• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Happy Birthday Conservative Debt Concerns

This is the reactionary fiction that the GOP peddles. Democrats/liberals/progressives want to use gubmint to solve problems, like ending the Great Depression, winning the Second World War, and doing something about the unjust and dysfunctional consequences of the enslavement and persecution of millions of African-Americans. We don't want gubmint to be any larger than it needs to be, we don't want to spend money unwisely, and, as I've repeatedly noted in this community, we eliminate deficits and the resulting debt created by so-called conservatives, not the other way around.

LOL! Oh yeah, you guys are all about limited government and personal liberty, except on days ending with the letter "y".
The tea Party was born out of opposition to too much spending and taxes.

I'd say it was founded out of ignorance and bigotry.
You're going to have to back that up with something, anything. Otherwise, it's just ignorant.
 
Which goes to show that he never has been serious over reducing the deficit.

Again, Congress cut his requests by one percent, while he spent five percent less than was authorized. I can't account for what that "shows" you.

>>Now as I recall the GOP took Congress in Jan 2015 and their first budget was 2016.

Republicans have held a majority in the House since 2011.​

>>When will you stop carrying water for Obama. He isn't worth it

I see the facts for what they are. Yer perception is grossly distorted.

Do you realize that the money given to GM was a loan? That TARP was a loan.

They were of course recorded in the budget as expenditures and revenues. You've simply created another baseless talking point that has has no relation to reality.

>>He did things he had no business doing like bailing out state expense items like teachers

Yes, Democrats care about education and are willing to fund it.

>>He gave tax cuts with strings which was nothing more than another giveaway with no benefits.

More of the mindless blather you endlessly barf up.

>>He failed to create the shovel ready jobs projected

Five million jobs added through the ARRA, according to the CBO. Not projected, actual. You simply can't face facts.

>>you ignored that Obama increased military spending to fund the Afghanistan surge, recycled TARP, took over GM/Chrysler, Bailed out AIG

Nothing was "ignored." The spending levels I posted are easily confirmed. Who are you lying to, yerself, the community, or both?

>>According to people like you Obummer prevented a worldwide depression which is liberal talking points, how exactly did he do that and with what legislation?

I keep answering that over and over — all of it.

>>It was TARP that supposedly saved the banks

I've always credited Dubya for taking on that responsibility.

>>you buy the leftwing spin and rhetoric. The question is why?

The answer is very simple — you view it as spin and rhetoric, when it's simply the truth. Seems like you can't handle the truth.

you guys are all about limited government and personal liberty

Yes, we are. We just don't like some of the limitations the Right wants placed on it, like no effort to end the poverty that has resulted from centuries of racial and ethnic brutality and discrimination, no effort to invest in public sector education, research, and infrastructure, no effort to create an effective and efficient healthcare system available to all Americans, etc. And we oppose violations of personal liberty like unjust restrictions on reproductive freedom, a racially biased criminal justice system, and economic discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

>>The tea Party was born out of opposition to too much spending and taxes. You're going to have to back that up with something, anything. Otherwise, it's just ignorant.

Oh, there's definitely ignorance involved:

brown.jpg

monkey.jpg

anti.jpg
 
Again, Congress cut his requests by one percent, while he spent five percent less than was authorized. I can't account for what that "shows" you.

>>Now as I recall the GOP took Congress in Jan 2015 and their first budget was 2016.

Republicans have held a majority in the House since 2011.​

>>When will you stop carrying water for Obama. He isn't worth it

I see the facts for what they are. Yer perception is grossly distorted.



They were of course recorded in the budget as expenditures and revenues. You've simply created another baseless talking point that has has no relation to reality.

>>He did things he had no business doing like bailing out state expense items like teachers

Yes, Democrats care about education and are willing to fund it.

>>He gave tax cuts with strings which was nothing more than another giveaway with no benefits.

More of the mindless blather you endlessly barf up.

