banks and forcing them to make loans to people that everyone knew couldn't pay them back? If true then how can anyone blame the banks when all those people stopped paying their mortgages?

Norm
 
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Congress(republican controlled incidentally) put pressure on the banks to increase mortgages to lower incomes. Washington politics had the presidency in impeachment defense and virtually paralyzed. Something we all like to forget when we're (9 years later) blaming the Clinton administration for all our problems,lol. This was vastly accelerated during the Bush administration to ridiculous levels. This and a lack of oversight of derivative trading and other securities led to the current mess. Once it started, some found a way to make ungodly profits off it via derivative trading and government allowed it to fall through the regulation cracks. Everyone was making buckets of money.

There's plenty of blame to go around - borrowers taking on debt they couldn't carry, banks giving out bad loans knowing they could sell the mortgage 'assets' on the open unregulated market, financial institution overpricing these derivatives to gain unrealistic profits, on and on it goes.

The fact is that the 'money for nothing' mentality in our society is at fault and almost no one is free of blame - borrowers, lenders, traders, govt, investors. If I made it sound like only the financial institutions are to blame, I didn't intend that. I was just explaining how market price asset valuation is not in itself the cause, but an accounting principle that makes the artificial gains of the prior years a costly burden to correct now and the new scapegoat for institutions and 'free' regulators to blame for the current crisis.
 
this is not a problem that was caused by one man or one side. It took everyone and I mean everyone to make one small bad decision after another until it turned into what it is today. Everyone is to blame in it. Of course that is in the past now we have to figure out how to fix it and I have to say throwing money at the problem is the worst thing we could do.
 
RoSquirts said:
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Congress(republican controlled incidentally) put pressure on the banks to increase mortgages to lower incomes.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the first half of what I asked below is true.

"Is it true that the Clinton Admin. ****** the banks to make home mortgages available to people who would not otherwise be able to afford a mortgage? And indeed they couldn't afford the homes they bought."

Now what about the second half Ro? Is this also true.

"Was Obama suing banks and forcing them to make loans to people that everyone knew couldn't pay them back?"

And if it is then the question I asked below has merit.

"If true then how can anyone blame the banks when all those people stopped paying their mortgages?"

Remember, they couldn't afford those houses. They never would have gotten those loans on their own and they shouldn't have gotten them. The government ****** the banks to count unemployment and welfare as income which had never been done before and should never have been done at all if anyone had a shred of common sense.

I can't blame the banks for packaging up those mortgages and trying to get rid of them on the open market. You would do the same. Its no different than a bookie sloughing off some huge bets to other bigger bookies or they will take too big a hit if the bet doesn't pay off. The banks knew there was no way these millions of low income people were going to pay them back.

And then you are right Ro. All those loans on the books at market value sunk when the government created housing bubble ( they created the false demand) burst and people started walking away from houses they shouldn't have had to begin with.

Now I get it. Thanks Ro, take the night off baby.

Norm
 
Obfucate the Truth

As often happens, I'm seeing the big picture and the truth obfuscated with statements based on real events but not material to the problem or issue.

Although derivatives are a problem, they are a side effect of the real problem. If you look hard enough, you can always find a way to obscure the truth in minutia.

The sub-prime mortgage lending was pushed, supported, legislated by congress. The reason why the investment banking firms failed was because congress legislated a change to mark to market pricing on thinly traded assets.

The reason the housing bubble collapsed was because, as the investment banking began instituting the mark to market pricing (which resulted in a drastic reduction of valuation due to lack of an open market), they had to use every dime they could find to collateralize their margin loans (causing stock and bond market losses).

Having to come up with all that money meant they had no money to lend for new mortgages. If the mortgage money is cut off, people can't buy houses and housing prices fall.

The reason all of this happened was because congress pushed programs that put people in houses they had no business buying and then pulled the rug from beneath everyone by instituting mark to market in one fell swoop instead of maybe phasing it in.

There were about 415 employees in the division that handled the credit default swaps out of about 120,000 employees. That is .34% of the employees. The people who got the bonuses were not the folks who sold the credit default swaps that caused the problems. They were all employed in the financial products division. But lumping them in with the others is like saying you bear part of the blame if the car door won't open because you put air in the tires. They are actually heros for what they've accomplished and how much they've saved the company.

There have been a number of mistakes and decisions that have CONTRIBUTED. But don't give the contributions any more weight than they deserve. I say again... It was primarily CONGRESS CONGRESS CONGRESS. And although the republicans contributed, the bulk of the responsibility lies with the DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS.

If the link below works, you can see and hear it straight from the mouths of the folks who supported it and spoke against it.

The Truth, Timeline & Players of the Sub-prime Mortgage Collapse (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) - The Conservative Underground

Want truth? search "fannie mae congress" on youtube and look at the Cspan video of congress discussing the issue. Notice who's for and who's against.
 
First, sub prime lending was not pushed, supported or legislated by congress as you state. Sub prime lending has been around since about 1980. Clinton, towards the end of his administration, pressured Fannie Mae to expand it's subprime lending.

However sub-prime lending remained about 9% of all mortgages from 1996 through 2004. From 2004 through 2006 sub-prime lending increased to about 21% of all mortgages. I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that increase on Clinton or the Democrats also however.

Mark to market valuation changes in accounting were inititiated by the FASB, not congress, not the president, not the dems nor the republicans. An independent private sector organisation which governs accounting principles. Still, those changes provided for asset pricing to be used if market pricing was distorted by ****** or distressed sales, a point which you have chosen to ignore.
So, your argument that this was legislated by Congress(which seems to be, in your mind anyway, always Democrats) is totally fallacious and without merit.


High foreclosure and default rates caused capitalization ratios at lending institutons to collapse and lending to dry up not accounting rule changes,lol. Distrust of lending to other institutions who couldn't disclose the true value of their assets, since they didn't know really know how much they held in bad debt, caused inter bank lending to abruptly stop.

The underlying reason that banks, insurance companies and investment firms became embroiled in the credit default swap game was facilitated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which removed Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.Unanimously passed by Republicans in both houses of Congress and a large majority of the Democrats, this bill is credited with bringing about the current financial crisis by two Nobel Prize economists, amongst others. This was THE landmark banking deregulation bill. Phil Gramm, the author and senator widely regarded as the one who spearheaded it's passage, is a Republican who also authored the Enron Loophole(which enabled Enron to defraud it's investors), was McCain's chief economic advisor and who's wife served on the Enron Board of Directors.

Your sympathy for the hard work of the 75 people in AIG's financial services division that will get over 100 million in bonuses is heartwarming. Truly.

Bottom line though, you shout 'democrats and Clinton and congress' and apparently ignore the facts. If you want to make believe that the Republican controlled Congress in a Bush administration that passed any law they chose until 2006 was powerless to overcome Barney Frank's resistance, you go right ahead. If you want to make believe that everything that happened in the past 8 years is Bill Clinton and the Democrats' fault, go right ahead.

I prefer to truly understand the issues and examine real problems, causes and cures. It's far more productive than going on a partisan witchunt and repeating sound bites from politicians and pundits that just don't get that we are fed up.

I personally vow to vote against any politician from any party that instead of working on solutions, seeks to lay partisan blame or divert attention to the relatively miniscule problem of bonuses or the ilk. And to ignore forum posters who's sole function seems to be in spouting partisan blather rather than logical examination of issues regarding the current economic situation.
 
The best part of that Fox News report you link to is this - John McCain spoke up for and cosponsored the bill to tighten regulations on Fannie Mae almost 9 months after the bill had died in committee.

A Republican controlled Committee in a Republican controlled Congress with a Republican president in the whitehouse.
 
RoSquirts said:
The best part of that Fox News report you link to is this - John McCain spoke up for and cosponsored the bill to tighten regulations on Fannie Mae almost 9 months after the bill had died in committee.

A Republican controlled Committee in a Republican controlled Congress with a Republican president in the whitehouse.
Click to expand...

ya know you look like a younger christine lahti... are u italian?
 
This is true, Will, that they didn't have a filibuster proof majority. But it's disengenuous to blame the Democrats for the lack of congressional or administrative action to rein in Fannie Mae sub-prime lending policies.

You can't blame one president, because he's a democrat, for his pressuring them to increase sub-prime lending and then the minority in congress, during a republican president's term, for not pressuring them to reduce it. It's inconsistent logic.
Especially when Fannie Mae's subprime lending was almost triple under the republican president's term at the time.

And if Snow, Bush, McCain, Greenspan and all the Republicnas REALLY thought this was going to lead to a financial crisis, why didn't they fight to get it done? They just rolled over and played dead and didn't even let the bill come out of committee.

Give me a break.

The problem is all of us, as I said earlier. Republican , Democrats, Independents, and every greedy banker, borrower and investor that puts money-for-nothing short term greed ahead of common sense.
 
First, I'm not Dem. or Rep. I can best be described as a "Jeffersonian Democrat."

Now, that said, I find it extremely hard to believe that an idea to have the government force banks to make millions of bad loans to low income people was not a Dem idea. Common sense would tell you it wasn't a Rep. idea.

And to me it does make a difference who's fault it is simply because the Dems are now blaming the banks, saying that they weren't regulated enough when it was Gov. regulation that caused it. Now its the Dems & Obama that are going to fix it? It was Obama who was suing banks to force them to make those loans to begin with.
 
So, the single lawsuit that Obama along with several other lawyers, filed against Citibank for redlining loan applications in Chicago in 1994 is responsible for the mortgage crisis ?

And you're still ignoring the fact that sub prime lending by Fannie Mae tripled under the Bush administration. Don't facts count ?
 
SaltandPepper98 said:
First, I'm not Dem. or Rep. I can best be described as a "Jeffersonian Democrat."

Now, that said, I find it extremely hard to believe that an idea to have the government force banks to make millions of bad loans to low income people was not a Dem idea. Common sense would tell you it wasn't a Rep. idea.
Click to expand...

STOP...pleeeze...EVERYONE IS AT FAULT not just the leadership. And as far as the leadership goes it's a two headed pig. One head is just as bad as the other and you know that. Wish this football team Ra Ra Ra mentality would get flushed out of politics.

Common sense would say the dems ****** the banks to go against the traditional conservative lending to help the poor (aka people that had no idear what the hell they were getting into, and shouldn't have qualified for these loans). Then, at some point, some group of profiteers noticed that these poor folk were willing to spend 60-70% of their income on an overvalued home, they saw the dollar signs. If one family defaulted just kickem out and bring in the next; either way it's cash lining their pockets. Dealerships had been applying this method to car loans since the 70's.

Then, in the mean time the new century came in and with it a bursting bubble in the high tech sector along with increased automation, easy outsourcing of tech-related jobs, and an influx of good products from overseas for half the retail price of their domestic counterparts, and the number of illegal (1/2 wage, non-taxed) workers reached an all time high. Well, none of helped the economy or jobs. Then 9/11 happened just in time to take the blame for what all these factors were doing to the economy, and, conveniently, it gave an excuse for the oil tycoons to go to the oil-lands of central asia with a gigantic army...but that's another story.

But because this clintonian sub-prime 'help the poor man' lending was becoming profitable thing, big business decided that relaxing the traditional credit requirements was the way to go. And when big business talks the republican party listens.... Bush listened, the republican congress listened, greenspan listened.... this is what common sense says.

but alas, oops i just offended your team didn't i? hooraaa horaaa... really sad. say one bad thing about the republican party... and not 'they're becoming too liberal'... say one bad thing about their ideology... I DOUBLE DARE YOU...
 
RoSquirts said:
So, the single lawsuit that Obama along with several other lawyers, filed against Citibank for redlining loan applications in Chicago in 1994 is responsible for the mortgage crisis ?

And you're still ignoring the fact that sub prime lending by Fannie Mae tripled under the Bush administration. Don't facts count ?
Click to expand...

The lawsuits made sure that other banks toed the party line and made those loans. Once the whole thing was a done deal I doubt the Bush Admin could do anything about it with a Dem controlled Congress.

All I know Ro is that Barney Frank is screaming for people to be put in jail and for once I agree with him. Only I think that it should start with politicians going to jail and the first one should be Barney Frank.

Again. Let me make my bias clear. I am a democrat in the Thomas Jefferson style. I hate liberal Dems because they want to take away my economic freedoms and I hate conservative Reps because they want to take away my personal freedoms. I say again that a slave is simply a person with no economic or personal freedoms. And that is where we are going. I can live with a moderate Rep but it really only slows down the road to the Gov completely running our lives from birth to death.

