Page 3 of 6 First 123456 Last
  1. #23
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama's 'call to tweet': The wisecracks
    The Week – 11 hrs ago


    The president urges Americans to pressure Congress into a bipartisan debt compromise — using 140 characters or less

    In a televised speech Friday morning, President Obama called (again) for legislators to compromise on a budget-slashing deal that would allow for the federal debt ceiling to be raised — and avoid a credit downgrade and default. Obama also suggested specific modes of communication that Americans could use to pressure their representatives into a deal: "Make a phone call. Send an email. Tweet." Even as economic catastrophe looms, the president's "call to tweet" has elicited chuckles. Here, some of their better quips about our commander-in-tweet:

    #DeepThinkers : It's a little strange that, in the midst of this tense budget battle, says Noreen Malone at New York, Obama is suggesting legislators spend their time on social media sites. If congressmen really are trolling their Twitter messages for guidance, "this ship might really be going down."

    #FacebookFail
    : Mark Zuckerberg just can't catch a break, says Leena Rao at TechCrunch. Obama very noticeably "didn't say Facebook message your congressperson," making this a "pretty big endorsement for Twitter. Take that, Zuck.

    #ExecutiveProductPlacement
    : "It's weird" for the president to encourage Americans to use Twitter, considering it's a "private for-profit corporation," tweets Gawker's John Cook. "It's like saying, 'Call your congressman with your iPhone.'"

    #BigGuns
    : The debt talks have become so dire, says Michael D. Shear at The New York Times, that the White House is driving home its political message "every way it can." And that means bringing in the big guns, including the president's "hashtag team."

    #NotableOmissions :
    "It's still weird to hear" the word "tweet" come out of the president's mouth, says David Weigel at Slate. And while the president implored Americans to tweet, he forgot about something even more important. "He didn't actually call for the Boehner bill to pass!"
    [b]
    #Anachronisms [/i]: "As Obama calls for tweets," says Michael Scherer at TIME, "conservatives blast faxes." GrassTopsUSA is urging its members to go on a "good-old 'blast fax' campaign," telling Republican congressmen not to compromise on Obama's "radical" agenda. How often do you think John Boehner "checks his fax machine"?

    http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-call-tw...160600634.html

    comments

    "like omg my bff obama is tweeting to like get the buget and like fix like publik scools hes my hero i will like vote 4 him when i get old and like get dun in scool you know"

    ~~~

    Calling upon his organizing background. It's the same concept....use the multitudes to force issues through to suit his needs.

    ~~~

    Great leadership there BO. The House has written two bills, and you're surfing the web

    ~~~

    There is a lot of confusion. All Obama wanted from the very beginning was to raise the debt ceiling, plain and simple. It's been done 108 times by previous adminstrations without a problem. This gives us a way to pay our bills. Most of which were incurred by the previous adminstration: Two wars and medicare part D that were never funded by the Bush Administration. Let call the debt ceiling "A." Then the Tea Party comes along and says before we can give you "A", we want "B." B being to cut Social Secuity and Medicare and not to raise taxes on the filthy rich and corporations. So B is the Republican way of holding Obama and the Country hostage so that they can get B. The irony is now that Boehner's Bill has passed the house, the senate will veto it. So for the house, it's just an exercise in futility. Other than court room drama, what has it bought them?

    ~~

    12 million illegals 3 million crack head 8.5 million unemployed 7 million in prisons,millions collection welfare and food stamps and will never work,535 USELESS PEOPLE IN US HOUSE AND SENATE

    ~~~

    Why does Obama pay 800,000 dollars to keep his records tied up in lawyers and courts to keep the American people from knowing who he really is. He has a very incriminating past.

    ~~~

    With the raises in the House increase in there salary's-like the Special assistant to the President for economic policy $71,400 to130,500 -83%increase,way to lead lead the country
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Debt ceiling called unconstitutional ??
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #24
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The Boehner-Obama-Reid-Obama-McConnell-Obama-Anti-Hobbit Debt Ceiling Increase Vote;
    6:23pm update Bill passes House, 218-210;
    8:25pm update: Senate tables Boehner bill 59-41,
    Reid whinnies about “filibuster” while filibustering himself

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/29...increase-vote/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #25
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Answers to the 7 big "what-ifs" of debt default
    By Lauren Young | Reuters – 11 hrs ago


    NEW YORK (Reuters) - The debt negotiations are getting down to the wire. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scrambling to broker a deal to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling before Tuesday, when the Treasury will no longer be able to borrow funds to meet all of its obligations. It all means the United States could face the possibility of defaulting on its debt and losing its prized triple-A credit rating.

    What does that mean for consumers? Here are some answers we compiled from Reuters Money experts:

    1. Should I be worried that I won't receive my Social Security benefit in August?

    Perhaps not immediately. Social Security's coffers should be full enough to make the August payments. And cash flow should be positive -- the system generates more from current revenue than it spends on benefits and its own administrative costs. The main source of revenue is the payroll tax paid by employers and employees (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA); other income sources include interest payments on bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) and taxes paid by higher-income beneficiaries.

    Last year, revenue totaled $781 billion, while outgo was $713 billion. And even if funds aren't on hand in a given week to pay benefits for timing reasons, the SSTF can redeem bonds to make up the shortfall.

