 |
Observer-Reporter forum
Observer-Reporter discussion forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Brant
Admin
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 5277
Location: Hopewell Township
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Well, if things are worse when he leaves office than when he took over, certainly he's open to criticism. If things are better, however, he may be due some credit. I'm sure you'd be glad to credit him for any success he has.
_________________
The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick
Journeyman
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 3134
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The faults of the Bush admin will continue to linger until the messes are cleaned up. Obama, however, will be faulted for downturns that take place because of his policy. Duh.
_________________
Proud Member NDA
Its okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings.
Puff. Puff. Give. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pap
Understudy
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 538
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dick wrote: | | The faults of the Bush admin will continue to linger until the messes are cleaned up. Obama, however, will be faulted for downturns that take place because of his policy. Duh. |
As I recall the biggest reason for the crisis was the mess in the housing bubble. This was not caused by the last administration but by bankers loaning money to people who should not have qualified for a loan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OndinitaAKALibchit
Journeyman
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 3883
Location: Where the sun don't shine! ;-)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys need to understand that Pap & Phony are of the peek-a-boo-ologist school of thought.
_________________
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties ... if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal.'" ~ Senator John F. Kennedy 9/14/1960
Proud Member NDA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick
Journeyman
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 3134
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pap wrote: | | dick wrote: | | The faults of the Bush admin will continue to linger until the messes are cleaned up. Obama, however, will be faulted for downturns that take place because of his policy. Duh. |
As I recall the biggest reason for the crisis was the mess in the housing bubble. This was not caused by the last administration but by bankers loaning money to people who should not have qualified for a loan. |
You are merely scratching the surface.
_________________
Proud Member NDA
Its okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings.
Puff. Puff. Give. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brant
Admin
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 5277
Location: Hopewell Township
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here we go on another Pap-led journey into misdirection. I guess no bankers lent money to people they shouldn't have during the GWB administration. And if the problem was so rampant, why didn't Bush and his GOP Congress do something about it during the six years they were in total charge of the government? Quit trying to shift the blame, Pap. The country was in great shape when Clinton left office, and it was a helluva mess when Bush and Cheney left. You do the math.
_________________
The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ellipses
Mod
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 9218
Location: WashPa!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What percentage of sub-prime loans went into default? 4%?
I imagine if each dollar of subprime debt wasn't leveraged to support 30 dollars in repackaged debt, then that 4% default rate wouldn't have threatened to collapse the economy... It's fine to take risks in building a house of cards... but for god's sake, don't build a 500 room hotel and casino ON TOP of the house of cards... nobody notices when a house of cards collapses... but when hotels start falling, people freak out.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
busdriver
Journeyman
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 3497
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="pap"] | dick wrote: | | The faults of the Bush admin will continue to linger until the messes are cleaned up. Obama, however, will be faulted for downturns that take place because of his policy. Duh. |
As I recall the biggest reason for the crisis was the mess in the housing bubble. This was not caused by the last administration but by bankers loaning money to people who should not have qualified for a loan.[/quote
Let's see, Bush comes in (via SCOTUS) into the Dot.Com. recession and takes Bill's Balance Budget money and sends everyone a "you gotta like me now" $3-600 bucks right off the bat.
Spends till 9/11 rotating on Cheney's big finger, and joins a nation really pizzed off at terrorists ( still suspicious about that Pearl Harbor like catastrophic event B/C used to start two wars). In a very short period of time B/C screwed both up to the point that neither will country will survive .,"
Americans could have and did care less about either war as a new "Get fast Money" scheme unfolded across the nation. A scheme that would never have gotton off of the ground without being," Aided and Abetted " by our government.
It was a "Ponzi" scheme that ran in circles;
Artificially inflate the cost of houses, force banks/lenders to loan artificial money to non-qualified buyers and house owners to extract artificial money from an artificial equility build-up.
Take this artificial money and buy lots of "stuff" which stimulates the artificial economy and if those who were born of "sows" all happened to make some artificial money, on basically ,"economy blood money", so be it ,living with filth is nothing new with them.
And---
"Then one day it happened, Jackie Papers came no more"
because the bubble busted his balls,
And Puff the artificial economy could no longer roar.
MODULaters, placing the word Americans for the I had I had is close to being a terrorist for that people, don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brant
Admin
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 5277
Location: Hopewell Township
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice Puff reference. 
