Why the Deficit Isn't a Problem

Both House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama agree the deficit is a problem that should be immediately dealt with. Where they disagree is how to fix the deficit: One side wants massive spending cuts and the other wants to raise taxes on wealthier Americans.

I'm here to say that they're both wrong. What we need right now isn't fiscal responsibility, but fiscal debauchery on an unprecedented scale. This is because the real threat to the economy isn't the deficit but unemployment and dismal growth. Only when the economy picks up will the deficit be a problem. Saint Augustine's plea "Lord, make me chaste -- but not yet" should guide our thinking on the deficit.

We're not bankrupt and we're not Greece
It's common to hear politicians on both sides proclaim that the U.S. is bankrupt. If we are, that's news to millions of institutional investors who are eagerly lending hand-over-fist to the U.S. government.

Over the past few months, the Treasury has been moving 30-year bonds -- like those held in iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSE: TLT  ) -- at record low yields. And today investors are willing to lend money to the federal government for 30 years for only 0.73% per year after inflation. We know this by looking at yields available on TIPS, such as those held by iShares Barclay TIPS Bond Fund (NYSE: TIP  ) .

So the question is: Who do you trust to assess the solvency of the U.S. government: politicians or investors with skin in the game?

What eager Treasury investors know is that the U.S. can never become Greece. This is because, unlike Greece, the U.S. can print dollars at will to pay off any debt, since its obligations are dominated in dollars. So in the most literal sense, the U.S. can never go bankrupt. It can always print any amount of money to pay investors back.

The problem with printing money is, of course, inflation. (For a country with fiat currency it's inflation -- not revenue -- that is the primary constraint on government spending.) But investors aren't too worried about inflation, either. The market's inflation expectation for the next 30 years (roughly Treasury yield-TIPS yield) is a benign 2% per year.

Why investors should oppose budget surpluses
So why does the market expect inflation to be so low when it seems like all the federal government ever does is spend money it doesn't have?

The answer is that the market thinks economic growth and unemployment are the real problem, and not the deficit. And the market knows that unemployment means slower growth, which means relatively fewer dollars chasing the same goods.

The basic problem with the economy right now is that businesses not named Apple are facing a dearth of customers. And without customers, there are few reasons to hire people and plenty of reasons to fire them, creating unemployment. And with unemployment there is even less spending, and with less spending even less employment, and so on and so forth in a vicious cycle.

What the government should do in such a situation is one of two things (or both). Either cut taxes to give people more of their own money to spend, or spend money it doesn't have via government projects. As presidents Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt would attest, both ways can work wonders, and both ways expand -- not contract -- the deficit.

What won't work is the way of President Hoover, and what is rapidly becoming the way of Speaker Boehner and President Obama: raising taxes and/or cutting spending. It hasn't worked in Europe, and it won't work here.

I think the market intuitively understands this: The reason why stocks fell and Treasuries paradoxically rallied on the day of the S&P downgrade was fear that it would cause Congress to do something about the deficit. And doing something about the deficit is almost certainly bad news for the economy and stock market (less spending, more unemployment, less economic growth).

But don't just take my word for it. Ken Fisher, in his 2007 book The Only Three Questions That Count: Investing By Knowing What Others Don't, points out that stocks have actually done better during times of deficit spending than during budget surpluses (i.e., 2000). Fisher also points out that the federal government may be underleveraged, a view he reconfirmed postcrisis, but I won't deny him well-deserved book sales by divulging the details.

Don't get me wrong: Despite the government's ineptitude, I'm I'll still very bullish on the Dow (INDEX: ^DJI  ) . That's only because stocks are so cheap that growth is relatively unimportant. But things could be even better for stock investors (and certainly for the unemployed) if politicians would give up their austerity pretentions and focus on growth and unemployment.

There will come a time -- when the economy is booming -- that the deficit (via inflation) will become a real threat. But right now the deficit is a red herring that Congress, the president, and investors should ignore.