    But here's the rub: the bonds are obligations of the U.S. Treasury back to the SSTF. A government debt default would put us in uncharted waters, and it's entirely possible that the administration could refuse to redeem bonds or divert payroll tax receipts to meet other pressing obligations.

    Social Security advocates don't agree on what might happen. "(Obama's statement) was a foolish bluff," says Eric Kingson, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security coalition. "There's no excuse for checks not being issued, and the White House's willingness to use the threat is symptomatic of their lack of regard for the institution. Their willingness to use it as a negotiating chip is unfortunate."

    But Max Richtman, acting chief executive officer of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, worries that the government might decide not to fund the interest on Social Security's bonds, which would leave the program short of funds. "We really don't know -- it's completely uncharted territory. Social Security is cash flow-positive if you count interest on the bonds. But which obligations will the government put at top of list of priorities, and who decides that? Is it paying the interest on those bonds? Will it be paying the military? There's so much uncertainty as to who gets paid, how much and when."

    2. What if I just filed for benefits, or plan to file next month? Could I lose my benefits in the event of a government default?

    No, but processing of your application could be delayed if the Social Security Administration is forced to lay off employees or shut down in the event of a government funding crisis.

    3. Will interest rates on mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit cards rise?

    Yes. Like any average Joe or Jane who misses a credit card payment, the United States will be socked with higher borrowing costs if it defaults on its debt. If the country loses its coveted triple-A rating, which is expected to happen, the cost to service its debt will probably rise. And that will have a significant ripple effect.

    Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, says either a ratings downgrade or debt default would result in higher borrowing rates for consumers and businesses alike. "More of a concern is that a prolonged default could cause credit markets to freeze altogether, and we will have real problems," he says.

    It's impossible to speculate how much rates will go up, he says. "There are a lot of variables at play. The downgrade will lead to a more modest increase in rates. However, that increase would be permanent." Folks who have variable debt such as a credit card balance or adjustable-rate mortgage can take a little comfort in this: "You are going to see higher interest rates eventually, anyway, because rates are so low," McBride says.

    Alas, consumers won't see higher rates on saving products, such as certificates of deposit or money market accounts. "Those products won't improve until loan demand picks up; any downgrade or default will only hold back loan demand," McBride says.

    4. What's the outlook for the U.S. dollar?

    Fear that the United States will lose its AAA credit rating or even default on its debt is driving foreigners away from U.S. assets, and the dollar is taking the biggest hit.

    Recent trading in currency markets indicates overseas investors have been voting with their feet. They have also been giving short shrift to recent Treasury auctions.

    Traders say Asian central banks, among the world's biggest dollar holders, have been steady buyers of alternatives to the dollar such as the Singapore dollar and other Asian currencies as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars. "Foreigners are at the vanguard of the drop in the dollar," says Dan Dorrow, head of research at Faros Trading, a currency broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut. "I don't think anyone expects a catastrophic U.S. default. But a downgrade will make them more aggressive in moving away from the dollar."

    If global investors lose faith in the dollar, that could weaken its dominant position in global trade and its role as the world's reserve currency. Over time, diminished demand for dollars would make it harder for the United States to finance itself at low interest rates.

    The bottom line? It will be more expensive to travel overseas, drink French wine or buy Japanese cars.

    5. What's the outlook for U.S. Treasuries?

    The Treasury market has held up better than the dollar, but bonds haven't been let off the hook entirely. Foreigners, who hold nearly half of outstanding Treasury debt, have been less active buyers at auctions this month. Still, the 10-year yield has held below three percent for most of July, less than a percentage point from its multi-decade low.

    That's partly because domestic investors have picked up the slack in recent debt sales, suggesting they see no alternative to U.S. government bonds even in the face of a default or possible downgrade.

    Indeed, analysts say even with a downgrade, Treasuries would remain the benchmark for world fixed income markets, as Fitch Ratings noted this week.

    Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase, said a downgrade would probably add just five to 10 basis points to yields in the short run. But it could cost the U.S. government up to 70 basis points, or about $100 billion, in added borrowing costs over time as foreigners look to invest their money elsewhere.

    6. Will we still pay our soldiers?

    While a group of Congressmen pushed forward a bill this week to ensure that the active military servicemen still get paid in the case of default, there's no firm plan yet. The White House hasn't made any assurances and either has the Treasury Department. Some financial organizations that service military clients, like USAA and the Andrews Federal Credit Union, have stepped up to say that they will advance pay if there is a default. "Rest assured, USAA has continued to manage its financial resources to meet our commitments to members in their moments of need," says CEO Joe Robles in a statement.

    What will a default actually mean for military members and their families? "The bigger concern has got to be interest rates," says Sarah Gilbert, the wife of an army reservist and a personal finance writer who was formerly an investment banker. She says military families have been through pay stoppages before - during the last government shut-down, they actually halted all military pay a week early - but what will really hurt is if interest rates go up even a little bit. "There's no wiggle room," she says. "Military families are so dependent on debt because they have to move so much, they are living on small budgets and they are mostly young families that don't have a lot of established savings. If interest rates go up, you're looking at foreclosures, collections and not being able to pay bills."

