The Path to Debt in America

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
The Path to Debt in America

http://dailyreckoning.com/the-path-to-debt-in-america/

“You may not know this, but the U.S. has actually defaulted a number of times already,” writes Chris Mayer this morning. He cites five instances:

• 1779: The government was unable to redeem the continental currency issued during the Revolutionary War
• 1782: The Colonies defaulted on the debt they took out to pay for the war
• 1862: During the Civil War, the Union failed to redeem dollars for gold at terms stated by the debt contracts
• 1934: FDR defaults on the debt issued to finance World War I, refusing to redeem it in gold. The dollar is devalued 40% against gold
• 1979: A bureaucratic snafu results in interest going unpaid on some small bills.

“With the exception of 1979,” Chris says, “which was mostly due to administrative confusion — the U.S. simply ran out of money each time. The end result was the dollar had to be devalued. Meaning it lost significant purchasing power.

“My guess is that the U.S. will default again. It may not technically be called that, but the only way for the U.S. to meet its financial obligations is to print a lot of money.”

 

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
printing to the end...

Hi,

They will print to the end - they have to.  I have been entertained over the last few weeks by the drama unfolding in DC with the repubs and dems.  I suppose it is kind of a morbid form of entertainment but it is entertainment never-the-less.  The repubs have taken the high ground and proposed the cut, cap, and balance bill.  It is probably the most sensible proposal so far.  They do not want to raise taxes in the middle of the great recession and that seems like a nobel point of view.  Even in the great recession the fed gov is receiving 2.4 trillion in taxes.  Is this not enough money to run the fed gov on ?  It seems like a lot of money to me.  It is way more than any other country.  The military is going to have to be cut.  The wars have to stop.  Social security is going to have to be cut.  I do not know how the politicians are going to explain to the people that they borrowed the money in the Social Security Trust Fund and now they can't pay it back.  I guess that is called stealing.  If someone borrows money from me and does not pay it back I call it stealing my money.  A very small percentage of the people in America understand this.  When it is finally explained to them in a way they can understand it they are going to get very angry.  Medicare will have to be cut.  Medicaid will have to be cut.  Obamacare will have to be repealed.  Section 8 housing and "food stamps" will have to be cut.  Untold thousands of people who work for the fed gov will have to be laid off into a labor market that is basically a disaster.  Basically every fed gov program that you can think of is going to have to be cut.

If we did not raise the debt ceiling and forced the fed gov to live on what it takes in, spending would go down by 40%.  When the shock of that moved through the economy the GDP would be reduced by about 8%.  That would be a major recession just all by itself.  So, if you can not cut fed gov spending back to balance without causing a major financial disaster and you can not raise taxes enough to even come close to achieving balance without causing a financial disaster, then what are we supposed to do ?  They will just keep printing.  They have to.

This is the problem that is causing the politicians to malfunction.  It is a pretty good problem, I understand why they are malfunctioning.

There is also some sneaky stuff in this.  The dems want a very large increase in the debt ceiling - they do not want to revisit this between now and the 2012 election for obvious reasons.  They want the fed res to print and they spend and it is happy days, or at least sort of happy for a while.  This just pushes the problem out into the future and makes it even worse when the show down happens.  Of course it also makes it more likely the dems will be re-elected - the primary goal of all politicians regardless of party.  Of course the sneaky repub gig is if they cut a boat load out of the budget the class of entitlement (about half the country) will go ballistic and there will be chaos as a result. 

 I guess it all comes down to default.  It is like CM says - default in an actual event or default through printing your way into serious inflation.  It will be pretty much the same result either way.  The difference is the "when" part.  They will keep printing.  They have to.  They will call it all kinds of fancy names and/or sneak and call it nothing at all - but print they will.

Everyone will get a hair cut before this is over.  Even the super rich will get a hair cut this time.  The difference will be they will still have some hair left.  Regular people are going to get a buzz cut.  I do not see how it can be anything but bad.

