jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (121 posts)

Does this scare anyone else?

  1. spease profile image85
    speaseposted 8 years ago

    Barney Frank Said "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Where is the rest of what he said and the context he was speaking in?

    2. jiberish profile image71
      jiberishposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Did he say this with, or without his teeth in?

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif

        1. Daniel Carter profile image79
          Daniel Carterposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Either way, the fool has a gift for gumming up the works.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            *groan****  smile

  2. Eaglekiwi profile image79
    Eaglekiwiposted 8 years ago

    I only know Barney the purple dinosaur smile

  3. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

    I'm scared! I've never been more scared for this country, of the future! We are definitely headed for darker times!

  4. livelonger profile image94
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    Context is everything. The discussion was solely confined to regulation of the financial services industry.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      For now.

      1. Blogging Erika profile image65
        Blogging Erikaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        So you're agreeing that the government should increase its role with regards to the regulation of the financial services industry?

        1. livelonger profile image94
          livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yes.

        2. Flightkeeper profile image74
          Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          No. livelonger said that Barney's desire for regulation was restricted to the financial services industry. I said for now, meaning that the financial services industry was the starting point for now but could be expanded later which is what government tends to do if it is allowed.

          1. Friendlyword profile image60
            Friendlywordposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "I said for now, meaning that the financial services industry was the starting point for now but could be expanded later which is what government tends to do if it is allowed" 
            If it is Allowed? Our Government is ELECTED by the people of this country to act on our behalf.  Barney Frank is not a part of Her Majesties Government. He is our elected Congressmen doing his job for us. One of his responsibilities is to protect us from Busineses like Enron, illegal bank practices, and corporate crooks that want to rape and rob this Country. Some people running a few businesses in the Country think that people are as stupid as the companies are greedy? So they try us. That's why we have Barney Frank and others like him in OUR Government to protect us.

            1. ledefensetech profile image71
              ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Oh yeah, our representatives act on our behalf and not on the behalf of the people who gave them money to run their campaign.  roll

      2. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Right he wants the power to dissolve the evil financial companies!

        1. livelonger profile image94
          livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          And eat babies, too. Don't forget that. An important sign of the upcoming apocalypse. yikes

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That's a common tactic of the left, change the subject! Those were his words to dissolve companies that don't follow his new rules! He'd have some credibility if it wasn't he that was responsible for the regulations that CAUSED this last crisis!

            1. livelonger profile image94
              livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              *Regulations* caused the recent financial crisis? That's really how you read what happened?

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                not me....greed caused the problem in the financial markets.

              2. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Absolutely! The mortgage came first when the government pushed Fannie and Freddie to back paper and encourage home ownership and the giving of loans through the community reinvestment act

                1. profile image0
                  Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Pushed through by the Clintons

      3. spease profile image85
        speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        He has no intention of stopping there.  That is obvious from what he says every time he speaks.

        1. livelonger profile image94
          livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Where else do you expect Barney to overregulate?

          1. spease profile image85
            speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Here is another quote he made. "Increasing inequality in income distribution in this country has broader policy implications, and there is also the growing problem of perverse incentives that result from executives receiving grossly disproportionate compensation based on decisions they themselves take."  That sounds like he wants to control income.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              If you wish to take that tact then the minimum wage should be repealed.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                the government "minimum wage" program only applies to state and federal jobs.

                It doesn't apply to the overall job market. If a state wants to increase their own minimum wage then they will....otherwise it is not uniform for normal jobs.

              2. spease profile image85
                speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I agree, the minimum wage is a bad thing.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  So allow greed to take charge and let the chips fall where they may?

                  1. spease profile image85
                    speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    What is the advantage of the minimum wage.  Who can live on $7.00 an hour?

                    1. rhamson profile image77
                      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      If greed can take advantage of the regulations we have in place such as minimum wage which has eroded the middle class anyway,  letting the minimum wage disapear is no big deal when the result would be even lower wages?

            2. livelonger profile image94
              livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              If you're talking about the executive pay & bonuses for companies that, through their own incompetence, needed a government bailout, that's already happened. No ominous horror-flick background music necessary. smile

            3. prettydarkhorse profile image64
              prettydarkhorseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Economists generally agree that certain amounts of inequality are necessary and desirable but that excessive inequality leads to efficiency problems and social injustice, but he cant do that because this is free economy and shoud have little regualtions,,,,he is a little bit dictating eh??

      4. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Funny how those little missing details make such a huge difference eh?

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          But it sounds so much more provocative the other way doesn't it?

          1. livelonger profile image94
            livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "It must be destroyed!"
            Is that scary or hopeful?

    2. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

      Sorry blog erika, I thought that post was directed at me. My bad.

    3. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 8 years ago

      unregulated products and bring about trouble for the financial industry, just like the sub-prime mortgages did.

      greedy people will find ways to get away with whatever they can, when no one is looking. Even at the expense of those who don't know any better.

    4. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 8 years ago

      Our government has been slowly expanding itself for decades - this isn't exactly a surprise

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Under every administration too.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Of course - the dems just want to move faster

          1. livelonger profile image94
            livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That's why Dems tend to get voted in. Your beef should be with Repubs who claim to want to pare back the size of the state but usually expand it. The Dems are just doing what their electorate asked them to do.

            1. profile image0
              Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Oh I definitely have a beef with the republicans as well! But the democrats are socialist! They want to make everyone equal everyone the same except the political elite, the unions and thsoe that give them money!

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                The two parties are indistinguishable when it comes to your definition.  Both parties want to share non of the wealth with the lower class and are destroying the middle class in the process.

                1. profile image0
                  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not about sharing the wealth! It's about freedom! Freedom to make choices and to deal with the choices you make and accept responsibility for them! The government should have NO ROLE in the free markets! It's when they get involved that they create opportunities for others to game the system!
                  The government's only role in society is to promote prosperity. It's up to individuals to achieve economic success, not for the government to give it to them!

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Your altruistic approach is based on some type of all good things will come to pass with out any intervention.  This has been proven wrong with the recent collapse of the economy and the people hurt by no fault of their own.

                    1. spease profile image85
                      speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      The collapse of the economy was caused by the very thing we are talking about.  Over regulation by the government.

                    2. profile image0
                      Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      His approach is exactly the opposite of altruistic. Our system of government was set up as a tri-partate system where one branch of government would be held in check by the other two. It specifically takes into account and acknowledges the darker side of human nature. The place we are in right now is because the people have rested on what was supposedly guaranteed to them by those that came before.

                      As the saying goes - "freedon isn't free" - we have to work at it.

                    3. profile image0
                      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      It's not altruistic at all! It's common sense! If there was no money and no government there would still be a free market, a buyer and a seller which would come to a meeting of the minds, an agreement to exchange goods and or services and both would be happy.

                  2. profile image0
                    Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    You hit the nail on the head

                  3. livelonger profile image94
                    livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Sounds lovely in theory, and sounds like Columbia in practice.

            2. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Exactly - which is to force in a communist police state and get rid of personal sovereignty

    5. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 8 years ago

      what else is new with politicians......first they want in and once in more power is wanted.....regardless of how they get it.

    6. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

      Rahm Emanuel has said, "never let a good crisis go to waste" The democrats see their time is now, to seize this opportunity to push their agenda, to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        communism, socialism, democracy, and every other form of government is always about control.

    7. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 8 years ago

      the next thing you know.....government will try to strip the entire constitution.... lol

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Ahem . . .    try?

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Massachusetts is already stripping the right of choice.

    8. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 8 years ago

      on top of really poor assumption that the real-estate property would never go down. Which was really stupid.

      bankers, traders and others...expected the real-estate market to never pull back. That was really dumb.

    9. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 8 years ago

      i just so thought in a free market economy, the governments only role is to see to it that there is no fraud committed and that the main decisions are in the hands or the interactions between buyers and sellers, which is deemed not in opposite directions!

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, unless one side decides to buy a politician and tilt the scales in his favor

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
          prettydarkhorseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          yes thats it, I still think that there is more advantages if we just let the actors play (buyers and sellers)and not intevene. we should  take lesson from the case of soem european countries which have more of a welfare kind of economy...their health care systems is at flawed and more people are disillusioned.

    10. mikelong profile image72
      mikelongposted 8 years ago

      Government having no role in enterprise is ludicrous and unfounded, in my opinion.

      While the United States expanded its business mind in the 19th and 20th century the government, in one way or another, has been greatly involved, either through the forwarding of cash, or through bills and laws that enabled large landowners to connect their tracts to major urban centers........

      There is more to be said here.........but if one wants to think about fear, how about the Citigroup memos on plutonomy (both parts)....

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Citig … Part-2...,

      and then compounded with a memo last year regarding gold prices and the likelyhood that the world we know it will collapse...

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm … s.html....

      "The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

      This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold."

      and.....

      "We are already seeing countries on the periphery of Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because people are feeling disenfranchised."

      ....and they got bailout money.....planning for whose future?


      It has been the government, not enterprise, that has opened doors for the diverse peoples of this nation, and it is government, for government is ourselves, to ensure companies like citigroup are controlled.....for they are simply profiteers......through whatever means necessary.

      Who's ready for what's next?

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        There is no place in the constitution that says the government should involve itself in the free trade of the people. It's only role is to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Through forcibly taking "control" of more and more aspects of our lives we are now in the mess we're in right now.

      2. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Being greatly involved doesn't mean that prosperity couldn't have been achieved without government involvement! I could say greater prosperity would have been achieved if government wasn't involved, of course just like when Obama says the economy would be worse if the government didn't get involved, there would be no way to prove my claim!

        Corporations seek profit, that's what they do, people seek wealth to improve their station, that's what we do and government's role should be to see that we all succeed to our greatest ability while taking the minimum from us in taxes to do so and to be a responsible fiduciary of our money. Government has failed, and continues to push foolish policies which threaten to bankrupt our nation. We are being lead into anarchy down the path of socialism!

        1. spease profile image85
          speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Perfect answer.

    11. Misha profile image77
      Mishaposted 8 years ago

      Nah, I am not scared anymore. All my and family members' papers are in order, and we are ready to move out any moment, letting you guys experience the wonders of communism on your own. We had enough of those wonders before. smile

      1. spease profile image85
        speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Where are you from?

        1. Misha profile image77
          Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          LOL Originally from Russia smile

          1. spease profile image85
            speaseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So you know first hand what an out of control government can do.

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              He puts his finger right on it every time smile

            2. Misha profile image77
              Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Oh yeah, no question. I started having flashbacks right after 9/11, when they started the propaganda machine for Iraq war. Since then it is getting more and more recognizable every day. smile

        2. livelonger profile image94
          livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I think "Where are you going?" might yield a more interesting answer.

    12. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

      It's not paranoia! These guys aren't going to read this bill! Obama promised to put the debate on cspan, but instead it's taking place behind closed doors.

      You have to understand the income tax is the way it is because a fair tax or a flat tax would eliminate the ability of Congress to revise the tax code to suit the needs of lobbyists. Who gets what deductions or relief is decided by congress. Now, those same kinds of decisions will be made over the health care industry and you and me will be in the middle, paying for it all!

      It's not paranoia! Money IS power! Back in the old days when you had to pay your doctor, you negotiated with him cost and terms. We have now sacrificed that power and have given it to the insurance companies. What this bill will do is give that power to the government! And this is just the beginning!

      Once the government is in charge, they will be forced to regulate your health! They will justify this because they claim they need to be responsible with taxpayers money.

      This bill, government health care is a trap, a deal with the devil and you will pay with your soul, secured with the chains of submission and servitude! Don't fall for it!

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        What is the answer to your dilemma?

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          If he had one he'd run for president! Then we could all vote for him - I would smile

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Vote for who? Answer to what? I think I missed something in the translation.... lol

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Poppa Blues. Rhamson was asking Poppa Blues "What is the answer to your dilemma?"

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                See, I told you I lost something in translation.... lol

          2. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            What about us?  Should we wait and look for the Golden Child to answer all of this?  The politics of this country is dedicated to division.  How can a devisive institution come up with a fair and conclusive answer. Just say no never worked and we need answers.

          3. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            First of all people should pay the doctor directly for their health care. Insurance policies should be for catastrophic illness but policies should be available nationwide across state lines. The companies will come up with plans that serve the needs of what the market is asking for. Managed care is a failed experiment. People that can't afford care are treated now in emergency rooms at a cost of 116 billion dollars a year, so theoretically everyone already is covered. A basic plan can be provided that can be deducted from your income taxes or a tax credit can be issued if you meet a means test based on you income and dependent situation. This can all be done for very little money and very quickly!

            If there's waste in medicare lets find it and get rid of it! Why do we have to rebuild a whole new health care system from the ground up to do so? Medicare can combine with the VA to negotiate drug prices and pass those savings onto seniors. The VA already does a great job keeping the costs of medications down, combining with Medicare could give them added leverage.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              The problem with paying the Doctor directly is that it is far too expensive for many people.  That is why collectively the insurance companies and medicare can reduce this cost. 

              Another tax and responsibility of business to pay for us is what is crippling business now.

              I can't imagine fighting an insurance company in California for benefits denied when I live in Maryland. The catastrophic factor scares me even more.

              The unfunded 116 billion dollars already covered by the deficit of insurance for everyone is not a fix. Another income tax or credit to pay for healthcare can only work on a large scale basis to be mostly paid by healthy people.  The horrors associated with the VA Hospitals is not a model I would cite as a good alternative especially with recent news reports about its' quality of healthcare.

              1. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Doctors charge up to 3 times maybe more of what they would charge if you were to pay them directly with cash! The point here is when you have managed care you go to the doctor for any little thing because the sense is it isn't coming out of your pocket. But the doctor has to have a staff that deals with the insurance company and denials and forms and tracking payments, it's a huge cost that does nothing for the patient! Without that the doctor can charge much less!

                If the goal is to insure everybody and the public is willing to accept that some people will die simply because they are poor, then you have to pay for that somehow. Doing through the tax code would be the easiest way without adding a whole new layer of government. Of course, ideally if I had my way, I'd eliminate the income tax all together and replace it with a national sales tax.

                Well I've used the VA so yes I agree the care is not the best. Indeed I almost lost my life because of their "care". That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to government health care. I've seen it and it sucks! That said, they do a great job controlling the cost of medications.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  The problem with the VA is that its the people or idiots running the program.

                  The other problem that exists which no one is talking about is that many smaller ailments can be treated with herbal remedies, but the drug manufacturers are hiding that fact so they can keep their profit margins. How is this beneficial to society? Who is getting the best care? Too many drug products have more and more side-effects, which can cause so many other problems.

                  Again, this is because- BUSINESS has a strangle-hold on Congress. The knowledge of other remedies for ailments is critical to society. The drugs offered, even tylenol, advil and any form of anti-biotics can damage your system, ruin certain organs in the body and even kill some people.

                  BUSINESS has no regard for human life, because they are not worried about what's best for citizens.....They are only concerned about their bottomline.

                2. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Your taking the collective bargaining out of the equation will only hinder any efforts to reduce costs.  Perhaps some tort reform could help but the current system relies on collective bargaining and that is what the medical business understands.  Poor people and the uninsured make up a great deal of people who cannot get medical insurance.  Some estimate up to 50 million. That is a large chunk to let fend for themselves let alone die.

                  I am sorry for your run ins with the VA and I know it is because of neccesity that you deal with them but they are terrrificaly underfunded and are a bad example of good management.

                  The problem is immense and if we leave it up to the individual to solve there is little power in the power of one to solve it.

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        They are already regulating your health. They put taxes on the things that are bad, so you'll stop spending on them and look for healthier ways to live?

        And, your point?

        My point is that BUSINESS needs to let go of Congress.

        How ever, that isn't going to happen until the PEOPLE finally put an end by using their voting power they way it was designed to be used.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you!

    13. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 8 years ago

      I guess the biggest and most scariest problem we(all) have is that business has a strangle-hold on Congress because of donations, contributions and lobbyists & special interests groups who like to ensure America is always divided.

      Many different organizations are destroying this country, slowly but surely.

    14. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 8 years ago

      We are in trouble.  Who is responding to who? smile

    15. Daniel Carter profile image79
      Daniel Carterposted 8 years ago

      My observation is the more entitled we become, such as everyone is entitled to national healthcare, the more laws need to be enacted to make it "fair." But then it still isn't fair because people are not treated right, the fall through the cracks, etc. It's the same old story as before. The difference is that people die from not being able afford health care one way, and people die from too much red tape the other way.

      And we all grow poorer, subsidizing it all to make it "fair."

      There are no easy answers. As long as big business, the money industry, and insurance have their tentacles on the balls of congress, this problem will only worsen, I believe. They own this country and have threatened our government with crisis they created. It's a frightening time.

      I believe it really is time for us to take some power back by choosing carefully who of these businesses we deal with--if at all--and keep our money closer to home circulating through smaller companies and people in which we can develop some kind of trust.

      All that said, there no point in crying about the sky falling. It's been falling for a hell of a long time. We just get used to being hit with giant chunks of it, but suddenly the chunks could kill us.

    16. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

      You'll never insure everyone! Even this bill leaves 20 million without insurance! The worst part about this bill though is a mandate that FORCES you to buy insurance! That is just unacceptable!!

      The best way to insure the most people is to make the country the most prosperous in the world! To make sure everyone has a job and can make a decent wage and can afford to buy insurance IF they want to!

      The best way to do that is to cut taxes, especially corporate taxes to the bone and to pay for it, reduce the size of government! If you empower individuals, you incentivize them to reach for the stars of success! When people know that the harder they work the more they make and the more of that they keep the wealthier they become, they will work harder! If government gives us everything why should we work? If government takes 1/2 of what we earn where's the incentive?

      Get off the backs of the people and get out of their wallets, their savings, their property and watch what we can do!!!

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It worked that way for a looong time. Why did anyone want to change it?

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          No one wanted to change it. It happened when we weren't looking when we became too apathetic to care. Government is a serpent, a slithering snake that sneaks into the cracks and shadows of despair and tempts us with it's shiny apple of answers to all of our problems.... but it's a poison apple that enslave us and makes us beholden to them!

    17. Flightkeeper profile image74
      Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

      Actually if you negotiate with the doctor directly instead of having to go through insurance, it's cheaper.  No processing costs, no waiting time.

    18. EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image85
      EYEAM4ANARCHYposted 8 years ago

      I appreciate the honesty.

    19. mikelong profile image72
      mikelongposted 8 years ago

      As to the "perfect answer" listed earlier, it is only so if one ignores American history and development. 

      It was the government/business coalition promoting strictly controlled immigration in order, largely, to undermine an already established workforce, white, black, and hispanic, keeping labor weak and cheap.

      Perhaps the "perfect answer" folks are those who aid in setting up such unnatural imbalances and profiteering from them, but that is not for me.

      The problem with many people is that they have very little clue as to why the United States became so powerful in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries.

      If it had not been for the government invading Mexico under false pretenses and enacting and enforcing the laws that permitted wealthy industrialists to acquire land and labor at cut rate deals there would be no success.

      Like the Ottoman Empire, American strength lies in controlling trade routes, and through them, markets.  The rail lines are all regulated by the federal government, and the land they ride on was subsidized by the American taxpayers, not business. 

      Government hands of business? 

      Let's see if you can answer this first.....


      Why did Los Angeles become the city it is today?

      There really is but one reason......

    20. garynew profile image60
      garynewposted 8 years ago

      It would have been far scarier ANYONE other than BF--who may or may not currently HAVE a BF--said it.

     
    working