    7. Is there an upside to higher interest rates?

    Barry Glassman, president and certified financial planner at Glassman Wealth Services in McLean, Virginia, says higher interest rates are good for retirees and folks who have fixed mortgages. "I don't know anyone with a five-year Treasury bond who doesn't believe they won't get their interest and principal back. If yields do jump, my clients would love 10- year Treasuries with a five percent coupon," Glassman says.

    But McBride of Bankrate.com says it's going to be a bumpy ride for most folks. "There are no winners here. Your best bet is to sit tight and pull the seat belt a little tighter," he says.

    http://news.yahoo.com/answers-7-big-...130931723.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #26
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    President Obama Is No Longer Tethered To Reality
    By Peter Ferrara | Forbes – Thu, Jul 28, 2011

    President Barack Obama's speech to the nation Monday night was highly disturbing. Because read carefully, it reveals a president wildly divorced from the fundamental realities of the nation he is supposed to be leading.

    President Obama actually told America on national television that it is a nation "with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few." It is incomprehensible how a man serving as president of these United States could make such a fundamentally false assertion about his own country.

    As I explain in my new book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, before Obama was even elected, official IRS data showed that for 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. The top 1% paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes that year, almost twice their share of income. The middle fifth of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of federal income taxes. Deck stacked against the middle class in favor of the wealthiest few?


    Moreover, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes that year. They instead received net payments from the IRS equal to 4% of total federal tax revenues. As my book explains, this was actually the result of nearly 30 years of Reaganomics. Today close to 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

    We see the same in some states. In California, the top 1% pay 48% of all state income taxes. In New York, the top 1% pay 41% of all state income taxes. In New Jersey, until recently the top 1% paid 46% of state income taxes.

    Moreover, America's corporate income tax rate is virtually the highest in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate rates. Even Communist China has a 25% corporate rate, with the average in the mostly socialist European Union below that. In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate rate today is 16.5%, scheduled to fall under current law to 15% next year. Doesn't sound like America suffers a deck stacked against the middle class in favor of the wealthiest few.

    And already scheduled under current law for 2013 are increases in the top tax rates of every major federal tax, apart from the already too high corporate tax rate. That is because the ObamaCare taxes become effective that year, and the Bush tax cuts expire. So the top two income tax rates would go up nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate would go up nearly 60%, the tax on corporate dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would go up 62% for the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors.

    Obama's wildly erroneous statement Monday night indicates he is not living in the real world, which is dangerous for America. These tax policies so heavily skewed against the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors are central reasons why there has been no recovery from the last recession, why working people can't get jobs, why their wages are falling in real terms, why unemployment is still rising 3.5 years after the last recession started, why a record number of Americans are in poverty. As a consequence, in reality, it is Obama's anti-market economic policies that are actually in effect stacked heavily against the middle class, working people and the poor.

    Obama also told the nation Monday night he wants to "ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries." This is another false truism that is widely circulated throughout the liberal/left. The allegation arises because capital gains income is taxed at 15%, while individual income tax rates range higher than that. But as I explain in my book, the fundamental mistake is the failure to recognize that capital income is taxed multiple times, not just by the capital gains tax. It is taxed at least four times, by the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, and the death tax, besides the capital gains tax. That is why the most fair as well as most economically productive rate for the capital gains tax would be zero, as is the case in much of the industrialized world.

    The president further proclaimed Monday night that "most Americans don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get." But his ObamaCare law already more than asks seniors to pay more for their Medicare benefits. It requires them to pay 40% to 200% more if they, in the President's infinite wisdom, earn too much, defined as over $85,000 a year this time.

    Note also the tax break for corporate jet owners was adopted in the Obama stimulus to create jobs in corporate jet manufacturing. Yet, such tax breaks for corporate jets or oil companies that other companies do not get are special interest, central economic planning loopholes that undermine the economy rather than advance it. The only truly pro-growth tax policy is the lowest possible tax rates for all, with no special interest loopholes. But the amount of revenue lost on Obama's corporate jet scam is so trivial it is not even worth talking about as possibly even contributing to solving the deficit and debt crisis.

    Finally on Monday night, Obama threatened America's seniors with more, saying that if House Republicans don't agree to his tax increase to increase the debt limit, "we would not have enough money to pay the bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks." This can only be described as calculated deception.

    The Social Security trust funds include $2.7 trillion in government bonds, which are due and payable when needed to pay Social Security benefits. As I also show in my book, those bonds do not represent any real savings and investment. They involve only a statement of the legal authority Social Security has to draw from general revenues, on top of payroll tax revenues. But in dealing with a crisis over the debt limit, that legal authority can be the critical factor.

    While those bonds are explicitly not transferable, and so cannot be sold to the public to raise money, under prior practice they would be cashed out by selling new government bonds to the public. Since the Social Security trust fund bonds are included in the national debt subject to the debt limit, they can be replaced by such new public bonds without the total debt going over the limit.

    Moreover, those Social Security trust fund bonds are explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. That means Obama is constitutionally required to pay them when needed to pay Social Security benefits. In addition, there is more than enough general revenue coming in to just cash out the trust fund bonds as necessary in any event, even without issuing any new public bonds.

    As a result, Obama is constitutionally required to pay Social Security benefits, under his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That means failing to pay those benefits would be an impeachable offense.

    http://news.yahoo.com/president-obam...160512355.html

    comments

    Tethered To Reality?
    Who in Washington is?

    ~~~

    Exxon Mobil: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $156 million in federal benefits

    - Chevron: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $19 million in federal benefits

    - General Electric: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $1.1 billion in federal benefits

    - Bank of America: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $2.8 billion in federal benefits

    ---

    Salary of the US President...$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents ...$180,00 Salary of House/Senate...$174,000. Salary of Speaker of the House...$223,500... Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400... Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ $38,000... I think we found where the cuts should be made!

    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #27
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Debt ceiling fix could mean problems for states
    By DINESH RAMDE - SUSAN HAIGH - Associated Press | AP – 2 hrs 1 min ago

    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The cost of the compromise needed to raise the federal debt ceiling likely will inflict more fiscal pain on states still struggling to recover from the recession and the end of federal stimulus spending.

    President Barack Obama and Republicans sealed a deal Sunday to avoid the nation's first financial default and raise the debt limit while slashing more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. Obama said that, if enacted, the agreement would mean "the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president" more than half a century ago.

    While the details of the spending cuts to states remain unclear, lawmakers from both parties have discussed the need to cut or impose caps on so-called discretionary spending over the next decade.

    That could mean wide-ranging cuts in federal aid to states, affecting everything from the Head Start school readiness program, Meals on Wheels and worker training initiatives to funding for transit agencies and education grants that serve disabled children.

    There also was concern among governors, state lawmakers and state agency heads that Congress would make deep reductions or changes in federal aid for health services for the needy, most notably through Medicaid. That could shift more of the costs onto states that already are having trouble balancing their budgets. "We have the potential for disaster should there be a major realignment in federal funding that results in a cost shift to states," said Nevada state Sen. Sheila Leslie, a Democrat from Reno who recently discussed the issue with Obama administration officials in Washington. "In short, we are teetering on the edge right now, and a cost shift could send us over the cliff."

    States already have closed nearly $480 billion in budget gaps since the beginning of the recession, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    In Connecticut, for example, officials have struggled to cover a $3.3 billion deficit, accounting for more than 16 percent of the state's main budget account.

    About 19 percent of the state's non-transportation revenue comes from the federal government. "The timing is lousy in every respect," said Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. "It will certainly have a recessionary impact on the overall national economy, and that's the last thing we want right now."

    Among the programs that could be affected is a service that delivers meals to the home-bound elderly.

    Connecticut received about $4.5 million from the federal government for the program this year and $1.8 million from the state. Marie Allen, executive director of the Southwestern Connecticut Agency on Aging, said the program is a staple for many senior citizens on tight budgets. The federal aid ultimately saves taxpayers money because it helps keep people out of costly nursing homes, she said. "If we don't have the support for them in the community, people end up in nursing facilities because they don't have proper nutrition," Allen said. "These are the real reasons why we spend more money on skilled nursing care."

    State officials across the country were worried about the austerity steps demanded by fiscal conservatives in exchange for raising the nation's debt ceiling, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. He said the association expects states to be affected by cuts, if not immediately, then in the next year or two.

    Obama, in his remarks on the debt deal Sunday night, said there will be no initial cuts to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But he said both could be on the table along with changes in tax law as part of future cuts.

    House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck, officials said.

    No votes were expected in either house of Congress until Monday at the earliest, to give rank-and-file lawmakers time to review the package. But leaders in both major parties were already beginning the work of rounding up votes.

    Darrell Steinberg, president pro-tem of the California state Senate, said before the debt deal was announced Sunday night he was concerned about cuts to entitlement programs, especially if they reduce payments to the states for Medicaid, which provide health care for the poor and disabled. The state's version is known as Medi-Cal and covers 7.5 million people.

    Significant cuts could have forced California to look for ways to make up for the funding at a time when the state is slowly emerging from a recession that has left it with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Lawmakers closed a $26.6 billion shortfall this year, partly with the help of rising tax revenue. "Certainly in California, we're on the verge of turning a corner," said Steinberg, a Democrat. "We want to go forward, not backwards."

    A concern in many states is a possible change in the federal-state formula known as FMAP, which is used to fund Medicaid programs. In Nevada, for example, the federal government pays 55 percent of the cost. Every 1 percent of cost that is shifted to the state equals roughly $15 million. "The change in FMAP is probably one of the more fearful ones that we could experience," said Mike Willden, director of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services.

    Not all state officials were dismayed by the possibility of broad-based cuts in federal aid.

    Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said he believed substantial funding cuts would have less of an impact on his state than allowing the federal government to stay on its course of mounting debt. He is among a small group of GOP governors who signed a pledge urging Congress to oppose increasing the debt limit unless certain conditions are met, including substantial spending cuts. "We need a serious directional change to recover, and merely raising the debt limit will lead only to disaster," he wrote in a recent email.

    The long-term effects of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling could come as a surprise to many state officials, said Rep. George Miller, of California.

    The top Democratic lawmaker on the House Education and Workforce Committee said he had received almost no input from state education departments and local school districts about the looming spending cuts. He said reductions contained in the debt ceiling legislation are "going to make life much more difficult for" for public schools.