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1891
Dshields' Opinion Is Not Shared By Most Americans

Dshields:

You wrote: "The repubs have taken the high ground and proposed the cut, cap, and balance bill."

Sorry, I understand that is your opinion, but it is not an opinion shared by most Americans. Most Americans believe in a combination of cuts and tax increases.

POLL: Most Americans Say Tax Hikes Are Okay To Slash Federal Deficit
"Buried in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll is an interesting revelation: A large majority of Americans believe tax hikes should accompany spending cuts to slash the federal deficit. Sixty-four percent of respondents said that deficit-cutting should comprise a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, while only 31 percent thought spending cuts should do the trick on their own."
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-most-americans-say-tax-hikes-are-oka...

Again, going back to what I have said about the problem:

Dshields And The Dysfunctional Family Called Government
"Now when your family or my family is faced with such financial difficulties, you'd expect two things: 1. Major spending cuts. AND 2. Working extra hours or getting a second job for income to make up the stupid, STUPID mistake of voluntarily taking a pay cut. Anything else would be dysfunctional for such a family. Who here would dare disagree with that?"
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/115270#comment-115270

Dshields, I believe your "spending cuts only" approach is not the "high ground" but a dysfunctional ground. If your own family were in a situation where income wasn't meeting expenses, you would not ONLY cut expenses. You'd look into generating more income. I think you would agree with me. So why is government the exception here?

Even Grover Nordquist of the Americans for Tax Reform, who made so many Republicans sign a pledge against increasing taxes, has backpedaled. He's now said to the Washington Post that he would not consider it a breaking of the pledge if the Republicans allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire. That in itself may well "bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue", according to the newspaper.

Nordquist knew his pledge had painted House Congressional leaders into a corner. So he gave them a way out.

Out from Under The Anti-Tax Pledge
"But the fact that Mr. Norquist interprets his own pledge to permit such conduct suggests that Republican lawmakers who have been browbeaten into abjuring any tax increase, at any time, for any reason, may not be as boxed in as they believe. The official Republican line has been that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, even for those earning more than $250,000, would be a job-killing tax increase. The fact that the godfather of the pledge does not interpret the lapse as an increase is significant. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledg...

Also interesting, it looks like moderate Republicans are starting to come around:

"Mr. Norquist’s comments come at a moment of remarkable and welcome fluidity in what had seemed to be a solid wall of Republican opposition to raising any tax revenue at any time for any reason. The surprising reemergence and expansion of the Senate Gang of Six this week was accompanied by a flurry of statements from Republican senators endorsing a proposal that included $1 trillion in new tax revenue. 'This is a serious, bipartisan proposal that will help stop Washington from spending money that we don’t have, and I support it,' said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the GOP conference chair.

"'A fair compromise,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). There may not be time to translate the gang plan into law as the debt ceiling looms, but these reactions suggest that future negotiations could be conducted from a base line of reality."

Now here we see Alexander and Hutchison are amongst Republicans who are taking the high ground, realizing that it's insane for a family facing financial problems to ONLY cut spending and not look for more income.

C'mon, if you saw a familiy on welfare, wouldn't you want them to not just learn to live with less welfare, but also get off their butts and bring in some income? :)

Poet

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1323
US budget not comparable to family budget in politicians eyes
Poet wrote:

Now here we see Alexander and Hutchison are amongst Republicans who are taking the high ground, realizing that it's insane for a family facing financial problems to ONLY cut spending and not look for more income.

C'mon, if you saw a familiy on welfare, wouldn't you want them to not just learn to live with less welfare, but also get off their butts and bring in some income? :)

So when would it be wise for a family to go into more debt when they are already buried in debt?  I don't think your analogy works unless you also agree that the debt ceiling should not be raised.  In addition, most families can try to go out and get a job, but there is always a risk that it might not happen, so in a family situation you always cut as much as possible, then hope you can have get a job and save.

So if you really want to go down the family budget road we should:

1) Not raise the debt ceiling.

2) Cut to the bare minimum.

3) Then raise taxes to pay off the debt and save - ie. absolutely no new spending!