_________________
The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
busdriver
Journeyman
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 3497
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brant wrote: | | Nice Puff reference. |
what is a puff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethinker
Professional
Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 1352
Location: hardback chair
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
19 dollars for a small baggie, just like downtown
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phonyfeminazi
Expert
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 7819
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brant wrote: | | Here we go on another Pap-led journey into misdirection. I guess no bankers lent money to people they shouldn't have during the GWB administration. And if the problem was so rampant, why didn't Bush and his GOP Congress do something about it during the six years they were in total charge of the government? Quit trying to shift the blame, Pap. The country was in great shape when Clinton left office, and it was a helluva mess when Bush and Cheney left. You do the math. |
.....................................................
READ THE HISTORY OF THE CONVOLUTED PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS BEHIND THE REAL ESTATE DEBACLE......THEN DECIDE WHO WAS AT FAULT.
....................................................
The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods.[4] Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.[39]
The CRA followed similar laws passed to reduce discrimination in the credit and housing markets including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA). The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires that financial institutions publicly disclose mortgage lending and application data. In contrast with those acts, the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.[40][41]
Before the Act was passed, there were severe shortages of credit available to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. In their 1961 report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that African-American borrowers were often required to make higher downpayments and adopt faster repayment schedules. The commission also documented blanket refusals to lend in particular areas (redlining).[42] The "redlining" of certain neighborhoods originated with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in the 1930s. The "residential security maps" created by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) for the FHA were used by private and public entities for years afterwards to withhold mortgage capital from neighborhoods that were deemed "unsafe".[43] Contributory factors in the shortage of direct lending in low- and moderate-income communities were a limited secondary market for mortgages, informational problems to do with the lack of credit evaluations for lower-income borrowers, and lack of coordination among credit agencies.[44][40][41]
In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would create unnecessary regulatory burdens. Partly in response to these concerns, Congress included little prescriptive detail and simply directs the banking regulatory agencies to ensure that banks and savings associations serve the credit needs of their local communities in a safe and sound manner.[4][40] Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations.[45]
[edit] Legislative changes 1989
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. As part of a general reform of the banking industry, it increased public oversight of the process of issuing CRA ratings to banks. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions. It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of 'Outstanding', 'Satisfactory', 'Needs to Improve', or 'Substantial Noncompliance'.[40][46]
According to Ben Bernanke, this law greatly increased the ability of advocacy groups, researchers, and other analysts to "perform more-sophisticated, quantitative analyses of banks' records," thereby influencing the lending policies of banks. Over time, community groups and nonprofit organizations established "more-formalized and more-productive partnerships with banks."[4]
[edit] Legislative changes 1992
Although minor amendments were made directly to the CRA concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4]
In October 2000, to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[47][48] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[49] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[50]
[edit] Legislative changes 1994
The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the Community Reinvestment Act ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.[51][52]
According to Bernanke, a surge in bank merger and acquisition activities followed the passing of the act, and advocacy groups increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on Community Reinvestment Act grounds. When applications were highly contested, federal agencies held public hearings to allow public comment on the bank's lending record. In response many institutions established separate business units and subsidiary corporations to facilitate CRA-related lending. Local and regional public-private partnerships and multi-bank loan consortia were formed to expand and manage such CRA-related lending.[4]
[edit] Regulatory changes 1995
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[53] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[54] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise it's regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[55]
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[56]
Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[57] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics)
[edit] Legislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[58]
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[59]
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[60][61]
In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[62]
the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[63]
the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[64]
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[65]
[edit] Regulatory changes 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[40] In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.[66]
In early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) implemented new rules that – among other changes – allowed thrifts with over $1 billion in assets to tweak the long standing 50-25-25 CRA ratings thresholds by continuing to meet 50 percent of their overall CRA rating through lending activity as always but the other 50 percent could be any combination of lending, investment, and services that the thrift wanted. The obligations to adhere to 25 percent for services and 25 percent for investments became optional and the means to securing a satisfactory CRA rating was left to the discretion of the qualifying thrifts instead (See the notes in the "2005" column of Table I. for the specifics).[32] In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to "meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities".[67] The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.[68]