    Robert Moran, who represents the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said plans offered by the leaders of the House and Senate each kept a major aid program largely intact. Pell grants, which provide up to $5,550 to low-income students, would sustain cuts, but they would be relatively small, he said. "I think the higher-education community was probably pleasantly surprised about that," he said.

    But he said colleges still face a double-whammy — federal cuts coming on the heels of deep state cuts. In many university systems around the country, departments have lost funding and class offerings have been reduced.

    Barry Toiv, the vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Universities, said continuing to take money out of education would slowly and steadily degrade the quality of the nation's universities and affect America's ability to produce the next generation of leaders. "It's like termites in the wall, gradually eating away at the underpinnings of our innovation," he said. "If you do that over a long period of time, at some point you're no longer leading the world. And eventually, like with termites in the wall, you're not really going to have a house anymore."

    http://news.yahoo.com/debt-ceiling-f...174922628.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #28
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    comments

    Cut all foreign aid, cut out any help to illegals. If you haven't worked and paid into our wonderful system, then you get no help. Go out and work, pay taxes, and leave your family in whatever country you came from.

    ~~~

    Is this REALLY where we are at in America? Take money from retirees, veterans, children and the disabled so we can give it (subsidies) to companies making record profits! I don't believe any moral American REALLY wants to do this...so why are????

    ~~~

    Our country needs to cut out the BILLIONS$$$ given to aid other countries that don't really care about our well being and pour that money into our economy for jobs and education. And how about all of the illegals sucking our economy dry while not putting anything into our system! Protect our borders and send the illegals back where they come from and make them enter legally before they destroy our great country like they have ruined theirs. Why do you think they want to come here, because their country has failed them and now they are out to take from us and give nothing in return like TAXES!

    ~~~

    WHAT!!!!! Are you people out of your mind, thinking of cutting Meals On Wheels, Are we just going to let people starve to death, while government is living " High on the Hog"? What kind of country do we live in?

    ~~~

    cut every politicans salary and pension and save a crap load of money.. stop giving welfare to banks and other industry

    ~~~

    Instead of cutting Meals on Wheels, how about cutting all of the freebies for all illegal aliens in the USA and how about deporting the illegals back to their own countries? This would give the USA a ton of money. Meals on Wheels is needed desperately by the needy and this is a sad state of affairs when you hit on this first!
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #29
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    With debt deal reached, can Congress swallow its own bitter medicine?
    By JAY NEWTON-SMALL | Time.com – 6 hrs ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-reac...092705234.html

    If the definition of a compromise is something that most folks don't like, then the $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling deal worked out over the weekend by President Barack Obama and GOP leaders in Congress is a resounding success.

    As details of the framework began to leak early Sunday, the far wings of each party quickly rejected the compromise as capitulation. Democrats angrily noted that the plan was all spending cuts and no revenue increases. MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, panned the deal and called on Congress to "pass a clean debt ceiling bill that doesn't force the middle class and the poor to bear the brunt of this crisis."

    Conservatives, meanwhile, worried that the deal left open the door to revenue increases and could lead to steep defense cuts. "Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election," blogged Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative website RedState.com. (See "Obama Announces Breakthrough Debt Deal with Congressional Leaders.")

    With the clock ticking and various congressional groups scheduled to meet on Monday morning to discuss the framework, the key question is whether the center can hold this deal together. Senate leaders certainly seem to think so, and a vote in the upper chamber is expected Monday afternoon.

    The timing is key. Markets will be watching closely, and ever since the debacle of the first failed bank bailout vote in 2008 when the Dow plunged 778 points, lawmakers have been sensitive about when they hold economically perilous votes. But 11th hour action - the U.S. treasury has given Congress until midnight Tuesday before it says it will have to take drastic action to avoid a default - will force the House to act, leaving brazen conservative lawmakers no time to amend the bill and no choice but to pass it.

    Convincing House Republicans will be a heavy lift. As President Obama announced Sunday night that "the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement," Boehner was telling his conference, "There's no agreement until we've talked to you." The embattled Speaker apologized to his members that the deal "is not ideal," while trying to reassure them that "there is nothing in this framework that violates our principles."

    "It's all spending cuts," Boehner said. "The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down." Here's the Speaker's problem: It isn't exactly true that any effort to increase revenue has been defeated. While the deal would enact no tax increases up front, it leaves the door open to increased revenues through the special commission. (See the top 10 government showdowns.)

    The plan would cut more than $900 billion in spending right away and raise the debt ceiling through January. Next, it would call for a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, which would likely fail in the Senate. Third, it would set up a commission of six Republicans and six Democrats to find an additional $1.5 trillion in savings. Democrats will surely push for revenue increases in the third stage, though they will be limited on the amount they can raise from individual income because they'll be working off the "current law" baseline, which assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The most likely source of new revenue will be ending corporate tax breaks and subsidies.

    The real tough sell to Republicans is the enforcement mechanism on the commission. If the committee were to deadlock, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts over a 10-year period would automatically kick in. Democrats have their own problems selling their members on a 2% or more cut to Medicare providers in the event of a deadlock, but Medicare benefits as well as Medicaid and Social Security would remain untouched. Republicans hate that fully half of the $1.5 trillion in triggered cuts would come out of the Pentagon's budget. When confronted with the choice of defense cuts or increased revenues, President George H. W. Bush chose to raise taxes, a move that arguably cost him reelection.