My political viewpoints tend to agree more or less with the likes of the late Harry Browne and also with Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Avi Nelson, Milton Friedman and some libertarians among many others. I'm a small government, less taxes, leave me the fuck alone and why the hell do I have to press "1" for English kind of guy.

Norm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bush had a republican controlled congress for the 6 years that he allowed sub prime lending to increase from 9 to 21 percent of all mortgages written.

Nevertheless, let me get this straight. If something goes wrong when there's a democratic president with a republican congress, then it's his fault, right ? But if the same thing gets much worse under a republican president until it becomes a freaking disaster, it's the congress' fault ? Not even the republican majority in congress but the democratic minority's fault?

Oh wait, no, it's the fault of the current president (democrat of course) because he was a junior lawyer on a legal team filing a lawsuit 15 fucking years ago.

I just don't get it. Do I need to take stronger drugs?

Oh no wait, I forgot it's the democrats fault because the FASB made changes to accounting rules that force assets to be market price valued, although that's not what the rules really say and the FASB is a private organisation not under congress' or the president's control.

Money for nothing
Chicks for free.....

THAT'S IT !! It's MTV's fault.

problem solved.
 
Way more that one lawsuit...

RoSquirts said:
So, the single lawsuit that Obama along with several other lawyers, filed against Citibank for redlining loan applications in Chicago in 1994 is responsible for the mortgage crisis ?

And you're still ignoring the fact that sub prime lending by Fannie Mae tripled under the Bush administration. Don't facts count ?
Click to expand...

After college and before law school, Obama made his living by working to obstruct the conduct of business in banks that they had targeted to increase sub-prime lending. This included practices such as picketing in front of banks, picketing in front of bank employees homes after hours, and taking in bags of nickels to change into dollars to limit tellers ability to serve customers. (In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote. Alinsky was a well known radical marxist.)

After law school, he was hired as a consultant to teach community activists how garner and exercise power to disrupt business and forward the far left (Alinsky) agenda.

(ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.")

You ignore the FACT that Bush had NO REGULATORY authority over Fannie and Freddie. They increased their size and reach in contravention of Bush's efforts.

The following videos demonstrate my point. I would be interested if anyone can find any showing the Republicans defending the expansion of these destructive programs.

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

YouTube - Who is Responsible? (Meltdown): Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac - Wall Street - Bill Clinton - George Bush?

YouTube - Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING

I love this one. It's the only time I've seen anyone in the news get in a politician's face when he's lying.

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly flips out on Barney Frank - BANKING CRISIS mad screaming match

One might say, all of these broadcasts are from Fox news. That's because the Fox is in the middle and if we were discussing destructive right wing programs, we would find examples of that as well. The bulk of the news groups are lackeys for the left and never address these issue. And only someone on the far left would call Fox right wing. Most folks are not accustomed to any criticism of liberals.
So anyone who addresses those issues will be attacked as ultra right.

One more thing... I am not a Republican. I am a strong Libertarian. I disagree with the Republican positions on social issues as well as their movement to the left on financial issues. It's nobody's business what people do with their bodys, who they marry, what chemicals they injest, or what kind of books or picture they enjoy etc.

I disagree with the Democrats financial policies, especially fomenting class envy and buying votes through promises of income redistribution (it's income, not wealth they redistribute). You don't pay wealth tax. You pay income tax. The dishonesty that usually goes unchallenged by the press is singularly destructive. I disagree with both parties' gross misuse of power and government expansion.

(Will, your explaination of the limitations the Republicans had while in the majority in congress was something I've wanted to address for a long time. You did it far better than I would have.)
 
Regarding the presidential blame

I don't believe I've ever directly blamed any president for this financial debacle. No president could have done this without congress.

The bills supporting these destructive policies were enacted under Democrat congresses and Democrat presidents.

However, although the Republicans never sponsored them, and uniformly voted against them, they never fought very hard to reverse these programs. Some spoke against them, but not very loudly or for very long. They feared being labeled as against "affordable housing for the poor", which they felt would be used during elections as evidence that they were lackeys for the "rich". They lacked courage of their convictions and so I lack respect for them.

I repeat. The bulk of blame lies in congress.... and most of them are still there.
 
Look at the big brain of blkoral -- well said my friend !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hell you know face it people have a tendency to be greedy bastards they are always wanting something except for the homeless that are happy in their box they live in in a alley and dont have to pay insurance and taxes and auto payments and credit card bills ya I know we pay for it through taxes but you can blame everyone for this in politics they are all a bunch of greedy hungry bastards that will do anything they want to get the public to like them or make it look to the world that they are a great leader that hauls in the riches for the people and build a strong economy. So when the times go to shit what is the Dem answer pump more money into it make it flourish and the Rep answer give corp america breaks to save jobs create work thats when their pockets get richer. Barney Frank Norms uncle he should be locked up for good. People wanted bigger newer homes that they couldnt afford so the goverment and banks helped arranged for them to get them hell when we stop wanting and be happy with what we have maybe it will change but if you make a mistake should everyone bail you out or should you accept the fact that you fucked up I shouldnt bought that big new home and get your life back together by working instead of getting bailed out or ask to or expected to. Myself I dont want to bail no one out only my elderly next door neighbor that has worked hard and cant afford health and utility bills that in my area they are asking for a 18.8% raise or a family trying to work hard to help their children educate themselfs or the starving person that is unemployed that cant afford food to hell with the rest all the big dogs seem to live in nice homes maybe several and enjoy their bonuses more money isnt the answer because they will just spend more greedy what it is all about.
 
Well said my friend. (?) and thanks for trolling me in here and setting me up so Ro could kick my ass again. But at least you know what I'm talking about. (?)

Half the politicians out there should be shot and the other half should be jailed. But its our own fault. As a whole, people now vote for whats in it for themselves instead of voting for the good of the country.

Norm
 
SaltandPepper98 said:
Half the politicians out there should be shot and the other half should be jailed. But its our own fault. As a whole, people now vote for whats in it for themselves instead of voting for the good of the country.

Norm
Click to expand...

See we do agree on something.
 
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which was the landmark deregulation bill that most economists credit with bringing about this crisis - was Republican sponsored, past by a Republican congress.
Just what bills ' supporting these destructive policies' were enacted that caused this financial debacle? You said in an earlier post "The reason why the investment banking firms failed was because congress legislated a change to mark to market pricing on thinly traded assets." As I've pointed out to you, there is no such legislation nor did the accounting rule changes force market valuations on thinly traded assets.
Love those Fox 'middle' of the road videos,lol. Regarding congressional attempts to regulate Fannie Mae. First, They interview the guy from the American Enterprise Institute, telling how the legislation would have prevented the crisis.
Ironically, the AEI opposed the bill - AEI - Short Publications - H.R. 1461: A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law
In fact, the bill was not brought to the senate floor because republican leadership made a deal with Fannie Mae - lend more to bolster a weak economy and we'll leave you alone. Although it's in fashion now to blame the Dems, this is the real reason republicans dropped the bill. The weakest economic recovery in modern history was supported almost entirely by these sub-prime loans and the housing bubble, killing them would have been political suicide for whoever was in power.
Video#3 - still cracks me up. The white house supposedly wanted to reign in Fannie Mae as did the Republicans in congress and yet barney frank(who btw I think is an incompetent jerk) stopped them all.
No one wanted to reign in fannie mae, they were just practicing CYA and to believe otherwise is just kidding yourself. In fact the administration wanted a clause in the bill to REMOVE the president's authority to appoint members to Fannie's board. The only plausible explanation for this is that when problems occurred, the president wouldn't be blamed.
In addition, McCain and 16 other Republican Senators voiced their support in a letter for this bill in May 2006 ( yes, a congressional election year), a full 9 months after the bill was effectively dead. Senate Bill S190, look it up.
Yep, congress is at fault but before you absolve the Bush administration, Let's talk about the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In 2004 29 states had laws on the books or were in the process of passing laws to reign in predatory lending practices, a sub prime issue directly leading to mortgage defaults. They did this because of the lack of federal action on the problem. The OCC ruled states were not allowed to do this, effectively removing all barriers to sub prime lending going bonkers.The result? From 2004-2006 sub-prime lending exploded from 9% of mortgage lending to 21%.
This was a Bush administration action, not congressional.
I eagerly await the information on what bills the democratic congresses wrote that led to this debacle.
As I've said before, everyone is to blame. Your choice to blame democrats is not based on fact but on partisan assumptions. All we will do is recreate the problems of the past when partisan idealogies control the logic portion of our brains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back