However, there is one more slight twist that makes it a bit different than a normal family budget.  The head of the household doesn't is a thief, and more income means stealing from others!

 

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1891
Rhare's Dream Is Political Suicide For Our Nation's Leaders

Rhare

rhare wrote:

So when would it be wise for a family to go into more debt when they are already buried in debt?  I don't think your analogy works unless you also agree that the debt ceiling should not be raised.  In addition, most families can try to go out and get a job, but there is always a risk that it might not happen, so in a family situation you always cut as much as possible, then hope you can have get a job and save.

Voluntary Pay Cut, Easily Reinstated By Doing Nothing
From my point of view, the head of the household was stupid enough to take a voluntary, temporary pay cut while drastically increasing borrowing to spend like crazy. It is crazy! Which is why even Grover Nordquist is now saying it's okay to get that pay cut back.

Most families can't necessarily get more income when they want it. This family can. Especially for a pay cut voluntarily taken, that didn't have to be taken, that already has an expiration date. Nothing more needs to be done.

Unless, of course, Rhare, you want this family to keep taking voluntary pay cuts. Do you?

rhare wrote:

So if you really want to go down the family budget road we should:

1) Not raise the debt ceiling.
2) Cut to the bare minimum.
3) Then raise taxes to pay off the debt and save - ie. absolutely no new spending!

Immediate Deeper Depression
Well, in this case, the American "family" either goes into more debt and raises the debt ceiling...

Or it will leave bills unpaid. Even now, the government is using accounting tricks to not go into more official debt. By raiding billions from government employee pension funds, for example. The deadline of August 2 was a deadline provided by Geithner as to how long he can use accounting tricks before truly having to stop paying major bills. The expenses are still rolling in. Choosing not to go into any more debt would mean not paying bills that are awaiting payment.

The American economy will face a massive immediate, deeper economic depression. We are already in a Great Recession, held up only by government spending, with the annual deficit spending equal to 10% of the entire economy.

Let's look at the details. If the government were to immediately stop going into any further debt, then out of the estimated $2.2 trillion in taxes it will collect this year, it will be spending about $400 billion on mandatory interest, $700 billion on mandatory Social Security (since pretty much that's what's collected from Social Security taxes), $750 billion on mandatory Medicare and Medicaid, and $350 billion or so will be left over to prioritize over the approximately $570 billion in other mandatory expenses.

As non-mandatory expenses, there will be no money left over for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Energy, State, etc. etc. etc. The American economy will definitely react. The markets will react even before that! Stocks will crash, gold and other precious metals will soar. But that assumes the markets will continue to function without government oversight...

Obviously the definition of mandatory will have to change. But remember, Social Security supposedly still has enough money it's "trust fund", which are in U.S. Treasuries, that it can redeem to supposedly continue full benefits until 2036. So Social Security can't be one of the cuts unless you want to start defaulting on the National Debt. Neither can interest payments on the National Debt go unpaid, or we go into default.

Now, maybe you can live with that kind of bare minimum, and the attendant deeper economic depression, Rhare. But our favorite party in Congress can't. Therefore even the most ambitious Republican-proposed plan is to only cut $400 billion from the deficit each year, leaving still at least $1 trillion in deficits per year over the next 10 years. Even that $1 trillion extra per year is overly optimistic in hoping that the American economy will grow enough to reduce the relative debt to GDP ratio to make the debt burden less, considering neither party dares to be Crash Course aware. (Maybe you can come up with a budget like I've requested before, but for the Federal "family"?)

rhare wrote:

However, there is one more slight twist that makes it a bit different than a normal family budget.  The head of the household doesn't is a thief, and more income means stealing from others!

Not A Thief, But Mafia Bosses We "Elect"
The head of the household isn't a thief. We elect representatives who, with input from special interests, decide on our taxes, the services we receive, and the amount of debt we will incur. In effect, we deserve the American family we have allowed. Now, if you want to call them mafia bosses, go ahead. But do remember that you are enjoying a lot of the privileges of mafia "protection" and you get a say in who gets to be boss.