>>He failed to create the shovel ready jobs projected

Five million jobs added through the ARRA, according to the CBO. Not projected, actual. You simply can't face facts.

>>you ignored that Obama increased military spending to fund the Afghanistan surge, recycled TARP, took over GM/Chrysler, Bailed out AIG

Nothing was "ignored." The spending levels I posted are easily confirmed. Who are you lying to, yerself, the community, or both?

>>According to people like you Obummer prevented a worldwide depression which is liberal talking points, how exactly did he do that and with what legislation?

I keep answering that over and over — all of it.

>>It was TARP that supposedly saved the banks

I've always credited Dubya for taking on that responsibility.

>>you buy the leftwing spin and rhetoric. The question is why?

The answer is very simple — you view it as spin and rhetoric, when it's simply the truth. Seems like you can't handle the truth.



Yes, we are. We just don't like some of the limitations the Right wants placed on it, like no effort to end the poverty that has resulted from centuries of racial and ethnic brutality and discrimination, no effort to invest in public sector education, research, and infrastructure, no effort to create an effective and efficient healthcare system available to all Americans, etc. And we oppose violations of personal liberty like unjust restrictions on reproductive freedom, a racially biased criminal justice system, and economic discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

>>The tea Party was born out of opposition to too much spending and taxes. You're going to have to back that up with something, anything. Otherwise, it's just ignorant.

Oh, there's definitely ignorance involved:

View attachment 67196542

View attachment 67196543

View attachment 67196544

Want me to post the signs democrats used against Bush including comparing him to Hitler. Look, you want to discuss issues go for it, use the quote function so it is easier to respond and focus on actual results including what I posted regarding the budget, deficit, debt but apparently you want to focus on some signs created by nuts on the right ignoring the signs of the nuts on the left

The problem with your claim about the loans is it is wrong, the money loaned did indeed appear on the budget as an expense but the repayment never got booked against the deficit. Prove me wrong?

As for Republicans holding the majority in the House, when did the deficits start falling? Obama had total control of the Congress from 2009-2011 and you have yet to explain any Obama program that actually cut the deficit or any Obama initiative that prevented what you called a potential depression. There are millions of people today who haven't felt the Obama recovery and what you are going to find is that our next President is going to have a bigger mess to clean up than Obama as we were coming out of recession when he took office. Now we have a problem with under employment including too many part time employees for economic reasons, high discouraged workers but more importantly a debt that has debt service as the fourth largest budget item with the two of the largest items items that shouldn't even be on budget, SS and Medicare

Further check who signed the 2009 budget. I gave you the details, they are accurate but you don't want accuracy you want partisan bs. I grew up a strong Democrat, was a JFK Democrat, that that party because the party of Pelosi, Reid, and our Community agitator President. Sorry, that party isn't what this country was built on. If you want to blame Bush for leaving Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit you have to prove it by posting expenditures and revenues for when you include TARP as an expense you have to show the revenue that paid back those loans and how they got applied to the deficit.
 
It's not difficult to find this information. I've discussed it repeatedly in this forum. You just don't like the facts:

  • President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined "a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."
  • Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
  • On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion."
  • CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
  • Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. — "Obama’s Spending: 'Inferno' or Not?," FactCheck.org, Jun 4, 2012​

>>what Obama did with his responsibility as President to reduce it?

Obummer cut $225 billion from TARP, as noted above, but more importantly he signed the ARRA, which helped lead us out of the morass the GOP placed us in by, as CBO calculates, adding five million jobs to the economy. Now if we can avoid sending more asses to Washington, …



This is the reactionary fiction that the GOP peddles. Democrats/liberals/progressives want to use gubmint to solve problems, like ending the Great Depression, winning the Second World War, and doing something about the unjust and dysfunctional consequences of the enslavement and persecution of millions of African-Americans. We don't want gubmint to be any larger than it needs to be, we don't want to spend money unwisely, and, as I've repeatedly noted in this community, we eliminate deficits and the resulting debt created by so-called conservatives, not the other way around.

View attachment 67196532

>>The tea Party was born out of opposition to too much spending and taxes.

I'd say it was founded out of ignorance and bigotry.

Obama signed 9 out of the 12 spending appropriations bills in the FY2009 budget ( A Number....Lol )
 
signs democrats used against Bush including comparing him to Hitler.

Those were equally foolish, but that doesn't speak to the attitudes of teabuggers.

>>use the quote function so it is easier to respond

If yer having problems responding to what I said, that's not because I didn't use the QUOTE tag — I did.

>>focus on actual results including what I posted regarding the budget, deficit, debt but apparently you want to focus on some signs

I've responded to what you've posted about "budget, deficit, debt."

>>the repayment never got booked against the deficit. Prove me wrong?

This is a somewhat complex issue. First off, I'm no expert on the federal budget and neither is anyone else in this community. I do know that Treasury, CBO, and OMB looked at this question differently, as you'd expect, given their differing roles. Tbh, it doesn't concern me. I don't much care about the budget rules for how a couple of hundred billion dollars gets accounted for. My interest is in how the money was spent and what it accomplished.

Here are some short articles that discuss this topic:

"White House Aims to Cut Deficit With TARP Cash," WSJ, Nov 11, 2009

"How Do We Account for TARP Transactions?," CheatSheet, Dec 14, 2009

"Do TARP Repayments Reduce The Deficit?," Forbes,

>>As for Republicans holding the majority in the House, when did the deficits start falling?

That's a good question. Democrats controlled both houses in 2010, and the deficit that year was cut by 8.4%. The GOP took control of the House in Jan 2011, and we had a trillion dollar deficit in both that year and in 2012. The deficit actually went up by five billion in 2011, and then fell by 16.4% in 2012.

I would note, first, that by the end of 2012, 5.3 million jobs had been added to the economy over three years, significantly adding to revenues and reducing expenditures. Now you might want to credit Republicans for "holding the line" against the profligate and irresponsible Obummer. But in 2012, Congress authorized $20 billion more in spending than the WH requested, and the administration then spent $210 billion less than was authorized.

>>you have yet to explain any Obama program that actually cut the deficit or any Obama initiative that prevented what you called a potential depression.

I've answered this question many times here. I point to his entire set of economic policies.
 
There are millions of people today who haven't felt the Obama recovery

It's a big country with a very large and complex economy. Which party wants to help those who are still hurting from the effects of the GOP SSE Great Recession?

>>you are going to find that our next President is going to have a bigger mess to clean up than Obama

Five percent unemployment and a deficit that is 2.5% of GDP?

>>we were coming out of recession when he took office.

Not just any recession, and not a business cycle recession that has strong self-adjusting mechanisms built around inventory levels. This was the Great Recession, with real GDP down 2.1% Q4 2008, the worst quarter since Q1 1958. In 2009, GDP fell by 2.9%, while the worst post-Depression year before that was Reagan's 1.9% decline in 1982.

We just don't have years like that without SSE policies causing them. The largest annual declines other than those two years were in the range of -0.5 and -0.7.

>>Now we have … too many part time employees for economic reasons

As a percentage of the labor force, a healthier level than Reagan/Bush41 ever had, and approaching the 3-3.5% range we had in Bush43's non-bubble years, after he inherited a labor force built up by Clinton.

PT_econ_as_perc_labor_force_1955_2015.jpg

>>high discouraged workers

Down 50% from Dec 2010, and now only four-tenths of one percent of the civilian labor force.

>>a debt that has debt service as the fourth largest budget item

As a percentage of GDP, it's within the historical range.

debt_interest_as_perc_GDP.jpg

And who is responsible for that debt? I'm working while I post, so I keep getting delayed and then timed out, causing images to be dumped by the server. Here's one I tried to post in 222:

debt_as_perc_GDP_1969_2015.jpg

>>the largest items items that shouldn't even be on budget, SS and Medicare

They're public expenditures.

>>who signed the 2009 budget. I gave you the details, they are accurate but you don't want accuracy you want partisan bs.

I posted the facts. You posted drivel, just as Fenton has.

>>If you want to blame Bush for leaving Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit you have to prove it by posting expenditures and revenues

The facts have been posted and are easily found/confirmed online. I can't help it if you simply refuse to accept them.

>>when you include TARP as an expense you have to show the revenue that paid back those loans and how they got applied to the deficit.

I've done that through links that go through the weedy details. You now have a new and equally irrelevant item to point to in yer ongoing confusion — the accounting process related to TARP expenditures. I expect you will return to it with some frequency.

>> I grew up a strong Democrat

In recent years, GOP policies have included:

  • massive and completely unproductive tax cuts for wealthy households that led to very large revenue shortfalls and highly dysfunctional wealth inequality, a repeat of the Reagan folly
  • an unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, one that greatly weakened our position in Afghanistan, and
  • an irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector that led to the housing bubble and collapse, causing the Great Recession and its corrosive effects on our fiscal position
I can only suggest that you consider returning to yer political roots.
 
Last edited:
It's a big country with a very large and complex economy. Which party wants to help those who are still hurting from the effects of the GOP SSE Great Recession?

And who is responsible for that debt? I'm working while I post, so I keep getting delayed and then timed out, causing images to be dumped by the server. Here's one I tried to post in 222:

View attachment 67196558

>>the largest items items that shouldn't even be on budget, SS and Medicare

They're public expenditures.

>>who signed the 2009 budget. I gave you the details, they are accurate but you don't want accuracy you want partisan bs.

I posted the facts. You posted drivel, just as Fenton has.

>>If you want to blame Bush for leaving Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit you have to prove it by posting expenditures and revenues

The facts have been posted and are easily found/confirmed online. I can't help it if you simply refuse to accept them.

>>when you include TARP as an expense you have to show the revenue that paid back those loans and how they got applied to the deficit.

I've done that through links that go through the weedy details. You now have a new and equally irrelevant item to point to in yer ongoing confusion — the accounting process related to TARP expenditures. I expect you will return to it with some frequency.

>> I grew up a strong Democrat

In recent years, GOP policies have included:

  • massive and completely unproductive tax cuts for wealthy households that led to very large revenue shortfalls and highly dysfunctional wealth inequality, a repeat of the Reagan folly
  • an unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, one that greatly weakened our position in Afghanistan, and
  • an irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector that led to the housing bubble and collapse, causing the Great Recession and its corrosive effects on our fiscal position
I can only suggest that you consider returning to yer political roots.

There is a famous saying that you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. When you use debt as a percentage of GDP you ignore the amount and the cost of debt service on that debt. That is a very partisan way of looking at debt whereas the truth is it is currently almost 19 trillion dollars

You keep going back to the tired old liberal rhetoric of promoting class warfare and jealousy. I don't give a damn how much of a tax cut the rich gets, it is their money first. I don't understand where you got your education if you think they don't deserve to keep more of what they earn.

As has been shown and ignored those tax cuts generated positive economic activity that grew tax revenue not reduced it, no matter how many times you say something differently

unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq happened over 12 years ago and the war was won, Obama lost the peace whether you like it or not

Irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector, you mean Glass-Steagall signed by Clinton but the bubble was created a long time ago, long before Bush no matter how many times you ignore it. What you continue to show is you don't pay any attention to anything posted that refutes what you say meaning you will only accept what you want to believe

Now let's get back to your claim and still no apology that Bush left Obama with a 1.4 trillion dollar debt. You don't help yourself continuing with that narrative since I pointed out and have proven over and over again that TARP WAS NOT RETURNED to the Treasury. Suggest you check with Tim Geithner and ask him about it. You are absolutely correct in that you cannot show it was returned to the Treasury because it didn't happen
 
When you use debt as a percentage of GDP you ignore the amount and the cost of debt service on that debt.

