The Reality Of American's Personal Economics


gunnerbob

PEW Professional
~snip~

I think gun owners should be accountable for their firearms. If you leave it in your car and someone steals it and kills someone, I think you should be held civilly accountable for not safely storing your gun.

~snip~

So, citizens who are victimized by criminals should be held financially responsible for those criminals' acts? Would you include this idea of yours to the home as well? If some criminal breaks into my home and steals one of my weapons and shoots somebody with it, I should incur not only the financial damages caused to my home and the theft of my property but to the other victim's family as well? What you're saying is that the victims of criminals should not only pay for those criminals to be arrested, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned but, that they should also pay for the damages those criminals cause to others?

Let's add another hypothetical to this. If a criminal breaks into someone's locked vehicle, steals it and runs someone over with it... the owner of the vehicle, who's a victim of crime, should be held liable for the damages caused by the criminal?
 

gunnerbob

PEW Professional
O-blame-ya? What are you 10 years old? He's the president of our country, the people elected and re-elected him EASILY. Have some respect for the office of the president and for the will of the American people.

~snip~

Who the hell are you to tell someone else to respect something? Who cares if the people elected him, that doesn't mean others should respect him if they don't like him. Also, there is a big difference between respecting "the office of the president" and the occupier him/herself. Do you take insults to Obama personal? Let me tell you something, I met Obama in 2010 in Afghanistan and I wouldn't give anybody the mud off my boots for him. I don't respect him and I've every right to insult the son of a b!tch.
 

mappow

New member
"He's the president of our country, the people elected and re-elected him EASILY. Have some respect for the office of the president and for the will of the American people."
.
1.) He wasn't re-elected "EASILY"
2.) Respect is earned. He's had years. Still nothing of substance other the Trillions of dollars of debt.
.
I would say if his was Honorable, he would commit Hari-Kari. Bit we both know he's not a honorable man. Just a narcissistic communist/socialist bent on "Fundamentality change America".
 

maybejim

Maybejim
In the first place the collapse started early 2007, before the Dems even voted on anything

It was the result of Dem policies, your boys Dodd and Barney. But keep up the Dem lies and misrepresentations.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
Who the hell are you to tell someone else to respect something? Who cares if the people elected him, that doesn't mean others should respect him if they don't like him. Also, there is a big difference between respecting "the office of the president" and the occupier him/herself. Do you take insults to Obama personal? Let me tell you something, I met Obama in 2010 in Afghanistan and I wouldn't give anybody the mud off my boots for him. I don't respect him and I've every right to insult the son of a b!tch.

Now, now, you are addressing BO himself under his pen name. Show some respect.
 

BC1

,
It was the result of Dem policies, your boys Dodd and Barney. But keep up the Dem lies and misrepresentations.
It's on YouTube. Several speeches by Frank and Schumer. They loved it. Mortgages for everybody. 97% financing on a $400,000 home. But that in itself wasn't the entire problem. The catalyst was economics. Corporate America hit the brakes. Very unsure of the future with Obama promising to raise taxes. They began holding assets offshore to avoid any new taxes. New incoming president. Economic development slowed in the face of uncertainty. And companies began to layoff in the face of uncertainty. I began to notice a drop in RFP's (Request For Proposal) from companies in late 2007. They were abandoning their computer projects. My contracts were drying-up. We let the consultants go because I had no work for them. We managed to get through those times but people did lose their jobs. In 2013 we decided the climate is unfriendly for business. After 25 years in business I don't want that stress anymore. We dissolved in 2014.
.
Many people with big mortgages who were laid-off from these companies eventually couldn't make their note. Those lenders absolutely knew a young family earning a total of $100K per year could get into trouble trying to pay monthly mortgage and taxes of $3,500. And the borrowers didn't do a very good job of assessing their own risk either. They ate it up. I had a friend in mortgage banking tell me a lot of the foreclosures were people with a McMansion, no bank account, big mortgage, no equity and two leased cars in the driveway. They had no wealth. They were entirely on paper. So the value of property changed for the worse in many parts of the country. Even those who still had a job watched their $400K home drop to $325K. Only they owed $397K. They walked away. As banks ate the losses (which they deserved for their greedy lending practice) they became more reluctant to loan money. Even commercial investment money was hard to come by. There's enough blame to go around for everyone on this one.
.
If you loan 97% of market value during a market high you can expect to eat it when the market drops. The market always fluctuates. Very simple. Barney Frank and Schumer didn't see it. Neither did the executives at Fannie and Freddie.
.
In all fairness there periodically comes together a series of issues in the world that as a totality cause economic downturn. Everything from oil prices to social unrest or war affects the markets. A new president. Market jitters. Import deficits (China), currency manipulation (China). And it's that totality that begins the death spiral of an economy. It wasn't just mortgages. That was only part of it. It was also the jitters. The mindset around corporate America in 2008 was that Obama would raise tax.
 