    Still, Democrats argue that Republicans got almost everything they wanted in the end. When Obama started debt ceiling negotiations, he asked for a three-to-one ratio of cuts to revenue increases. By the end of his "grand bargain" talks with Speaker Boehner, that ratio was five-to-one. Unless Democrats can win some revenue increases through the commission, the deal will end up as 100% cuts and no tax hikes. In addition, Republicans will get a vote on a balanced budget amendment in the Senate. (See Political Pictures of the Week.)

    Despite those gains, there remains a real question as to whether Boehner can convince enough of his House Republican flock to vote for the deal. He failed to get 216 Republicans to vote for his version of this compromise on Thurdsay, and that plan was significantly more conservative than the one under consideration now. House Democrats aren't wild about the compromise either. "We all may not support it, or none of us may be able to support it," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters Sunday evening, though her staff was quick to clarify that she is keeping an open mind.

    The final outcome may be something right out the deficit reduction deal struck by President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill in the 1980s. That vote split the House exactly; both sides delivered 109 votes. It'll be bad news for Boehner if he can't get a majority of his own conference - 121 votes - and worse if he can't get 108 to make up for half of the 216 votes required for passage. Boehner's future would be in doubt if the vote comes down to something like the second bank bailout vote in 2008, when 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans swallowed the bitter medicine together. If the bill fails altogether, as the first bank bailout did when Boehner didn't deliver the number of votes he promised, it could be the final nail in the Speaker's coffin. Pelosi's case to reclaim the House will grow stronger with every vote Boehner fails to muster.

    Conversely, the one clear winner from all this seems to be President Obama. If the bill passes, he can now claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism - a surefire defense to ubiquitous Republican accusations of socialism and big government. If the debt ceiling were breached and the economy tanked, he likely would've borne the greatest political price. But by swooping in and making the deal at the last minute, Obama can say he saved the day. Of course, giving Obama a win is the last thing staunch conservatives in the House want to do. With the clock running out to raise the debt ceiling and a flurry of meetings scheduled for Monday, no less than the U.S. economy and the political fortunes of Washington's top leaders are now in their hands.

    comments

    Congress is in charge of the fiscal health of our nation and they have failed miserably over the years and both parties are at fault. The latest "agreement" is no more than again "kicking the can down the road" .

    ~~~

    It’s amazing that the government takes in so much revenue already and yet somehow cannot pay the bills. We have lotto's to pay for school that are still closing, we have tax hikes to pay for police departments that are laying off cops, we have banks who showed their gratitude for the largest bailout in history by throwing the money down the same rabbit hole they threw their souls and we have not figured it out yet. well here it is...the way of unlimited greed is going to destroy this great nations we are busy trying to prop up a house that we have been destroying the foundation under for the last 30 years. Come on you guys if no one can buy things then the economy fails just opening lines of credit is like the new share cropping. All those slash and burns companies cutting wages and benefits have finally squeezed all the juice out of us and have nothing left to feed on. Thank all you sh@# he#ds for doing your darnedest to prove Marx right!

    ~~~

    Why do we need a "special commission"?? What are we paying Congress for?? They didn't solve anything!! I guess next they'll vote themselves a raise for a job well done!!

    "Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of Government,
    those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
    perverted it into tyranny."


    Thomas Jefferson
    ~~~

    "the $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling deal worked out " ..." is a resounding success. " Can someone explain to me how adding $2.4 trillion to our debt is a success??? Of course it is not all spending cuts. Their idea of a spending cut is to spend $2T that we don't have instead of $3T. See! We cut $1T. Aren't we great! I think its time ALL laws made by Congress should be ratified via Popular vote....
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #30
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #31
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Inside the debt deal: Who won, who lost
    By Major Garrett National Journal | Exclusive – 6 hrs ago


    It started clean and ended messy.

    When the debt-ceiling crisis began to capture the public's and Wall Street's bemused imagination in June, President Obama's Gallup approval rating was 50 percent, the highest

    It's now at 40 percent, the lowest of his presidency, and a disturbing sign that dismay with America's "dysfunctional" government is taking a toll on more than Congress - mired since early spring with approval ratings in the mid-teens.

    Obama won a long-term extension of the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The deal extends borrowing authority by at least $2.1 trillion with no threat of congressional obstruction.

    But Obama lost on his push for higher revenue. Tax increases - even for favorite targets like corporate jet subsidies and oil companies (heavy on symbolism but relatively light on revenue) - were left to a special committee. That means Obama traded spending cuts upfront without a dime of guaranteed new revenue - already a flashpoint on the left.

    Obama did protect Social Security, Medicaid, children's health insurance and veterans from any cuts - governed by the new spending caps or the so-called super committee charged with finding at least $1.5 trillion in additional spending cuts. The deal specifically shields Social Security, veterans benefits, unemployment benefits, military pensions, and children's insurance from cuts under the special committee jurisdiction.

    Also, Obama won a 50-50 split in all domestic cuts between non-defense spending and allocations for defense, homeland security, and the State Department. This amounts to $350 billion over 10 years and gives Obama an opportunity to press for more economical spending in the security sphere. Republicans say they will fight another day to ensure military readiness, training, and availability of necessary weapons systems.

    But the president opened the door to Medicare cuts. Even though they are limited to providers, Obama has put Medicare cost savings on the table at just the moment congressional Democrats cherished a clean shot at Republicans for backing a 10-year plan to transform the health care program for the elderly from fee-for-service to a voucher system to finance insurance purchases on the open market.

    On the tax side, Republicans are certain the rules will nullify higher taxes. Democrats are equally convinced the magnitude of future spending cuts through caps or across-the-board sequestration will prove so politically unpopular that Republicans will relent and raise taxes. That's what happened in 1990, when sequestration-ordered cuts led President George H.W. Bush to raise taxes in a budget deal reviled to this day by conservatives.

    For Republicans, the victories are embedded in forcing Obama to agree to deficit-reduction with no explicit call for tax increases. They won votes in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and built what they regard as acceptable protections of future defense spending. They also eliminated a Democratic bid to count as savings $1 trillion in spending on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that was unlikely ever to be spent. Still, GOP unity was sorely tested and House Speaker John Boehner's leadership clout is less sturdy than it was.

    Citing precedent, Obama asked Congress for a debt-ceiling increase with no strings attached. But the grudging deference that previous Congresses granted Obama's predecessors evaporated in a partisan-fueled demand by the new GOP House to turn a once-obligatory debt ceiling increase into a policy cudgel.

    The president swiftly retreated, giving Republicans a victory no other Congress enjoyed. Even in 1985 when President Reagan signed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction law, he didn't do it under the threat of default. But House Republicans used default and the economic damage it would inflict as a political weapon -- one that forced Obama to link a debt ceiling increase to deficit reduction.

    With that choice, Obama had to simplify his demands, and his one unquestioned victory in the debt deal was a boost in U.S. borrowing authority until 2013. In the hard-fought negotiations, which the White House said didn't wrap up until 7:30 p.m. Sunday, Obama also won relatively light first-year discretionary spending cuts.

    Of the $917 billion in discretionary cuts on the table now, only $7 billion occur in this fiscal year. Another $3 billion will be cut in next year's budget from 2010 spending levels. That's certainly a cut when compared to typical year-to-year spending increases that take inflation into account. But it also makes the deficit-reduction target in the out-years considerably larger than most House Republicans would prefer. In essence, Obama won a $900 billion debt ceiling increase for $10 billion in hard cuts over two years - with half coming from defense.

    In sum, it's hard to see how Obama would have called this a victory back when he asked for a clean debt-ceiling increase. Similarly, House Republicans would have preferred more spending cuts up front and a stronger link to a balanced budget amendment or more iron-clad budget process reforms. It's a deal that neither side particularly likes, that has taken a toll on everyone's popularity and cast a pall over the U.S. economy.

    Clearly, it's not enough to satisfy Obama or Republicans.

    Judging from the sagging poll numbers for all the combatants, though, it is the public that will probably have this one-word reaction.

    Enough.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusiv...144528939.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #32
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Debt ceiling deal : What’s the impact on the economy, ordinary Americans?
    By Zachary Roth Senior National Affairs Reporter | The Lookout – 22 hrs ago




    Charles Dharapak, File/AP
    In his announcement last night of the deal between Congress and the White House to raise the debt ceiling, President Obama declared that Washington leaders now "should be devoting all of our time" to addressing the country's broader economic woes. But the agreement could itself have a major impact on the struggling economy, if it passes Congress.

    So what's the deal likely to mean for ordinary Americans?

    Of course, the most important short-term impact of the plan, which would cut at least $2.4 trillion in spending over the next decade, is that the U.S. will avoid defaulting on its debt. That's unquestionably a positive. Economists had warned that a default would be disastrous for everyone, throwing world financial markets into chaos and ushering in higher interest rates for years, or even decades.

    Beyond avoiding a default, the deal could potentially help kickstart the broader economy, which managed just 0.8 percent growth in the first half of the year, with unemployment at 9.2 percent, and talk of a double-dip recession growing louder.

    In a memo for investors published Sunday, Mark Zandi, the respected chief economist for Moody's Analytics, called the agreement "a big plus for … the struggling economy." Uncertainty over the debt ceiling standoff, Zandi argued, has contributed to slow economic growth. "Business executives are extraordinarily nervous, and won't step up hiring until this drama is resolved," he wrote. "Employers are not going to take that leap of faith and expand, given how little faith they have that policymakers will come through in time." With the issue resolved--assuming, of course, that the deal passes Congress--that mindset could change.

    Other economists say the deal will help reduce uncertainty not just over the debt ceiling, but over the larger issue of the deficit. By showing that Washington means business in addressing both problems, they argue, the agreement will lift business confidence and provide an economic boost.

    But the deal doesn't just raise the debt ceiling. It also calls for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. And that's where the impact could be less positive. Most economists say cutting government spending when the economy is weak is likely to reduce jobs and growth by further weakening demand.

    "Unemployment will be higher than it would otherwise have been," Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco, the world's largest bond investment firm, said yesterday on ABC News. "Growth will be lower than it would be otherwise. And inequality will be worse than it would be otherwise."

    By how much? It's hard to say with precision, because it'll depend on which programs get cut, and that hasn't been decided yet. But to get a rough sense, consider this: Zandi, who has worked with both Democrats and Republicans, calculated in February that the original budget passed by the House earlier this year, which cut $100 billion in spending for 2012, would cost around 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012. The deal announced last night calls for a yearly average of $240 billion in cuts over the next decade. Very roughly, that suggests the new plan would cost around 1.6 million jobs per year during that time.

    Because the cuts are designed to be smaller over the next few years while the economy remains weak, then larger over the later part of the decade, that number is likely inflated. But there's little doubt the deal will mean a significant drag on employment, at a time when over 14 million Americans are already out of work.

    And the consensus is that job losses are likely to outweigh the positive impact of increased business confidence. "When you look at the history of these things, the finding is that we shouldn't be kidding ourselves," Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund and an expert on the impact of spending cuts, told the New York Times. "When you do fiscal adjustment in the near term, it does have an adverse impact on economic growth."

    One final point that's gotten lost amid the relief over the deal: the U.S. credit rating could be downgraded anyway. Both of the major ratings agencies warned last month that they were mulling a downgrade, thanks to concerns over Washington's ability to tackle the long-term deficit problem.

    Zandi judges in his memo that the debt ceiling deal will likely be enough to convince the agencies to keep the triple A rating. But investors today don't appear to be reassured: Reuters reports that there's still a "widespread assumption" that a downgrade is coming from at least one agency. If that happens, it would be harder not just for the government but for ordinary Americans to borrow money, and the stock market would likely take a major impact.

    So what's the upshot? It's pretty clear that on the most basic level, the debt ceiling deal is a plus for the economy, because it keeps the country out of a disastrous default. But at least in the short term, the spending cuts that come with it could turn the task of fixing the economy and getting Americans back to work into an even steeper climb.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...163456632.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #33
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama calls for a ‘renewed sense of urgency’ to solve debt problems
    By Holly Bailey Senior Political Reporter | The Ticket – 7 hrs ago


    President Obama said Monday he hopes Standard & Poor's downgrade of the country's credit rating will give lawmakers a "renewed sense of urgency" on dealing with the nation's deficit problems.

    In his first public remarks since Friday's downgrade, Obama blamed political gridlock for the nation's setback and insisted the markets still consider the United States a "triple-A country."

    S&P's move, Obama said, was "not so much because they doubt our ability to pay our debt … but because after witnessing a month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they doubted our political system's ability to act."

    "We didn't need a ratings agency to tell us that we need a balanced, long-term approach to deficit reduction," he added. "That was true last week. That was true last year. That was true the day I took office."

    Obama insisted the nation's economic woes are "eminently solvable, and we know what we have to do to solve them."

    Still, amid major turmoil on the stock market, Obama stopped short of calling for Congress to come back to Washington from vacation and work on a deficit deal. Instead, he shifted focus to a planned "super committee" in Congress that is set to report its findings by November on how to cut an estimated $1.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years.

    The president said he would lay out his own proposals for spending cuts "shortly" but insisted two steps are crucial: tax reform, including raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and "modest adjustments" to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. "It's not a lack of plans or policies that's the problem here," Obama said, citing proposals previously floated by the Senate's Gang of Six and an agreement he had previously reached with House Speaker John Boehner. "It's a lack of political will in Washington. It's the insistence on drawing lines in the sand, a refusal to put what's best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology. And that's what we need to change."

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...184613982.html

    comments

    Whatever happened to that old American tradition of accepting PERSONAL responsibility?
    You ever notice how many stories start off with the sentence "Obama blames...."

    ~~~

    Dear Mr. Obama......STOP the "blame and finger pointing" game and get the problem fixed!!! Enough said!!!!! End of discussion. You and Congress can be replaced!!! How's that for change?

    ~~~

    Where was Timmy “No Risk” Geithner?

    ~~~

    Interesting that after President Obama made his remarks this afternoon, the market fell another couple of hundred points. Is the Nobel committee ready to give him the Nobel prize in economics?

    ~~~

    Illegal immigrants cost Americans $900 million dollars a day or I trillion in three years. Get a President who will enforce the laws of our Country.

    ~~~

    Will the President ever put on paper a budget plan or will he just continue to give sound bites. We need a leader not quote machine.

    ~~~

    The dog ate my homework. The cat ate my peas.
    My name is Obama. Don’t blame nothin’ on me please.
    Guns in the hands of criminals? The alligator is to blame.
    He crossed the moat with ‘em. Blamin’ the DOJ is lame.
    No money for your Christmas? It’s all the Grinch’s fault.
    He’s a mean one and a green one. He wants the country to default.
    The stock market took a crash? Your retirement money’s gone?
    It got thrown under the bus... the same one Grandma’s on.
    I’m leaning towards socialism because it works best of all.
    I love robbin’ hard-working Peter to pay lazy Paul.
    My golf game is improving. I’ve taken vacations galore.
    Who cares if the rest of the country is starting to go poor.
    Blame Bush or the Repubs, or the party drinkin’ tea.
    Feel free to blame anyone, as long as it’s not me.

    My stimulus plan worked great. It saved ONE job, you must admit.
    After all I’m still the President, even though I don’t know ___.

    ~~~

    Country: We need to get this economy fixed or America could go down the tubes.
    Obama: We need to get this economy fixed so I have a better chance at re-election.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in