No, nothing is being ignored. As I noted in another thread, the deficit in 1979 was $41 billion, 1.5% of GDP. Last year's $463 billion shortfall was 2.5% of GDP. You want to use deficit figures that aren't adjusted for GDP. So if the deficit in 1979 had been ten times larger, $410 billion, and therefore 15% of GDP, you would see the two as comparable?

>>You keep going back to the tired old liberal rhetoric of promoting class warfare and jealousy.

I've never done anything like that. This is the tired old reactionary rhetoric about liberals promoting class warfare and jealousy. It's laughable.

>>I don't give a damn how much of a tax cut the rich gets

As I've said, I don't care either, if the amount is considered in isolation. When hundreds of billions of dollars in foregone revenues occur in the same years as hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits, I do care.

>>it is their money first

That's like saying people shouldn't be required to pay for something they purchase. Americans, including those living in wealthy households, are subject to taxation to fund public expenditures. They have an equal say in how taxing and spending decisions are made. (In fact, of course, they have a disproportional amount of influence, which is why SSE policies get enacted.) That's the way the system works. If you don't like it, you can try to amend the Constitution to change it, you can seek to overthrow the gubmint, or you can move elsewhere.

>>I don't understand where you got your education if you think they don't deserve to keep more of what they earn.

UW-Madison and the University of Rhode Island.

>>As has been shown and ignored those tax cuts generated positive economic activity that grew tax revenue not reduced it

No, that has not been shown. In fact, quite the opposite. I noted this in that other thread:

Federal income tax receipts

1981 — 347
1982 — 347, flat
1983 — 326, down 6%

1984 — 355, up 9%
1985 — 396, up 12%

>>no matter how many times you say something differently

My saying it doesn't matter. It being true does.

>>invasion of Iraq … the war was won, Obama lost the peace whether you like it or not

My liking it or not is irrelevant. Bush signed the 2008 SOFA mandating the withdrawal of all US forces. And just so ya know, it doesn't matter if you like that or not.

>>Irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector, you mean Glass-Steagall signed by Clinton

No, I mean the way the Bush administration ignored its regulatory responsibilities.

>>the bubble was created a long time ago, long before Bush no matter how many times you ignore it.

That's of course absurd nonsense, no matter how many times you and Fenton and others repeat it. There was no bubble in Jan 2001, and fwiw, there was no bubble in Jan 2002, or Jan 2003, or Jan 2004.

>>What you continue to show is you don't pay any attention to anything posted that refutes what you say meaning you will only accept what you want to believe

I can't even begin to understand the way you think. I'm not sure I'd call it thinking.

>>I pointed out and have proven over and over again that TARP WAS NOT RETURNED to the Treasury. You cannot show it was returned to the Treasury because it didn't happen

TARP repayment. The $700 billion authorized for the TARP was reduced to $475 billion under the law, and no unspent TARP funds could be redirected to new spending. Repayment of TARP funds had to be returned to the Treasury and used to help reduce the deficit. — "Details of the Financial Regulations Law," Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 2010​

I ask again, if the money wasn't returned to the Treasury, where did it go?
 
Last edited:

What on earth is the point? You're exponentially better than I at explaining this stuff, but what is the point if you're just yelling it at a wall of talking points?
 
What on earth is the point? You're exponentially better than I at explaining this stuff, but what is the point if you're just yelling it at a wall of talking points?

I really would love to hear your definition of talking points since obviously mine is different than yours. I happen to believe post 205 is fact and haven't had anyone refute those "talking points." Please be the first
 
What on earth is the point?

An excellent question, and one I think many of us should regularly ask ourselves. I have a learned/inherited tendency to put my head down and keep going, sometimes without proper consideration.

I'd like to address the issue of tone. I don't enjoy being negative. I'd like to stop. It seems to me (perhaps self-serving) that "I didn't start it" (the old cliché). But there's really no need for it, and I should just stop. Somehow. Not easy for me.

Secondly, on the matter at hand, there is of course some dispute about the appropriate share of responsibility for the actors involved in the FY2009 disaster. Our friend Conservative wants to shrink 43's down to a few hundred billion (apparently — I haven't followed his meanderings closely). I figure that's flat-out nonsense.

You can draw a line at $1.3 trillion, or at 1.17, or perhaps as low as, say, $950 billion. But that misses the point, imo. The entire mess arguably has nothing to with Obummer. He didn't cause it. Now perhaps he "wasted money" trying to "fix it." Some claim that the economy would have righted itself without the ARRA. That seems to be the underlying disagreement here.

Fwiw, I'll agree that the money could have been expended more effectively, but that only gets you so far. It wasn't spent as ineffectively as some observers claim.

The point I'm hoping Conservative will accept is that it is useless to talk about when the money was spent and where the "debt clock" was on a given day. He knows a lot of money comes in some months, and a lot goes out in others. The decisions to tax and spend are what's important.

I don't know why I argue with people like Conservative and DA60. I know they'll never be affected by my reasoning, that they'll dismiss my evidence as "obscure" or "tainted," etc. I'd like to find a different focus, but I'm not sure what to do.

>>You're exponentially better than I at explaining this stuff

I see you live in that part of the country where they cling to their snow shovels and somewhat archaic grammar. I'd seek to persuade you to start going with "than me." And I doubt I explain this stuff well at all.

>>what is the point if you're just yelling it at a wall of talking points?

None. perhaps. When I was looking after my mom, and got to where I couldn't take it anymore, I'd sometimes go upstairs, shut the door to the small bedroom behind me, and literally yell at a wall. Better than displaying frustration at a sweet, little old lady. I suppose I should stop thinking of efforts to provide a proper presentation of the US economy, and the federal budget in particular, as my responsibility. I doubt I'm accomplishing much of anything, as you suggest.

post 205 is fact

There are facts mixed in there, but are they useful? If I spend more than I earn in a given year, does it matter when I spend it? If I buy an expensive item I can't afford in March, am I better off if I wait until August? Maybe a little, but I'd say very little.

Our fiscal position in 2009 was hell. We lost a lot of revenue and we ran up a lot of bills. Looks like the best you can do is say that the CRA and Clinton caused the collapse, joining Team Fenton. That is a waste of time, and I've (more or less) managed to leave that behind. It may be that I should, in similar fashion, come to … ignore … yer heavily biased and indefensible claims about the effectiveness of Reagan's economic polices v. Obummer's. After all, since you simply keep repeating them, what is the point of my continuing to refute them?

>>haven't had anyone refute those "talking points."

The timeline is useless/irrelevant. And you lose credibility when you fail to recognize that all the bailouts were included in TARP.

I'm thinking I should leave this all behind and try to educate myself about how we can make effective public investments in education, research, and infrastructure.

Kobie's correct in pointing to my foolishness, but I don't think you are. Just my opinion.
 
It is with great sadness that I must report that Conservative Debt Concerns has been quite ill for most of the year and bedridden the last few months. A decision was made yesterday to pull the plug. I will update you as information comes in.
 
It is with great sadness that I must report that Conservative Debt Concerns has been quite ill for most of the year and bedridden the last few months. A decision was made yesterday to pull the plug. I will update you as information comes in.

LOL.

This is actually just hibernation.

Just wait a few months, when they have to submit a budget and are shocked, I tell you, shocked! by the impending size of the deficit.
 
It is again with great sadness that I must inform everyone that Conservative Debt Concerns has passed away today. After suffering terribly most of the year, Conservative Debt Concerns is now at peace.
 
Back
Top Bottom