Fool contributor Chris Baines is a value investor. Follow him on Twitter, where he goes by @askchrisbainesChris' stock picks and pans have outperformed 92% of players on CAPS. He owns no shares of the companies mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (20) | Recommend This Article (16)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 12:47 PM, DavesHere wrote:

    The budget deficit poses a problem as a percentage of GDP and in relation to the trade deficit. The growth of the former makes service on the debt prohibitively inflationary, but the latter keeps sucking out the liquidity that gets injected into the economy. Attack both or fail.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 3:16 PM, cloggervic2 wrote:

    The deficit is a huge problem, because the income streams collateralizing it are quadruply leveraged. First, your income is serving as collateral for your mortgage; secondly, you income is serving as collateral for your credit card debt, car loan, Macy's card etc

    Thirdly, your income is leveraged by the US government using future tax collection from your income as the collateral. Fourth: The State does the same. All this debt that is leveraged off of your poor old income can never be paid in any reasonable time. The least damaging solution is to slash State and Federal spending and use the savings to pay down debt. The people whose employment depends on State and Federal spending will lose their jobs, but they were creating zero wealth anyway. WHATEVER they turn to will be better for the economy than shuffling paper for Governments.

    It has to be done. Just do it steadily and humanely to try to avoid too much trauma, by encouraging people to look for jibs outside of Government.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 5:31 PM, chopchop0 wrote:

    This article completely ignores the fact that yields have been driven down by a flight to "perceived" safety secondary to the PIIGS crisis in Europe. Just because euro and the europe have their issues, the US has started looking good.

    Stepping back and turning a keen eye to the long-term deficit picture, reality is quite different when you consider unfunded mandates like medicare. Entitlements need to be reformed, and they need to be reformed now.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 7:04 PM, pedorrero wrote:

    The USA is like the healthiest patient in the lung cancer ward. Our disease (fiscal irresponsibility) is long past the point of being cured. So we may as well "smoke 'em while we got 'em." In our dumb-ocracy, there is more incentive for the politician to spend (called "re-election") than there is to scrimp (e.g. cut budgets or raise taxes.) The whole system -- government and big industry is dependent on continued spending. As far as our supposed "private industry" is concerned, I dare you to find a single highly placed financier who does not work on "volume" of funds transacted ... little of which has to do with building long term wealth. Most of these guys will get their fat salary whether bonds pay 0.5% or 5.0% ... or rise or fall in value. Meanwhile, the little guy gets screwed. That's you and me, boys and girls!

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 7:43 PM, ETFsRule wrote:

    chopchop0 wrote:

    "This article completely ignores the fact that yields have been driven down by a flight to "perceived" safety secondary to the PIIGS crisis in Europe. Just because euro and the europe have their issues, the US has started looking good."

    When I look at the historical data, I find it difficult to believe that the euro crisis is the only reason why people are buying T-Bills. You'll have to excuse me for not sharing your "gloom and doom" outlook.

    This graph tells the true story:

    http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7827/rates.jpg

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 8:17 PM, NicBe wrote:

    This article clearly forgets the fact that the USD is the only reserve currency (for now), if the future is built with the past then go USD!!! but if the future is being build with Yuang and Won, etc... then....fiscal irresponsibility will always catch-up with reality....

    So far, I don't know where to place my bets. Fools comments are welcome.

    My 2 cents

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 10:23 PM, rd80 wrote:

    "that's news to millions of institutional investors who are eagerly lending hand-over-fist to the U.S. government."

    It's worth recalling that institutional investors were buying sub-prime mortgage backed securities and selling CDS protection on mortgages hand-over-fist in before 2008.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 10:24 PM, rd80 wrote:

    Oops. An extra 'in' snuck in the last sentence.

  • Report this Comment On January 30, 2012, at 10:55 PM, moneyman35 wrote:

    This was a good strategy back during the great depression. Your thinking about Econ 101. Spend in the bad times, pay it back in the good times. Problem is the US spent in the bad times and then realized you can't get elected on the platform of cutting gov't spending to pay back the debt. So they spent in the bad times and then spent even more in the good times and now here we are...

