Reagan's reply:
Dear Andy:I'm sorry to be so late in answering your letter but as you know I've been in China and found your letter here upon my return.Your application for disaster relief has been duly noted but I must point out one technical problem; the authority declaring the disaster is supposed to make the request. In this case your mother.However setting that aside I'll have to point out the larger problem of available funds. This has been a year of disasters, 539 hurricanes as of May 4th and several more since, numerous floods, forest fires, drought in Texas and a number of earthquakes. What I'm getting at is that funds are dangerously low.May I make a suggestion? This administration, believing that government has done many things that could better be done by volunteers at the local level, has sponsored a Private Sector Initiative program, calling upon people to practice voluntarism in the solving of a number of local problems.Your situation appears to be a natural. I'm sure your mother was fully justified in proclaiming your room a disaster. Therefore you are in an excellent position to launch another volunteer program to go along with the more than 3,000 already underway in our nation—congratulations.Give my best regards to your mother.Sincerely, Ronald Reagan—From Reagan: A Life in Letters
I hadn't seen that and wondered if you had..........terrific, isn't it? What a MAN; this shows what we're so lacking these days, and it shows it on so many levels.
First, He answered at all.
He was sympathetic
He was encouraging and kind
He was clear and honest
He was educational
He understood the limits of a budget
He recommended the boy help HIMSELF
There's even a mention of the law Bush followed after Katrina, remember? That law for which he got blasted for following?
Thanks, Mr. Reagan........if only you could come back.
And I know you'd join me in remembering ARMED FORCES DAY.
God bless all our people who served and who are still serving...we owe you so much. Z and her buddies at geeeez
57 comments:
Too bad they don't make 'em like Ronnie anymore!
The progressives have a new and improved fascist Supreme Leader! What more could they ask for.
Reagan was the Best Friend that real hared Working People ever had.
That's why the Welfare People, and the Protest people, and the Boycott didn't like him..
Those days were certainly contrast to what we have today. There isn't any sign of America’s principles and or freedoms to be found anywhere today.
And I won’t hold my breath waiting for those days to return.
Thank you for this post Geeeez.
Red meat for the trolls today, eh, Z? ;)
As for the letter: FANTASTIC!
Very good letter Z.
If he were to send this to the WH today what would happen?
Would Obama:
-sit and dine on $75 a pound steak while ignoring yet another declared disaster
or
-initiate another stimulus package to help those who are unable to clean their room on their own. I would think it would take no more than 3/4 of a billion or so.
Brooke's right, lib and Duck will be here anytime.
Lib will have a link to a Huffington Post blog showing how Reagan increased the debt more in one weekend than Dear Leader has done in 3 years.
Duck will throw up some clever (in his mind) nickname of Reagan and then start in on some incomprehensible attack on Sarah Palin.
Wait for it...
Reagan had principles. That is a rare commodity not only in politicians today but in Americans today.
Proud American, you exactly understand Reagan....he was the best friend, but they've been told differently and so they whine and look for gov't handouts.
Dude, you're so welcome.......no, those days will not return.
Brook, I know what you mean, but I won't stop posting what I want to for that... I've got Comment Moderation at my fingertips and DELETE, too :-)
I'm here for my honorable commenters and knew you'd all like this wonderful letter!
Chuck, Good point "Dear little boy, just hire an illegal to clean your room and then send me the bill...pad it a little while you're at it" :-)
I think everyone knows me well enough to know that I won't be posting to the tastes of the libs who come to GeeeZ...
NEVER HAPPEN!
COF....sad, but absolutely true.
I was just thinking about Reagan and remembering when he died....the mortuary is 1/4 mile from my house and I used the same one for Mr. Z.
Outside the mortuary were mountains of flowers people had brought...then, on the way to SIMi, where Reagan was interred, people six-deep, lined every single road, including the freeways and bridge overpasses. I heard UPS men pulled their trucks over and saluted....motorcycle guys drove in formations...
ALL the way to SImi, probably about 40 miles?....thick with admirers who'd brought children to see the great man's cortege.
Most of those children won't remember or even be taught the truth about him in schools, but Americans sure loved him.
Don't hold your breath waiting on another Reagan. Leaders like Reagan come along rarely in history, and then leave their imprint on the entire world for others to study for hundreds of years.
The closest person to Ronald Reagan on the political scene, now, is Christ Christy. I think Christy needs maturing a bit, but he has all the right moves and ideas.
I am sure the Dems think that Obama is that once in a lifetime leader. The problem is that Obama does not lead. He is just another idealogue with no observable talent. He is raping the electorate, and like a rapist, only understands his urges, and not what he is doing.
Z, Ronald Reagan wrote letters to Nancy All the Time. What a Man is right. Didn't blink in any situation, brought America back economically and that prosperity did extend through another 12 years.
My favorite Reagan Quote "America is the world's last best hope for freedom". Will it be in 20 more years?
Our military members do incredible things on duty. I can't respect them enough.
Bob, I don't agree with you on Chris Christie. I understand he is on board with obamacare and the global climate scam. Personally, all I see he's done is tell the public teachers union that NJ is out of money and cannot pay them any more. I'm going to need a lot more than that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve Finnell, please don't follow my blog.
Unlike our current president, Reagan had class, real-world experience and an amazing depth and breadth of knowledge.
Kid said,"he (Christie)is on board with obamacare and the global climate scam. "
Uh, oh. Either of those positions could be fatal. I still like his attitude when people give him crap.
Bob, Obama's campaign folks are now, for the latest insult, getting involved in the voter ID registration situation in Chicago.
They feel they can't survive without illicit voting, I suppose.
Imagine AMericans saying voters shouldn't have to be bright enough to at least register on time according to the law and having irrefutable ID is like preventing voters from voting?
Kid, re Christie, I'd read some Coulter on him if I were you...she totally disclaims that he's pro Obama care, etc.., and shows the context in which he's apparently been misquoted. She is RABID on that subject and so she'd never adore any politician who was for it...and she's the biggest Christie fan going.
http://townhall.com/columnists/townhallcomstaff/2012/05/08/chris_christies_obamacare_acquiescence/page/full/
WAIT, I could be wrong..still checking for info...but this is condemnatory.
On the other hand, re Christie, there's this:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/gov_chris_christie_vetoes_heal.html
By the way, I'm not sure a Health Exchange is a bad idea....as long as it's not mandatory.
Co-Ops of small business is an excellent way to buy health insurance, too.
kid, by the way, this is Mr. Finnell's 7987234th offer for ME to follow his blog!
I don't follow anybody at all, officially, so I laugh every time he comments with this again. I'm not sure he understands the blog processes! I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it does crack me up.
By the way, I mostly don't 'follow' because I don't think it's handy and I don't get how. I wouldn't if I did know how, so please nobody go to the trouble!
By the way, Kid, you are invited to keep reading geeeZ :-)
Ronald Reagan could never win the Republican nomination today... they'd "Ron Paul" him.
Speedy, I think we both know that's not true.
I think DEMOCRATS would jump on Reagan today if they could, too.
Really? He barely got in in 1980 and the Bush's still run the party. The Bush's have learned a lot since then.
Rush Limbaugh:
You and I know that the establishment Republicans don’t like conservatives. They didn’t like Reagan. They were embarrassed of Reagan. They were embarrassed of us. They didn’t like the Moral Majority, they didn’t like the Christian right, they don’t like the pro-lifers. They don’t like the social conservatives at all. They’re embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats — which combined gives us the Washington establishment, and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours. But they know that it doesn’t help them to be called “establishment Republicans.” So they’re trying to take the term “conservative” and co-opt it and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.
What did you like best?
The huge upward wealth transfer.
Iran/contra - arms for hostages.
The cut and run at Beirut.
Supply side - tinkle down economics? That's worked out swell.
Savings and loan scandal.
---------------
But he wrote cute letters and told kids to clean up their rooms.
... oh, I forgot amnesty for illegal aliens. He sure fixed that problem.
yep,Amnesty under IRCA in '86 simply attracted MORE illegals.
Yeah duhkkky your beloved Tip O'Neill and the Democrats in Congress promised to enforce the border if he signed it.
He also created 21 million jobs
Z, I think you were following my old blog.
It's pretty easy actually, just click On This Link and then click on the blue button on the right side that says Join This Site. :)
Then I will be honored to have your most excellent blog avatar among the rest of those already there. Who btw, I really appreciate and respect - each and every one.
Z, I don't think I've ever said it here, so I'll do my HC soapbox once anyway.
Trial lawyers are the problem.
A Tiny example. A hospital in Texas a short # o years ago was paying out 100 million in legal fees just to fight frivolous lawsuits. Texas passed a law - no more frivolous lawsuits. This cost went down to 2 million a year. a 98% reduction.
Extrapolate that across all hospitals in the USA, add in All the health care areas that are under constant attack by trial lawyers and your unaffordable HC is right there. They're like vampires and I've yet to hear ANY politician even mention that it even could be part of the problem. Well, Bush did mention Tort Reform a couple times and it got as much attention as reforming the tax code or social security by the useless republicans.
Trial lawyers. Throttle those suckers and watch the cost of health care go down 50% in a day.
Allow more competition for health insures to do such things as go across state lines (Who came up with THAT?) and watch the cost fall even more year after year.
Sometimes I wish I was just stupid like these liberal losers. I could run around screaming Bush while trying to get laid every 10 seconds that I wasn't even some drug induced stupor. :)
Z, Thanks for the Christie links. Let's see what actually transpires I guess.
obamacare is pure evil however. Pure evil. Its the one thing that we could never recover from.
Z, RE: Coulter. yea, she actually cried when he said he wasn't running. Given her 2nd choice is Mitt Rommmmney, I question her sanity.
She writes blazingly accurate stuff about liberals, but I don't get her or agree with her evaluations of these two politicians.
Bob - "Uh, oh. Either of those positions could be fatal. I still like his attitude when people give him crap. "
I'm with you there. It's time to stop apologizing and trying to play nicey nice with idiots and socialists.
There are two choices and politicians who talk this reaching across the aisle and not doing anyone any favors.
It's a war. Socialism versus Capitalism. There is no middle ground. "We're not in Kindeygarden anymore kids. Time to grow up and pick one side or the other then live with the consequences".
Duckwad...the only "leadership" that you would want at the helm of the US would be Mao Zedong.
Face it...be honest..."equality", egalitarian, distribution of wealth with a huge upward transfer to the elites is your bag.
It's what you really desire. As well as your dedication to the destruction of the constitution by freedom hating thugs in SEIU, ACORN and the newest heap of a morons in the dung-pile....of OWS freaks.
Then the elevation of the radicals and the cruelest... to masters of the peasants. The working man...the real contributors...and the actual supporters of those who lack talent, brains or innovation and patriotism.
They must be eliminated just as Mao did in his purges. It's already a well known fact that sheet like Ayers have said that at least 25,000,000 of us would have to be eliminated for your plan to work.
Right from the playbook of Mao, Lenin, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge.
The revoking of individual freedoms....the collective ruled by the "pure" of cause.
All of us here...know what you really want. All of us here know that your demonrat party...is pure evil. Pure nonsense...insanity that welcomes the parasites, the dregs, the failures and the scum at the bottom of the out house.
That's you party...of total losers.
No elmo, Paul Volker(Carter appointee) finally stepped in and made people take their medicine which stopped the stagflation for a bit.
Arthur Burns had tried under Nixon but Tricky strong armed him because it would have harmed his re-election chances.
St. Ronnie gave us Greenspan and we are still watching that disaster play out.
Ducky, yes, I'll take ALL of that (most of which isn't warranted) compared to Obama ANY day of the year...bring it on.
By the way, I love the "Carter appointee" you threw in...CARTER the Jew-hating favorite of Ducky... you are so transparent.
ANYBODY who has a CHristian faith, who loved this country, who was admired so much, who operated like a real man....he gets insults from you every single day, but let that wreck of a President Carter do one thing you like and you're touting it?!! unreal.
KID: I tried...did what you said (just for you!), then I clicked on Google as that's what I thought I should do when it gave me the choice, then there's a password request...and that was it for me/I clicked off in frustration....
I'm SORRY...If you say I follow you, it's by accident, I've never done that in my four years of blogging! It's nothing personal, I just don't DO it.
Give us someone like Reagan again, dear Lord....give us the immense respect Obama's taken from us here and overseas. Amen.
By the way, KID: I totally agree with you about the lawyers...
They've driven up costs on EVERYTHING because they threaten to sue for the slightest problem...that's what's seriously driven up health care costs...on every level.
It has driven up all insurance costs, etc.
You know, they don't sue in France nearly at all....in Germany the guy who gets ruled against pays all the legal fees so nobody sues much. They've got like 3 file cabinets of laws, if that. No precedences count.
I remember there was a hole in the ground around the corner from our Paris apt; around this was a yellow tape and it said "careful"...
I thought to myself "Wow, they treat people like adults here...they actually figure nobody's going to fall in and sue".
There's a terrific Bistro called Brasserie Lipp which we frequented....the stairs to the downstairs bathrooms are SO STEEP that when I first went down them and then went back up to our table, I remember the first thing I said to our group was "if this was America and those stairs were that steep, there'd have been a table of lawyers down there ready to sign someone up if you tripped"
Of course, nobody DOES trip.
Except in AMerica.
Z, Hahaha. Ok, Fair enough. I empathize.
Z, Lawyers. Exactly. The problem is they have to make up problems to keep their cash flow, then find soem losers to sign up and be their plaintiffs
Imp. Couldn't describe democrats any better. Losers. Hate the idea of personal responsibility and accountability.
KID
"Losers. Hate the idea of personal responsibility and accountability."..
And you can be sure that the lines have been drawn. From overt racism to illegals scams to voter fraud and tax ripoffs. To the once "vetted, trusted" princes and princesses of Congress that are being purged from the halls of our cherished institutions.
Come Memorial Day...I will weep...I would be remiss if I didn't get on my knees and Thank those who gave their lives for all of us who in the last 5 wars....paid the ultimate price to be heros... who allowed themselves ( and volunteered ) to be our representatives for that freedom and preserve our democratic republic...to be an example to the rest of this sick world that our way...is the way to success and human dignity....known as freedom.
Z,
I just wrote a lengthy post about Reagan but I think my computer ate it. So I'll post something else. I am a Reagan guy. When I was a cop, I was able to shake hands with him twice. In 1980, he came to my hometown and I was among the cops who protected him. He went out of his way to shake hands with all of the uniformed officers and thanked us for taking care of him.
In 1984, he started a whistle stop campaign and when he reached our town the Secret Service told us to stand in a certain spot and the president would see us and come and thank us. He did. He told each of us thank you and told us how he admired us for doing such a dangerous job. That has stuck with me to this day.
BTW, check on YOU TUBE for video of the attempt on Reagan's life and the actions of Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy. He took a bullet for Reagan. I think any officer would do the same. That's something we should all remember in light of the recent scandal.
Bet our "Jingoists" make you sick....eh Ducky?
Law and Order, I'm so sorry your piece disappeared...your comment's so good; what a great memory of such a fine man.
Imp, the Obama thugs are already furious in Chicago. Apparently, we've come to the point that people don't have to be bright enough to register on time or to have a photo ID to vote. They think that following the law is a Republican gimmick to prevent voting......in contrast to their voter fraud over the years. Amazing.
Imp, re Ayers, check out AOW's link:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/05/heres-why-obama-lied-in-his-dystel.html
It's re the lit. agents who wrote that Obama was born in Kenya.
Man, if anybody could pay the one woman enough that she'd speak, Obama'd be GONE YESTERDAY, apparently.
But.........
Since this post is about Ronald Reagan
And I'm still awake watching the comments fly, I thought I'd weigh in with the following:
When Ronald Reagan walked into the Oval Office for the first time and sat at the desk, he asked of the person that was with him (can't remember right off) "Do you have goosebumps? I do!"
He said that, because after 4 years of Carter escalating "The Misery Index", he was now in a position to do Good Things for America or die trying.
And by the time Reagan sat down, the hostages in Iran that Carter would have never gotten home, were already on a plane headed home.
I'm willing to bet that Reagan's first call after his inauguration speech was to the Iranians telling them that bombers were on the way and would either be leaving their bombs or bring the hostages back.
Contrast that with obama who clearly doesn't like America, white people, capitalism, or our traditional allies. I'll bet his first words at entering the oval office were Ka-Ching at best, and quite possibly "F America".
The liberals' hero. The hero of the media, the unions and anyone else who is a loser in fear of losing the good life while having to invest little more into their careers than learning how to put a lug nut on a Chevy, with state of the art tools and safety glasses - bitching the entire time about having to pay 5 dollars a year in support of their healthcare plan.
@Ducky << What did you like best?
>>
I liked the response to the 13 year old. I don't necessarily believe it is real but the 'message' is real.
Kid, well said... he loved America and I've often said about Reagan "that's enough for ME"..
And yes, quite a contrast with Obama and Reagan... there are lots of people who think he'd called Iran and said "we're coming"...boom, out came the hostages.
We can say "we're coming" now and our enemies will laugh because we've tied our soldiers' hands behind their backs. so awful.
Bet our "Jingoists" make you sick....eh Ducky?
--------
No they make me laugh.
I'm a pretty good street photographer, IMP. Were you in Exeter, N.H. the other day Listening to Glenn Beck?
President Reagan was a leader. Obama's known as leading from behind,(huh?) Reagan was known for leading from the front.
Leading from behind is a little like voting present! It's meaningless.
Leading from the front, is being willing to risk taking the slings arrows, but setting an example of honor and taking responsibility. This was Reagan.
He was a great man!
He was one of the few who understood that if you push a man to fish for himself he won't be whining and sponging tomorrow.
The current leader though, wants a nation of useless spongers who can't do anything without someone else paying for it.
"leading from behind".
When I was a kid, I saw a political cartoon, I think by Oliphant, that showed a parade of people in the background, and a politician talking to a reporter in the foreground saying:
"There go the people, and I must lead them".
A little behind the curve.
you go Mr. Jingoist...You are the 99%
duhkkky carter created the stagflation not reagan
Given Volcker’s historical ties to Reagan, some Republicans logically took offense to his seeming apostasy. Their dismay is misplaced. Volcker was never on board with the Reagan economic plan in the way that modern history suggests, and rather than an essential driver of the ‘80s economic renaissance, a more realistic account of Volcker’s early years at the Fed shows that far from a facilitator of pro-growth policies, Volcker’s actions nearly derailed Reagan’s economic plan and presidency altogether.
Though Reagan spoke confidently of renewed economic optimism that would result from tax cuts, Volcker’s countenance was very dark, with frequent pronunciations about us not being so naïve as to assume “there are quick and painless solutions” to the economic problems we faced. To Volcker, there was no way we could “avoid a clash between monetary restraint….and the growth of economic activity;” this despite the truth that growing economies require more money, not less.
Given his skeptical views about the Reagan tax cuts, Volcker lobbied in secret against their passage owing to his view that they would lead to a massive revenue shortfall. While Fed Chairman Fred Schultz worked on House members, Volcker lobbied senators to vote against the cuts.
As George Schultz told William Greider in Secrets of the Temple, Volcker’s position was that, “We are in favor of a tax cut, but you must recognize that if you can’t accomplish this with much bigger budget cuts than you are contemplating, it’s going to put much more pressure on us and that means higher interest rates.” Shades of Robert Rubin.
Using his control of the interest rate lever as a weapon, Volcker kept money “tight” in order to prize tax increases out of the White House. More on monetary policy later, but bad dollar policy brought on the ’81-’82 recession, and remarkably led to a bill that increased taxes ahead of the 1982 elections. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans lost 26 House seats.
Even more galling, according to Paul Craig Roberts’ The Supply-Side Revolution, not a single Democrat voted for the tax increase. None needed to in that as Mark Shields wrote in the Washington Post at the time, Reagan’s advisors (including Volcker) did all of their dirty work for them in terms of attracting Republican votes in favor of tax increases. Thanks to economic advisors that did not share Reagan’s optimism about tax cuts, by 1983 the Reagan tax cuts of ’81 had disappeared in dollar terms. The marginal incentives of course remained, but due to powerful opposition on the part of Volcker, Alan Greenspan and others, Reagan’s tax program was severely compromised.
George Will continued the false legend concerning Volcker, noting that he and President Reagan whipped the inflationary dragon with contractionary economic policy that resulted in double-digit unemployment. Will’s thinking resembles that of our present Fed Chairman who labors under the retro view that growth is the cause of, not the cure for inflation. The truth about Reagan vis-à-vis Volcker when it comes to inflation is a bit more nuanced.
A Carter appointee, Volcker’s attempts to use interest-rate increases to slay inflation in the late ‘70s were met with a great deal more inflation. By February of 1980, with the Fed funds rate at 14 percent, gold hit an all-time high of $875/ounce.
The dollar’s aforementioned fall was of course sped along by another major mistake carried out by Volcker just a few months prior. Correctly recognizing the futility of interest-rate targeting, Volcker shed the latter only to make a fateful decision that would drive the U.S. economy even further into the ditch. Put simply, in October of 1979 Volcker began a three year experiment with Milton Friedman’s monetarism.
Instead of targeting the Fed funds rate, Volcker attempted to target the quantity of money with disastrous consequences. Though inflation is surely a monetary phenomenon as Friedman long noted, with the majority of physical dollars outside these fifty states, attempts to control the quantity of dollars within these fifty states were bound to fail. To the extent that the Fed targeted various aggregates of U.S. money supply lower, this merely meant that dollars in other markets (eurodollars for instance) would fill the shortfall.
Worse, given the Fed’s efforts to control money quantity rather than rates, the Fed funds rate bounced around on a daily basis such that businesses faced an impossible task of raising capital owing to uncertainty about the rate at which they could raise capital. As Charles Kadlec and Arthur Laffer wrote at the time, “the Fed’s action reduced the viability and attractiveness of the dollar,” and as a result its policies “increased the prospects of inflation” in spite of the fact that monetarist targets “resulted in a slower growth in the measured quantity of money.” What the economy needed according to Laffer and Kadlec were “policies that lead to an excess demand for dollars relative to their supply.”
Those policies did materialize, but no thanks to Paul Volcker. Though the dollar hit what was until recently an all-time low under Volcker in February of 1980, positive electoral developments began to reveal themselves which succeeded in arresting the dollar’s fall.
In short, by the spring of 1980 the markets started to price in Ronald Reagan’s election. Reagan of course ran on a pro-growth platform of further de-regulation, tax cuts, and a return to a more stable and stronger dollar. And economic growth, if it has any effect, serves to soak up excess liquidity. With investors pricing in a brighter economic future, gold was down to $600/ounce by election day in 1980, and by the end of 1981, the yellow metal had fallen below $400.
Contrary to modern accounts of that period suggesting Volcker’s policies whipped inflation, the markets had as mentioned already “voted” on them with gold having reached an all-time high in his early years at the Fed. The weak dollar that gold signaled was itself inflation, not a cause of the latter, and with Reagan’s election and its policy aftermath having boosted the dollar, inflation was effectively contained.
Sadly, Volcker did not agree. Seeking to tighten further through futile attempts at managing the various monetary aggregates, his actions sent the economy into a major recession which led to the ’82 electoral rout, and which made Reagan’s 1984 re-election prospects increasingly dicey. Worse for the Reagan program, Alan Greenspan and Herbert Stein gave Volcker enhanced political cover given their view that the tax cuts themselves would be inflationary.
So rather than accommodating the Reagan tax cuts with increased liquidity, Volcker went in the opposite direction until a looming Mexican loan default threatened the worldwide banking system. The time was October of 1982, and on October 9th of that year Volcker finally abandoned the monetarist approach to Fed policy that had proven so disastrous.
The resulting expansion of dollar liquidity did not prove inflationary as so many (including Milton Friedman) assumed it would, because by 1983 the marginal tax cuts Reagan had championed fully kicked in. Contrary to suggestions today that say tax cuts are slow to impact the economy, a combination of lower rates and increased dollar liquidity Fed an economic boom that led to Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election in 1984.
Still, the Reagan Revolution almost never was, and Paul Volcker’s 6’7” frame weighed on it like no other politician or government policy. If he should be given any credit for Ronald Reagan’s successes, it would have to do with his belated admission in 1982 that his policies were hammering the economy along with Reagan’s economic program. And it was the latter that whipped inflation, not Paul Volcker.
All this in mind, no one should be surprised by Volcker’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Despite the truth that Reagan’s visions elevated him to central-banker sainthood, he never agreed with the vision. As such, his embrace of the Illinois senator isn't newsworthy in the least.
So you're a Hans Bellmer wannabe duhkkky?
Could you be a little less derivative?
Hi there it's me, I am also visiting this website daily, this website is in fact good and the viewers are in fact sharing fastidious thoughts.
my web site - structured settlement annuity
Yes! Finally someone writes about settlement broker.
Post a Comment