On Demand
The Brian Lehrer Show
Responding to Housing Like It's 1929?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Brian Lehrer and Amy Chozick, political reporter for the Wall Street Journal, listen to and compare extended excerpts from the three presidential candidates' responses to the housing crisis.
Tell us what you think: Should the government help homeowners facing foreclosure? If so, how?
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
YES! Since govt allowed the prredatory lending to go on it should definitely help out mortgage holders NOT BANKS! I am not an economist and don't know how, but it should be done fairly, and the sleazy lenders should be required to be part of the solution.
YES - here's how: impose serious fines on those who got rich on predatory lending. Use that money to help those who were victimized. The old "Robinhood" method.
No, the government should not help homeowners who lied, cheated, or over borrowed... neither should it help banks that lied, cheated, or over borrowed.
I don't want my taxes to pay for other people's houses. This is not Soviet Russia.
The question you should have asked is:
"Should taxes be raised to help homeowners facing foreclosure?"
Absolutely NOT!
What about the responsibility of the buyers/speculators, which includes anyone who has taken a loan on a home in the last 3 years?
I currently rent and am SAVING to buy a home. I was a prime candidate for a "predatory" lender, and have been solicited for home loans extensively, however, no one ever came to my door and forced a loan down my throat. Why should I turn over even my hard earned (and FED devalued) savings to bail out anyone?
Yes, if they cut the interest rate for everybody or allow everybody who has paid on time every time regardless of the struggle to not pay for a few months or whatever the plan that is on the table otherwise....No, absolutely no! No one is helping me with my mortgage or my crazy taxes. I am sick of hearing how people are constanting being bailed out. Me paying fed taxes (outrageous) that I can barely afford, health care (outrageous)that I can barely afford (includes the premium, plus a deductible, plus a additional for when u go to the doctor), plus fees of all kinds from all angles. Let's not even go into the fact of the debt that my children are racking up to go to college. If they want to bail somebody bail all these kids with thousands of dollars in debt (don't get me started on the 'dream act') Enough already!!!!
YES! Here's how our (broke) government can help:
2 laws --
1. borrowers must prove they can repay loans
2. bank interest rates limited to under 20%
Any Govt. money or breaks that go to the overextended SUV driving big spenders need to also be extended equally to their opposing consumer subset, the responsible ones who have been waiting for the market to become transparent and unfettered again.
In the meantime, to combat so called predatory lending, that is a separate, criminal issue. if the government wants to address it they can criminalize it and perhaps back mortgages that were extended via documented chicanery (thereby giving the govt. an incentive to make sure banks behave responsibly).
YES we can do much much more to stave off this crisis.
First, immediately raise the minimum wage so that people most affected by this "sub prime" mess can begin to actually afford their mortgages.
Second, permit greater "borrowing" from personal IRAs (currently at 50K max) so that people can use THEIR OWN MONEY to get out from under their personal difficult borrowing situations.
and
Third, of course, stop the ware in Iraq which is funded by borrowed funds by the government and reduces the value of the dollar
All of the above are virtually "painless" remedies.
One other thing I forgot to add.
Produce some laws in this country PREVENTING the usurious credit card rates which, again, hurt those most who have credit card debt on top of their mortgage debt.
Credit card interest of up to 33% is just nuts!
These people should be stopped. Years ago, it was illegal to charge such rates. What happened?
No, while tragic on an individual basis, foreclosures will not bring down the economy and a bailout plan would either be too small to be effective or too broad to be administered and paid for. Anecdotally (I don't have the stats), homeowners will default not because they can't pay their mortgages, but because they don't want to. When the value of one's home is less than one's debt, there is little incentive to make payments. The government cannot artificially prop up home values.
If the government can help wall street, why not it's citizens?
Yes,
The economy is making wages not keep up with costs of food, fuel, medical care and the housing costs are astronomical!
Help the American people. Let's also help our interest and put some focus on Darfur,Sudan and develop trade there to bring our economy back.
NO! Honest taxpayers who didn't take out loans they couldn't afford, will be the ones ultimately shouldering the burden. Bailing out Bear Sterns was wrong and doesn't make bailing out homeowners right.