    That being said I tend to think that we can play this game for a while still before it all goes to hell.

    Question is the debt has to be paid back eventually? so if not now when????

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, QuarkHadron wrote:

    The statement from the article, "This is because, unlike Greece, the U.S. can print dollars at will to pay off any debt, since its obligations are dominated in dollars. So in the most literal sense, the U.S. can never go bankrupt. It can always print any amount of money to pay investors back."

    Two superlatives... Always and never - Dangerous. And usually wrong. We can only ignore the debt as long as 'obligations are dominated in dollars," but that can change - and it is being challenged.

    Topic in another blog addressed the real issue - the growing debt because of running deficits. You can't ignore the deficit because it results in debt.

    My comment to that blog, below, is just as true in response to this article.

    I think the debt is definitely a huge problem. More specifically, the interest on the debt is unsustainable.

    I trust that everyone on these boards understands 'the power of compound interest.' Usually, it is used in the sense that it is a good thing that builds wealth. But the inverse applies equally.

    The interest on the debt is paid from tax revenue. Each year, less revenue is left, after paying the interest on the debt, for the cost of running the government. So each year the debt (principal) grows, resulting in even more interest paid from revenue and even less from revenue left to cover the cost of running government - so the debt grows even more. That the cost of running the government continues to also increase only compounds the problem.

    'Reducing' the deficit won't work. The deficit must be eliminated. Yet all we hear from our useless, duopolistic parties is how great they are doing by arguing about 'reducing' the deficit. Government spending is simply out of control.

    OPEC has been pushing for oil to replace the dollar as the reserve currency. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) has been working toward (and have actually deposited currency in) an independent reserve currency.

    The trend to move away from the dollar is growing:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/chinese-and-jap...

    "China and Japan have agreed to start direct trading of their currencies..."

    "China is the world’s second-largest economy while Japan is the third largest, and the currency agreement is part of a move away from using dollars.

    Chinese officials have said recently they would like to broaden the global use of the renminbi, also known as the yuan, and want to see more countries move away from relying on dollars as the worldwide currency."

    In an article I read yesterday, India is considering paying Iran for oil directly with rupees.

    The price of an economic recovery will be rising interest rates. Rising interest rates will mean a higher cost of paying the interest on the debt. Resulting in even less revenue left to cover the cost of running government - so the debt grows yet even more.

    As our debt increases and the value of our currency decreases, the call to drop the dollar as the reserve currency will grow until it actually happens.

    If that happens, folks, none of our investments will be worth enough to keep us fed, let alone housed.

    So, yes, the debt is our foremost economic problem - because the dollar is the international reserve currency, but it doesn't have to be - and if we continue devaluing our currency the rest of the world is going to get tired of the status quo. No amount of rationalizing from economists turned author is going to change that. It may help them sell books, but ignoring the facts doesn't help us.

    We need to swallow a bitter pill and suffer the consequences now (less social spending and higher taxes), while the dose is smaller and can be spread over time. Either that, or we're going to have one huge choking dose shoved down our throats.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 9:48 AM, bsardi wrote:

    Fools abound, the URL is appropriate.

    If selling T Bills (IOUs) to other parties, that is a Ponzi scheme of sorts since the interest on that IOU is never put into existence, making economic boom/bust cycles inevitable. There IS a day of default, which is the day you can't make interest payments on your debt. Today interest on national debt is $494 billion, but in less than 5 years it will be $800 billion. At some point (about now) foreign creditors know the US cannot every pay its debts (about $2 trillion to China, $1 trillion to Japan) and we default. Foreign countries are beginning to exclude the dollar in foreign trade, so it is less and less the real reserve currency (gold might be its replacement). If writing this column to provoke reader response, it worked. If writing for true substance, it is irresponsible to suggest a country can endless counterfeit its money and debase its value relentlessly. The new currency has been printed and is stored in a warehouse, predictive of the day when an official devaluation of the US dollar will take place (-30% to -40%). On that day, thousands of people in Asia commit suicide. There are consequences to running up debt.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 10:03 AM, gsgreen wrote:

    Just a personal obvservation.

    When I was taking macro-economics as a freshman in college, all of the "experts" seemed to agree that government deficits were good for the country. That consept didn't make any more sense to me then than it is now. There comes a time when any entity just flat out runs out of money to service the debt that is incurred by perpetual deficits (as opposed to specific deficits, like WWII or the Revolutionary War).

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Crake891 wrote:

    A few things:

    The FED is a price setter, not taker. Interest rates will always be where the FED wants them to be. Assuming markets set the rates is wrong.

    The US Federal Government is not revenue constrained - it does not need to tax or borrow. US government spending is the only net-way that money is put into the economy. Taxes and fees paid to it are the only net-way that money leaves the economy but taxes nor fees do not fund anything - government spending comes before either or the economy would have no money to pay taxes in the first place. Chicken-egg.

    Sectoral Balance. The national debt is the economy net financial assets (savings) to the cent. Sectoral balance => US federal account (surplus/deficit) + Domestic private sector account (surplus/deficit) + Foreign sector in US economy (Surplus/deficit) = 0 always. In other words, one's deficit is the other two's net surplus to the cent always. So, with the foreign sector running a surplus (US a net importer), then the other two sector must run a deficit by the same amount. So if the US federal sector ran a surplus, that means the US private sector runs a deficit. And the private sector, being a currency user and therefore revenue constrained, cannot run a deficit over the long run, whereas the Federal government, being the sole peerless currency issuer, can run deficits forever.

    The only constrain to currency issuer deficits is inflation but inflation is a component of real production. In other words if there is labor, production capacity and input resources available, inflation risk is low and this constrain is low. If you get toward full employment, then the currency issuer can simply raise taxes, which reduces aggregate demand and curtail the inflation threat. But do that when near that constraint, not when far away from it like now.

    The US can never be Greece. Greece issues most of its debt in Euros, as do other Euro nations. They are currency users not issuers. They are like our states and local government. The yare revenue constrained- the US federal government is not.

    Sine the US government does not have to tax or borrow. It will never be forced to issue debt in other currency - it does not need to issue debt. Issuing debt is a tool to enable the FED to control interest rates through open market operations. The FED could quit playing that game and just set rates by direct action instead of controlling them by those operations. Then no more need to issue debt, unless the government just wants to offer its debt as a way for savers to collect interest. But again, it would not need to issue debt, it would just be a gift to savers.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 10:52 AM, QuarkHadron wrote:

    Crake891, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning completely, nor am I sure some of the concepts you posit are completely applicable outside a closed system - that is, when considering a global economy.

    The interest rate discussion, for example, seems to valid only when considering internal interest rates - affecting only U.S. borrowers. But, for debt sales to foreign interests, it strikes me they definitely have a say in how much they are willing to pay for the debt. ("Foreign sector in US economy" will equal 1 and the others therefore would be negative.)

    Additionally, like the original topic poster, it seems your concept is largely based on the U.S. dollar as the international exchange currency. If the dollar was not the accepted exchange currency, then purchases of foreign goods and services would need to be made in other than the dollar - wreaking havoc with the concept that the Fed can simply print more to make the purchase. That only works if all other currencies are pegged to the dollar. If the dollar needed to stand on it's own, the printing would devalue the dollar and boost the price of the goods or services to be purchased. Eventually, deflation of the value would make foreign exchange untenable.

    "So if the US federal sector ran a surplus, that means the US private sector runs a deficit."

    Stated nversely, if the federal sector did not run a surplus, but was neutral, that means the private sector would run a surplus..... If it didn't issue debt, it would not need the foreign sector to buy it. If the foreign sector in your formula was neutral, again, the private sector would benefit. So, your formula actually demonstrates why non-neutral government spending leeches from the economy rather than why it doesn't matter.

    Simple logic dictates that deficits cannot run indefinitely. If for no other reason than the interest payments on the debt will eventually exceed gross domestic product.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 11:15 AM, seattle1115 wrote:

    @QuarkHadron: "I think the debt is definitely a huge problem. More specifically, the interest on the debt is unsustainable."

    Right now, the interest on the debt is no problem at all. The federal government is paying less in interest now than it was a few years ago, even though it has taken on substantially more debt in that time, because interest rates are so low. As long as interest rates remain low, we're fine. Now, if interest rates start rising quickly, we have a problem - but there's no reason to think that will happen in the next year or so,

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 11:25 AM, moneyman35 wrote:

    @seattle1115 "but there's no reason to think that will happen in the next year or so"

    I hope somebody in charge is planning further ahead than a "year or so."

    On second thought they probably aren't...

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Crake891 wrote:

    On reserve currencies:

    First, the other countries use the us dollar because they want to sell goods to the US. They gives us goods and take our dollars in exchange. They then can do two things with those dollars. Buy goods and services from us or hold those dollars (on a net macro level I am leaving out a third option - trade those dollars for other currency, because net the dollars are still held by some party so from macro view, there are only two options.) So either those dollars are repatriated back to the US or held outside the US. The other nations do buy some of our goods, but many not to the extent they sell to us, so both options are done, with more held.

    And those dollars are electronic, and held in foreign banks that have reserves in the FED system for the dollars they hold- so we know where the dollars are.

    So basically, the flow is: 1) Sell goods to us for US dollars, 2) buy less goods from US then you sell to US you have net dollars for the difference, 4) those net dollars held by foreign banks are reserves in US dollars in the FED system. So if a nation decides to quit having US reserve dollars, as many posts above say is going to happen as if it is a simple decision to make, that means it must reverse all those other flows before #4. That means either qui t selling goods to the US and/or buy more goods from the US then they sell.

    What percentage of sales are to the US? For some nations, maybe 30 to 40%, maybe higher? So you are telling me that nations with their whole growth built around exporting, and who actively trade their currency down to keep that model moving, are going to quit selling to a customer who is a third to over half their markets? Really? Seriously? If they decided to do that, that would mean instant economic collapse for them.

    Maybe it will happen gradually you say. Yes that hopefully is a given. As those economies mature, and become consumers themselves, they will net export less, increasing our and other nation's exports to them. Which will mean more goods and services produced by US to export, which will lower the foreign sector's account with respect to the US dollar, which will mean the US federal government can run smaller deficits to keep its private sector from having to run deficits. But that is not now.

    Second, if the reverse of what is happening now happened and foreign entities tried to spend US dollars through demand for US goods and services faster than our economy could physically produce goods and services (i.e. inflation risk), then you simply tax them (reverse tariff) to the extent to ward off inflation. Or since our FED has ultimate control over the reserve of foreign holdings of US dollars, you could tax them at that level too and take X% of dollars away from them before they even spend them.

    Basically, the situation is those countries are producing goods and services for us for "pieces of paper" and we can always take those "pieces of paper' away from them at any time, if a situation every pressed for a need to do that. In other words, those nations are basically producing colonies for us - neo-colonialism. Yet, everyone things that are lending us something?????????? haha

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 11:54 AM, overley wrote:

    I agree that the government can't pull money out quickly, but they are eroding confidence that they can handle this debt. The government has created so much economic uncertainty related taxes and regulation that companies are hesitant to expand fearing that the proverbial rug is going to pulled out from under them. How much are my health care cost going to be, energy costs, regulatory compliance. Best thing they could do is lay out a road to balance the budget, gradually reduce the entitlements, simplify the tax rate, and make America the best place in the world to operate a business. Saying the deficits don't matter now is nonsense. When the interest rates start going up, God help us.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Crake891 wrote:

    " The interest rate discussion, for example, seems to valid only when considering internal interest rates - affecting only U.S. borrowers. But, for debt sales to foreign interests, it strikes me they definitely have a say in how much they are willing to pay for the debt. ("Foreign sector in US economy" will equal 1 and the others therefore would be negative.)"

    These countries are not buying our debt. Primary dealers are the chief buyers of debt auctions. Those primary dealers then sell the debt to other parties who want the debt for a place to park US dollars. During the summer, we had some debt issues with negative interest. The interest rate was zero and the debt sold at a premium. And they were oversubscribed by like 4 Xs (400% more demand than the supply of bonds offered.) In other words, entities were willing to take US bonds at zero interest and for future principal of less than they paid. Why? Because these nations/exporters are not lending us money, they are parking the dollars they have, from their trade decisions, and taking whatever rate we give them and some of them cannot even get that deal because more want the bonds than we offer.

    And what if by some remote chance they quit buying them at all? The US treasury does not issue bonds then spend. It spends, and net money enters the economy. Issuing bonds, is just legislative requirement as part of the budget process (we could change those laws and quit issuing debt if we chose to do so.) Again the dollars are already in the economy. Issuing bonds is just an asset swap. Holders of US dollars, are just swapping US dollars, which are an obligation of the US government just with no maturity nor interest contract, for US bonds, that are also an obligation but with a maturity and interest contract. Nothing net changes, X obligations for X obligations. All the interest component means, is that more dollars will enter the economy as those payments are made for all outstanding bonds but again the US government is not revenue constrained so it can always make those payments.

    And this brings up another point that is absent in most news. Quantative easing, or open market buying of bonds by the FED, is not inflationary - in fact it retards future inflation by removing those interest streams from the economy. The FED, by statute, reimburses the Treasury for all its revenues above its operating costs. So for all the bonds it has bought, when those interest payments come to the FED from the Treasury, the FED sends them right back to the Treasury. Basically, that debt is intra-government obligations and while the FED holds it, those bonds and their cash flow net do not exist.

    In fact, if exporting nations decide to quit buying our debt, and laws were not change so Treasury had to keep issuing debt to balance its books, the FED could just buy all the issued debt, and net it does not exist. Being the interest rate price setters, if the FED chose to keep interest rates low, this is exactly what will happen in the future - the FED will buy much of that debt, and on a net-basis that debt does not exist.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Crake891 wrote:

    "I agree that the government can't pull money out quickly, but they are eroding confidence that they can handle this debt. The government has created so much economic uncertainty related taxes and regulation that companies are hesitant to expand fearing that the proverbial rug is going to pulled out from under them. How much are my health care cost going to be, energy costs, regulatory compliance. Best thing they could do is lay out a road to balance the budget, gradually reduce the entitlements, simplify the tax rate, and make America the best place in the world to operate a business. Saying the deficits don't matter now is nonsense."

    Business are not expanding because of uncertainty? Seriously? I guess it has nothing to do with lack of demand. If there was ample demand for goods and services, you really think businesses are going to refuse to sell to that demand. With historically low interest rates and hordes of cash on their balance sheets, you are telling me that businesses would not ramp up their production to meet demand if it was there? Seriously?

    We are in a balance sheet recessions. Private debt, not government debt, go to high, and the chief collateral for that debt (housing) had a bubble burst, making the debt intangible for the private sector. So now the private sector is trying to increase its savings/pay off its debt to restore its balance sheet. That translate to the private sector is demanding less goods and services than it is producing. That is the only way the private sector can net save - to spend less than it makes which means to demand less than it produces. But demanding less than your economy produces means your economy will constrict. So someone must carry a deficit to offset that desire to save by the private sector. That is what federal deficit do - they allow the private sector to net save, while keeping aggregate demand up.

    We could not run a surplus or balance budget now. We could write laws to do so but the private sector would refuse to play along, and if government spending were reduced, which would lower aggregate demand more, and the private sector still wanted to net save, then demand would fall even further, lower tax revenue even more, pushing the deficit right back to the US government, only now it would be an even higher percentage as GDP dropped.

    Look at this chart, in this article, private sector savings/debt are a mirror image of the US federal deficits:

    http://pragcap.com/sectoral-balances-and-the-united-states

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 1768588, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/16/2014 12:49:00 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement