After a three-hour meeting, lawmakers agreed to legislative principles that would approve Treasury's request for the funds, but would break it into installments, according to people familiar with the matter. Treasury would have access to $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion to follow if needed. Congress would be able to block the last installment through a vote if it was unhappy with the program.It sounds rational to me, but I'm no expert. What do you think?
The agreement could require all companies participating in the program to agree to limits on executive pay—such as restrictions on "golden parachutes." It is also likely to give the government equity warrants in all participating companies.
Still unresolved is whether or not to include changes to bankruptcy law that would give judges the right to change the terms of mortgages. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois made a plea for it to be included, even though many lawmakers and the White House are hotly opposed.
UPDATE: Uh oh:
But after the [White House] meeting broke up about an hour later, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who strongly opposes the bailout, told reporters, "I don't believe we have an agreement."...
Sens. McCain (Ariz.) and Obama (Ill.) left the White House after the meeting without speaking to reporters.
A visibly irritated Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, later said on CNN that the meeting was thrown off when Republicans brought up "some new core agreement" that supposedly had been floated by McCain and was being considered by the Treasury Department.
"What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain," Dodd fumed. "This is a sad day for the country." He said he still hopes that a deal can be struck but that the Republicans "need to get their act together and decide what they're for."
पोस्ट्स
२५० टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 250 पैकी 201 – 250somefeller
Yea, I do think Hillary would have been knocking some skulls, of course. I have no idea where Obama even stands on the situation other than some squishy Broderisms. I'd like to see that press conference again with a rolled up piece of paper in her hand barking "See you in Denver". People are practically begging for clarity and anger right now from Democrats and for the life of me I can't see why they won't give the country it.
Might it not be better to reduce the principal, renogotiate the terms, and make the house affordable and OFF the market?
No, it would not be better to confiscate a bunch of the banks' money in order to artificially inflate the price of houses. That would in all respects be bad.
The problem isn't that house prices are too low. The problem is the idiots who borrowed too much money because they thought house prices couldn't go down. Cheap houses are a GOOD thing -- they let people buy houses without having to borrow lots of money to do so.
Propping up the price of houses with taxpayer money just so morons don't have to rent is not a good plan.
Am I the only one enjoying watching Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Franks carrying the water on the Bush plan?
And tomorrow I have to stock up on popcorn for the "maybe yes and maybe no" debate. Did any of us really understand just how huge the melodrama was gonna be in this election? And every time you think things can take a stranger turn something occurs and off into the surreal we go. So what could Obama do to top McCain? I'm think Joe is gonna dress in drag & come out at the VP debate. Not that there would be anything wrong with that...
A healthy economy is one where those newly embarking on life don't have to go into hock to the already-rich in order to just have a piece of ground on which to stand, work, and sleep.
That's called "fantasyland". It never has existed, nor will it ever exist.
Nor should it, really.
What happens when taxes are raised even higher than their already insane levels to cover this $700 billion bailout and the burgeoning social security debacle
The freeloading half of Americans who don't pay any income tax at all might actually have to start doing so. Color me unsympathetic for *that* pack of leeches.
He went home to a bit of a mess, but thankfully no serious home damage. Hope you can say the same.
Thanks, mcg. No damage whatsoever, actually. Very fortunate.
People are practically begging for clarity and anger right now from Democrats and for the life of me I can't see why they won't give the country it.
Agreed, garage. While I can understand the appeal of being cool and FDR-like in composure, even FDR knew when to get mad and bust some heads publicly. I swear, if the Democrats manage to lose the Presidency in this environment, I'm legally changing my name to Recriminations.
"Madeline Kahn is so funny in this thing. When Dom Deluise scratches his balls with the sceptor and burps. Great stuff."
I LOVE Madeline Kahn.
Can you all step on the same feet at the same time....My tits are falling off.
A lot of people who have perfectly respectable fixed-rate mortgages, with full 20% down payments, are now underwater.
There aren't "a lot" of places where home values have dropped 20% or more from their peak yet; just a few of the really bad markets (like the one I live in). But even being underwater doesn't mean you're in default; it just means you need to come up with the extra cash if circumstances force you to sell. That is a LOT less common among people with fixed-rate mortgages; almost all of that comes from the ARMs. Put another way, if every home "owner" in America had traditional mortgage, there wouldn't be any crisis right now; lenders would just be experiencing a couple of bad quarters.
There is one silver lining here. The government will not be wasting money of failures like Darfur, AIDS in Africa, or any of the other nonsensical ways they have spent billions of dollars.
Sorry, all you third world chaotic countries. The spigot is cut off.
Do you know how I can find the email address of my representative? I called his office but the message said his voicemail box was full. Thanks.
somefeller,
The one thing you hve to thankful for is you are OK. The rest is just temporary discomfort. You can survive that.
Put another way, if every home "owner" in America had traditional mortgage, there wouldn't be any crisis right now; lenders would just be experiencing a couple of bad quarters.
I do not disagree with that, by any means. My general point though was the imprudent have damaged the finances of the prudent; and the unfortunate side effect of helping the latter is helping the former.
if circumstances force you to sell.
Hit the nail on the head. If you are not planning on selling and do not need to refi for any reason, you are relatively safe.
When I bought my house a year ago, I was offered every kind of kinky mortgage out there. The brokers were shocked and insulted that I laughed at them. They were even appalledwhen I paid cash(previous sale). They thought I was the loon.
Look at what Gross says, of Pimco:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/economy/25pimco.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=pimco&st=cse&oref=slogin
And look at what Taleb says, at the Edge:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html
A bail out is premature. We haven't seen the scope of the problem yet. You want to listen to the same buttholes who told you for months and years all was fine?
Lessons will be learned here.
veni -
I say "unfortunately" because the folks that hold such a vision as their goal aren't ordinarily part of that uber-wealthy group, although they generally fancy themselves (vainly) as part of the elite that would end up holding the reins.
My wife and I were having this exact conversation earlier this evening. All those folks who push for socialized medicine and greater government control over all of lives seem to think that they will somehow be like the Soviet elites who never really felt the effects of their disastrous government-instituted policies.
I understand that kind of belief system from those who are already unbelievably wealthy - after all, that's the way it is in Europe today: the "old money" people are still unaffected by the socialist policies, and there's no such thing as "new money." What I don't understand is why anyone who actually works for a living would be for a system that guarantees that they will never be able to improve their lives from their current station - and, in fact, would more likely mean that they would wind up significantly worse off if the policies they espouse were ever actually implemented.
I understand the liberal impulse to want to make sure that no one suffers, but what I don't understand is supposedly educated people who think that: (a) the government is best way to achieve it given how it has always found a way to screw up almost everything it has ever touched, (b) that it can be achieved without significantly lowering their own standard of living, or (c) thinking that people who understand (a) and (b) should vote for it anyway and, if they don't, then it's because they're "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion."
A system that eliminates (or sufficiently reduces) the financial rewards for innovation, creativity and just plain hard work winds up with none of the above. Why would anyone work harder when they know that, no matter what, there's a government program that's going to make sure they have as much as the guy who does? How long before everyone figures that out?
Europe is finding out the hard way that once you start down that road, it's a self-perpetuating spiral downward. Our (generally) free market system may not be perfect - especially when government steps in and messes with normal market incentives as it did in the real estate market - but there's no real argument among serious thinkers that every other alternative is far worse.
The biggest difference between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives believe that everyone has the right to become rich, but liberals believe that no one does. Better to drag everyone down so that no one's "self-esteem" is harmed by having less than someone else.
Did any of us really understand just how huge the melodrama was gonna be in this election? And every time you think things can take a stranger turn something occurs and off into the surreal we go.
Here's surreal for you: For the last week or so I've been teetering on the edge of being kicked out of a moms' group, where I have never discussed politics, because one of the moms found the "I Am Sarah Palin" video that I appeared in. "We're all about diversity--conservatives verboten!"
Rev has already said anything I'd want to say about the bailout, plus more. So, ditto Rev.
I have no stakes in this, but just for fun I'm predicting there will be a debate in Oxford, MS, tomorrow, and McCain will be there. I'm leaning toward believing he wouldn't screw over Haley Barbour.
Of course, there's the other hand. He and Barbour, good GOP operative that he is, are playing a strategy, assuming Mississippi is solidly Red.
Could be more interesting to see how it plays out for McCain in the South if he doesn't debate tomorrow.
The Associated Press article describing what actually happened at the meeting describes the 'leadership' provided by Senator McCain:
Meanwhile McCain, who dramatically announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis, stayed silent for most of the session and spoke only briefly to voice general principles for a rescue plan.
He tried to cancel the debate and went to Washington just to SIT THERE? What kind of leadership is that?
John McCain has always been erratic, inconsistent and prone to roll the dice and take chances.
Another reason to vote for Barack Obama-- because in times like these we need an adult in the White House.
Oh, please: from the Politico article:
It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part—aimed at McCain and House Republicans.
Do you honestly think an "ambush" is "leadership" when the goal is to reach bipartisan consensus? Give me a break. You know, every once in awhile, listening is more effective than talking. You might consider it sometime.
Revenant said: "The freeloading half of Americans who don't pay any income tax at all might actually have to start doing so. Color me unsympathetic for *that* pack of leeches."
There's a certain stripe of "libertarian" / Republican whose every prejudice and instinct is truly repulsive. Their opinions, transparently, are not guided by rationality or principles but by some inexplicable contempt for the less well off. You would think from the trash they talk that they must have met an extraordinary number of welfare moms in their lifetimes, and hardly any independent-minded small businessmen laboring to establish a secure capital base after starting from less than nothing.
These Darwinian worshipers of Big Capital and Big Business seem to include among their number an inordinate number of engineers and other technicians, whose careers and livelihoods are abjectly dependent upon their corporate masters.
Now, I don't have anything against engineers and technicians or others who find it in their best interests to work for The Man, but it's quite annoying when the prejudices they inherit from their depressing work environments spills over into groundless and outspoken feelings of superiority over people who generally are their betters in most every meaningful respect.
Fact is the Democrats have enough votes to pass this in both houses if they bring it to the floor. But they're oh so scared! that maybe they'll give the Republicans meat for election demagoguery. Oh, poor wittle Democrats.
If they think this is the right bill, pass it, for goodness sake. That's leadership. What are they waiting for? They have Barney Frank, they have Chris Dodd, they have 40-45% of the House Republicans, they probably have a similar number of Senate Republicans as well. But no, Pelosi wants 100 so she can cover her ass. That's leadership?
I expressed my concerns about Boehner's obstructionism in a previous post; I said that eventually he's going to have to cave. But let's cut the crap here. We haven't seen leadership yet on this issue from Obama or McCain.
Their opinions, transparently, are not guided by rationality or principles but by some inexplicable contempt for the less well off.
Thanks for sharing your commie bullshit with us for the five hundredth time.
Fact is the Democrats have enough votes to pass this in both houses if they bring it to the floor.
Do they? They might not be able to get a majority of either the House or Senate Democrats on board without larding it up with so many corporate restrictions and so much pork for deadbeat homebuyers that Bush will no longer be willing to sign it.
Neither party has enough sane and intelligent Congressmen in it to form a majority by themselves. They'll need bipartisan action to pass a bill, I suspect.
The Republicans in Congress won't listen to Bush and his Treasury Secretary, so the inability to do a deal is the Democrats' fault?
Typical right-wing logic. Like the belief that the Democratic minority on the Senate Banking Committee prevented Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. I'm looking at their leader Richard Shelby, who's being an obstructionist now.
Shelby got his fair share of Fannie/Freddie money by the way.
Speaking of Fannie/Freddie money:
Obama received the $100K because he was a Democrat, running for President, just like two of the other three top recipients of Fannie/Freddie money. Note that former Banking Committee chairman Richard Shelby, (R-Ala) got more than half as much as Obama
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name
Office
Party/State
Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900
2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000
3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499
7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000
8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991
9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit'
S
R-MO
$55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer
H
R-AL
$55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C
S
R-AL
$55,000
The Republicans in Congress won't listen to Bush and his Treasury Secretary, so the inability to do a deal is the Democrats' fault?
I tell you what, I'll type more slowly so you can understand it: the Democrats have the votes. Bush will sign it. The Democrats control if it gets to the floor or not. It's a money bill, so it starts in the House, so it's all Nancy.
Nancy has explicitly said she wants 100 Republican votes or she won't bring it to the floor. She doesn't need them to pass it, mind you, she just wants them.
So, genius, you tell me why it's the Republican's fault the bill won't pass.
Obama received the $100K because he was a Democrat, running for President, just like two of the other three top recipients of Fannie/Freddie money
Uh-huh. And that's why McCain is at the top of this list too, right? Oh, wait!
Note that former Banking Committee chairman Richard Shelby, (R-Ala) got more than half as much as Obama
Wow, that's convincing! The next thing you'll tell me is that Obama's number isn't bad because Dodd got more!
Do the Democrats believe no bailout is necessary, FLS? Is that it? They're only passing the bill because the Republicans want it? They don't think it needs to be done? For the good of the country?
Like the belief that the Democratic minority on the Senate Banking Committee prevented Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003-2004 and 2005-2006.
I would say that fls doesn't understand the workings of the Senate, but he does: he's just being blatantly dishonest again.
Democrats rejected the reform on a party line vote. It was a signal that there would be no crossover Democratic votes in the full Senate which would have been necessary to obtain the filibuster-proof majority that would have been required to move and pass the bill.
So, yes. The Democratic minority in the Senate blocked reforms to Fannie/Freddie because not even 20% of them were willing to work on a bipartisan basis.
Thanks for bringing up the subject, fls - even if your intent was just to lie about it and expect no one to call you out.
BTW, you can try to explain away Obama's hand in the Fannie/Freddie till all you want. For your explanation to make any sense at all then McCain should have at least twice the contributions of Obama since he ran for president twice during the time period - in addition to having been a Senator for the entire time period while Obama was only there for 3 years out of the almost 20 years covered.
Shouldn't the other Senators who ran for President since 1989 (and there are quite a few) also be much higher? Obama got all his money in 3 years: every single other person on that list accumulated money over a period of at least twice that much time in the Senate (and much more for many of them). There's no way to spin that no matter how hard you try. Obama was bought and paid for. End of story.
As a nice aside, do you want to do the math for just the last 3 years and find out how far Obama outstrips every single other Senator? The fact that you have to go back almost 20 years in order to NOT make Obama's dirty money look way out of whack with everybody else tells you all you need to know about how far into their pockets he was.
But you already knew that because weren't making a serious argument as usual: just trying to fool the rubes you seem to take us for with your dishonest spin.
Hey, John K, sorry you don't like the idea of everybody paying taxes. But you can fuck right off with your psychobabble.
Obama received the $100K because he was a Democrat, running for President, just like two of the other three top recipients of Fannie/Freddie money.
If the explanation for Obama, Clinton, and Kerry's place on the list is that they were Presidential candidates, why aren't Bush and McCain in the top five with them?
They're only passing the bill because the Republicans want it? They don't think it needs to be done? For the good of the country?
Apparently the Republicans don't want a bailout, or they would support their President.
Democrats rejected the reform on a party line vote. It was a signal that there would be no crossover Democratic votes in the full Senate which would have been necessary to obtain the filibuster-proof majority that would have been required to move and pass the bill.
And yet this was exactly what happened to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, back in 1999. That bill to allow commercial and investment banks to merge -- a cancellation of an anti-Great Depression measure -- got passed on a 54-44 party line vote.
There was no fear of filibusters back then -- why? In the last Congress, the Republicans had an even greater 55-44 advantage. Yet they couldn't do under Bush what the 106th Congress did under Clinton.
But you already knew that because weren't making a serious argument as usual
Dude, I said
1. Democrat
2. Running for President.
Did you not notice John Kerry got a bit more and Hillary got a bit less?
Or did you think McCain was a Democrat?
seven -
My ideal plan would be an across the board federal sales tax which excluded clothing items under $100 and all food items.
No income tax. No corporate tax. No tax on capital gains or investment income.
Think about the benefits:
- The poor who are on substistence-level purchasing would pay almost nothing as their purchases would be almost 100% exempt.
- There would be no tax loopholes for the ultra-rich to hide behind.
- It would be 100% progressive.
- (I think) every state already collects sales tax, so it would just be a simple matter of changing the percentage charged at the cash register. States could collect it along with their own money and make deposits to the federal government.
- If you want to wear luxury clothes or drive fancy cars, then you can pay taxes like everyone else regardless of your income level.
- The IRS can consist of 50 people: one for each state. (Maybe a couple of auditors to make sure the states are playing fair.) No more living in fear of audits, and talk about reducing government waste: there's a whole bureaucracy that can be given pink slips right away.
- All those tax attorneys, tax accountants, and Wall Street types that depend on hiding rich people's money, shielding what isn't hidden from taxes, or filling out complicated tax returns can go find productive work elsewhere. I hear McDonald's is hiring...
- Everyone benefits from lower prices because businesses no longer have to increase prices to cover their own taxes. Incredible boost to the economy as each dollar will cycle faster and farther.
- Investment capital gushes into the US because of the favorable tax environment. Savings rate goes up because there are no tax penalties for putting money away.
- It captures a lot of untaxed income (drug, gambling, etc.) for which the federal government currently doesn't receive a dime: even drug dealers have to spend their money somewhere.
- It eliminates the need for 401(k), IRA, etc. - all the government-derived tax-deferred investment vehicles. People can invest their money with greater flexibility because any income derived is non-taxable thereby ensuring a more rational investment market rather than favoring tax-advantaged investments which distort the marketplace. [Taking power from the big investment houses on Wall Street as they will no longer control the vast wealth contained within corporate and government-controlled 401(k), etc. plans]
It's a win-win-win all the way around....What do you think?
I think that simply decreasing the absurd corporate tax level would be a terrific place to start. I like incremental government.
P.S. -- Wouldn't the IRS still be needed to police sales tax transfers?
There was no fear of filibusters back then -- why? In the last Congress, the Republicans had an even greater 55-44 advantage. Yet they couldn't do under Bush what the 106th Congress did under Clinton.
Let's see...Clinton was a Democrat. He wanted the bill passed [If he didn't, by your own admission, the Republicans didn't have a veto-proof majority, so he could have easily vetoed it.] Therefore, Democrats never threatened a filibuster.
Your attempts to defend this are bordering on the ridiculous. Do you think you're the only one who understands how legislation gets passed and what it takes to get a bill out of the Senate? You seem to suffer from the same problem as Obama: you think you're smarter than everyone else, but the problem is that you're not even close. You're utterly transparent as are your increasingly lame attempts to do retro-active spin control for this monumental, and now very costly, blunder by the Democratic Party.
Dude, I said
1. Democrat
2. Running for President.
So, despite all the Democratic claims about Republicans being in the pocket of corporations and big business, you're now admitting that it was all just projection: that everybody knows that it's Democrats who get the big money from big corporations like Fannie/Freddie? That everybody knows it, and should therefore discount it because it always happens, e.g., Kerry, Clinton and Dodd.?
Or are you under the impression that I didn't actually read what you wrote and was waiting for you to make this exact point for me?
Thanks for clearing that up...
Also, to the people who are jonesing to reregulate: please show me the entity that has gone under that diversified. The fact is that pure investment banks (Lehman) and pure banks (Washington Mutual, apparently many others) are the ones going under. Diversification seemed to work out pretty well.
I'll be waiting. However, if you can't produce a name, maybe you should rethink your tired pleas to socialize and regulate.
seven -
Good point. Probably. But I would think a fairly minimal staff could handle it: let's add 100 or so folks to the staffing levels and call it a day.
Another benefit I just thought of:
- Gets rid of that whole "If you don't do things my way, I'll threaten your tax-exempt status BS" that Obama has been pulling (see the anti-Iran rally in NY for the most recent case in point).
The 4 things our government must do if they want our trillion dollars.
It would be 100% progressive.
The big tax loopholes in the budget is the mortgage interest exemption, the child tax credit, and the standard deduction. What loopholes the "ultra-rich" take advantage of are relatively trivial in terms of their budget impact, which is why the ultra-rich still pay most of the income tax, the middle class very little, and the poor none. Under your plan, taxes paid by the poor and middle class would go way up; taxes paid by the rich would decline. Remember, sales tax affects people who SPEND money, not people who HAVE money. Rich people don't need to spend any more money than a middle-class person does to live, and quite well could spend less (e.g. because they already OWN a nice house).
That bill to allow commercial and investment banks to merge -- a cancellation of an anti-Great Depression measure -- got passed on a 54-44 party line vote.
In the magical fantasy land where the Senate gets to pass bills all by itself? Perhaps. But considering that the GLB has thus far caused exactly zero bank failures and appears to be helping those banks which took advantage of it, I'll cheerfully accept your lie that Democrats had nothing to do with it. :)
Heh!
Even for a party whose president suffers dismal approval ratings, whose legislative wing lost control of Congress and whose presidential nominee trails in the polls, it was a remarkably bad day for Republicans.
What's that, you ask? The intro to Paul Krugman's latest New York Times opinion column?
Nope. That's the lede of a "news" article from Associated Press describing the events of Thursday.
A depression would kill PC. I'd say it's worth the price.
The bailout plan should be rejected for this reason alone, although I'm certain there are many other reasons.
This is what Lindsey Graham said on Greta's show: “And this deal that's on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can't believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn't work.”
Courtesy of National Review Online.
Since the Dems control both houses, why are all the Dems hyperventilating? Tell Speaker Pelosi that leadership means leading.
She has more than enough votes to pass the legislation. The President isn't going to veto? What's the problem?
This is a test. For the next sixty seconds, this commenter will conduct a test of the Emergency Bissage System. This is only a test.
THIS sounds like a job for . . .
Nonsense Rhyme Cheerleader Man!!!
(a copyrighted feature of this broadcast):
Hong Kong, limp dong, callus on your hole,
Back straight, bread plate, kiss my rock and roll.
Gooooooooooooo TEAM!
If this had been an actual emergency, the silly comment you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions.
This concludes this test of the Emergency Bissage System.
Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise,
I am so sick and tired of this BS! Don't sneak in deals for all of your buddies, while complaining about stuff for Wall STreet!!!!!
I hope people spend the next few elections throwing these children out of congress and electing some grown people. God.
What turns me off the most about the so-called compromise is that nobody would actually say what it was. You have Wall Street fat cats running around hysterically like chicken littles and Congress saying "trust us."
If this was such a dire crisis--so threatening to our economic well being--why isn't congress cutting programs right now and getting rid of capital gains tax?
The point is that Wall Street may claim this is the greatest economic threat in history. It may be. BUT NOBODY BELIEVES THEM. Why? Because we've heard it all before. We're also hearing from genuinely smart people that there are alternate ways to solve this without spending $700 billion (that you damn know will double by the time it's done and will come with so much other spending, it will put normal earmarks to shame.)
Since the Dems control both houses, why are all the Dems hyperventilating?
If the Republicans in Congress are bucking their own President, why should the Democrats lift a finger to help?
President Obama will be inaugurated in three months; if there's no urgency Congress can work with him then.
Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise,
Funny, I couldn't find any objective evidence of today's Right Wing Talking Point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा