Obama wins - Hillary is next
Question

Broomall, PA

#182 Dec 2, 2012
Represent the Majority wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you are still part of the minority who don't really know much!! You really need to find a party that has at least 1 viable candidate.
Just like Harry Reid, you are stating that anyone in the minority has no say in the future of this country?

You are an arrogant loon.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#183 Dec 2, 2012
Represent the Majority wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you are still part of the minority who don't really know much!! You really need to find a party that has at least 1 viable candidate.
The majority of people in this country consider themselves Conservatives. Your guy wants to turn them into drones who need the govt to take care of them from cradle to grave. That will kill the American spirit and it will be the end of American exceptionalism. I hope you enjoy drinking that Kool-Aid and remaining clueless. Obama's counting on it.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#184 Dec 2, 2012
Question wrote:
<quoted text>I'm repeating my post because still haven't answered my question. Why is that?

I just asked you a simple question. Why are you dodging it?

All we hear is 'tax the rich' and 'make them pay their fare share' day after day, but how much are they planning on taxing them and what will it accomplish in the end?

Do you even know why you are advocating it? Do you? You boasted that only the left is 'enlightened,' so let's see how enlightened you are.

I really think you have no idea what you are advocating. You are just repeating the talking points that every Dem pundit is saying just for the sake of it.
He's a robot drone who is so uneducated on the issues, all he can do is regurgitate Dem talking points. He's a waste of skin.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#185 Dec 2, 2012
Question wrote:
<quoted text>Just like Harry Reid, you are stating that anyone in the minority has no say in the future of this country?

You are an arrogant loon.
He would have no problem giving Obama dictatorial powers and abolishing Congress. He thinks he won the coin toss, so the "game" is over. I call it "Liberal Facism."
QHomeowner

Quakertown, PA

#186 Dec 6, 2012
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Harry Reid, you are stating that anyone in the minority has no say in the future of this country?
You are an arrogant loon.
No I'm stating the time to have your say was the election and the Majority HAS spoken. You can blab on and call me names but you can't change the facts. When Clinton left office we had a surplus,after Bush we had a major deficit and the American Auto and Realty business failing. It's time to move forward. Do you think the Reps will win the next election by standing in the way of progress? Good Luck
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#187 Dec 6, 2012
QHomeowner wrote:
<quoted text>No I'm stating the time to have your say was the election and the Majority HAS spoken. You can blab on and call me names but you can't change the facts. When Clinton left office we had a surplus,after Bush we had a major deficit and the American Auto and Realty business failing. It's time to move forward. Do you think the Reps will win the next election by standing in the way of progress? Good Luck
The majority didn't "speak." They didn't vote. The majority of states voted for Romney. Obama won because he got more electoral votes because of winning key states. The US is not ruled by majority, so you got that wrong.

Clinton's "surplus" was pretty much an accounting trick, but G.W. Bush also had a surplus in his first term. That's why he instituted the "Bush" tax cuts and the country realized record revenues as a result. He got into trouble in his second term due to wars and the banking/housing collapse brought about by Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrat controlled Congress.

Under Bush, the national debt was up to $10 trillion in 8 years. Not good, but Obama has added $6 trillion more in only 4 years. Unemployment is higher, there are more poor, more people on foodstamps, and no budget except for more spending, with no plan to address the debt or deficit. He's more obsessed with raising tax rates on the successful, a move that will raise only enough money to keep the govt running for 8 days and will only hurt small business owners and the middle class.

Republicans will be the ones to clean up Obama's mess, so they should stand up to him now before we're past the point of no return. Bring on the cliff.
Nope

Broomall, PA

#188 Dec 6, 2012
QHomeowner wrote:
<quoted text>No I'm stating the time to have your say was the election and the Majority HAS spoken. You can blab on and call me names but you can't change the facts. When Clinton left office we had a surplus,after Bush we had a major deficit and the American Auto and Realty business failing. It's time to move forward. Do you think the Reps will win the next election by standing in the way of progress? Good Luck
Wow, you responded to a post directed at "represent the majority."