I was too young to know:
Did McCain sing the same song on government intervention back during the Savings & Loan crisis?
So since i have been responsible enough not to buy a home, because i can not afford one. Can i get some sort of reward for that? Why is it the the only ones getting rewarded are people who have no personal responsibility.
Whats next? car loans and credit card debt?
Yes, there should be an immediate moratorium on foreclosures of owner-occupied homes or homes left vacant by families who had to leave them for job-related or other reasons after unsuccessful efforts to sell.
There also should be a serious effort to recover the huge bonuses paid to the employees of Bear Stearns and other "rescued" banks and the imposition of restraints on pay to all these high rollers who cheat their non-employee shareholders out of return that should have be theirs.
yes Jean! FED did offer $30billion as collateral to aid JP’s acquisition of BS. $30 billion! I agree that government should not bail out investors/lenders who made bad decisions. However; that is not what’s happening.
No. Absolutely not. It is not the government's responsibility to bail out anything. This is a capitalist economy and if you can't cut it, you fail. Sorry. That's life.
Why does there seem to be little debate on the issue of the government giving floundering banks a leg up, but homeowners in trouble with their mortgage because of likely questionable practises and predatory lending? Isn't gov't supposed to help the little guy? The citizens of this country?
i think if they are bailing out the investment banks,they should do the same for people losing their homes.
And they should close down the sleazy, predatory lenders. People cannot be the workers for our nation and living on the street.
I know Brian does not want to mention that Obama ALSO has a policy to address the housing crisis and he only wants to mention Hillary's proposal, but here a a couple of links pointing to the fact that Obama had seen this mortgage problem creeping up a year ago and asked Paulson to act on this before it became a larger problem:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-year-old-letter-to-bern.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5262125
Absolutely not. I would like to spend my money on my mortgage as opposed to having the government spend it on those less responsible than me who took out a mortgage they could not afford.
absolutely not. if the gov't were to do this it would cost everyone more money when taking out a mortgage because banks would fear the gov't could change the nature of the contract at any time. to save a few it will cost us all.
Yes.
No, this is not Soviet Russia but we have a responsibility to each other living in society to stave off disaster. I don't mind spending my tax dollars on bailing out home owners.
Wasn't John McCain involved in the government support of the Savings and Loan Bank scandal, which led to a large scale government intervention in the form of deposit insurance?
I think proposing a 0% financing for mortgages with GM's (temporary) 0% offer is wrong mostly because GM can more easily compensate a low interest they offer with other slightly higher costs (e.g. purchase price), and mortgage banks, to my understanding, can not - they can not raise home prices and make money on that.
Absolutely.
First the government should hire 50 Ombudsman in each of the 50 states. They would would have the power to have lending agencies report to them when the lending agency before they begin to foreclose on the property. They then would work the system to the benefit of both lending agency and consumer by negotiating terms that could any forestall any foreclosure proceedings. As is stands now its every man for them-self with patch work success and multiple failures.
For those who don't realize it like McCain the Federal government one way or the other will be pouring large sums of money into the system. As property tax revenues decrease as mandated increases in fire police pension systems, local governments will either declare bankruptcy or be bailed out by the federal government. One way or the other tax payers will pay for it. Let's put up the money now before it is more costly later.
No...government should not be bailing out the lenders or the home ownes who entered into high risk loans. Those who've been responsible are struggling in this economy, as well and will bear a tax burden for this...it's rewarding those who behaved badly. Government certainly is not setting a good example by continuing to enter into debt for stimulus packages that are merely a political ploy...
Absolutely not. Why should decent, honest and hardworking people who are quietly struggling and dealing with the economic situation, help those that were irresponsible, disrespectful and created their own bed through greed and selfishness? So help the scr**ups, but nothing for those that face similar situations, but are working to avoid it? It would be disgusting and only help to create more and more citizens who give up on helping themselves or being responsible knowing that the government and unwilling other citizens will bail them out. THIS JUST MAKES ME VERY ANGRY as I am one of the ones struggling and trying to figure it out on my own, rather than trying to figure out who will bail me out!!!! The banks are a clearer and different matter. They are definitely at fault.
More than 80% of sub-prime loans were used to refinance existing loan and cash out. Why should responsible individuals bail out spenders that used their house as a cash bank?
No. People lack any personal responsibility. Many are not going behind on their mortgages now because it is higher than the value of the house and want to seek assistance they don't deserve. When you make an investment it is a risk, buck up, learn and move on.
Brian,
Bailouts are unfair. I have worked hard for 20 years, saved my money and have acted responsibly financially. I could have singed a mortgage that I couldn't afford, but I saw the writing on the wall. Why should people be helped out for things they shouldn't have been able to afford int he first place? I live humbly and have not benefited in the boom or will benefit during the bailout.
Stephen
Absolutely NOT. Homeowners/borrowers should be aware of the terms when they agree to the loan and held to those terms. The government has no business saving these individuals from agreements which they freely entered, essentially encouraging irresponsibility by borrowers. I am not talking about situations where the lender mislead the borrow BUT believe that those types of situations are VERY, VERY rare. A good number of the borrowers in trouble enjoyed low introductory rates in their adjustable rate loans (much lower rates than fixed rate loan borrowers could get) and simply want help when they are no longer happy with the terms.
Government can help homeowners facing foreclosure, but not by rewarding imprudent borrowing (nor lending for that matter). Somehow we have to retrofit the current homeowner/borrower - investor/lender balance to what it would have been had normal, prudent financing modes been in place over the past 5-6 years. Given that our population & economy will grow (if we are smart in how we repond here) this is a temporary problem which government can get us out of by prudent temporary measures to deal with the current temporary excess inventory. Government can facilitate turning some of the borrowers into renters rather than homeowners to the extent that they cannot afford to own the homes they bought with unwise financing. This should be paid for by brokers, securities innovators, banks & investors which who were co-conspirators in this crazy lending scheme along with the irresponsible borrowers. In time, as the economy & population grows & if regulatory reforms are enacted to restore prudent real estate lending-borrowing practices (i.e. margin requirements or downpayments re-intorduced to real estate financing) the excess inventory will be workd off & the real estate markets restored to normalcy.
No. I could easily have gotten into a subprime mortgage during the boom, but I was aware that an adjustable rate mortgage could actually adjust up! People need to be responsible for the mess they've gotten themselves into.
That being said, the lenders need to be penalized for promoting no income verification loans and other predatory practices. In addition, the so-called shadow banks need to be brought under control and regulations for all banks need to be increased and enforced. This regulation should include limiting the usurious interest rates on credit cards.
The arguement that the government helping out it's citizens therefore translates into some analogy with "Soviet Russia" seems like a juvenile off-base exaggerated Fox news knee-jerk garbage type reaction to me.
Can't we just finance the mortgages the way we finance the war?
Wouldn't it be nice to see the federal or state governments start requiring more education on personal finance starting with our kids. Most people in this country are so awful with their money and don't know how to manage it.
I think it's scandalous that the government rushes to aid a corporate take-over with a $30 billion package, "bailing out" practically the investors and shareholders in BS, while the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. I believe it's only just for the government to spend an equal amount of money on helping people prevent foreclosures, and a good way to do this would be for the government to in fact take over these mortgages so that loss and profit will be most directly shared by the taxpayer.
NO. NO. NO.
A housing bailout will reward speculators, investors, people who did not read their loan documents, banks, etc.
A housing bailout will Penalize: renters: who comprise 33% of the population, people with fixed rate mortages, people who bought a house that they could afford, 1st time homebuyers, and future generations by trying to support current overpriced home values.
Home prices are too high when we look at the home price to income ratio and the home price to rent ratio. Both of these ratios are way out of whack and home prices must fall to get them back in line.
Home prices are too high and an adjustment downward is needed, the foreclosure crisis is good to drive home prices down. Of course it is painful for everyone involved but we must take our medicine now to prepare for a better future.
No where in this housing bailout discussion has anyone said anything about helping renters who comprise 33% of the population! If the homeowners are getting help, are the renters going to get help?
The feds should buy the undervalued loans and restructure them based on homeowner need, neighborhood needs. The banks complain there assets are worth too little, but they don't want to sell low b/c they want the asset to improve. Lets take them and set up a new deal style agency that makes housing work for people who want to live in neighborhoods and for the neighborhoods. The investment banks will land on their feet, neighborhoods and low/middle homeowners may not
NO.Let's substitute "government" using the expression "taxpayers". Should we assume responsibility (and the additional risks/costs) for adults who have made bad decisions? Isn't part of being an adult behaviing responsibly?
We help other countries when they make dumb mistakes.
Why not help America when it makes a dumb mistake?
34 -- I agree exactly w the Soviet Russia analogy --
you are using the government's might to interfere w the market so much as to turn it completely opaque and ruin it.
How do you value your home? Decide to rent? Buy? Etc. if the govt.'s hand is able to continuously shift the "playing field." These government acts are straight out of the communist economics play book.
PS on rereading your email, you talk to your mother with that mouth?
Bail out the victims but don't bail out the stupid? How do we tell the difference?
It would seem that it is to everyone's advantage for mortgage holders to allow the defaulted owner to live in his or home as a renter and instead of paying the mortgage, pay rent that is equal to the amount of the original monthly mortgage payment. Interest rates have gone down, so the bank would not loose money and the defaulted owner would pay the amount he originally contracted for.
With a substantial impoverished population, many of whom if not actually homeless live in substandard housing - we ought to be able to find a relatively quick & moderately painless way out of this mess. The time has come for some government financial engineering innovation & wizardy that hits two birds with one stone. In exchange for the safety-net provided to the financial markets in the current crisis, isn't it fair for some re-distributionist sacrifice from those who will most benefit from that safety net. Take excess inventory off the market by redistributing it to people who need housing, thereby restoring real estate values while simultaneously keeping the economy growing & reforming credit markets to limit such lunacy in the future. Politically, this is an approach that will work as it can depend on support by the poor & many middle class homeowners as well as many well-to-do people who will support it if the reforms are crafted by people who are NOT fundamentally opposed to market capitalism, entrepeneurship & the very real wealth creation engendered by them. If the redistributionist aspect of the program is limited to taking some (not necessaryily ALL) of the wealth from those most responsible for the mess almost everyone will find it to be a fair approach & not some ignorant, all-out insupportable assault on capitalism & free markets altogether.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that predatory lending is made easy for banks, because they have free reign to make any kind of sale they can, then they just sell the mortgages and carry no further responsibility.
The executives continue to get their bonuses, while the many homeowners (who naively thought that their banker was their advocate, not the financial version of a used car salesman), bear the brunt of the crash.
The government needs to step in, but any bailout shoult not absolve the lenders of all responsibility. The lenders who created the crisis have to be held at least partially responsible for the cost of the cleanup.
This situation is actually an education crisis, not a financial one. America has produced a generation too lazy or too under-educated to understand or pay attention to mortgages, interest rates, income vs. expense etc.
Where's the reward/bail out for responsible citizens who live with excessive debt? Where's the reward/bail out for middle class and upper middle class parents who don't qualify for financial aid and are expected to spend a full quarter of their income on college tuition for their kids?
Let's reward smart people for a change --not dumbs ones who believe they DESERVE to own a home rather than simply to rent one.
47 -- thank you Jill.
Yes, the 0% financing math is correct. It is more often than not a bad deal. In Bob Sullivan's book "Gotcha Capitalism" he devotes an entire chapter to the subject, with specific examples of the differences.
Amen, Jill!
No. I agree 100% with the comments by Senator McCain that "it's not the duty government's to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
Mohammed was exactly right. The entire alt-A and sub-prime system that was allowed to develop created a 'moral hazard' and now many are paying for being enticed into the morass.
To make reality even worse, now we have politicians 'buying' votes by using smoke and mirrors to include everyone (plus our children) to be co-signers on these loans.
The housing crisis is not so much the sub-prime borrower who paid very little to get into a house as it is the paper holder. If one got into a house for no money and leaves it after making some payments they have been simply living like a renter. They have really lost nothing. The entangled paper products that were bought and sold will and should shoulder the losses. The houses will be resold eventually.
No, the banks used poor judgement when they built loan products that were not in the best interest of their customer/borrower, and therefore not in their own best long term interest. They should also have to pay the real estate tax of foreclosed homes so the cities do not suffer budget problems
Re: comment #47 -- of course that was supposed to read "responsible citizens who live withOUT excessive debt"....
Most of the buyers of the mortgage backed securities that have collateral of adjustable rate mortgages bought them on the assumption of an average life of less than five years. If we enabled the distressed home owners to refinance these ARMs, the investors would not lose anything.
this is a bit off topic but in all of the news surrounding this issue there's a really big group of folks that have been totally left out of the blame game: realtors. Has no one connected the dots on the part these people played in pushing up house prices and collecting huge commissions in the process? its definitely been to their advantage to keep those prices up and up [still].
March 22, 2007
The Honorable Ben Bernanke
The Honorable Henry Paulson
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5260944
Where does PMI come into the play. Years ago when I bought a house, and didn't have a lot of money, I had to pay $20.00 / month for mortgage insurance, and only could get rid of it when I could show 2 years of consistant, on time payments, and 80% equity.
Is mortgage insurance covering any of these foreclosures? And to who, if the banks are selling the paper?
Absolutely not! Buyers knew exactly what they were getting themselves into when purchasing.Their mistakes should not dig into my pockets.
NO! Borrowers should have to deal with the financial consequences of their decisions. As for the banks, Bear did get hammered. While we need re-regulation of investment banks (forget the name of the law in the late 90's that brought down the wall between banking and insurance sectors- it should be repealed), we also need to realize that Bear was 1/3 owned by employess. So those who made the mess, as well as many innocent colleagues, are seeing their life savings dwindle to almost nothing. (Most employess were paid with stock). Unfortunately, due to the interconnectedness of the banking system, it makes me sick to say that the government can not allow any of the big banks to fail.
No! Help people to cover overpriced homes they could not afford in a first place from taxpayers pockets? And people blame complicated fine prints? ...all right, so, lets help all the people that are in financial problems in this case, missing payments, cc overcharege, late fees..etc.
And yes, this is absolutely also an "education-system failure", as well as a financial system failure. The basics of finance are impossible for someone who is barely literate & therefore likely math-illiterate. Until we have found a way to educate EVERYONE to a very proficient high-school level of reading & math we will be unable to avoid seeing millions of people being taken advantage of by unscrupulous finance sharks - be it imprudent mortgages or credit card use. This can & should be an opportunity to find a way to pay for a quality-education-for-all system which will more than pay for itself MANY times over. Such a system will raise skill levels, incomes, financial literacy & citizen understanding of the many complex issues which we must collectively grapple with. Many birds (poor things :) will be hit with this stone!!
Those that bought houses with enormous mortgages and had in mind to "flip them over" and make alot of money should NOT be bailed out nor should the banks. The homeowner who was "misled" by the bank through "ommison" and bought the home not truly understanding the consequences of the large mortgage they would be holding, should be helped. Banks should not have to be in the business of educating the consumer in finances BUT do have an obligation to point out all the pit falls of an investment if the buyer is on shaky grounds.
I'm for some sort of help for homeowners who are in trouble with their mortgages. I like the idea of a cap on the mortgage amount that the government would help on. I also strongly believe that if the government helps out now, then later, if that homeowner sells the house at a "huge" profit, most if not all of the profit should go first to paying back the government. And Hillary's point is absolutely on target that the problem is broader than "irresponsible" people who are getting into trouble with their mortgages. When interest rates start going up again, those who have been encouraged to rely on home equity loans and credit cards to cover home repairs, college costs, etc., may be the next victims.
The point here -- our society, our governmetn, and the banks entice us to overspend. Even the best of us sometimes succumb to the lure. It's time to re-educate everyone to spend less, but at the same time, a little help from the banks and government--who have been encouraging the overspending--would seem in order.
I paid my attorney to handle the closings when I bought my last two houses in order to protect me from shady real estate/lending scenarios. Best money I ever spent. Don't people do that anymore?
David I think I can assume you have a better education than those who fell for predatory lenders who were not upfront about their terms -
what about this: stop flippers from creating housing bubbles - just disallow bubbles in certain areas of the economy. Value our communities and safeguard them!
No,
I bought my home 2 years ago. I used a fixed rate mortgage because I knew interest rates had to eventually go up. everybody who used an ARM paid alot less interest than I have been paying. If the government is going to help out ARM users what about us who used fixed rates, just because we used our brains before we bought a house and did research, shouldn't we get a free handout from the government too. Or are we just going to have to flip the bill for all of the people who bought more than they can handle. Like "Welfare"
Buying a home is not like buying a bags of chips, its alot of money. Use your head and research before you buy, and think to yourself : can I afford this house if my interest rate goes up 2pts? I'm not going to pay for somebody who didn't think before making the biggest purchase of their life.
yes, help them!
No. No government bailout of individual homeowners. Specially the ones who borrowed to the supposed limit of their home equity. Now their loans cost more than the house itself is worth-- but a lot of them were playing the Home Loan Crap Shoot: Take a Big Loan now and sell the house for a profit in 12 months or less. Well the game rules changed and caught them with their pants down. Tough cookies.
And freezing their rates? If we freeze someone's rate at 3% for the next couple of years or the banks FORGIVE a portion of their Debt and the borrower turns around and SELL THE HOUSE AT MARKET RATE, I will be ONE MAD TAX PAYOR.
Joanne's idea has good points-- BUT. . .
If the bailed-out borrower wants to sell, they should NOT pocket the profit-- but that means a HUGE government bureacracy whose purpose is only keep financial tabs over thousands or more individual borrowers.
What if the borrowers divorce? Death of a Borrower? What implied rights do the inheritors have? Control of the estate? What about Legal/Court rulings on the matter of Gov't intervention in Private property dealings?
What sounds simple and 'Goodhearted' can be an evil smelling can of worms. And in the end-- a 'temporary' solution can turn into a long-term scam full of loop-holes. I foresee "Section 8" style subsidized housing reaching new heights and categories of abuse in the Homeowners arena.
Keep it simple-- if you can't afford a house. . . You DON'T GET ONE.
Congress should help homeowners by rolling back the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill they recently passed at the behest of the banking industry. That bill made it almost impossible for consumers to declare bankruptcy and get relief from their debts. Homeowners with underwater mortgages that they cannot carry would, under a new law, be able to declare bankruptcy.A bankruptcy judge would then reduce their burden by ordering a reduction in the terms of the mortgage and treat other debt of that consumer the same way they treat corporations in bankruptcy.
Come to the UK - the great nanny state. Want or need anything -- want a house or someone to pay your mortgage? This govt will help you get it.
Only then everyone wonders why? Why do people come here from all over the world and seek entitlements too?
The US is on it's way - bale'em out - all of them. And watch how many folks flock to seek handouts. Just we'll be planting the seeds for the next crisis or the next crash. We'll be teaching our children that instant gratification is one of our inalienable rights - a new meaning to the pursuit of happiness.
Great! With my $5.75 an hour, I just bought myself BMW. The car sales man told me, I don't have to put any money down with variable interest rate. I think, $95,000 for 2008 model is a great deal! After all, how can I provide for my family if I can't provide them with proper transportation in style? Besides, if I can't pay the loan, I know I can always depend on the government to pay it for me.
I mean, sure, I can rent the car when I need to, but hell, I'm living the American Dream, baby!
Great! With my $5.75 million dollars an hour, I just bought myself BMW (the company). The Fed Reserve Chairman told me, I don't have to put any money down with no interest rate. I think, $235 million is a great deal! After all, how can I provide for my family if I can't provide them with proper transportation in style (helicopter and private jet)? Besides, if I can't pay the loan, I know I can always depend on the government to pay it for me.
I mean, sure, I can deny the people with loans they don't deserve, but hell, everyone is living the American Dream, baby!
If the government are going to help the banks (and they are) then they should help the homeowners.
One way to help the homeowners would be to simply attach conditions on the bank bailouts. The conditions could, for example, include requiring that the banks lock adjustable rates in order to take advantage of bailouts.
No they shold not help. They should not help corporation either. The government should go back to the original constitution and get rid of the federal reserve. It has to stop over spending, that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The government should wotk for the people not the corporations.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode