Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

The Core Problem

by Da King on February 1, 2010

in economics,Uncategorized

When President Clinton declared 'the era of big government is over" in 1996, the federal budget of the United States Of America was $1.56 trillion. A mere fifteen years later, President Obama has announced a $3.83 trillion budget for 2011. I don't think I'm alone in saying the rumors of the death of big government were greatly exaggerated. The increase in spending alone since 1996 ($2.3 trillion) is substantially more than the entire federal budget was in 1996. It's no surprise that federal revenue has not been able to keep up with this spending explosion, and even if it had, imagine the effect that would have had on our economy. Imagine the economy as it is now, but with the federal tax burden DOUBLE what it is currently. Nightmarish.

It's not like GDP increases justify this spending boom either. In 1996, the GDP was $7.762 trillion. Now, it's $14.4 trillion. Our GDP has increased by 85% while our federal spending has increased by 145% over the same period. If our federal spending was in line with GDP, the federal budget should be around $2.88 trillion now, but it's a trillion dollars higher. We've managed to increase spending by a trillion dollars per year above GDP. That's a trillion per year that comes out of the private sector, a trillion per year more that comes out of the taxpayers pockets.

But we don't pay for all these enormous federal spending increases, as bad as that would be for the economy. No, what we do is even worse. We deficit spend and run up the federal debt. We borrow or print the money. The reason this is worse is because when we run up the debt, we are not only indebting future taxpayers for our irresponsibility, but they also have to pay interest on the debt. We pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the debt now, and it we keep on the trajectory we're heading, as it appears we will judging from the latest numbers coming out, by 2019 we would be paying more than $700 billion per year in interest on the debt alone. To put this in perspective, our entire defense budget now is about $644 billion. That $700 billion in interest on the debt would be money flushed down the toilet, of no use to any American.

And now for the bad news. As bad as our economic prospects are already, we have an economic time bomb getting ready to detonate very soon. That bomb is known as the baby boom generation, the largest group of citizens in America. The baby boomers will begin to retire next year, and by the end of this decade, most of them will be out of the workforce. This will have a number of effects on our economy. First of all, consider that much of the economic growth from the mid-1980's until now has come due to the boomers. They entered the workforce, started earning money, and started SPENDING money, leading to economic growth. As the peak earning years of the boomers starts to wane, they will do LESS SPENDING, resulting in less economic growth. Remember, 70-80% of our economy is based upon consumer spending. That spending will start dropping very soon, as the boomers move into retirement. Secondly, just as the boomers leave the workforce, move into retirement, and start spending less money, thereby inhibiting economic growth, they will start putting an enormous demand on Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that represent the majority of our federal budget.

And guess what ? We aren't prepared to pay those boomers. We have an estimated $55 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities on top of our $12.3 trillion current debt, a debt that is projected to reach $21 trillion or so by 2019. There is no money in the mythical Social Security Trust Fund (Congress stole it), and Medicare is on a definite path to bankruptcy, in far worse shape than Social Security.

So, what does it all mean ?

It means we are headed for the perfect economic storm, one that will surely bankrupt our country. We are facing nothing less than an economic tsunami, while our distinguished Congresspersons watch it come, doing nothing. Even worse than doing nothing, they are actively making things worse by ramping up federal spending, deficits, and debt at a rate unprecedented in the history of our country. Congress and the White House have gone beyond irresponsibility. This level of depraved indifference to the economic situation America is facing should be a crime, a very serious crime. And I'm not talking about just Democrats or just Republicans here. It's both parties. Almost all of them are complicit in this criminal negligence.

Think about this – we live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, yet our federal government has never been able to balance the budget in my entire lifetime. That debt has accumulated and accumulated ever since I was born, and I'm 56 years old. It seems to get progressively worse as each year passes. It's absolutely unconscionable.

The federal government is leading us off the brink into the abyss, and I'm so fed up with it that the words I'm writing here can barely express it. I could care less if Obama says he's' "not an ideologue," or if he complains that he's being "demonized" by the Republicans. So what ? Who gives a flip ? He SHOULD be demonized, as should be every other politician of either party who is part and parcel of this problem, as Obama certainly is. Bush was a part of it too. Democrats, Republicans, I'm sick of them all (although slightly more sick of the Dems and their big government bs, which is the essence of the problem). If I hear one more big spending, big government moron talk about being "compassionate" as they spend us into oblivion, I'm going to turn into Howard Beale from the movie Network and start screaming "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore !' out my window. I don't want to hear Obama blame it all on Bush, and I don't even want to hear the Republicans blame it all on Obama. That's useless political puffery. It's meaningless. What we need are some SOLUTIONS, even if they are painful in the short term, because if we don't come up with them, all of us are going to suffer far more down the road. What I don't want to hear is what I just heard from our President – trifling nods toward fiscal responsibility while he massively increases spending and deficits more and more and more. That is phony political posturing, which solves nothing. We've had enough of that already.

Arrrrrggghhhhh ! No wonder people take Xanax.

P.S. – As bleak as our future is, allow me to point out one bright spot before we all go out and hang ourselves. Here it is – we don't have a long-term unemployment problem. As the boomers retire, starting next year, all kinds of jobs are going to open up for younger workers. In fact, our problem will soon become that we don't have enough workers to fill all the available jobs. The demographics should insure it. So, all you young workers, take heart. You will have jobs…but how you're going to pay all the taxes that my stupid generation is leaving for you is another matter. On behalf of my stupid generation, I sincerely apologize. I never supported the stupid policies of my stupid and greedy generation. I wish all you young people the best of luck. You'll need it to get through the Great Recession ahead.

  • The Reverend

    One disagreement…..of many that will follow later….

    The budget was balanced at the end of Clinton's administration.

    Which means that the huge budget deficits we're seeing now came in the last 9 years.

    Just pointing that out to kick off the comments.

  • Da King

    No, the budget was not balanced at the end of Clinton's administration. That was a budgetary trick that I've addressed before. The debt went up EVERY year of Clinton's presidency.

    http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2009/11/30/the-myth-of-the-clinton-surplus/

    And because I said the debt has grown and grown for the last 50+ years, that includes the last nine. I never said anything different, and I assume the readers here know the facts. I blamed both Dems and Repubs. I said that too, so you're not kicking off anything other than your usual partisan spin.

    Maybe you should have actually read what I wrote.

  • Andrea

    What it means is we need to raise taxes .
    Stop reckless military spending .
    And lighten up because if Obama didn't spend we be heading to a Depression on a train wreck right now
    read up
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270030

  • larry d.

    Thanks, Andrea. I've been doing some research and thought I'd share some, too. Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBw8DGEYmng

  • angry conserv

    Somehow I think Anrdrea would not take seriously an article from World Net Daily but you ask us to read Media Matters?

  • averagejoe5

    haha larry d, I never tire of that video. Not that thtere is anything wrong with that…..

  • Chris

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

    Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress generated the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

  • Chris

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

    Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and $7.1 trillion in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

  • Chris

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obamas-budget-has-one-small-missing-piece-63-trillion-dollars

    Today, to much fanfare, the administration released its ridiculous $3+ trillion budget (we say + because at that size the one thing certain is that the budget will certainly never hit the target and while we wish it would be lower, we are certain it will end up materially higher), which consists of a "short" 192-page summary section and a 1420 page appendix. We are confident that not one politician will read the whole thing from cover to cover. We won't either. Not because we don't care about what's in it, but because we are much more concerned with what is not included, namely $2.8 Trillion and $1.9 Trillion of MBS guaranteed portfolios at Fannie and Freddie, and an additional $782 billion and $809 billion in company debt outstanding for the two GSEs, respectively. This amounts to a total of $6.3 trillion in liabilities which should be counted toward the budget. And yet, oddly, the error-checker somehow made this rather justifiable omission: after all if we were to look at a number which written out looks as follows $6,264,000,000,000.00, we would also probably just avoid it – it is somewhat difficult to hide a number that big even in the 1,420 pages of the budget's appendix. That's ok, we are here to remind them about the omission, and also to remind Mr. Orszag, who himself, in that long ago 2008, espoused that these companies should be put on the Federal Budget. Isn't it strange what one and a half years worth of realizations just how broken beyond repair the system is, will do to one's convictions?

  • Da King

    Chris,
    Interesting how CBPP is projecting costs over the next 10 years for wars that are ending in a couple years. That should have tipped you off that your website was not very interested in the facts.

    The facts are….the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost about $1 trillion to date (over 7 years), and those costs should be winding down soon.

    And Obama just said reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would generate about $120 billion per year. That's $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

    A pretty far cry from $7 trillion. Nice try.

    But I am getting a kick out of how Democrats are now trying to blame Bush for budgets and deficits that happen 10 years after Bush left office. Classic, lol. Maybe you should try blaming Reagan.

  • The Reverend

    The DEBT went up every year during Clinton….well, duh…..no one has ever suggested that the national debt was zeroed out in the 90's…..and anyway Greenspan didn't think it was a good idea to pay off the debt, remember?

    But the yearly budget was balanced at the end of Clinton's time and a surplus was projected. Them's the facts.

  • Da King

    Andrea thinks we need to raise taxes…..

    Yes, we certainly aren't taxed enough:

    Building Permit Tax
    CDL License Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Dog License Tax
    Federal Income Tax (Fed)
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel Permit Tax
    Gasoline Tax
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax
    Inventory Tax
    IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
    IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Luxury Tax
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Service charge taxes
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
    Sales Taxes
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
    Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
    Telephone State and Local Tax
    Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    Utility Tax
    Vehicle License Registration T ax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax
    ====
    Your government at work, helping YOU.

  • Da King

    Earth to Reverend,

    I never suggested the debt was paid off during the 90's. I said the national debt went up each and every year of Clinton's presidency. If he had balanced the budget for any single year, the debt would NOT have gone up for that year. .

    Seriously, read the material. Then you won't put your foot in your mouth so much. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the arse.

  • Andrea

    Okay you guys what do you want to cut out of the budget ? Education reform ? Infrastructure projects for jobs and from what state ? YOURS ? How about all projects for Ohio, let Ohio sink or is it the military . Can't be health care reform since that will not add to the deficit. Maybe we need to cut the tax cuts for small businesses – tax credits for those that hire new workers, and tax breaks in the area of energy investments, or maybe spending for clean energy development. All needed.
    Of the budget nearly $2.4 trillion, is for mandatory spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and for interest on the national debt. Medicare and Medicaid alone will cost $788 billion. Maybe that tells you why we need reform . Or maybe you want the banks to all collapse and see how we do then.
    Funny how you guys thought spending was just fine as long as it was for tax cuts for yourselves – for your pocket while we ran up a deficit .

    When we have economic weakness, deficit spending is needed to boost growth and put Americans back to work. I knew when Bush was in office it was CRAZY to give out across the board tax cuts when spending for war. But be just as crazy to not try to help this country from loosing more job lose and to do so we got to spend. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan aught to save us alot. I think you guys just want to complain and have no idea what to cut.

  • Chris

    Mission Accomplished??
    LOL

    We'll be in Iraq/Afghanistan for a minimum of another decade.
    If you need any proof of that see Japan, Germany, South Korea….

    The numbers in the graph came from CBO #s….you know ….that group that the Republicans love to quote as the gospel when it comes to government waste, fraud, and abuse.
    But I understand your angst. GWB destroyed the GOP brand for generations….that's gotta sting.

  • N. E. Frye

    Both DAK & Andrea have it. You either have to cut out something or bring in more revenue. In the old days we used import tariffs as a means of revenue, and coincidentally we also had more factories cranking out American goods for Americans & others. In spite of all the hurrahs for international trade, we were generally more prosperous – especially at the lower strata than we are now.

    I wonder: How much money does the US Government pay out to other Nations or as our contribution to the UN and its various boon doggles? It would be interesting to see the totals year by year, for foreign aid, military assistance/nation-building.* That sounds like a good place to start cutting.

    * [But just think of all the good will and friendship we've generated by all this; I mean, don't they just love us all to pieces for it?]

  • larry d.

    Any word on cutting out some of the hundred of billions in Medicare waste?

  • averagejoe5

    larry d. has a point. They are wasting billions because they have no idea where it is going. Biden even admitted it when talking about either TARP or one of the stimulous packages.

    Andrea spending is a good thing however, throwing cash into a big hole isnt'. I heard one day that there are so many laws and interests that we give money to on a Fed, State and Local level that our leaders have no idea where much of it is going. Billions in medicare and medicaid fraud. What about the what has to be billions in welfare fraud. I've see the way people use the system it's horrible. Is it legal for someone to live on welfare alll year and then have somone claim their child on thier income tax to get a hhhhuuuuuuuggggggggeeeeee return. A girlI talked to the other day was excited that she was getting her income tax back. She didn't work one day. The govt gave her everything including healthcare for her and her child and she recived a $3000 tax return. That is one person. Is that legal? Are they allowed that? AAaaarrrgggghhhhh!!!!. It doesn't seem right to me. She now has a $300 phone and a new bedroom set for her kid and she his healthy as a horse and her kid is in school all day. Let's clean this up and see where we can actually cut. What about re negotiating contracts with countries that now make more money than us, like the middle east and half of asia, europe, South america and Africa.(Is it necessary that we send hundreds of milions to other countries for sex education) These are things we can cut. This isn't Obama's fault, this has been going on for decades on all levels of govt.

  • N. E. Frye

    But if we pay $3000 in some sort of 'stipend' (calling it wellfare offends some folks, I understand) to an unemployed person, the multiplier says that he/she spends it and it gets spent 4 or 5 times over agian thereby contributing a little to the Gross Domestic Product. Since WTO it mostly contributes to the GDP of China or Pakistan or such. But what about the millions we give to say Egypt or Armenia – or the billions we contribute to the UN? It just leaves the country and ends up in a Swiss bank account.

  • The Irreverend

    Frye -

    So you are assuming the person who originally earned the $3000 'stipend' that was confiscated by the government and was given to the welfare recipient would not have spent or invested it? I don't see how taking it from one person and giving it to another increases GDP. Please help me understand.

  • Da King

    Correct, Irrev. Taking $3,000 from one person and handing it to another doesn't increase GDP. It's just a transfer payment, adding nothing.

    Also in that same vein are government jobs. A government job adds nothing to GDP or federal revenue, because government salaries are paid by taxpayers, and ALL those taxpayers come from the private sector. The taxes paid by government workers are not additional revenue, just revenue passed from the private sector to the public sector.

  • N. E. Frye

    But the $3000 gets spent to buy something. The seller distributes it to employees, suppliers etc., who spend it again. The last time I heard anybody mention the multiplier I think it was about five or six, so the 3K becomes 15K in expenditures. Of course the problem now is that a right good chunk of that is spent overseas, so when you get one of those 3 or 5 hundred stimulus checks, it probably does generate 5 or 6 times its value in spending, but half or two thirds of that is a stimulus to China. The $$ we're spending in Haiti stimulates Haiti but nothing much here. (Somebody is probably making a killing in bottled water and med supplies etc., so that part of the cost will be multiplied.) If we send supplies that is a partial stimulus to our businesses who make /sell the supplies. If we send 40 gazillion razbuckniks to the government or some other UN organization, none of it does us any good and half of it ends up in a bank in Grand Cayman.

  • The Irreverend

    Frye -

    I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but still fail to understand your point. I completely understand the multiplier effect. Where did the $3000 come from? If the government printed it just to distribute it as a stimulus check, then the inflation fairy provided the money. While more of it may be circulated each dollar is worth less in the aggregate. No wealth is created this way.

    If it was taken from someone who earned it via taxation and redistributed, it adds nothing to GDP. For your scenario to work you have to assume that the original earner would have stuck it under the mattress while the 'lucky' welfare recipient goes on a mad spending spree of consumable goods. Is that your assumption? If so, you have an even lower opinion of the welfare recipient than I do (if that's possible).

  • Da King

    razbuckniks ? Funny.

  • N. E. Frye

    You're right about the doubtful value of stimulus payments in general. If what you're saying is that you disapprove of the government printing money which has no backing, or the concept of wellfare payments in general, we have no serious argument. Your last statement that money spent by the wellfare recipient is the same as it would be if spent by whomever it was taken from is almost right except for the propensities to consume or save. Last I knew Economists generally imagine that the poor have a somewhat greater propensity to consume than the rich, and vice-versa for the propensity to save, i.e the poor spend all their $$; middle classes save some of it, and the rich save (invest?) a greater portion of it. If that greater portion of savings is in fact invested (and invested here; not in India or Switzerland), then it's all good. If they use it to buy a 170' yacht in Hong Kong or a potful of gold to bury in their yards, then maybe not so good. When theinvestment climate is poor this is more likely to be the sort of thing the rich will do.

  • Andrea

    Average Joe You know who is really guilty of fraud – The rich – they got a great scheme called medicaid ( while it is a life saver for the poor ) it is also set up so the rich can benefit too. All you got to do with the help of a elder care attorney is move grannies money out of her name in to theirs – do it 3 months before they apply for medicaid then you get granny services, like a free home health aide. The poor don't think about doing these things , they don't have a lawyer to tell them . So the rich make sure Grannies well taken care of by the government while they inherit her millions. The poor let their money dwindle till they loose it all then they go on medicaid.
    No republican would have every allowed for medicaid unless there was a loop hole in it for them.

  • averagejoe5

    That's not true Andrea they will go back as far as 5 years. And medicaid is a saver of the poor who without it would be living their final years under a bridge. It doesn't anger you that a welfare person is robbing the system like this? If you multiply it out it could be as high as $200B in fraud. Over 5 years that's a trillion dollars and doesn't include that we give them everything from food to shelter to a free education. You go and blame the rich? How? They work 10 to 20 hours per day ususally weekends and these folks sit and gossip, drink, take drugs and mulitply. Her hand was hurting because she bought a game called DJ for her PS 3, that you bought her and her daughter, and she played it all day eating food that you paid for in a house you paid for she picked it up in a car you paid for with insurance you paid for. She played while you and your family were at work earning a living.
    Now a quick note: As a Christian I fully believe in helping and taking care of the weak, ill and down trodden. Is this taking care of them or is this enabling them to take advantage of the system? Also if the rich pay for it, why shouldnt they be allowed to reap the benefits? It doesnt make sense not to allow that, does it?

  • N. E. Frye

    Wouldn't surprise me at all to hear of actual cases of that. I wonder if we lose as much $$ that way as we do to phony wellfare & foodstamps cases. Marx thot each would receive according to his needs and contribute according to his ability and that crimes would die out when there were no more needy poor. What you, Andrea and I seem to be saying is that there is no segment of society that is not heavily composed of potential thieves.

  • walter

    larry sez…."Any word on cutting out some of the hundred of billions in Medicare waste?"

    are you talking George Bush's unpaid for prescription drug plan?

  • Da King

    Frye says, "Last I knew Economists generally imagine that the poor have a somewhat greater propensity to consume than the rich, and vice-versa for the propensity to save, i.e the poor spend all their $$; middle classes save some of it, and the rich save (invest?) a greater portion of it."

    I think you have a point here, but it depends how you define "rich." Obama defines it as between $125,000-$250,000 in income. That's the wrong definition. People making those kinds of salaries consume more than the poor do. The poor generally only buy what they have to buy. Wealthier people have more disposable income to consume more things and support more businesses, enhancing the multiplier effect. But if we define rich as billionaires, then your point is much stronger. Billionaires probably invest far more than they consume, because one can only consume so much. But investment has a multiplier effect as well. As they say, no poor person ever created a job. The rich create them all the time. But I'd be fine with raising taxes some on the truly rich to help the truly needy. We just shouldn't make those tax rates so high that it dampens the economic growth effect of investment. JFK realized that back in the 60's. He was right.

  • larry d.

    No, walt. I'm talking about the hundreds of billions in waste that Obama claims to have pinpointed in order to finance the healthcare reform fiasco he has presided over. Was he flat out lying, or does he prefer to keep the waste?

  • Bubba

    Really Chris??? The GOP brand is destroyed?? Perhaps you haven't heard about a little event that recently happened in Massacheusetts.

  • walter

    larry….the only hundreds of billions I heard about was the privatly run and more expensive medicare advantage plans

  • walter

    this from the Beacon Journal…….

    CLEVELAND: An Egyptian-born doctor has been sentenced to 3½ years in prison and faces deportation for his role in a $7 million health care fraud case in Ohio.

  • N. E. Frye

    Maybe we should send him to Haiti and make him work it off there.

  • averagejoe5

    Maybe we should demand that they fix this and stop the rape and pillage of SS before we give them any more money to be thrown into the bottomless pit.

    Who was the first president to use SS for something other than it was intended and why did they do it?

  • walter

    King sez…."Andrea thinks we need to raise taxes….."

    "We passed without, frankly, the help of the Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at the middle class and small businesses." David Axlerod

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/

    also from politifact……."But there's one other element of Axelrod's claim, that the tax cuts were passed without the help of Republicans.

    The stimulus passed the House with nary a Republican vote. And it passed the Senate with just three (though we note that one of them, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, is now a Democrat).

    So it's certainly fair to say the stimulus passed without the help of the Republican caucus. We find Axelrod's statement True."

  • walter

    the Egyptian-born doctor was scamming medicare and medicaid. You know, when it comes to medicare, medicaid and workers comp I would tend to think ALL doctors pad their bill….joe, we wouldn't have any doctors left if we cracked down on fraud

  • walter

    another from the Beacon Journal…….Police: Ex-ultrasound technician arrested in Brimfield had thousands of photos of women, girls

    http://www.ohio.com/news/83654257.html

    the Medicare Advantage plan was sold to the American taxpayer as a way to provide more care at a lower price to Medicare recipients by allowing private insurers to run the plan. Medicare advantage DOES provide more but at a correspondently higher cost. Medicare Advantage has proven itself a dismal failure.

    I would tend to think that Medicare Advantage should be the poster child of why private insurers should have no part in healthcare

  • Da King

    Walt, what was the point of your stuff about taxes ?

  • Da King

    Medicare Advantage was the best insurance option for my mother during the last few years of her life, by far. There are many things Medicare doesn't pay for.

  • larry d.

    Tax credits sound more like more government handouts than tax cuts to me, walt. If I changed my name to FactLarryD.com would you believe me?

  • walter

    FactlarryD.com? What, is this about where you accused me of saying something filthy about Mexicans?

  • larry d.

    Racist smack is nothing to brag about, walt. No one has forgotten, in any case.

  • walter

    well….I guess the FactlarryD.com didn't work…..back to the drawing board eh?

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).