Can't keep track of all your names, can you Kline?

BTW, you only represent the slugs and bottom feeders of your party, pal.
Nope

Broomall, PA

#189 Dec 6, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority didn't "speak." They didn't vote. The majority of states voted for Romney. Obama won because he got more electoral votes because of winning key states. The US is not ruled by majority, so you got that wrong.
Clinton's "surplus" was pretty much an accounting trick, but G.W. Bush also had a surplus in his first term. That's why he instituted the "Bush" tax cuts and the country realized record revenues as a result. He got into trouble in his second term due to wars and the banking/housing collapse brought about by Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrat controlled Congress.
Under Bush, the national debt was up to $10 trillion in 8 years. Not good, but Obama has added $6 trillion more in only 4 years. Unemployment is higher, there are more poor, more people on foodstamps, and no budget except for more spending, with no plan to address the debt or deficit. He's more obsessed with raising tax rates on the successful, a move that will raise only enough money to keep the govt running for 8 days and will only hurt small business owners and the middle class.
Republicans will be the ones to clean up Obama's mess, so they should stand up to him now before we're past the point of no return. Bring on the cliff.
He also forgets that the highest revenue brought into the treasury was in 2007, when the Bush tax cuts were in full force.

That Clinton budget surplus is a myth they love to propagate, but it's still a myth.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#190 Dec 7, 2012
First of all, All bills concerning money must originate in the House Of Representatives. It's in the Constitution, Go read it! The house was Republican and put Bubba (Clinton) on a diet. Democrats have been singing his praises ever since. True to democrat form, They don't really want a balanced budget but they think they are stifling all resistance to their out of control spending. Tough luck, It's the spending, stupid! Those are the facts! You may detest them , but they're real.
I knew Romney was in trouble when that judge overturned the ID requirement for voters. There is no doubt there was massive voter fraud in his reelection!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Regards, Terri
QHomeowner wrote:
<quoted text>No I'm stating the time to have your say was the election and the Majority HAS spoken. You can blab on and call me names but you can't change the facts. When Clinton left office we had a surplus,after Bush we had a major deficit and the American Auto and Realty business failing. It's time to move forward. Do you think the Reps will win the next election by standing in the way of progress? Good Luck
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#191 Dec 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority didn't "speak." They didn't vote. The majority of states voted for Romney. Obama won because he got more electoral votes because of winning key states.
. That's why he instituted the "Bush" tax cuts and the country realized record revenues as a result. He got into trouble in his second term due to wars and the banking/housing collapse brought about by Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrat controlled Congress.

Republicans will be the ones to clean up Obama's mess, so they should stand up to him now before we're past the point of no return. Bring on the cliff.
wow,
what a spin on the right wing loss of a Presidential election.
you forgot that President Obama won the popular vote by a good margin.
As to the Electoral College President Obama crushed his opponent.
but spin away.

The Bush tax cuts were sold as a job creation Nirvana.
check the record that did not happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_dur...

then you might remember the gulf war II started in March 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_o...

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."

so that would be in President Bush's first term.
an off budget war using borrowed money.
hardly fiscally conservative.

Lastly the right wing take on the housing crash has been debunked many times.
President Bush bragged about the increase in home ownership and credited HIS policies for that.
The housing crash revolved around Wall ST greed.

"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.

In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.

They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didn’t need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

and

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

In 2005, for instance, Washington Mutual did an internal audit of two of Long Beach’s biggest offices, one in Downey, California, and one in Montebello, California. They found that 53 percent of the Downey loans involved some type of fraud, while the number in Montebello was 83 percent. The internal investigation drummed up the usual litany of unsafe financial sexual practices, using white-out to disguise low income levels, cutting and pasting info from good borrowers onto the loan applications of less worthy applicants, and so on.

So you know what WaMu did about all that fraud they found? Zip.

The company overrode its auditors and sold those phony loans off into the market anyway. And internally, they did nothing to change lending practices. WaMu did a follow-up investigation in 2007, and found the fraud rate at Montebello was still 62 percent.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#192 Dec 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority didn't "speak." They didn't vote. The majority of states voted for Romney. Obama won because he got more electoral votes because of winning key states.
Clinton's "surplus" was pretty much an accounting trick, but G.W. Bush also had a surplus in his first term. That's why he instituted the "Bush" tax cuts and the country realized record revenues as a result. He got into trouble in his second term due to wars and the banking/housing collapse brought about by Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd

Republicans will be the ones to clean up Obama's mess, so they should stand up to him now before we're past the point of no return. Bring on the cliff.
wow,
what a spin on the right wing loss of a Presidential election.
you forgot that President Obama won the popular vote by a good margin.
As to the Electoral College President Obama crushed his opponent.
but spin away.

The Bush tax cuts were sold as a job creation Nirvana.
check the record that did not happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_dur...

then you might remember the gulf war II started in March 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_o...

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."

so that would be in President Bush's first term.
an off budget war using borrowed money.
hardly fiscally conservative.

Lastly the right wing take on the housing crash has been debunked many times.
President Bush bragged about the increase in home ownership and credited HIS policies for that.
The housing crash revolved around Wall ST greed.

"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.

In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.

They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didn’t need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

and

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

In 2005, for instance, Washington Mutual did an internal audit of two of Long Beach’s biggest offices, one in Downey, California, and one in Montebello, California. They found that 53 percent of the Downey loans involved some type of fraud, while the number in Montebello was 83 percent. The internal investigation drummed up the usual litany of unsafe financial sexual practices, using white-out to disguise low income levels, cutting and pasting info from good borrowers onto the loan applications of less worthy applicants, and so on.

So you know what WaMu did about all that fraud they found? Zip.

The company overrode its auditors and sold those phony loans off into the market anyway. And internally, they did nothing to change lending practices. WaMu did a follow-up investigation in 2007, and found the fraud rate at Montebello was still 62 percent.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#193 Dec 7, 2012
TerryE wrote:
First of all, All bills concerning money must originate in the House Of Representatives. It's in the Constitution, Go read it! The house was Republican and put Bubba (Clinton) on a diet. Democrats have been singing his praises ever since. True to democrat form, They don't really want a balanced budget but they think they are stifling all resistance to their out of control spending. Tough luck, It's the spending, stupid! Those are the facts! You may detest them , but they're real.
I knew Romney was in trouble when that judge overturned the ID requirement for voters. There is no doubt there was massive voter fraud in his reelection!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Regards, Terri

<quoted text>
so you claim there was massive voter fraud?
LOL.

with all the republican poll watchers all over the place?

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...

President Obama
332
Electoral Votes
62,611,250 Popular Votes

mitt romney
206
Electoral Votes
59,134,475 Popular Votes

good luck with that delusion.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#194 Dec 7, 2012
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
wow,
what a spin on the right wing loss of a Presidential election.
you forgot that President Obama won the popular vote by a good margin.
As to the Electoral College President Obama crushed his opponent.
but spin away.
The Bush tax cuts were sold as a job creation Nirvana.
<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_o...
"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."
so that would be in President Bush's first term.
an off budget war using borrowed money.
hardly fiscally conservative.
Lastly the right wing take on the housing crash has been debunked many times.
President Bush bragged about the increase in home ownership and credited HIS policies for that.
The housing crash revolved around Wall ST greed.
"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.
In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.
They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didn’t need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...
and
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...
In 2005, for instance, Washington Mutual did an internal audit of two of Long Beach’s biggest offices, one in Downey, California, and one in Montebello, California. They found that 53 percent of the Downey loans involved some type of fraud, while the number in Montebello was 83 percent. The internal investigation drummed up the usual litany of unsafe financial sexual practices, using white-out to disguise low income levels, cutting and pasting info from good borrowers onto the loan applications of less worthy applicants, and so on.
So you know what WaMu did about all that fraud they found? Zip.
The company overrode its auditors and sold those phony loans off into the market anyway. And internally, they did nothing to change lending practices. WaMu did a follow-up investigation in 2007, and found the fraud rate at Montebello was still 62 percent.
I didn't "forget" anything. You failed to comprehend what I wrote. He may have won the popular vote (not by a landslide), but I was talking about the majority of the population, not the electorate.
He won the election decidely, I am not "spinning" that. What I am pointing out is the common misconception that the "majority" spoke and we are governed by majority rule. I won't insult your intelligence by implying that you don't already know that - but many others have no clue about how the electoral college works or that the U.S. is not a true democracy.

As to the Bush tax cuts and job creation, I never mentioned jobs. REVENUE was the issue and it was successful in that regard. Bush was a big spender, no contest there. Obama doubled down. The rest of your post is just Liberal spin from a stoner publication. Worth about the same as motel toilet paper. Nice try.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#195 Dec 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't "forget" anything. You failed to comprehend what I wrote. He may have won the popular vote (not by a landslide), but I was talking about the majority of the population, not the electorate.
He won the election decidely, I am not "spinning" that. What I am pointing out is the common misconception that the "majority" spoke and we are governed by majority rule. I won't insult your intelligence by implying that you don't already know that - but many others have no clue about how the electoral college works or that the U.S. is not a true democracy.
As to the Bush tax cuts and job creation, I never mentioned jobs. REVENUE was the issue and it was successful in that regard. Bush was a big spender, no contest there. Obama doubled down. The rest of your post is just Liberal spin from a stoner publication. Worth about the same as motel toilet paper. Nice try.
Why waste your breath on dbar.
its a fact that he won due to taking states with high electoral votes.
The tables could have been reversed with Romney having low popular vote count, but taking the electoral votes...
Le presidentes supporters are NOT the typical class of voter who are contributors to society.
Theyre the scavengers and sadly the workers in this country will suffer due to the fact that scavengers are outnumbering the contributors.
Perhaps its time for the contributors to start "breeding" heavily. LOL!
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#196 Dec 7, 2012
14 more days and none of this will matter.
Just remember the Libertarians "predicted this"
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#197 Dec 7, 2012
smiley wrote:
14 more days and none of this will matter.
Just remember the Libertarians "predicted this"
speaking of libertarians
no need to go off shore.

http://iiicitadel.blogspot.com/p/patriot-agre...
Represent the Majority

Quakertown, PA

#198 Dec 7, 2012
TerryE wrote:
First of all, All bills concerning money must originate in the House Of Representatives. It's in the Constitution, Go read it! The house was Republican and put Bubba (Clinton) on a diet. Democrats have been singing his praises ever since. True to democrat form, They don't really want a balanced budget but they think they are stifling all resistance to their out of control spending. Tough luck, It's the spending, stupid! Those are the facts! You may detest them , but they're real.
I knew Romney was in trouble when that judge overturned the ID requirement for voters. There is no doubt there was massive voter fraud in his reelection!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
1st of all Voter fraud can go both ways but I'm not paranoid enough to believe you lost because of it.
2nd some of us are not against some cuts in spending but Obama WON by expecting the elite have cuts in tax BREAKS also. They won't starve!
3rd I knew Romney was in trouble when he really wasn't embraced by his own party, but his lack of diversity in a running mate proved he was out of touch. Just like those of you who still don't get it
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#199 Dec 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't "forget" anything. You failed to comprehend what I wrote. He may have won the popular vote (not by a landslide), but I was talking about the majority of the population, not the electorate.
He won the election decidely, I am not "spinning" that. What I am pointing out is the common misconception that the "majority" spoke and we are governed by majority rule. I won't insult your intelligence by implying that you don't already know that - but many others have no clue about how the electoral college works or that the U.S. is not a true democracy.
As to the Bush tax cuts and job creation, I never mentioned jobs. REVENUE was the issue and it was successful in that regard. Bush was a big spender, no contest there. Obama doubled down. The rest of your post is just Liberal spin from a stoner publication. Worth about the same as motel toilet paper. Nice try.
as to the housing crisis.
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutua...

"Killinger's goal was to build WaMu into the “Wal-Mart of Banking,” which would cater to lower- and middle-class consumers that other banks deemed too risky. Complex mortgages and credit cards had terms that made it easy for the least creditworthy borrowers to get financing, a strategy the bank extended in big cities, including Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. WaMu pressed sales agents to approve loans while placing less emphasis on borrowers’ incomes and assets. WaMu set up a system that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers. Variable-rate loans — Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages (Option ARMs) in particular — were especially attractive because they carried higher fees than other loans, and allowed WaMu to book profits on interest payments that borrowers deferred. As WaMu was selling many of its loans to investors, it worried less about defaults."

yep them banks were just forced to lend money.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#200 Dec 7, 2012
Represent the Majority wrote:
<quoted text>1st of all Voter fraud can go both ways but I'm not paranoid enough to believe you lost because of it.
2nd some of us are not against some cuts in spending but Obama WON by expecting the elite have cuts in tax BREAKS also. They won't starve!
3rd I knew Romney was in trouble when he really wasn't embraced by his own party, but his lack of diversity in a running mate proved he was out of touch. Just like those of you who still don't get it
Boehner is offering to get rid of tax breaks in the form of deductions and loopholes for the wealthy. This would raise the same amount or more revenue than raising the tax rates and would not hurt small business owners (and their employees) as much. But Obama has turned a deaf ear because he needs to respond to the class warfare he conducted in his campaign.

He's even proposed raising taxes to spend TWICE as much as he wanted to before the election ($1.9T instead of $800B) without offsetting it by spending cuts PLUS he wants Congress to give him an unlimited credit card to raise the already enormous debt ceiling even higher anytime he wants.

He's not even willing to tie any of it into a program addressing the REAL problem, entitlement reform and debt/deficit reduction. Incredibly he wants to borrow and spend MORE money, without even a budget proposal.

The only way people like you are going to "get it" is by going off the cliff. That way everyone's taxes will go up, the govt will have more cash to piss away, critical programs will be gutted, and the economy will go back into a deep recession. The good news is spending will stop increasing, at least temporarily, although we'll continue paying $3 billion every day on the interest owed.

Obama could raise more revenue by increasing the tax rate on his billionaire and Hollywood friends by a few percentage points than taxing people with business income over $250,000. They should be happy to pay it, don't you think?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#201 Dec 7, 2012
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
as to the housing crisis.
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutua...
"Killinger's goal was to build WaMu into the “Wal-Mart of Banking,” which would cater to lower- and middle-class consumers that other banks deemed too risky. Complex mortgages and credit cards had terms that made it easy for the least creditworthy borrowers to get financing, a strategy the bank extended in big cities, including Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. WaMu pressed sales agents to approve loans while placing less emphasis on borrowers’ incomes and assets. WaMu set up a system that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers. Variable-rate loans — Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages (Option ARMs) in particular — were especially attractive because they carried higher fees than other loans, and allowed WaMu to book profits on interest payments that borrowers deferred. As WaMu was selling many of its loans to investors, it worried less about defaults."
yep them banks were just forced to lend money.
This is way off-topic, but did you ever hear me defending banks?
That doesn't mean Barney and friends get to have clean hands. They opened the cookie jar. Is it a surprise people got caught with their hands in it? Republicans warned the Democrat Congress many times about the need to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Barney said they were in fine shape. Then, after the feces hit the ventilator, the Dems put him in CHARGE of fixing the mess!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Quakertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Local Restaurant 17 hr Mary 13
Need a great hair stylist Dec 11 queenjoyce 9
New Sign on 309 Dec 9 Jennifer schaible 13
Quakertown Electric (Jul '10) Dec 9 Jennifer schaible 65
Couple that thinks the are Quakertown best!! Dec 9 Jennifer schaible 4
school bus. Dec 8 marie 19
dealer (Jun '13) Dec 7 No name 17

Quakertown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Quakertown Mortgages