Business
See other Business Articles
Title: George W. Bush: Bailout Call 'Wasn't That Hard'
Source:
POLITICO
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43883.html
Published: Oct 20, 2010
Author: ANDY BARR
Post Date: 2010-10-20 13:41:34 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 21606
Comments: 41
Former President George W. Bush on Tuesday night defended his decision to bail out banks toward the end of his term, saying the call “wasn’t that hard.” “I made the decision to use your money to prevent the collapse from happening,” Bush said during a speech in Tyler, Texas, according to reports from The Associated Press and other outlets. Bush said that when the markets crashed in the fall of 2008, he recognized that if his administration didn’t do “something significant,” a “depression greater than the Great Depression” could occur. The former president said the choice to backstop many of the country’s leading financial institutions “wasn’t that hard for me.” "Here's what you learn," Bush said of his time as president. "You realize you're not it. You're a part of something bigger than yourself."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Bush made the right decision here.
Worst decision of his Presidency in my view.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Yep. Spending our money was not at all hard for George Bush. That's for sure.
I completely disagree. First, it is a good thing when poorly run businesses go out of business because it allows their resources to be freed up for more productive uses. Second, over the last two decades, too many of the best and brightest Americans have chosen careers on Wall Street over science and engineering because of the big money involved. Someone with a masters degree in math from a top university who goes to work for HP or IBM creating products might make $80K out of school. As a "quant" on Wall Street, they could make $400k modeling derivatives and other crazy investment instruments. The bailout enabled these failed companies to continue to throw money at these people, as well as at their failed executives, to the detriment of the rest of the economy. Third, the savings of average people were not a risk because FDIC insurance covers $100K per account. The Japanese refused to restructure their banks when faced with a similar crisis in the early 90s. Now, the once mighty Japanese economy has been basically in a rolling recession for 20 years. It's hard for me to find even one thing that Bush did right, other than his two Supreme Court nominees. The TARP was one of the worst things he did.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
First, it is a good thing when poorly run businesses go out of business because it allows their resources to be freed up for more productive uses. The alternative to Bush acting was a complete melt-down of the global financial system. I think he took the correct immediate approach in stabilizing the system, but longer term nationalizing failing backs, re-capitalizing them, and splitting them out into smaller entities banks as Roubini recommended rather than build bigger banks was arguably the correct approach. The economy is never going to turn around until we get a banking system that isn't weighed down by bad mortgage debt.
I really don't see it that way. Sure, their may have been a deeper short term pain, but the economy would have recovered faster. Look at the difference between the depression 1920-21 and the Great Depression. The Depression of 1920-21 was very deep. Production fell by 6.9% and prices fell by 18% (the worst deflation in U.S. history). But it was over quickly because the government allowed the market to flush inefficient companies and recover. The Great Depression lasted 12 years because Hoover and then Roosevelt kept mucking around with the economy, imposing tariffs, taxes, regulations, new programs with massive spending, etc. Bush should have let these companies enter Chapter 11 and work out their issues in bankruptcy court. This is why we have Chapter 11.
The Great Depression lasted 12 years because Hoover and then Roosevelt kept mucking around with the economy, imposing tariffs, taxes, regulations, new programs with massive spending, etc. I think they were very different beasts. If you go back and study the 1929 crash and depression, you'll see that like 2008, the financial system was collapsing. Note that in most states banks were already shuttered the day Roosevelt took office. His action of closing the banks was symbolic at best. By that point there was already talk of states returning to their own script because federal currency was worthless.
The Depression of 1920-21, the Great Depression, and the mess we are in right now all had a common cause -- poor monetary policy. Between Dec 1919 and June 1920, the Fed raised interest rates from 4.5% to 7%. This caused banks to stop lending to other banks, consumers, and businesses. This cause a deep downturn in economic activity and a collapse of prices. One interest rates were lowered back to 4.5%, economic activity started again. Economists from Milton Friedman to Ben Ben Bernanke believe the Great Depression was also caused by mistakes by the Federal Reserve as well. The Fed pumped up the money supply in the 1920s which led to an investment bubble that popped in 1929. Then the Fed allowed the money supply to contract by 1/3rd between 1929 and 1933. To top it off, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 collapsed the international trading system and American exports shrunk by 50%. The mess we're in today was caused by the Fed as well. They kept interest rates artificially low over the last 15 years or so, which fueled a giant housing bubble. To top it off, we had misguided government policies which forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to try to expand the number of home owners by offering sub- prime mortgages, etc. The housing bubble burst. The difference between 1920-21 on the one hand and the Great Depression and today on the other hand was government policy after the bubbles burst.
So, like a junkie who's suffering withdrawal symptoms, your answer is to simply inject MORE money in, yes? Of course, it was (allegedly) $787B ($24T in actuality), the next will be far greater... Each injection gives less of an effect, until you O.D. Yeah, it was easier to take another hit, then let the system clean out... Hey, bubba, guess what??? The "system" isn't going to get rid of the bad debt (and corruption by banking officials, government officials, etc) until the system COLLAPSES under the weight of all that debt. Bush signed the bailout, because he's a COWARD. He's a shit-head moron. (And this, from someone who voted for him twice- to my eternal shame.) You talk about debt...? Do you know how much that debt is??? For the U.S. alone, the total government debt comes is at $100 TRILLION. For the global economy, with the financial virus created on Wall Street, and spread around the world as Collateralized Debt Obligations and Mortgage-Backed Securities, as well as the various derivatives and hedges... All that bad paper that has yet to be collected on, works out to $1.4 QUADRILLION. Put in perspective, $1.4Q in single dollar bills could cover the entire world in a layer of paper 1.24" thick... Another perspective, is that this is the gross domestic product of every nation in the world... For the next 23 years. UNDERSTAND something. The global financial system is going to "melt down," very soon... NOTHING can stop it. And as they get more desperate in their measures to forestall the inevitable- like taking bigger hits of a drug- they guarantee that the nasty after-effects last longer, and feel far more painful. Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
I don't think folks like yourself really understand the impact of a total collapse of the global financial system.
The mess we're in today was caused by the Fed as well. They kept interest rates artificially low over the last 15 years or so, which fueled a giant housing bubble. To top it off, we had misguided government policies which forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to try to expand the number of home owners by offering sub- prime mortgages, etc. The housing bubble burst. I agree with everything you posted, that being said, much like 1933, the financial system was near collapse in 2008. Absent government intervention, you would have had anarchy. Imagine the impact on society if banks simply shut down in October of 2008.
Folks like me..... Yeah, RIGHT.... Oh, let me bow down before thee, oh WISE and KNOWING man.... Hey, DUMMY... the longer you put it off, the WORSE it's gonna' be... What part of that, do you NOT understand???? Like the typical liberal, you prefer the easy, intellectually-empty approach. You believe good intentions trump cold hard FACTS. Of course, 'folks like myself' can't truly understand how bad it's gonna' be, because the magnitude of what's coming hasn't happened in about 500 YEARS. Which means, of course, "folks like yourself" don't know any more about it, than I do. So get down off your high horse, you pretentious prick.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
How did the USA survive without your beloved "government By your logic, the country always NEEDS government "intervention" to survive! How DO you explain that???? Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
George Washington signed the first central bank into existence. Madison oversaw the creation of the second; we are now in the third iteration. Seems to be one of those things we can't live with and can't live without.
How did the USA survive without your beloved "government interventioninterference" from 1776 to 1913? By your logic, the country always NEEDS government "intervention" to survive! How DO you explain that???? During the free bank era (1837-1862) the average bank stayed open only five years, and half of all banks failed. The money supply went through huge spikes and peaks. The Panic of 1907 is the reason we have a central banking system. From the Great Depression until the Saving and Loan Crisis (allowed by but not caused by deregulation of the 80's) we had our nations safest banking. We had very few banking failures and no recessions caused by bank failures. Since Deregulation of the 80's and 90's, we've had the Savings and Loan failures, which was a proximate cause of the early 90's recession, and the SubPrime mess, which caused our current recession. This definitely doesn't prove regulation is the best policy, but it certainly shows that long times of prosperity and safety are possible under regulation, and bank failures happen with relatively high frequency under deregulation. The United States has had central banking for most of it's lifespan.
Read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," and then get back to me. Free download at http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Eustace_Mullins-SECRETS_of_the_Federal_Reserve_Bank.pdf Until then, I'm not interested in you spouting the propaganda that you probably learned at your public skool.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Hey, DUMMY... the longer you put it off, the WORSE it's gonna' be... What part of that, do you NOT understand???? Like the typical liberal, you prefer the easy, intellectually-empty approach. You believe good intentions trump cold hard FACTS. Of course, 'folks like myself' can't truly understand how bad it's gonna' be, because the magnitude of what's coming hasn't happened in about 500 YEARS. Which means, of course, "folks like yourself" don't know any more about it, than I do. So get down off your high horse, you pretentious prick. So tell me what YOU think would have happened if banks started shutting down en-masse in October- November of 2007 while state/local governments shut their doors due to lack of money to pay their bills? All would have been peachy?
Agreed . A huge mistake. As illegal as the Louisiana purchase. Not their money.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is it peachy now?
All would have been peachy? You idiot liberals. What do you NOT understand....???? I will say it again, THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO CRASH AND BURN, AND NOBODY CAN STOP IT. We have an old saying: Pay me now, or pay me later. The problem with paying later, is that the interest is a BITCH. The longer you delay, the worse it's gonna' be. NOW DO YOU GET IT??????????????
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Given that the GOP appears poised to take over the House, I think you are right.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO CRASH AND BURN, AND NOBODY CAN STOP IT. Given that the GOP appears poised to take over the House, I think you are right Its this insane 'party before country' crap thats at the heart of WHY the economy is going to 'crash and burn' next year.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I agree, things will get worse next year.
Childish, GO65.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
It's childish to agree with you? OK.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The problem is, you think just the pubbies are at fault, and that your socialist buddies (oBUMa among them) are faultless. The reality is that both sides share the blame. And now neither can stop the bleeding. We'll be completely bled out, perhaps as soon as next year- even AFTER all the looting of the populace, by the Fed.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
The reality is that both sides share the blame. And now neither can stop the bleeding. We'll be completely bled out, perhaps as soon as next year- even AFTER all the looting of the populace, by the Fed. I have long argued that the root of our current fiscal crisis dates to the Gramm-Leach-Billey act of 1999, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999. So your claim is patently false. That being said, I fully blame the GOP for turning a multi-billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit through a combination of tax cuts, wars, and expansion of social programs. As a result, we were/are ill-equipped to respond to the crisis that started in 2008. I don't think either side has a solution, but I do think the Tea Party/Republican approach will make things worse then they are now by essentially shutting down the government. I don't think the Tea Party has offered anything of substance for growing the economy. So, in 1-2 years, when we've gone to slow growth back into a recession while the GOP continues to engage in tom foolery, we'll end up with even stronger Democratic majorities in Congress and 4 more years of Obama. Maybe, just maybe, if the GOP had focused on fiscal conservatism instead of becoming the home for every nutty conspiracy theorist under the sun, things would be different. But that's the road they choose.
You believe the money belongs to the government?
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's the difference between you and I Whitey, I believe the government should only spend what it takes in whereas you believe the government should finance its spending via borrowing.
LOL. Typical high-school debate tactic. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence” That you have "long argued" anything, doesn't make it so. Suppose you "long argued" that the Earth is flat: does that make it so? You'll have to do MUCH better. Read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," by Eustace Mullins- which can be downloaded for FREE from the following link: http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Eustace_Mullins-SECRETS_of_the_Federal_Reserve_Bank.pdf Once you've done that, come back and talk about our debt, and what's REALLY going on. Until then, you're talking out your ass, and I've no time to educate you. There is no escape. Your false left-right paradigmatic viewpoint indicates your lack of understanding, and how complete your indoctrination is. Pity. More blather that clearly demonstrates your incapacity to think. You're a fucking SHEEP, lined up for the slaughter. Sucks to be you.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Answer the question. WHOSE money is it? Does the money belong to the people or the government?
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Example - your claim "you think just the pubbies are at fault, and that your socialist buddies (oBUMa among them) are faultless." I'm not much for conspiracy theories, sorry. Uh huh. Sorry, but if you've gone off the reservation and starting buying into nutty conspiracy theories written by a guy who has claimed that "Jews drink the blood of gentile children" and who called Jews "parasitic", then there's not much of a point in continuing the conversation.
You're not much for thinking. Which, of course, is WHY you're a liberal. As to conspiracy "theories," when a conspiracy is proven, then simply continuing to call a theory makes you the fool. Again, typical for someone who is willfully ignorant- like you. Another childish tactic. Argumentum ad hominem. Debate FACTS. If you CAN'T debate facts then just admit it, and STFU. I've no time for fools, so either start talking hard, VERIFIABLE facts, or admit that you can't, and I'll simply bozo your ass...
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
If you CAN'T debate facts then just admit it, and STFU. I've no time for fools, so either start talking hard, VERIFIABLE facts, or admit that you can't, and I'll simply bozo your ass... I don't debate those who argue that "it's the Jew's fault." Please feel free to place me on filter. Good day.
Please post a link to where I EVER said that. And how does such alleged writings by Mullins alter the facts of the book, "Secrets of the Federal Reserve..."???? I've seen this allegation on one blog, and yet, I'm curious... Please tell me what relevance this on the book about the Federal Reserve? Let me tell you what's going to happen: By 2012, the dollar will be dumped as the worlds' reserve currency, and effectively be dead. The American economy is going to crash and burn. There will be NO stopping it, regardless of who wins the election in two weeks. NO politician would dare to tell you these FACTS. I am stating flat-out, this is what WILL happen. Watch and learn. Nobody else has the BALLS to tell you all of this. And when I'm proven right, I fully expect you to be the typical liberal know-nothing shithead, and pretend I didn't tell you what IS coming. Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Well...? TELL us, go65, who does the money belong to? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
You told me to go and read a book by Eustace Mullins, who among other things argued that Jews were parasites and that they drank the blood of gentiles. Sorry, but you just earned a spot on my bozo list. Good day.
Comments (41 - 41) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
George W. Bush: Bailout Call 'Wasn't That Hard'
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#4. To: go65 (#1)
(Edited)
Bush made the right decision here.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#5. To: go65 (#1)
Bush made the right decision here.
#6. To: jwpegler (#4)
I completely disagree.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#7. To: go65 (#6)
(Edited)
The alternative to Bush acting was a complete melt-down of the global financial system.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#8. To: jwpegler (#7)
The Depression of 1920-21 was very deep. Production fell by 6.9% and prices fell by 18% (the worst deflation in U.S. history). But it was over quickly because the government allowed the market to flush inefficient companies and recover.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#9. To: go65 (#8)
(Edited)
you'll see that like 2008, the financial system was collapsing.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#10. To: go65 (#6)
(Edited)
The alternative to Bush acting was a complete melt-down of the global financial system.
The economy is never going to turn around until we get a banking system that isn't weighed down by bad mortgage debt.
#11. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
Yeah, it was easier to take another hit, then let the system clean out...
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#12. To: jwpegler (#9)
Economists from Milton Friedman to Ben Ben Bernanke believe the Great Depression was also caused by mistakes by the Federal Reserve as well. The Fed pumped up the money supply in the 1920s which led to an investment bubble that popped in 1929. Then the Fed allowed the money supply to contract by 1/3rd between 1929 and 1933. To top it off, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 collapsed the international trading system and American exports shrunk by 50%.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#13. To: go65 (#11)
I don't think folks like yourself really understand the impact of a total collapse of the global financial system.
#14. To: go65 (#12)
Absent government intervention, you would have had anarchy.
interventioninterference" from 1776 to 1913?
#15. To: Capitalist Eric (#14)
How did the USA survive without your beloved "government interventioninterference" from 1776 to 1913?
#16. To: Capitalist Eric (#14)
#17. To: Rhino (#16)
The Panic of 1907 is the reason we have a central banking system.
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#13)
Yeah, RIGHT.... Oh, let me bow down before thee, oh WISE and KNOWING man....
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#19. To: Badeye (#2)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#20. To: go65 (#18)
All would have been peachy?
#21. To: go65 (#18)
So tell me what YOU think would have happened if banks started shutting down en-masse in October- November of 2007 while state/local governments shut their doors due to lack of money to pay their bills?
#22. To: Capitalist Eric (#21)
THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO CRASH AND BURN, AND NOBODY CAN STOP IT.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#23. To: go65 (#22)
Given that the GOP appears poised to take over the House, I think you are right.
#24. To: go65 (#22)
#25. To: Badeye (#24)
Its this insane 'party before country' crap thats at the heart of WHY the economy is going to 'crash and burn' next year.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#26. To: go65 (#25)
#27. To: Badeye (#26)
Childish, GO65.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#28. To: go65 (#27)
Childish, GO65.
#29. To: go65 (#25)
I agree, things will get worse next year.
#30. To: Capitalist Eric (#29)
The problem is, you think just the pubbies are at fault, and that your socialist buddies (oBUMa among them) are faultless.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#31. To: go65 (#30)
That being said, I fully blame the GOP for turning a multi-billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit through a combination of tax cuts
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#32. To: WhiteSands (#31)
You believe the money belongs to the government?
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#33. To: go65 (#30)
I have long argued that the root of our current fiscal crisis dates to the Gramm-Leach-Billey act of 1999, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999. So your claim is patently false.
That being said, I fully blame the GOP for turning a multi-billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit through a combination of tax cuts, wars, and expansion of social programs. As a result, we were/are ill-equipped to respond to the crisis that started in 2008.
I don't think either side has a solution, but I do think the Tea Party/Republican approach will make things worse then they are now by essentially shutting down the government. I don't think the Tea Party has offered anything of substance for growing the economy.
So, in 1-2 years, when we've gone to slow growth back into a recession while the GOP continues to engage in tom foolery, we'll end up with even stronger Democratic majorities in Congress and 4 more years of Obama.
Maybe, just maybe, if the GOP had focused on fiscal conservatism instead of becoming the home for every nutty conspiracy theorist under the sun, things would be different. But that's the road they choose.
#34. To: go65. WhiteSands (#32)
You believe the money belongs to the government?
#35. To: Capitalist Eric (#33)
(Edited)
False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”
Once you've done that, come back and talk about our debt, and what's REALLY going on. Until then, you're talking out your ass, and I've no time to educate you.
More blather that clearly demonstrates your incapacity to think.
You're a fucking SHEEP, lined up for the slaughter.
Sucks to be you.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#36. To: go65 (#35)
(Edited)
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, sorry.
Uh huh. Sorry, but if you've gone off the reservation and starting buying into nutty conspiracy theories written by a guy who has claimed that "Jews drink the blood of gentile children" and who called Jews "parasitic", then there's not much of a point in continuing the conversation.
ROFLOL!!!!
#37. To: Capitalist Eric (#36)
(Edited)
Debate FACTS.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#38. To: go65 (#37)
(Edited)
I don't debate those who argue that "it's the Jew's fault." Please feel free to place me on filter.
#39. To: go65, WhiteSands (#32)
You believe the money belongs to the government?
#40. To: Capitalist Eric (#36)
Please post a link to where I EVER said that.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]