But personally, I think whatever compromise comes through won't be enough. We are too far down the road to perdition. A combination of tax increases and spending cuts will merely kick the can down the road a little further. But much, much less further down than previous kicks have been able to accomplish.

Poet

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1323
Progressive ideals meet reality?
Poet wrote:

As non-mandatory expenses, there will be no money left over for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Energy, State, etc. etc. etc.

And that would be bad?

Poet wrote:

Unless, of course, Rhare, you want this family to keep taking voluntary pay cuts. Do you?

In this case, yes I do.  Because it means the head of household is not out robbing from his neigbors.

Poet wrote:

Well, in this case, the American "family" has to go into more debt and raise the debt ceiling, or it will face a massive immediate, deeper economic depression. We're already in a Great Recession, held up only by government spending, with the annual deficit spending equal to 10% of the entire economy.

Yes, it will, but if we keep kicking the can it just gets worse.  The sooner we take the fall, the sooner we can start to dig out.  There is no "fixing" the problem, and you seem to agree, so why keep making the problem worse?  There will never be a good time to feel the pain.  So no we dont have to raise the debt ceiling, it's a false option based on the premise their will be a better time later. See I can bold things too!

Poet wrote:

But remember, Social Security supposedly still has enough money it's "trust fund", which are in U.S. Treasuries, that it can redeem to supposedly continue full benefits until 2036. So Social Security can't be one of the cuts unless you want to start defaulting on the National Debt.

But their is not trust fund.  A loan to yourself does not mean you have money, just like the federal goverment owing itself is just plain stupid. So yes, we can absolutely begin defaulting (and will) on SS without being in default to external debtors.

 

I'm really confused, in your response to dshields you seem to be very much advocating raising taxes, raising he ceiling, and kicking the can down the road:

Poet wrote:

Dshields, I believe your "spending cuts only" approach is not the "high ground" but a dysfunctional ground. If your own family were in a situation where income wasn't meeting expenses, you would not ONLY cut expenses. You'd look into generating more income. I think you would agree with me. So why is government the exception here?

...

Now here we see Alexander and Hutchison are amongst Republicans who are taking the high ground, realizing that it's insane for a family facing financial problems to ONLY cut spending and not look for more income.

C'mon, if you saw a familiy on welfare, wouldn't you want them to not just learn to live with less welfare, but also get off their butts and bring in some income? :)

But, then you seem to agree that the proposals out of Washington will not solve the problem, will only make it worse:

Poet wrote:

But personally, I think whatever compromise comes through won't be enough. We are too far down the road to perdition. A combination of tax increases and spending cuts will merely kick the can down the road a little further. But much, much less further down than previous kicks have been able to accomplish.

So how can you advocate the generally left leaning Progressive stance of raise taxes, spend more, ....  It seems that the time to stop the insanity is now.  That means no debt ceiling raise, period!  Is this your progressive views running into reality? Or are you just mixing what will happen (the debt ceiling will be raised, we will spend more, we will not significantly raise taxes) and what should happen - major austerity for this dysfunctional family?

Poet wrote:

But do remember that you are enjoying a lot of the privileges of mafia "protection" and you get a say in who gets to be boss.

I don't believe I'm enjoying the privileges, but I'm certainly one of the ones being extorted!

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1891
It's Not About "Progressive", It's About Time To Prepare

Rhare

rhare wrote:

In this case, yes I do.  Because it means the head of household is not out robbing from his neigbors.

You may not think you're enjoying the privileges. I'm sure a lot of those privileges could be delivered by private enterprise. But again, we as a people made our bed ourselves. So we drive on freeways and breath relatively decent air and eat somewhat safe food and take somewhat-regulated drugs and likely as productive citizens enjoy far fewer of the benefits while providing more of the taxes. We live in this country and we as a people made our government the way it is. We may not like it, but the representatives we elected, made it so. Nothing you or I say will change the reality of this situation.

We are faced with debt and spending issues. We need a combination of income and spending cuts to address it, not just spending cuts.

