When you’re trying to convince people of something, you need to speak in terms that they understand. Telling the American public that staying out of debt is a virtue is a lost cause. Pretty much every American has debt and they understand the benefits of having debt. In other words, simply arguing “debt is bad” is a loser. You could argue that “too much debt” is a bad thing, but too much is a pretty abstract concept when it comes to governments, particularly as it’s not clear to most people how they will be affected by the government having fiscal problems.
So how do we get people to realize that the government needs to stop living beyond its means? First, recognize that all Americans have debt. They have student loan debts, credit card debts, car loans and home loans. And the interest rate on these debts is tied to the overall interest rate paid in the economy. That is affected by the federal government. So why not argue this:
When the government spends more than it takes in, it needs to borrow the difference. The more the government borrows, the higher interest rates go. That means YOUR student loan rates, your credit card rates, your car loan rates and your home loan rates will go up. In other words, because the Federal Government needs to borrow money to study bees having sex or build power stations in Egypt, you will pay more on all of your debt.Isn’t that better than “the government spends too much”?
Now, some people may think this doesn’t matter because their rates are fixed. But guess what, you get hit in a different way. As interest rates go up, the cost of borrowing goes up, and the value of your home goes down. So when Uncle Sam borrows money because he wants to jack up his budget by 10% each year, the value of your home falls and the cost of all your debt goes up.
And that’s just the beginning. The cost of borrowing makes it more expensive for companies to operate. That means they hire less. That means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means fewer options for you and lower pay. It also means the cost of goods goes up. Everything from gas to food to toys gets more expensive... all because the government can’t limit itself to the 25% of the economy it already takes.
Now let me add one more piece, since you should never assume one argument will sway everyone. This time, aim at the people who like government spending and really don’t care about the consequences:
When the government spends more than it takes it, it needs to borrow. The more it borrows, the more it pays in interest to service that debt. That’s wasted money. The money could have gone to pay for roads or teachers or police or helping the poor or the old. Instead, it goes to bankers. Every dollar the government borrows to pay for some pet project like bee-sex studies will be three dollars paid to bankers before that debt is retired. That is obscene. The government needs to stop sending money to bankers that should go to helping average people.Again, isn’t this better than “the government spends too much”? This argument not only should shock people that so much money is being wasted because of the debt, something they don't normally think about, but it gives our side an advantage in the crony debates because it makes it easy to attack Democrats by asking, “why do you want to give more money to bankers?”
Moreover, if it doesn’t stop soon, it’s going to run out of money and all we’ll be doing is paying debt... no more roads, no more teachers, no more benefits, just interest payments.
The point here is simple. Both of these arguments are the types of arguments that make people realize they have a stake in keeping the government in check. These are actual reasons people can get hurt by the debt, not theoretical reasons based on philosophical or ideological differences. These are vastly more persuasive arguments with regular people than abstract talk about fiscal sanity or living within means.
Thoughts?
51 comments:
By the way, the three times number is just a guess, it's probably higher based on my experience with mortgages, but I've been too lazy to look into it. Looking up precise numbers is what think tanks are for.
well, I wouldn't say complete silence, but no matter. Good analysis. You had me at "companies hire less."
Ok, complete silence was dramatic license. :) But the point is that we need to get better at developing arguments if we plan to win people over, especially arguments to support the very fundamental parts of our ideology.
Or I could just yell out, "1776 will commence again!" like what Alex Jones did to Piersey Morgan, the other day. And get some of those tourette's monkeys to help me out! lol xD
Andrew, great analysis as always. You're definitely more convincing than I would ever be. After all, You do defend murderers for a living... I Keed of course! ;)
Snape, I'm a big fan of the tourette's monkeys. I'm an evil scientist at heart. :)
I'm glad you approve. I think these are the kinds of arguments conservatives need to learn to make and to get more comfortable with. And in that regard, I don't mean that everyone needs to use these particular arguments as written, but I think conservatives need to learn to personalize their points so that the people they are talking to have to stop and say, "wow, I didn't know I could get hurt/helped by that?" That's how you win people over, not with abstract arguments.
So please feel free to refine these arguments or to add your own. This should be a group exercise with the idea being we can start to find way to explain why our ideology should matter to average people.
P.S. "1776 will commence again"... talk about an argument guaranteed to lose 95% of the audience. He might as well start talking about black helicopters.
"He might as well start talking about black helicopters."
Uhm, Andrew, I'm pretty he's been doing that since at least the Bush years.
I don't think anyone takes the Republicans seriously on debt. As with the Democrats and civil liberties, at a national level Republicans just seem to care about debt when the president is in the other party.
Few Republicans complained that Bush paid for the wars through emergency spending measures and quite a few of them (even Paul Ryan, who is often sold as some sort of titan of fiscal conservatism) went along with Medicare Part D.
I thought it was kind of discouraging that Romney often talked about defense spending (and his intention to ramp it up) in terms of jobs, not capabilities or policy goals and that he refused to discuss what he would cut (besides Big Bird of course).
I think the best restraint on government spending is divided government.
Andrew......First off, your arguments, while compelling to those with half a brain and some knowledge of finance, are too complex for the audience we are trying to reach.
How about this:
* "Most people agree that having too much debt, and owing more than you take in is bad, right? Then the responsible thing would be to pay our debts without borrowing more money so we have some money left over for emergencies like Sandy and Katrina, right? So, let's free up billions by ........... (Insert egregious programs that no one could possible defend)
* What should our government be responsible for paying for? (Then insert all the egregious programs)
The reason we need to turn the argument back to stupid, wasteful egregious spending is that the leftists have won the argument that the evil, hateful repubs want to cut gov't spending and that will result in fewer teachers, fewer policemen, babies dying, grandmothers in wheelchairs being killed, etc.
So, we should always revert to our default arguments of listing the egregious spending examples and state THAT is what we want to cut. And personalize it. "You really don't want your tax dollars to pay for THAT do you?"
It's not hard...I use it all the time on my lib family and friends and it works. Defuses all their arguments and makes me sound like a fiscal hawk. And....AND....I agree with them that we can cut our Defense Department. They have no rejoinder....none.
Try it sometime.
In addition.......this is the camel's nose under the tent from the conservative's perspective. Until we get Americans agreeing that gov't must stop wasteful spending, then we can move on to the big ones...Soc Sec, Med, DoE and reduce all the useless programs to essential services. We can't do it all at once.
How do you eat an elephant, right?
Of course, this is only the first half of the debate. The other half is what do we cut to pay down the debt. But I am sure will get to that.
I would add to your argument - borrowing from "foreign" banks. If we are borrowing from US owned/operated banking institutions, are we really wasting money in interest payments? Much of those interest payments will come back to help in local economies - taxed bonus' to bankers etc.
The other issue is "national security". If we are borrowing from foreign banks (see: China), aren't we putting ourselves at risk when, as an example, say China, should call in the loan precipitously? Though we always have California and West Virginia to use as collateral just in case they do. Maybe Hawaii, but we really need to hold onto Alaska, just in case the Canadians find out they can just walk over the border and no one would really care. But seriously...
One thing I would suggest is that there's not a "one argument fits all" rule here. Your audience's particular background will make a difference in what they are and aren't sympathetic to. For example, I think the majority of middle-class people tend not to like government spending that much (unless it's on stuff they like). A lot of them naturally associate government spending with government intervention, and given that they've largely arrived at their current place in life through their own effort, requirements that they comply with this or that meet with resentment. There's also the perception that government finances all this by taking away what they've earned, especially to spend it on welfare recipients.
Drive these points home repeatedly, and you could make substantial progress.
Bev, debt is only a national security issue from the standpoint of maintaining a standing army--i.e. paying to keep it standing--and liberals have shown no desire to maintain a defense anyway. Maybe you could steer that argument into disaster preparedness. Beyond that, history doesn't show lender nations going to war to collect on debts. The reason is that tends to ruin the collateral. More often, nations go to war to escape their own debt. Now, there may be an argument against debt there, but it takes a lot of leading to get there. Still, it may work with the über-pacifist types who believe the US is just scrounging for excuses to go to war.
Kit, Doesn't surprise me.
Anthony, I don't think the Republicans have credibility on this issue either. They spend just as much as the Democrats, they just spend it on their pet projects. And the Pentagon is the big one. Suggesting that the Pentagon is bloated gets a bizarre reaction from conservatives akin to telling liberals that you want to end welfare.
Sadly, I agree about Ryan as well. The more I think about his budget, the less impressed I am. And like the rest he voted for every massive increase.
But what I'm hoping to do in the next few months is to rethink the entire agenda, including the rhetoric, and that would entail trying to get our credibility back. So I'm not worried about how thing are now, I'm trying to look forward.
Andrew,
How could Republicans restore some credibility on the debt?
Patriot, Talking wasteful and stupid spending is a necessity. Whenever we talk about government spending, we should always mention the things nobody thinks makes sense -- bridges to nowhere and bee sex studies. But we need more because people also understand that the government pays for things they like -- roads, teachers, soldier.
We also need to connect things to people, that's what I'm doing above. Right now conservatives talk about things in macro terms, I'm trying to get people to think in human terms. And telling people what I say above is not too complex. Vast numbers of people have flexible interest rate loans and most Americans have credit card debt -- they understand that rising interest rates hurt them. So pointing out that government spending directly makes their own lives more expensive will resonate.
On the points you raise, the problem is that they aren't things people necessarily believe:
"Most people agree that having too much debt, and owing more than you take in is bad, right?
Actually, our economic statistics tell us otherwise. Most people are awash in debt and vast, vast numbers are only making minimum payments because they owe way more than they can afford. So this argument will just get a collective "so what?" Conservatives seem to think that debt is somehow seen as a bad thing, but it's really not -- people are fine with debt.
Then the responsible thing would be to pay our debts without borrowing more money so we have some money left over for...
Again, people don't see borrowing as a matter of responsibility, nor do they feel any sense of collective responsibility. This debt isn't something they asked for, so they see no reason they should pay it or care if it gets paid. That's the problem -- the debt isn't anyone's fault, so it's no one's responsibility. So telling people "let's be responsible" gets a collective laugh.
They also don't see why the government can't just raise taxes or print more money or borrow to pay what they need. What do they care if that's bad for other people because they see other people as the people who cause the debt in the first place. This argument doesn't give people any reason to think that any of that is bad for them.
Bev, I think adding "foreign" to banks and a national security angle are excellent. As I say above, we need more than just the one single argument and attacking it from several angles is good.
As for cutting the debt, yes, we'll get to that. I think there are several ways to do it and one that's actually a magic bullet, but conservatives have been programmed to hate the idea.
One point before I leave for the Doctor's office:
If the GOP plans to win in 2008, they can't run someone from the Senate or House. They will have to run someone who will be seen as an outsider in Washington.
T-Rav, Agreed on all points. We need to avoid the idea of one-size fits all. The problem has been that we've basically done that up to now. Conservatives have assumed that the public sees debt as a negative and want the government to be "fiscally responsible." So they've stayed at this macro-technocratic level and they've never explained to people how this will hurt them personally. The closest they've come is talking about "cost of borrowing" in the abstract. But the arguments have again sounded like accountants arguing balance sheets. We need to start humanizing our arguments and talking to people in terms that are meaningful to them.
Excellent point on the upper middle class. There is tremendous hypocrisy there: they do hate the idea of spending in the abstract, but they love government spending when it's on them -- subsidized school lunches, roads, airports, police, fire, over-priced government jobs, social security/medicare, etc. BUT within that hypocrisy, there is plenty of room to turn them against spending generally by keeping it focused on the spending they don't like.
That's solid marketing actually -- targeting different groups with different messages. That's exactly what we need to do.
tryanmax, Allow me to defend Bev's point, which I think is an excellent one. This is about salesmanship. There is no reason we should fall back into the conservative mode of only using arguments that are 100% true as explained in every technicality... think big picture.
Yes, China cannot foreclose on California (Bev was being facetious) nor will they go to war with us. But the national security angle is a solid one because (1) people believe it even if they don't understand it and (2) it is real in the economic sense. If our economy is weighed down by heavy debt, it won't grow as fast as it should and that gives China room to catch up. Catching up meaning becoming more innovative and more advanced. That means a stronger, more modern military. A budget crunch will do the same thing by slowing our ability to keep ahead. Look at how pathetic European militaries are because they can't spend on them... they might as well disband honestly. Running too high of a deficit and the interest payments that follow will cause that here too. But rather than going through that whole discussion with people, you call it a national security issue and you talk about a shrinking military that is falling behind a rising economic power. People will understand that and accept it.
Kit, Before the Republicans can restore credibility on anything, they need to reform. They not drop the idiocy and the cronyism. They need to shed some people. They need a new platform, one that resonates with people not the same old crap.
If they want credibility on the deficit itself, I recommend that they do something basic which the public will understand -- an across-the-board cut for government... a 10% cut in everything, all spending in every program and department, in politician's salaries, a hiring freeze (and no pay raises for the rest). That's simple, understandable and credible. And you can point to the two numbers: last year's budget, this year's budget as proof.
The problem with anything less than that is that people know a cut is not a cut in government. This would be.
Kit, Everyone runs as outsiders. That's part of the game. Guys who've never held jobs about the House and Senate run as outsiders.
I get what you're saying about not needing 100% true arguments, but at the same time, I don't get the sense that people are all that afraid of China, either. So whether they believe that China will never attack us b/c it's a terrible way to collect debt or they just don't believe it because they don't want to think about it, the fact remains that trying to scare people about China doesn't seem effective. Plus, it opens the door to attacks that conservatives are still living in the Cold War days, are xenophobic, and probably racist, too.
Andrew, yeah, I'm afraid the whole infrastructure thing is off-limits, at least for now. As soon as a road gets a pothole in it, it's "The government ought to fix that!" And I trust the Social Security/Medicare thing speaks for itself.
That's why welfare reform is so popular with the middle class. It doesn't affect them. Hypocritical, like you say, but if that's the line of attack we can make, I'm okay with it.
Incidentally, as a corollary to the "Everyone runs as outsiders" game: There are practically no true outsiders. Sure, you or I can name a few if we think about it, like Joe the Plumber. But aside from that handful, all the people running are part of the political machine to some extent. Even if they've never been in Congress before, they've almost certainly served in the state legislature, been a staffer for someone in Congress, headed up some political committee, etc. Bottom line, they don't get into DC without knowing and getting approval from someone in a political party.
Which is not entirely a bad thing--like all systems, it has its upsides and downsides. But that's how it is, and chances are that anyone who tells you he's an outsider also has a bridge to sell you.
tryanmax, I would put it this way. Go ahead and argue it to audience who will listen. That would be people who love defense spending.
As I noted with T-Rav above, the Republicans need to learn to separate their audiences into "market segments" and find the arguments that work with each group. Right now, they go with the one argument: fiscal responsibility (translation: debt is immoral), which resonates only with conservatives.
They need to learn that you can use a dozen different arguments so long as you have a main theme to hitch them all to and so long as you use the right theme with the right audience. I think the national security argument works well with people who love military spending, xeno-phobes, and patriotic types. It won't work with single moms -- they need the "we won't be able to pay for kid's teacher" argument.
Similarly, "foreign banks" very much plays on the public's growing dislike for banks and their distrust of internationalization.
It's all part of a mosaic, with the key to it all being talking to people in terms that will affect them as personally, not in abstract concepts.
T-Rav, That's the nub of the problem, but it's also the key to the solution. Nobody wants their spending cut, and every segment of society gets their own goodies. The key is to always promise that the other guy's spending will get cut.
In fact, that's the real problem with what the Republicans are doing now with "cuts". They are screaming about cuts and the only programs they ever mention are popular ones like Medicare. That's stupid. For one thing, they haven't made a case for cuts at all -- the government seems in no danger of collapse and the Republicans keep agreeing to deals to "fix it" so why do we need more cuts? Moreover, pointing to generic cuts in popular programs is stupid. You always talk about waste, fraud and abuse and you keep talking about how no one will get hurt.
T-Rav, Agreed on the outsider thing and, frankly, I've come to the conclusion that our system is a fraud. The truth is that we have a political class and whether they call themselves democrats or republicans, they are the same people with the same interests. And they've created an entire system designed to make the public think there is a "to-the-death" struggle going on when the reality is very different. 99% of all legislation is consensual, and it's all meant to help a small class of people who are well connected with the political class.
This was why there was so much hate for the Tea Party from both parties -- they threatened to upset the perfectly balanced scam going on in Washington.
In other words, it's a one-party system masquerading as a two-party system?
Pretty much. Nothing else really makes sense.
One of the fundamental problems is people don't understand economics and especially debt very well. Debt in a country is not that different than buying bonds in a company. If the company is managing their money and business well, your bonds are attractive even with lowish interest rates because you generally will always make money. This is what the Chinese are doing with US bonds is investing in a fairly safe place.
I don't worry about the Chinese calling on the debt. I worry when they decide not to buy it anymore. If we use the money wisely improving infrastructure and education continuing to provide an environment where companies can thrive then we will always be a good investment.
In an argument about fiscal sanity, I like using the approach Thomas Sowell used in his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.
When someone proposes spending money are raising taxes, ask them "and then what will happen?" Keep at it until they almost become annoyed but it forces people to look at the overall consequences of a decision.
Koshcat, I agree the big danger is that China stops buying our debt. Not only does that signal that we've become a bad risk, but it will make it a LOT harder to finance our debt, which means we end up paying a ton more in interest. Still, national security is a useful idea -- use people's fear against them.
I agree that people don't understand economics and with good reason -- economics is too theoretical and there are too many economists on both side of each debate for people to believe that economics is "settled." When something isn't settled, people tend to dismiss it as a deciding factor.
More importantly, the problem for our side is that conservatives keep trying to argue economics and doing so in economic terms. This was the wisdom of Reagan's communication methods, he was able to take complex thoughts and explain them in one liners that everyone understood and believed at a fundamental level. Unfortunately, no one else is doing that on our side today -- because they are so wrapped up in theory and wonkishness.
And let me say, before someone says "but there is no Reagan," Reagan wasn't unique. Lawyers do the same thing every time they explain a case to a jury. Advertisers do it when they try to distill an entire company or product into a soundbite. Hollywood does it when they make movie trailers. Teachers do it when they take 100 years of history and teach it in five minutes. This is something people do everywhere all the time... and yet, our pundits and politicians are incapable of doing it.
I attribute this to living in a bubble. When you are surrounded by like-minded people, all with similar backgrounds and similar types of knowledge, you begin to take certain shortcuts when you talk about policy or beliefs. Everything becomes wonky and relies upon foundations that outsiders don't share. That is what has happened to our side. They are speaking to each other only and they've lost the ability to see that no one outside the bubble understands them or shares their assumptions. Conservatives basically are competing to win over the Heritage Foundation, not the American people.
Actually, I suspect they can't explain it well because they don't understand it either.
P.S. While I like Sowell's approach in a one on one setting with someone who wants to learn, I think that's not an effective approach when dealing with the public. I've learned as a lawyer that you never want to let people answer questions themselves unless you've told them how to answer it. If you tell the public, "ok, so we raise taxes, then what?" You are just as likely to hear "we get more tax money and pay off the debt" as you are anything else.
If you want to use that approach to argue fiscal sanity, you need to lay a lot of ground work and walk people through the whole idea how taxes depress economic activity and how spending will increase to meet revenues.
Koshcat... uh, yeah. That's the other problem. I've been amazed at the utter economic ignorance I've heard so often from the right (even among reputable people... and forget politicians they're morons). I keep hearing people on our side use buzzwords but not be able to explain anything behind those buzzwords. Frankly, it's shocking. How can you go into a debate without even a slight grasp on your position?
Let me add, I expect economic ignorance on the left, but our ideology is premised on a strong grasp of free market economics. How can you defend that if you don't understand it?
"And let me say, before someone says "but there is no Reagan," Reagan wasn't unique. Lawyers do the same thing every time they explain a case to a jury. Advertisers do it when they try to distill an entire company or product into a soundbite. Hollywood does it when they make movie trailers. Teachers do it when they take 100 years of history and teach it in five minutes. This is something people do everywhere all the time... and yet, our pundits and politicians are incapable of doing it."
Not surprising.
Kit, Politics is no different than anything else that involves the selling of ideas.
Also, re: summing ideas in a soundbite.
Screenwriters e directors have to do it ALL THE TIME.
It's called "Pitching an idea."
Kit, Yep. Most professions do it in one form or another, and it's something conservatives need to rediscover. There is no magic here, it's just a matter of learning to identify your audience and speak to their needs.
As a strange, the people who do this best all work in fields where communication is vital -- Hollywood, law, teaching, journalism, marketing. Those are the exact fields conservatives look down upon. Interesting, isn't it?
I wonder why the GOP doesn't hire a PR firm or a legal firm to map out a strategy for them each year and to handle things like press releases? They certainly couldn't do worse than the GOP is doing.
On your argument, I like it a lot. And let point out that again, this highlights that we have a problem since we don't have a clear line of attack to support something that is a major part of our ideology. Am I the only who is shocked by this? If would could explain anything, it should be why we want limited government and fiscal responsibility, but clearly we don't have ready arguments for those. This is kind of shocking.
Andrew
I think your argument has a lot of merit. Argue that raising government debt will cause housing prices to fall and debt to become harder to get. That might work eventually.
I say eventually because right now those markets are being heavily influenced by the Federal government through legislation, monetary policy and Banking regulation. The government has in the last year suffered two downgrades in their credit ratings which will raise the interest they have to pay and reduce the amount of money they have to spend just as you argue. So to that end your argument works like a charm.
The problem is that currently there is a push to get people to refi at record low rates of interest which is driven artificially by Obama's policies. So right now there is a disconect. Jerry the Janitor is going to be with you until he realizes that his mortgage can be refied at a very low rate thanks to Obama.
I say your argument will win out eventually because OBama and the Treasury cannot keep doing what they are doing forever and there is a very real risk that once the flood doors to borrowing open up and the banks start lending out their reserves that there will be inflation. At that point it all collapses. I can only assume the the DNC is banking on the economy coming back in some form of cyclical cycle.
So in the short term I think you are better off focusing on the difficulty of getting credit. (Credit Cards and Auto Loans) which the Fed had less chance of manipulating due to volume. But who knows.
Indi, I think it's a good argument, but not an ideal argument. I wish we had something more obvious or more direct. Unfortunately, I don't see anything more direct that we can argue for why people will get hurt.
Even arguing that they will need to pay it back through higher taxes doesn't work because (1) we haven't paid it back yet, so why should people believe we will start now and (2) people will say "well, then I want my share now." We need an argument that makes people realize they are going to get hurt if spending continues like this.
I like the "can't get credit" argument. I hear a lot of people saying that these days, they just don't connect it to the government. They see it as stingy banks.
Doc, The Democrats did that in the 2000s, they brought in consultants to teach them how to speak to the public -- conservatives scoffed at the idea, just like they scoffed at the idea that "everything is political."
I think both of these articles have really highlighted a problem. This and limited government are fundamental selling points of our ideology and yet we haven't really found an effective argument for how those will affect average people. That's a bad sign.
Andrew
The argument failed for Carter because of the high inflation. The argument will fail for OBama once inflation hits. The Dems have something now they did not have under Carter. More control of the Banking Industry. While it has always been regulated it has never been momopolized to the five too big too fail banks now. Plus the regulation is much more intrusive, to the point of being able to set banking policy.
They have been essentially playing games with monetary policy and banking rules to control the effect of their borrowing on inflation. I am very doubtful that this is not a bubble that will eventually burst.
The problem as I see it is it may repeat in 2008. A huge failure that the then blame on banks. But at thatpoint it won't matter.
Did you see Pat Caddell on the Bigs. he gave a speech in Texas where he talks of the GOP failure to cut spending and the fact that 76% of the public want spending stopped. He suggested that we are in a prere3volutionay period and if something is not done there may be a huge meltdown. He also said the unfunded liability of SSN was 87 trillion.
IF 76% of the public wants spending cuts how is it so darn difficult to convince those on our side to support them? I don't get it at all.
Indi, I don't know if there will be another banking crisis or not, I kind of doubt it, but if there is, it will be huge because of the consolidation in the banking industry.
As for Caddell, anyone who suggests a revolution is coming is an idiot and doesn't have the slightest sense of the American people. On the idea of 76% of the public wanting cuts, I don't know where he got the number, but the truth is the 76% want other people's stuff cut... not their own. That's the problem. That's why it's easy to keep anything from ever happening.
And our side has a problem winning these people because (1) we have no credibility that we will actually make cuts, (2) we propose the wrong cuts, and (3) the rest of our agenda is toxic.
I am not talking our side winning over the hoi polloi. I mean the actual conservatives in this country winning over "our" politicians in actually making cuts. Let's face it. It not that they cut the wrong thing in the fiscal cliff debate. They did not cut anything. At this point as long as it is an actual reduction in spending I don't care what they cut, right or wrong.
Indi, I don't think our politicians are interested in cuts either. I think it's all just a game at this point, meant to trick the public.
S military has recently started using Video Game Projector to recruit and train.
Have fun as you race cars, get rid of certain items.
Look into my homepage - free video games download
Post a Comment