After enacting a technical regulatory amendment in the interim incorporating a different formula for stratifying both metropolitan and rural zones to better align with an expanded definition of them under the CRA in the process,[69][70] the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) also put a new set of regulations into effect in September 2005 - mirroring much of what the OTS had already initiated earlier in the year (See the notes in the "2005" column of Table I. for the specifics).[71] These regulations also included less restrictive definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks.[15] "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion but more than $250 million, which allowed these banks to opt for examination as either as a small bank or a large bank.[27] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[40]
[edit] Regulatory changes 2007
The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) proposed revising and started to solicit public comment regarding the complete alignment of its CRA rule with the CRA rules of the other three federal banking agencies in November 2006. The agency referenced several factors for the proposed realignment, in particular, that a consistent CRA standard applied to both the banking and the thrift industries would facilitate objective evaluations of CRA performance; ensure accurate assessments of banks and thrifts that operated in the same markets; and permit the public to make reasonable comparisons of bank and thrift CRA performance.[72]
OTS Director at the time, John Reich announced the final decision to go ahead and implement the proposed revisions in four main areas of its existing Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to reestablish uniformity between its rules and those of the other federal banking agencies. Reaffirming the basis for the revised rules as first proposed, Reich stated, "OTS is making these revisions to promote consistency and facilitate objective evaluations of CRA performance across the banking and thrift industries. Consistent standards will allow the public to make more effective comparisons of bank and thrift CRA performance." He noted that the changes reinforce CRA objectives consistent with thrifts' performance in meeting the financial services needs of their communities.[73]
This OTS rule revision aligned with that of the other agencies by:[74]
eliminating the option of alternative weights for lending, investment, and service under the large, retail savings association test;
defining institutions with assets between $250 million and $1 billion as "intermediate small savings associations" subject to a new community development test;
indexing the asset threshold for "small" and "intermediate small" savings associations annually based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and
clarifying the adverse impact on a savings association's CRA rating where the OTS finds evidence of discrimination or other illegal credit practices.
These four changes generally mirror the ones made by the other three federal agencies in late 2005. The agency noted that latitude would be provided for a short period of time to institutions in the context of examinations conducted after the effective date, July 1, 2007, in order to implement program changes under the new rule smoothly.
[edit] Legislative changes 2008
With the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act into law, Pub.L. 110-315, on August 14, 2008, each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall now consider, as a factor in assessing and taking into account the record of a financial institution's CRA compliance, any & all low-cost education loans provided by the financial institution to low-income borrowers. All the affected Federal financial supervisory agencies have one year after the date of enactment to issue rules in final form to implement the change into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) according to Title X, Subtitle C, Section 1031 of the Act.
[edit] CRA reform proposals
In 2007 Ben Bernanke suggested further increasing the presence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the affordable housing market to help banks fulfill their CRA obligations by providing them with more opportunities to securitize CRA-related loans.[75]
On February 13, 2008 the United States House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing on the Community Reinvestment Act’s impact on the provision of loans, investments and services to under-served communities and its effectiveness. There were 15 witnesses from government and the private sector.[5]
On April 15, 2008 an FDIC official told the same committee that the FDIC was exploring offering incentives for banks to offer low-cost alternatives to payday loans. Doing so would allow them favorable consideration under their Community Reinvestment Act responsibilities. It had recently begun a two-year pilot project with an initial group of 31 banks.[76]
U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced new legislation, (Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009), in Congress on March 12, 2009 to expand the scope of CRA to include non-bank financial institutions, such as credit unions.[77][78] There were other attempts to legislatively "modernize" the Community Reivestment Act in previous sessions of Congress; more notably the bills in 2000 / 2001 and 2007 among others.
_________________
Exposing the secular humanist liberal "progressives". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amphikalein
Journeyman
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Corrales, NM
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pap wrote: | | busdriver wrote: | | phoney, I posted this not to blame President Obama. It,more or less, is an indication that the road to recovery will be long and hard. President Obama is just another victum of the past administrations failures, as is our entire nation. |
So, when Obama is out of office everything will become his fault. right? |
According to most righties it seems that everything since Ike is already Obama's fault.
_________________
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King Jr.
"May we, in our dealings with all the peoples of the earth, ever speak the truth and serve justice." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Amphy's blog | Proud Member NDA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
busdriver
Journeyman
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 3497
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Amphikalein wrote: | | pap wrote: | | busdriver wrote: | | phoney, I posted this not to blame President Obama. It,more or less, is an indication that the road to recovery will be long and hard. President Obama is just another victum of the past administrations failures, as is our entire nation. |
So, when Obama is out of office everything will become his fault. right? |
According to most righties it seems that everything since Ike is already Obama's fault. |
to pap: it all depends on how he does, screws up as bad as Bush and Cheney, sure.
Amps, you got that right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
busdriver
Journeyman
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 3497
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| freethinker wrote: | | 19 dollars for a small baggie, just like downtown |
oh, god, no more nickle or dime bags?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