I'm sorry that you think that the American "family" should take action to continue voluntary tax cuts designed to expire when faced with a budget problem, and only resort to spending cuts. I don't agree. Again, it doesn't matter what you say, I believe the compromise that will come about will cause the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire. (Don't worry, I'm sure there will be another fun melodrama soap opera come December 2012, as there was back in December 2010.)

I also believe that we do, as a government, need a Department of Defense, along with other essential functions of state. It doesn't matter what I believe, however. Our Federal government will continue to have a terribly expensive Department of Defense (far more than I would want) and a free-wheeling State Department (also far more than I would want, employing security contractors for billions in black ops) for many years to come.

rhare wrote:

The sooner we take the fall, the sooner we can start to dig out.

The economy, energy, and the environment, remember? I'll explain more in detail below.

rhare wrote:

But their is not trust fund.  A loan to yourself does not mean you have money, just like the federal goverment owing itself is just plain stupid. So yes, we can absolutely begin defaulting (and will) on SS without being in default to external debtors.

Yes, of course there is no trust fund. That's why I said "supposedly". But are you advocating taking the Social Security money collected and NOT paying out Social Security benefits with it? Or are you saying only take the Social Security money collected and pay out what's collected - no extras since the fund will be defaulted upon? I don't think the so-called "conservative" seniors will appreciate that, even if you and I may agree that it's a Ponzi scheme and the promises can no longer be kept.

rhare wrote:

I'm really confused, in your response to dshields you seem to be very much advocating raising taxes, raising he ceiling, and kicking the can down the road:

But, then you seem to agree that the proposals out of Washington will not solve the problem, will only make it worse:

So how can you advocate the generally left leaning Progressive stance of raise taxes, spend more, ....  It seems that the time to stop the insanity is now.  That means no debt ceiling raise, period!  Is this your progressive views running into reality? Or are you just mixing what will happen (the debt ceiling will be raised, we will spend more, we will not significantly raise taxes) and what should happen - major austerity for this dysfunctional family?

I believe in both roll backs of voluntary tax cuts (is that really left-leaning?) and definitely in spending cuts (right-leaning). I also happen to not be a right-leaning Neo-conservative who would both cut taxes and borrow massively more to spend.

I'm advocating allowing the temporary tax cuts to expire, and raising the ceiling because if we default and do a drastic cut now, we will see an immediate and massive Depression.

Yes, I have stated time and again that any compromise only kicks the can down the road. Our country is truly insolvent and the political realities are such that we will never be able to repay the debt unless there is massive hyperinflation, in which case that also is a default. That day WILL come!

However, I do believe that easing and delaying the coming economic collapse by a few years allows more time for more people to become aware and to prepare, while at the same time getting the overall population to learn to adjust to less and less. Save money, be out of debt, work on being resilient. More and more people are waking up!

Belief in allowing for an immediate default and Depression is predicated on the idea that we as a nation can then start afresh and begin the climb back up quickly, minimizing the long-term damage.

But I don't believe there will be a fast climb back up. The demographics and world resources are not as they were during the Great Depression. We have the 3Es working against us, not for us. Once we're down, we'll be where we're at for a very long time. The too-big-to-fail banks that managed to derail Glass-Steagal, grant themselves trillions in bail-outs, changes to accounting rules, and derail any attempts at justice by keeping government captured and bought... along with any Federal Reserve attempts at quantitative easing, will keep dragging us down.

Given the choice, do we jump down now or later? Preferably later. Especially if delaying the jump allows more people to get life preservers.

But hey, neither of us have any control over what happens in Washington, D.C. All we're doing is debating what we think the situation is, what we think the situation ideally should be (we're probably 30 years too late and Volcker isn't in charge anymore of a body that really shouldn't ever have come into existence), and what we think will happen.

So don't take it too personal if the default doesn't occur immediately, as you would prefer. Use the time to prepare.

Poet

 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1323
Be honest - it's not alturism
Poet wrote:

I'm sorry that you think that the American "family" should take action to continue voluntary tax cuts designed to expire when faced with a budget problem, and only resort to spending cuts. I don't agree.

Hmm, I don't believe I said, that, in fact here is what I said:

rhare wrote:

1) Not raise the debt ceiling.

2) Cut to the bare minimum.

3) Then raise taxes to pay off the debt and save - ie. absolutely no new spending!

#3 sure looks like I didn't say only spending cuts.  However, what I did say was no additional debt.

Poet wrote:

But are you advocating taking the Social Security money collected and NOT paying out Social Security benefits with it? Or are you saying only take the Social Security money collected and pay out what's collected - no extras since the fund will be defaulted upon? I don't think the so-called "conservative" seniors will appreciate that, even if you and I may agree that it's a Ponzi scheme and the promises can no longer be kept.

We have a Ponzi scheme that is collapsing.  It doesn't matter what you, I, the politicians, or the seniors think or feel.  Nor does it matter how bad the pain is.  It is what it is.   Continuing to prop up the status quo, and yes that includes the illusion of social security, is just making things worse.  We need to say - here is the money we have, what should we do with it?  It may be we pay on the debt and entitlements and everything else gets cut.  It may be we cut all the entitlements and pay for the wars, maybe we just default on external debt.  I don't know what outcome will be, but we better start having that difficult conversation rather than keep pushing the problem farther down the road and making it worse.  I would prefer a much smaller government, but I'm simply advocating that we start facing the truth of our situation, and the debate were having now in Washington is far from doing so.

Poet wrote:

I'm advocating allowing the temporary tax cuts to expire, and raising the ceiling because if we default and do a drastic cut now, we will see an immediate and massive Depression.

So tell me, knowing about Peak oil, the issue with dwindling resources and how CM has shown a direct correlation with the Economy, exactly how is your solution going to be better?  It just means an even bigger "massive Depression" later.

Poet wrote:

However, I do believe that easing and delaying the coming economic collapse by a few years allows more time for more people to become aware and to prepare, while at the same time getting the overall population to learn to adjust to less and less. Save money, be out of debt, work on being resilient. More and more people are waking up!

As soon as a significant portion of the population becomes aware the game is up.  The only thing delaying does is allow those of us who see whats coming more time to prepare, but it puts everyone who is unaware in a far worse situation.  That is the net overall situation is worse.

Poet wrote:

So don't take it too personal if the default doesn't occur immediately, as you would prefer. Use the time to prepare.

I don't take it personally, but I believe having honest assessments is key.  I use the time I can to help my family and friends prepare so that we will have advantages when things fall apart.  That is we will have a better chance of survival.  I'm just saying, at least be honest that that is your goal and don't present it as being altruistic - we have politicians to do that.  If you truely wanted what was best for eveyone as a whole, I believe default immediately is the best solution, otherwise we (as US citizens) will simply continue to throw resources away based on bad/misleading beliefs.

Poet wrote:
Rhare's Dream Is Political Suicide For Our Nation's Leaders
It's not a dream, it's a nightmare, but if those we have elected are not willing to face reality, then they are not leaders.  I don't give a crap about their political future, I want them to do their job!
Anne101's picture
Anne101
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2011
Posts: 5
To think our government

To think our government thinks we can survive by printing money is riduculous.  We are so in over heads with the deficit we are in I don't know that we will ever be able to get out of it! 

Anne101's picture
Anne101
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2011
Posts: 5
Sorry to keep reiterating,

Sorry to keep reiterating, but when has any other company survived by going into so much debt (percentage wise, not actual value)?  I feel so sorry for my children! :(

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
 In a monetary fiat system

 In a monetary fiat system such as the entire world has been under since President Nixon took us off what was left of the gold standard the only way the economy can grow is with an inflationary money supply of about 3.8% per year. No increase in debt means economic stagnation and unemployment. You realistically only have one of two choices either borrow more or to redistribute what is already in circulation. Anything other than sound money is just a stall tactic which will lead to a tragic conclusion.  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments