US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Buc2 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I have a different take on this then most, I have hated the Feds obsession with keeping interest rates near 0 over the last couple decades

My post was more a general disdain for the Fed than their raising the rate. I actually agree with you that rates have been too low for too long. I honestly think that was one of the negative effects on home loan lending. Low rates allowed people to qualify that probably shouldn't have been allowed to qualify.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:48 pm

End the Fed!!!



As all the progressives shudder
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:52 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I have a different take on this then most, I have hated the Feds obsession with keeping interest rates near 0 over the last couple decades

My post was more a general disdain for the Fed than their raising the rate. I actually agree with you that rates have been too low for too long. I honestly think that was one of the negative effects on home loan lending. Low rates allowed people to qualify that probably shouldn't have been allowed to qualify.



My biggest issue was they completely removed the monetary incentive to save ... thus artificially increasing spending ... and ultimately continuing the push toward people increasing their dependency on the gov’t.


Liberals should have absolutely revolted at the artificially low interest rates as all the benefits went to home buyers (of which the poor don’t partake) and people with money in the markets instead of banks (again of which the poor don’t partake) all at the same time suppressing wages
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:25 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I have a different take on this then most, I have hated the Feds obsession with keeping interest rates near 0 over the last couple decades

My post was more a general disdain for the Fed than their raising the rate. I actually agree with you that rates have been too low for too long. I honestly think that was one of the negative effects on home loan lending. Low rates allowed people to qualify that probably shouldn't have been allowed to qualify.

Huh? Are you suggesting that low interest rates was part of what led to the '08 housing crash? And that somehow lower interest rates make it easier for people to qualify for loans?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:25 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:End the Fed!!!

^^^This 100%!!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:22 pm

How can anyone be gullible to believe that this clown gives a single **** about American jobs?

Mar-a-Lago files request to hire 61 foreign temporary workers

President Donald Trump's resort, Mar-a-Lago, filed a request to the Department of Labor for 61 additional visas for foreign servers and cooks, according to Job Order Records filed on Thursday and Friday.

The Florida resort requested 61 H-2B visas, which are visas for temporary non-agricultural workers. In order to obtain H-2Bs, employers must prove that there are not enough US workers who are "able, willing, qualified, and available" to do the temporary work. 40 of the visas were for servers, while 21 were for cooks.
In January, the resort requested 70 H-2B visas for cooks, housekeepers, and servers.
The latest request sets the wages at $12.68 per hour for the servers and $13.31 for the cooks. Due to terms set by the visa, employees can only work for the company that sponsors the visa itself. The servers and cooks would work October through May.
The President has said before in a 2015 interview with MSNBC that "getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible." However, the New York Times reported in 2016 that since 2010, only 17 of 300 American applicants were hired at the club. And since October of 2015, Mar-a-Lago has filed 10 separate requests for H-2B visas.
Though Mar-a-Lago requested 61 visas, information has not been made public on how many visas it will receive. Congress sets a cap of 66,000 new H-2B visas a year.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:05 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:My post was more a general disdain for the Fed than their raising the rate. I actually agree with you that rates have been too low for too long. I honestly think that was one of the negative effects on home loan lending. Low rates allowed people to qualify that probably shouldn't have been allowed to qualify.



My biggest issue was they completely removed the monetary incentive to save ... thus artificially increasing spending ... and ultimately continuing the push toward people increasing their dependency on the gov’t.


Liberals should have absolutely revolted at the artificially low interest rates as all the benefits went to home buyers (of which the poor don’t partake) and people with money in the markets instead of banks (again of which the poor don’t partake) all at the same time suppressing wages

wage suppression is the greater factor in the low savings rate among the working poor.

Those people have no clue what "low interest" means because they pay double digit interest on every dollar they borrow.

Wages are too low.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:16 am

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:My post was more a general disdain for the Fed than their raising the rate. I actually agree with you that rates have been too low for too long. I honestly think that was one of the negative effects on home loan lending. Low rates allowed people to qualify that probably shouldn't have been allowed to qualify.

Huh? Are you suggesting that low interest rates was part of what led to the '08 housing crash? And that somehow lower interest rates make it easier for people to qualify for loans?

Yes. In the years 2001-2005, low fed rates led to an increase in high risk loans made by the shadow banking industry.

Before the economic tsunami, banks were more than OK with the concept of easy money and "significantly expanded their loan portfolios," Marquez notes, and raised the stakes by extending credit to high-risk borrowers lured by lower rates.

But when the financial system overloaded and borrowers experienced heavy liquidity problems, they couldn't repay those loans, sending banks into a death spiral that required taxpayer rescue.

You can blame banks for playing a huge role in the Great Recession, but it seems financial institutions just can't help themselves when it comes to leveraging low rates to make a buck. "Reduction in real interest rates, such as occur as part of a monetary expansion, lead banks to increase their leverage and expand their loan portfolios," Marquez says.

Ordinarily, that might not be a big problem, but banks generate too much heat by extending credit to customers who "are less likely to repay their loans in full."

That kick-starts a financial cycle in which banks put themselves and their depositors in peril. They take on more risk and significantly heighten their odds of imploding.


Our findings have important implications for the debate on the role of monetary policy in addressing financial stability concerns. This is relevant to both the academic debate on ‘leaning against the wind’ (Woodford 2010, Svensson 2013, Gambacorta and Signoretti 2014, Gali 2014) and the surrounding policy discussion (Bean 2014 and Stein 2013). One line of argument is that monetary policy is a powerful tool for tackling financial excess because it “gets in all of the cracks” (Stein 2013).

Our results are consistent with this claim – monetary policy shocks do seem to affect the balance sheets of both commercial banks and their unregulated counterparts in the shadow banking sector, albeit modestly. But our results point to an important caveat to that conclusion – a monetary contraction aimed at reducing the asset growth of commercial banks would tend to cause a migration of activity beyond the regulatory perimeter to the shadow banking sector. The monetary response needed to lean against shadow bank asset growth is of opposite sign to that needed to lean against commercial bank asset growth. That casts doubt on the ease with which monetary policy could be used in this way.

That reinforces the case made elsewhere (eg Hanson et al. 2011) for the development of macroprudential tools that address the build-up of leverage in the regulated sector more directly than monetary policy, and which extend oversight to the parts of the shadow banking sector that are most prone to excessive risk-taking (see Financial Stability Board (FSB 2013)). That would leave monetary policy to retain its relative focus on addressing the consequences of nominal rigidities in goods and labour markets (Svensson 2013).
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:33 am

Buc2 wrote:
deltbucs wrote:Huh? Are you suggesting that low interest rates was part of what led to the '08 housing crash? And that somehow lower interest rates make it easier for people to qualify for loans?

Yes. In the years 2001-2005, low fed rates led to an increase in high risk loans made by the shadow banking industry.

You realize that rates have been lower since 2008 since the crash than they were before, right? It had nothing to do with mortgage rates. It had everything to do with predatory loans and basically any loan being given out to anyone. It didn't matter if they could afford them or not because lenders had no repercussions when they defaulted. You should check out the Documentary Inside Job. It's really well done and you learn a lot about what lead up to the crisis.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:14 am

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Yes. In the years 2001-2005, low fed rates led to an increase in high risk loans made by the shadow banking industry.

You realize that rates have been lower since 2008 since the crash than they were before, right? It had nothing to do with mortgage rates. It had everything to do with predatory loans and basically any loan being given out to anyone. It didn't matter if they could afford them or not because lenders had no repercussions when they defaulted. You should check out the Documentary Inside Job. It's really well done and you learn a lot about what lead up to the crisis.

okay
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:10 am

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Yes. In the years 2001-2005, low fed rates led to an increase in high risk loans made by the shadow banking industry.

You realize that rates have been lower since 2008 since the crash than they were before, right? It had nothing to do with mortgage rates. It had everything to do with predatory loans and basically any loan being given out to anyone. It didn't matter if they could afford them or not because lenders had no repercussions when they defaulted. You should check out the Documentary Inside Job. It's really well done and you learn a lot about what lead up to the crisis.

You should do more research than watch an extremely slanted documentary. Some of the government policies at the time forced Banks to lend to high risk applicants like when the Clinton regime rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act. The shady thing is that many big Banks didn't want to lend to some of the high risk applicants from poor communities and would fund small community Banks to do it for them which met the government requirements.

Small Banks have never been a fan of lending to high risk applicants as they don't have the assets to support people defaulting on loans. They were forced to.

There's a lot more if you want to dive in, but the government shares at least 1/3 of the responsibility along with the Banks and the people. I'd argue the government has the lion's share of the blame.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:47 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
deltbucs wrote:You realize that rates have been lower since 2008 since the crash than they were before, right? It had nothing to do with mortgage rates. It had everything to do with predatory loans and basically any loan being given out to anyone. It didn't matter if they could afford them or not because lenders had no repercussions when they defaulted. You should check out the Documentary Inside Job. It's really well done and you learn a lot about what lead up to the crisis.

You should do more research than watch an extremely slanted documentary. Some of the government policies at the time forced Banks to lend to high risk applicants like when the Clinton regime rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act. The shady thing is that many big Banks didn't want to lend to some of the high risk applicants from poor communities and would fund small community Banks to do it for them which met the government requirements.

Small Banks have never been a fan of lending to high risk applicants as they don't have the assets to support people defaulting on loans. They were forced to.

There's a lot more if you want to dive in, but the government shares at least 1/3 of the responsibility along with the Banks and the people. I'd argue the government has the lion's share of the blame.

I don't expect you to be surprised, but I don't buy that line at all. "The government made me do it"?

Baloney.

There was no government regulation requiring banks to lend 120% loan to value with zero down and no income verification. Home prices were skyrocketing and they thought that even if the loan defaulted the equity gains on the property itself would hedge any losses. They got greedy and tanked the economy.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:56 am

Ok. We can talk later, I'm going into a meeting, but it's pretty easy to look up and I'm sure you would have been on board, "allow the poor to buy houses, too".
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:08 am

uscbucsfan wrote:Ok. We can talk later, I'm going into a meeting, but it's pretty easy to look up and I'm sure you would have been on board, "allow the poor to buy houses, too".

I got u

Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:16 am

Both bank deception and awful govt incentives played a role in it....I don’t understand how anyone can say differently

It’s cool to disagree in % of share but both played significant roles.


And let’s not let idiotic customers who were “convinced” they could afford much more expensive houses then they really could skate free of blame...they need to be accountable too
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:20 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Both bank deception and awful govt incentives played a role in it....I don’t understand how anyone can say differently

It’s cool to disagree in % of share but both played significant roles.


And let’s not let idiotic customers who were “convinced” they could afford much more expensive houses then they really could skate free of blame...they need to be accountable too

They were. They lost their houses.

Meanwhile, not one single lender or bank executive was even charged with a crime. And these people had a contractual fiduciary responsibility.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:22 am

The consequences of consumer errors isn’t the same as saying they need to take responsibility and share blame



As far as any banking exec or govt employee who committed fraud I’m all for locking them up
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:23 am

Zarniwoop wrote:I’m all for locking them up if they committed fraud.

Well it's been 10 years, so I'm sure that ship has sailed. And aside from rising home prices, I don't see anything to suggest it'll happen again anytime soon.

the upcoming recession will be triggered from some other sector.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:27 am

If you are convinced they committed fraud you should be really upset then at the gov’t officials who didn’t have enough balls to charge them. Seems like those guys aren’t keeping their responsibility to Americans
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:28 am

Zarniwoop wrote:If you are convinced they committed fraud you should be really upset then at the gov’t officials who didn’t have enough balls to charge them. Seems like those guys aren’t keeping their responsibility to Americans

I am because they aren't.

It's as if someone is paying them not to.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:46 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:If you are convinced they committed fraud you should be really upset then at the gov’t officials who didn’t have enough balls to charge them. Seems like those guys aren’t keeping their responsibility to Americans

I am because they aren't.

It's as if someone is paying them not to.



It’s a shame the govt is so corrupt they can be influenced by greed...boy I’d hate to give such spineless immoral greedy douchebags power



It’s a shame we aren’t locking them up for not carrying out their legal responsibilities ... they can take the cells across from the corrupt executives since they are all basically one in the same
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:54 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I am because they aren't.

It's as if someone is paying them not to.



It’s a shame the govt is so corrupt they can be influenced by greed...boy I’d hate to give such spineless immoral greedy douchebags power



It’s a shame we aren’t locking them up for not carrying out their legal responsibilities ... they can take the cells across from the corrupt executives since they are all basically one in the same

Agreed. It's long past time for the governed to take back control of their government.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:42 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

It’s a shame the govt is so corrupt they can be influenced by greed...boy I’d hate to give such spineless immoral greedy douchebags power



It’s a shame we aren’t locking them up for not carrying out their legal responsibilities ... they can take the cells across from the corrupt executives since they are all basically one in the same

Agreed. It's long past time for the governed to take back control of their government.

We might need more guns to do that.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 845 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:17 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Agreed. It's long past time for the governed to take back control of their government.

We might need more guns to do that.



and then maybe not give them so much power over stuff after we do



j/k i'm sure it will be different when they take more control of health care, higher education, finding people jobs and apparently now housing rights
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:25 pm

This is one of my favorite threads on the board. Love the conversation here.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:26 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:Ok. We can talk later, I'm going into a meeting, but it's pretty easy to look up and I'm sure you would have been on board, "allow the poor to buy houses, too".


Looking forward to what you share on this later.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:36 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:We might need more guns to do that.



and then maybe not give them so much power over stuff after we do



j/k i'm sure it will be different when they take more control of health care, higher education, finding people jobs and apparently now housing rights

How about the government do exactly what the people want it to?

Radical concept, I know.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:43 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:


How about the government do exactly what the people want it to?





no thanks....i can't imagine many things worse than the gov't doing what 51% of the people want it to do


mob rule sucks
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:46 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:


How about the government do exactly what the people want it to?





no thanks....i can't imagine many things worse than the gov't doing what 51% of the people want it to do


mob rule sucks

Divine right of Kings.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:39 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
deltbucs wrote:You realize that rates have been lower since 2008 since the crash than they were before, right? It had nothing to do with mortgage rates. It had everything to do with predatory loans and basically any loan being given out to anyone. It didn't matter if they could afford them or not because lenders had no repercussions when they defaulted. You should check out the Documentary Inside Job. It's really well done and you learn a lot about what lead up to the crisis.

You should do more research than watch an extremely slanted documentary. Some of the government policies at the time forced Banks to lend to high risk applicants like when the Clinton regime rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act. The shady thing is that many big Banks didn't want to lend to some of the high risk applicants from poor communities and would fund small community Banks to do it for them which met the government requirements.

Small Banks have never been a fan of lending to high risk applicants as they don't have the assets to support people defaulting on loans. They were forced to.

There's a lot more if you want to dive in, but the government shares at least 1/3 of the responsibility along with the Banks and the people. I'd argue the government has the lion's share of the blame.

I didn't find Inside Job particularly biased. I have done other research outside of the documentary. It's not that the government forced so many of these "subprime" loans, it's that they allowed so many of them. The film places blame on many people, including Clinton. I'm sure you can find sources that want to blame it all on Clinton for forcing the poor banks to give loans to poor people, as opposed to the continued deregulation of the industry. I agree with you that government deserves a lot of the blame, because of the latter. The banks own the government...and their lobbyists write the laws. That's literally how it works.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brazen331, PanteraCanes, uscbucsfan and 4 guests