jrs

New member
It's on YouTube. Several speeches by Frank and Schumer. They loved it. Mortgages for everybody. 97% financing on a $400,000 home. But that in itself wasn't the entire problem. The catalyst was economics. Corporate America hit the brakes. Very unsure of the future with Obama promising to raise taxes. They began holding assets offshore to avoid any new taxes. New incoming president. Economic development slowed in the face of uncertainty. And companies began to layoff in the face of uncertainty. I began to notice a drop in RFP's (Request For Proposal) from companies in late 2007. They were abandoning their computer projects. My contracts were drying-up. We let the consultants go because I had no work for them. We managed to get through those times but people did lose their jobs. In 2013 we decided the climate is unfriendly for business. After 25 years in business I don't want that stress anymore. We dissolved in 2014.
.
Many people with big mortgages who were laid-off from these companies eventually couldn't make their note. Those lenders absolutely knew a young family earning a total of $100K per year could get into trouble trying to pay monthly mortgage and taxes of $3,500. And the borrowers didn't do a very good job of assessing their own risk either. They ate it up. I had a friend in mortgage banking tell me a lot of the foreclosures were people with a McMansion, no bank account, big mortgage, no equity and two leased cars in the driveway. They had no wealth. They were entirely on paper. So the value of property changed for the worse in many parts of the country. Even those who still had a job watched their $400K home drop to $325K. Only they owed $397K. They walked away. As banks ate the losses (which they deserved for their greedy lending practice) they became more reluctant to loan money. Even commercial investment money was hard to come by. There's enough blame to go around for everyone on this one.
.
If you loan 97% of market value during a market high you can expect to eat it when the market drops. The market always fluctuates. Very simple. Barney Frank and Schumer didn't see it. Neither did the executives at Fannie and Freddie.
.
In all fairness there periodically comes together a series of issues in the world that as a totality cause economic downturn. Everything from oil prices to social unrest or war affects the markets. A new president. Market jitters. Import deficits (China), currency manipulation (China). And it's that totality that begins the death spiral of an economy. It wasn't just mortgages. That was only part of it. It was also the jitters. The mindset around corporate America in 2008 was that Obama would raise tax.

I agree, but this actually started a long time ago.... under Clinton and his minion, Andrew Coumo as Secretary of HUD. Back then, those selfish, greedy bankers were actually requiring down payments and good credit scores in order to get a mortgage... but then came along Bubba and Andrew, who said that "everyone should be able to own a home". They, with the threat of the full force of the US Govt, basically told the banks that 'unless you start serving the underserved lower income population, we're coming after you'.... so they had to start lending on higher risk mortgages.....and the sub-prime market was born.

Being in a business that provides valuation services to lenders, and seeing what happens when people who are not financially stable enough to own a home actually own a home, I and most every one of my peers said..."NO, not everyone should own a home". A good idea in theory, poor in practice.

So, after years of basically forcing lenders to make risky loans and expanding the sub-prime market, what does Andrew do? As NY Attorney General, he then sued the sub-prime lenders for making the same loans they forced them to make! Then, when the bottom dropped out of the real estate market, it wasn't the borrower's fault... it was those nasty, greedy lenders....Hmmm.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
An interesting take on unemployment.
States paying contractors bounties for removing folks from the unemployment / welfare rolls.
The hidden unemployed.
Brought to you by NPR no less.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

You seem to have forgotten the explanation for that situation to make it seem really conspiratorial.

Clinton reformed welfare and took millions of people off of welfare. He put some of the financial burden for welfare back on the states. So as the federal support for welfare dropped and the states had to pick up more of the cost, quoting from the article linked;

"A person on welfare costs a state money. That same resident on disability doesn't cost the state a cent, because the federal government covers the entire bill for people on disability. So states can save money by shifting people from welfare to disability. And the Public Consulting Group is glad to help.

PCG is a private company that states pay to comb their welfare rolls and move as many people as possible onto disability. "What we're offering is to work to identify those folks who have the highest likelihood of meeting disability criteria," Pat Coakley, who runs PCG's Social Security Advocacy Management team, told me."

BTW there was no mention of those states taking people of unemployment rolls and shifting them to disability. Just off welfare rolls.

And which states have the most people on disability?

1) West Virginia
2) Arkansas
3) Alabama
4) Kentucky
5) Mississippi
6) Maine
7) Tennessee
8) South Carolina
9) Missouri
10) Michigan

What's interesting about that list is that 9 of those 10 states are RED states, that is states with Republican controlled legislatures. So it seems that this scheme to shift people from state welfare to federal government disability is mostly done by those states rights loving Republicans. I guess they like state independence from the federal government as long as it does't cost them money.

And if you want to talk welfare, you can use the analogy, which states get the most federal dollars in return for the fewest federal taxes paid? Basically which states are on federal welfare? Well here's a little chart that shows how much the 20 worst offenders get back in federal dollars for every dollar they pay in federal taxes.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

"Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC."

Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
 

gunnerbob

PEW Professional
I'm still unsure as to why people support either party, both are criminal in many ways and serve themselves at the expense of the other and/or people.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Hey, teenage millionaire, the sub-prime meltdown began with the push by Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer. Be a smart liberal and go to YouTube. There's many speeches from both these asses pushing for high risk loans like some entitlement program. Mr. teenage millionaire; that's funny. And it's such bull$h!t. Can we get an IP check? I notice a pattern here. Liberals come and go. They make absurd arguments of entitlement and get hammered. Then another ID pops-up and a new liberal appears, supporting the other misfiteral misfitocrat. Eventually they get tired of the inability to rattle anyone and poof; all the ID's stop posting at once. Damn pattern is always the same.

Gosh youtube as your official sources for knowledge. I guess you bump into all sorts of out of context or unrelated stuff when you're busy looking for cat videos.

The Zero Down Payment Act of 2004-- "The Zero Down Payment Act of 2004, introduced by Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH), would require the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to offer federally insured mortgage loans to certain eligible households to buy a house without a down payment."

The American Dream Low Down Payment initiative" 2003-- "On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year"[1] with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market.[1]

This legislation complemented the President's "aggressive housing agenda" announced in a speech he gave at the Department of Housing and Urban Development on June 18, 2002.[1] In this speech the President outlined the partnerships needed to make homeownership a reality for millions more Americans by the end of the decade."
American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net Capital Rule--

"Beginning in 2008, many observers remarked that the 2004 change to the SEC's net capital rule permitted investment banks to increase their leverage and this played a central role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009."

"Perhaps the most influential review of the 2004 rule change was an October 3, 2008, front page New York Times article titled "Agency's '04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt" (the "2008 NY Times Article"). That article explained the net capital rule applied to the "brokerage units" of investment banks and stated the 2004 rule change created "an exemption" from an old rule that limited the amount of debt they could take on. According to the article, the rule change unshackled "billions of dollars held in reserve against losses" and led to investment banks dramatically increasing their leverage.[12]

In late 2008 and early 2009, prominent scholars such as Alan Blinder, John Coffee, Niall Ferguson, and Joseph Stiglitz explained (1) the old net capital rule limited investment bank leverage (defined as the ratio of debt to equity) to 12 (or 15) to 1 and (2) following the 2004 rule change, which relaxed or eliminated this restriction, investment bank leverage increased dramatically to 30 and even 40 to 1 or more."

Net capital rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The evidence, sent by email from a source called ” Aurelius” shows that in 2000 Paulson led the charge to ease a tight capital rules on Wall Street, so that the firms could leverage themselves up to the dangerous level of 30 to 40 times equity capital– rather than the much less risky 15 times that existed before 2004."
Hank Paulson And The Wall Street/Washington Axis Of Power - Forbes


Gramm-Leach- Blilley Act 1999
And how did banks ever get the ability to gamble with depositors money? Gramm-Leach-Blilley enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

While this bill did get bi-partisan support, the Republicans held the House and Senate majorities, the bill's authors, Gramm, Leach and Blilley were all Republicans.

Foreclosure on sub primes
"By October 2007, approximately 16% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were either 90-days delinquent or the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings, roughly triple the rate of 2005.[107] By January 2008, the delinquency rate had risen to 21%[108] and by May 2008 it was 25%."

"Between 2004 and2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%–21%, versus less than 10% in 2001–2003 and during 2007."

"1. From 2004-2006 the subprime share of mortgage originations was around 20%, almost triple the 7-8% share from 2001-2003. What a rise!

2. By the end of fourth quarter 2007, the subprime share dropped to only 3.1%, lower even than the 7-8% average during the 2001-2003 period. What a fall!

3. That 20% subprime mortgage share from 2004-2006 was obviously the cause of the subprime crisis. Although that huge amount of subprime mortgage activity from 2004-2006 might create problems for a few more years, it's also the case that a significant correction in subprime lending has taken place - that market has almost completely dried up. Looking forward, this correction suggests a future mortgage and housing market that will be much better than today's."

CARPE DIEM: The Rise and Fall of the Subprime Mortgage Market
 

CapGun

New member
I was going to contest some of FictionNotFacts irrational, contradictory statements here but realized he is just pulling everyone's chain. If not all I can think is that we need to "invest" way more $$$$ in this country's mental health infrastructure. It would just waste too much of my time to respond to those statements he made here.
 

BC1

,
Gosh youtube as your official sources for knowledge. I guess you bump into all sorts of out of context or unrelated stuff when you're busy looking for cat videos.
See, that's why everyone here hates you and your alternate ID. You're a wise ass. And you're angry over your loss last November. Get used to it, it's coming again. I don't care what website it's from. They can be seen in their own words giving the speeches. I guess YouTube changed their words. Listen to them say it in their own words or shut-up. Where it's posted is not important. Ignorance. What the hell are you arguing? The people have rejected your policies. It's over.
 

hiwall

New member
Gramm-Leach- Blilley Act 1999
And how did banks ever get the ability to gamble with depositors money? Gramm-Leach-Blilley enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

While this bill did get bi-partisan support, the Republicans held the House and Senate majorities, the bill's authors, Gramm, Leach and Blilley were all Republicans.
This was the major cause of our problems in the sub-prime mess. Please note that Bill Clinton signed this into law (though both parties are to blame). This law allowed banks to to really get into the derivatives market. And the banks held alot of mortgage related derivatives when the bottom fell out of that market. Currently banks have many times the amount of derivatives that they did in 2007-2008.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
This was the major cause of our problems in the sub-prime mess. Please note that Bill Clinton signed this into law (though both parties are to blame). This law allowed banks to to really get into the derivatives market. And the banks held alot of mortgage related derivatives when the bottom fell out of that market. Currently banks have many times the amount of derivatives that they did in 2007-2008.

As I pointed out Gramm-Leach-Blilley had bi-partisan support, and yes Bill Clinton did sign the bill, written by 3 Republicans, and approved by Republican majorities in the House and Senate. I doubt if many of the people who approved of Gramm-Leach-Blilley expected 20% of all mortgages to be sub prime under Bush, the reduction of down payment requirements, that the SEC would change the Net Capital rule to allow a bank to have 40 to 1 leverage, that derivatives would become so common and dangerous and that in general the financial sector would see so much less over sight. You can't always guess what bad decisions might follow a seemingly decent one.

Please note that during all the poor policy making that led up to the 2007 start of the sub prime crisis that the Republicans had majorities in the House and Senate. And that they also had the White House from 2001 through the beginning of the sub prime crisis. So they held both the Executive and Legislative branches and therefore had the power to impose their policies at will.

And the last time the Republicans held the White House, Senate and House for an extended period was the late 1910's through the 1920's, the result? The Great Depression.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
See, that's why everyone here hates you and your alternate ID. You're a wise ass. And you're angry over your loss last November. Get used to it, it's coming again. I don't care what website it's from. They can be seen in their own words giving the speeches. I guess YouTube changed their words. Listen to them say it in their own words or shut-up. Where it's posted is not important. Ignorance. What the hell are you arguing? The people have rejected your policies. It's over.

Gosh, everyone here hates me? In the first place that's an exaggeration, and in the second place I could care less what willfully ignorant people think of me. If you are the kind of person who denies facts and embraces delusion, well, you have nothing to offer me.

As for being mad that the historically common occurrence of a president losing seats in a midterm election happened, I'm not. The Dems had 16 senate seats up for grabs and historically the turn out among Democrats during a midterm election is low. However in 2016, when the Democratic turnout will be very high, the Republicans have 24 Senate seats up for grabs. And the economy will be even better in 2016 and Obama's approval rating is trending up. Does Obama seem upset? Not at all, in fact he seems like he's taking a victory lap and will pretty much veto anything the Republicans put forward. And if you recall, he won re-election by 5 million votes when the economy was still weak.

"Republicans will have to defend 24 seats as compared to just 10 for Democrats in 2016. And, the raw numbers don't even tell the whole story. Seven seats currently held by Republican incumbents -- Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- were all carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And there is chatter about potential Republican retirements in Arizona and Iowa; if either John McCain or Chuck Grassley decided to call it a career, each of those races would be major Democratic targets. Outside of two seats, there's almost no vulnerability on the Democratic side."

Link Removed

Republicans Win Congress as Democrats Get Most Votes - Bloomberg Business

It's funny that you call me a wise ass while I have actually been far more civil than most of you and take a fair amount of time to supply links to the most highly regarded and credible sources. Where's your umbrage for those who are outright insulting to me? Here's who's mad. You are. Because the facts support me and my argument is factual, and you can't make a dent in it, must be frustrating for you when I post the actual law or rule, the date it was signed, who signed it and the content of it. And even worse it totally supports a statement I made previously that some of you called BS on. Sorry if it makes some of you look foolish and ignorant, but the old rule is,"don't open your mouth and say something unless you know what you're talking about"

And on my part, I could give a ***** what you think not because I know I'm talking to someone completely ignorant but worse I don't respect you because you have no desire to actually know the truth and learn something. I have many conservative friends, but they're educated so while we may have different points of view we can discuss them civilly and appreciate it when we learn something new. But there's no appreciation for knowledge here, there's more concern about thinking you're right than actually being right. It's just arrogance masking ignorance.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
I was going to contest some of FictionNotFacts irrational, contradictory statements here but realized he is just pulling everyone's chain. If not all I can think is that we need to "invest" way more $$$$ in this country's mental health infrastructure. It would just waste too much of my time to respond to those statements he made here.


Oh please contest away. I'd love to hear how you can explain away actual laws and government policies? Perhaps a cat video?
 

BC1

,
Gosh, everyone here hates me? In the first place that's an exaggeration, and in the second place I could care less what willfully ignorant people think of me. If you are the kind of person who denies facts and embraces delusion, well, you have nothing to offer me.

As for being mad that the historically common occurrence of a president losing seats in a midterm election happened, I'm not. The Dems had 16 senate seats up for grabs and historically the turn out among Democrats during a midterm election is low. However in 2016, when the Democratic turnout will be very high, the Republicans have 24 Senate seats up for grabs. And the economy will be even better in 2016 and Obama's approval rating is trending up. Does Obama seem upset? Not at all, in fact he seems like he's taking a victory lap and will pretty much veto anything the Republicans put forward. And if you recall, he won re-election by 5 million votes when the economy was still weak.

"Republicans will have to defend 24 seats as compared to just 10 for Democrats in 2016. And, the raw numbers don't even tell the whole story. Seven seats currently held by Republican incumbents -- Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- were all carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And there is chatter about potential Republican retirements in Arizona and Iowa; if either John McCain or Chuck Grassley decided to call it a career, each of those races would be major Democratic targets. Outside of two seats, there's almost no vulnerability on the Democratic side."

Link Removed

Republicans Win Congress as Democrats Get Most Votes - Bloomberg Business

It's funny that you call me a wise ass while I have actually been far more civil than most of you and take a fair amount of time to supply links to the most highly regarded and credible sources. Where's your umbrage for those who are outright insulting to me? Here's who's mad. You are. Because the facts support me and my argument is factual, and you can't make a dent in it, must be frustrating for you when I post the actual law or rule, the date it was signed, who signed it and the content of it. And even worse it totally supports a statement I made previously that some of you called BS on. Sorry if it makes some of you look foolish and ignorant, but the old rule is,"don't open your mouth and say something unless you know what you're talking about"

And on my part, I could give a ***** what you think not because I know I'm talking to someone completely ignorant but worse I don't respect you because you have no desire to actually know the truth and learn something. I have many conservative friends, but they're educated so while we may have different points of view we can discuss them civilly and appreciate it when we learn something new. But there's no appreciation for knowledge here, there's more concern about thinking you're right than actually being right. It's just arrogance masking ignorance.

How many ID's are you using at this time? I know this is gonna piss you off but I'm not a conservative.
.
Are you saying we're not educated? I hold an MS in Comp Sci and a BS in Mathematics. Columbia and Brown. Stop with the generalizations.
 

GryHounnd

Banned
How many ID's are you using at this time? I know this is gonna piss you off but I'm not a conservative.
.
Are you saying we're not educated? I hold an MS in Comp Sci and a BS in Mathematics. Columbia and Brown. Stop with the generalizations.

We have no doubt you have Brown BS, you show you're full of it consistently, but then what can we expect but to see excrement spew forth from such a huge A$$hole!
 

BC1

,
We have no doubt you have Brown BS, you show you're full of it consistently, but then what can we expect but to see excrement spew forth from such a huge A$$hole!

So your intellect is name calling? Did you learn that on the debate team? Show me where, anywhere, that name calling is a tactic for winning an argument or debate? So you're here to argue with nearly every person and call them names? Can you tell me what that makes you? Can you affirm the psychology of such acts? Do you understand what that says about you? Do you know how crazy it is to have multiple personalities on a chat forum? It's amusing to say the least. What I find most fascinating is that you stay here fighting each and every person with the same whine. It's old. Get a job. Earn your own way. Stop humping other peoples' legs.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,610
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top