“There Is No Debt Crisis” ? Boy, That’s A Load Off My Mind!

"So far, so good!"

“So far, so good!”

The confluence of head-exploding statements and news keeps coming, with the worst being the recent unconscionable announcements out of the mouths of the President and some of his political adversaries that “there is no debt crisis.”

This is exactly like the old joke about the man falling from a 40 story window, being asked by someone on the tenth floor, shouting through a window as he passes, “How are you doing?” “So far, so good!” he answers. Yet these ridiculous, idiotic or intentionally dishonest statements by President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and others are being cited by the news media as reassuring! No, there’s no debt crisis, if you regard that falling optimist as not being in a smashing-to-pulp-on-the-sidewalk-crisis. The debt increased by a trillion dollars last year, and looks as if it will increase by close to a trillion more by October, 2013. The government has no leadership on the issue, and the various sides appear incapable of forging a solution, with the current Administration actually going out of its way to try to make less than 2% in budget cuts under the absurd sequester hurt as much as possible, to convince a math-deficient public that cutting the size of government is not only impossible but undesirable. This scenario doesn’t demonstrate that there’s a debt crisis?

Apparently, in the minds of our irresponsible and dishonest national leaders, a debt crisis only exists is when the country is in the depths of desperation of, say, Cyprus. That small European nation is bankrupt, and demanding a $20 billion bailout from the European Union to prevent its banks from failing. But when the E.U., as a condition of advancing such a loan to a belly-up economy that generates no more than that amount in a year, required that private bank accounts be charged a hefty fee to contribute to the sum, the Cypriot Parliament rejected the deal unanimously. I listened to an NPR report yesterday in which angry Cypriots talked of the proposed deal as “blackmail” and praised their legislators for rejecting this “insult” to Cyprus’s “dignity” and “pride.” Are they in Oz? Bizarro World? It is Cyprus that is extorting the rest of its European partners, demanding cash to forestall a collapse—caused by Cyprus’s own mismanagement—that could cause a devastating chain reaction. Pride? Dignity? What pride? Cyprus is the equivalent of a homeless junkie begging on the international streets. It can’t pay its bills—what does it have to be proud of?

Of course, it was only last year that Cyprus had no debt crisis either.

Not sensing the irony, or perhaps not caring, NPR also went to extra lengths to bolster its Federal funders’ irresponsible logic, all the better to make sure that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting remains one of those essential deficit expenditures that it was worth releasing dangerous illegal aliens to pay for. Quoting in succession three Republicans making the rather obvious point that “every American family knows that it has to  live within its means and balance its budget,” smug NPR reporters informed us that “it ain’t necessarily so!” We were then treated to a series of interviews and statistics showing that most American families don’t balance their budgets, and that the little family units that make up our nation are also in the red, though not to the extent that the government is. What was the point of this story? That the government being disgracefully profligate is acceptable because “everybody does it”? That nobody should criticize the government’s lack of a responsible budget process because most citizens don’t stick to their budgets either? That the Republican officials were lying? The tone of the piece was mind-boggling, either intentionally or negligently crafted to leave the impression that spending more money than you have is no big deal.

After all, there’s no debt crisis.

In today’s headlines, the civil engineers released an assessment of the nation’s infrastructure, and graded it D+. Just yesterday, a huge water main burst along a central D.C. area thoroughfare, causing massive disruptions for most of a day, but that wasn’t a national infrastructure crisis, understand. We have no such crisis. That crisis will only arrive when sewers back up, causing disease and epidemics, and ancient water mains are breaking daily in East Coast cities, when bridges start collapsing and when the economic effects of dilapidated highways that should have been repaired decades ago become obvious.

From Transportation Nation:

“The report grades infrastructure in sixteen sectors and prescribes a funding level necessary to bring each up to a B grade.  That will require spending $454 billion annually over the next eight years, according to the group’s figures. However, the society estimates only $253 billion annually is currently earmarked for infrastructure repair and improvements, leaving a yearly funding gap of $200 billion.”

The report estimates that 3.6 trillion dollars of spending will be needed to prevent wholesale infrastructure rot by 2020. Where is that supposed to come from? Columnist Robert Samuelson, by far the most scholarly and economically literate of the pundits, explained the basic budget math—again—in one of his depressing columns this week:

“Choices are being made by default. Almost everything is being subordinated to protect retirees. Solicitude for government’s largest constituency undermines the rest of government. This is an immensely important story almost totally ignored by the media. One reason is that it’s happening spontaneously and invisibly: Growing numbers of elderly are simply collecting existing benefits. The media do not excel at covering inertia.

“Liberals drive this process by treating Social Security and Medicare as sacrosanct. Do not touch a penny of benefits; these programs are by definition progressive; all recipients are deserving and needy. Only a few brave liberals complain that this dogma threatens programs for the non-aged poor. “None of us wants to impose new burdens on vulnerable seniors,” write economists Harry J. Holzer of Georgetown University and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution in The Post. But “for how long will we continue to sacrifice investments in our nation’s children and youth … to spend more and more on the aged?”

“Hypocritical conservatives are liberals’ unspoken allies. Despite constant grumbling about entitlements, they lack the courage of their convictions. Consider House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s latest budget plan. From 2014 to 2023, he proposes cutting federal spending by $4.6 trillion. Not a cent comes from Social Security, while Medicare cuts are tiny, about 2 percent. His major Medicare proposal (in effect, a voucher) wouldn’t start until 2024. Most baby boomers escape meaningful benefit cuts. As Holzer and Sawhill fear, most of Ryan’s cuts affect programs for the poor.”

No, this isn’t a debt crisis. It’s a responsibility crisis, an honesty crisis, a planning crisis, an integrity crisis, a courage crisis, a priorities crisis, a delusion crisis, an apathy crisis, a stupidity crisis, and most of all, a bi-partisan leadership and ethics crisis. But it’s not a debt crisis.

We have no debt crisis.


Sources: Washington Post, NPR, ABC, MSNBC, Transportation Nation, New York Times

Graphic: My Remote Radio


56 thoughts on ““There Is No Debt Crisis” ? Boy, That’s A Load Off My Mind!

  1. Jack, unless you’re an economist, you’re just adding to the noise on this one.
    Remember, “There are weapons of mass destruction?” Saying it so didn’t make it such. This has been another vastly over-played over-simplified hype. The claim that we have a debt crisis is typically made by people who have insisted for years that interest rates will rise (they haven’t), that “if the country were run like a business” (it isn’t, thank god, it’s a country – not at al the same thing), and that the dollar is being debased (check the exchange rates). Bad, bad economics. Don’t you play into it.

    We have a long-term spending issue – we have a short-term unemployment crisis.

    • Agreed. The LA Times posted an article that affirms another in Mother Jones regarding the cost of the Iraq War. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-iraq-war-cost-20130318,0,1591279.story and http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/charts-cost-iraq-war. Speaking of a sovereign debt loses relevance if compared to a household debt. Don’t know too many families that are too big to fail – at least in my income bracket, and my household did not commit to an unfunded war. Where was the outrage of spending during the Reagan or Bush years?

      • Agreed. The LA Times posted an article that affirms another in Mother Jones regarding the cost of the Iraq War. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-iraq-war-cost-20130318,0,1591279.story and http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/charts-cost-iraq-war. Speaking of a sovereign debt loses relevance if compared to a household debt. Don’t know too many families that are too big to fail – at least in my income bracket, and my household did not commit to an unfunded war. Where was the outrage of spending during the Reagan or Bush years?

        What sort of accounting are they doing to calculate this?

        Using whatever formula they used to calculate the cost of the war in Iraq, what was the cost of WWI? Or the American Civil War? I would find it utterly preposterous that the war in Iraq could be more expensive than WWI.

    • The point is that it doesn’t take an economist to figure this out. The need for infrastructure restoration is real, and unavoidable, for example, and nobody disputes it. The need to reduce the size of the debt is undeniable—even the debt-enabling Paul Krugman admits that its size is dangerous. His theory is that it can be done later, yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will be. It’s not a spending issue, when 45 cents one every dollar is interest being paid to the likes of China. It’s a debt issue. Calling efforts to flag it “noise,’ Charles, and implying that only economists are qualified to call the alarm on the obvious sure seems like denial to me.

      Samuelson’s point needs to be dealt with—making responsible reductions in income transfers to the oldest American regardless of wealth doesn’t undermine employment, and it is unavoidable. Why would you allow elected leaders to get away with dodging that responsibility—especially when it is so clear that the motivation is expediency?

      • Jack, sorry, can’t resist.
        Very little of our debt is owed to China; most is owed to the government or to US instituions and citizens.

        If you agree our infrastructure needs updating (I completely agree), and if you agree that 10-year interest rates are at a 60-year low (a fact), and our unemployment is high (another fact) – then WHY IN THE WORLD wouldn’t we borrow up the wazoo, put thousands of people to work, paying employers to produce real goods and wealth.

        The biggest reason for our deficit level is low growth. Fix that, and unemployment payments go away, and tax receipts rise (go check the Congressional Research Service on that one). Voila, no deficit.

        Unfortunately, due to politicians arguing that you don’t need an economics education to practice economics, we get the dominant political view, which YOU are channeling, that somehow NOW is the time to shoot ourselves in the foot by laying off more people, adding to unemployment, and driving demand for corporate goods even lower. Why? Is it to keep the poor bondholders from seeing bond prices drop?

        I wish all the folks who say the debt problem is “obvious” would answer this question: what do you think will happen to unemployment, taxes and GDP if you slash government spending now? If you lay off a teacher, how is that teacher magically going to get a private sector job offer?

        This obsession with cutting deficits is exactly what the Republican party argued for heading into the Great Depression – and what helped to bring it on. It wasn’t until Roosevelt (and the War) drove government spending up that we managed to pull ourselves out of the rut.

        What seems “obvious” sometimes means you’ve got your glasses on backwards.

        • FDR’ s meddling in the economy did nothing to improve the country for decade and a half of his “reign.” Keynes should be relegated to the trash heap where he belongs and you should read a little more of the Austrian School. WWII killed tens of millions. Is that really the solution you are hoping for?

    • I have to ask the assembled—does Charles’ comment make any sense to you? When would we have a debt crisis? A trillion dollars being added to the debt, growing expenditures in generational income transfers taking up funds needed for other critical functions, and a political leadership that adamantly denies the need to balance the budget. Obama says that balancing the budget in a decade isn’t a priority. That means adding to the debt by many, many billions every year—OK–in 2026 will there be a debt crisis? Why then and not now? Presumably another cowardly, incompetent, irresponsible set of elected leaders will be saying the same thing. Why would we assume otherwise? Then another ten years. Which position is crazy, that it’s dangerous now and needs to be addressed, or that there is no crisis, and the economist have it all figured out?

      • You know my opinion.

        No, the problem isn’t oversimplified… subtraction is pretty straight forward. And the result is a negative number.

        In no reality does constant, unaddressed, accumulation of debt ever end well. At least not for the debtor.

      • The current administration has no impetus to balance the budget, no administration will until they are actually slap up against a collapse in an election year. Obama can’t run again, and when he leaves office he’s going to draw a nice cushy job at some law school together with making a quarter million a pop on the lecture circuit. The same applies to his other top officials and most of the congressional leadership. He faces no serious opposition, and even if the Republican Party had its stuff together, arguably they forfeited the fiscal high ground by spending like drunken sailors from 2001-2008. All anyone wants to do , all anyone has to do, with the nation’s financial woes is to kick them down the road a little until they have enough time in to retire and collect their pension, then dump them into the lap of whoever is next to want their turn at the public trough. I also don’t think any of them will lose a wink’s sleep over it.

      • I will add to my comment–

        Often times in discussions with people I receive the excuse… “Oh it’s too complicated for that explanation” or “you’re not really an expert”…”you don’t know all the factors”

        Or some other rewording of “you’re too stupid to understand my deeper grasp of the problem”.

        It’s typically a cop out because it turns out that yes, the problem IS simple, but the opposing viewpoint can’t stand how blatantly simple the problem is and therefore how blatantly wrong their solution is.

              • The Republicans, and the public at large, agreed with you in 1936, that deficits were a huge problem. When Roosevelt initially responded by cutting deficits, it drove us deeper into recession. I don’t know about Bozo, but that’s what Keynes had predicted.

                And what Keynes recommended, which is what finally happened, is that government spending would pull us out of the depression. Which it did. There’s the merits of that argument.

                Can you show me a period in economic history where cutting government spending actually raised economic activity? What’s that you say, current policy in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland? Oh wait, that proves the Keynesian viewpoint – the effect is to shrink the economy, and actually raise the deficit. But that must be wrong, because, well, Keynes can’t be right, and well, just because.

                The refuge of the economically illiterate is to resort to name-calling. How about you trot out some data instead.

                    • Charles, you have to know that the WWII/ Depression model is irrelevant in 2013. To argue that debt approaching post World War II levels can be overcome in conditions that won’t mirror post WWII in any way is willful blindness. The bottom line is that debt can’t increase forever, and at a certain point, fast approaching, it makes investment and stimulus both impossible. It is profoundly frightening that intelligent observers like you, as well as cynical math-challenged one like Obama, accept this fanciful argument as if the Keynesians (I studied with John Kenneth Galbraith—I know the jingle) haven’t fallen on their faces aplenty.

                      Yes, I know that most of the debt isn’t owed to China. The United States shouldn’t owe one cent to China (and I did say “the likes of China,’ I believe).

                    • Jack, responding to your last at 7:07 PM.

                      First of all, debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal. Want an example? Look at Japan, which has been economically healthy for many years now at higher debt levels than ours.

                      You say the point is “fast approaching” where “investment and stimulus are both impossible.” I have no idea what you mean by “fast,” but let me note that 10-year treasury instruments are paying less than 2%. That means that the trillions of dollars bond markets disagree with you. If we were “fast approaching” the apocalyptic event you describe, we’d see way higher interest rates. And yet we’re at all time lows. How can you square that with your horrified view of the future? If you really believe it, go bet against the bond markets and make a killing.

                      And Jack, thanks for the nice words about intelligence, but when you say it’s “profoundly frightening” that I believe in a “fanciful argument,” I have to say that sounds like arrogance. The Keynesian argument is very simple: when the private sector is operating below capacity, the government should step in with debt-based investment and spending. When we’re back to capacity, that’s when government should pay down debt and cut back. I fail to see what’s fanciful about that belief. The opposite – which I find profoundly frightening, to coin a phrase – is the belief that somehow cutting government spending and laying people off will magically result in greater economic performance by the private sector. For a simple counter-example, just look at Europe in the last few years, who’ve been trying exactly that.

                      TexAgg04 seems to think Europe has done only minimal cuts. Their cuts have been deeper than ours (I don’t know about the tax side). By your/his theory, deeper cuts than the US should result in higher growth than the US. But of course Europe is seeing unemployment increase, growth dropping, and their deficits are actually getting bigger. Which is precisely what Keynesians would predict.

                      Finally, if you’re “profoundly frightened” by what I’m saying, then you must also be profoundly frightened by what people like Martin Wolf at the FT, Larry Summers, and Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and the much-vilified Paul Krugman are saying. Really, Jack, you are too intelligent yourself to wish away such evidence.

                      Or so it seems to me.

                    • Taking the last first–no, I’m not frightened by them, I think they’re absurd. Among various disciplines, only psychiatry has disgraced itself more thoroughly than the economists. The group you name prominently argue that the reason the so-called stimulus package was a flop is that we should have spent much more. And if “more” had been a flop, they would have said the same thing.

                      The problem you seem to omit is that increasing debt to the point where it competes with the availability of private capital ends up suppressing GDP, and permanently. If you don’t cut, you have to tax more, and if you tax more, those who build and hire have less money to do that.

                      I have to say, this denial sounds like an article of faith rather than one of reason at this point…and it still doesn’t excuse wasting money, and having wildly inefficient and misallocated transfer payments. Your mindset eliminates any incentive to apply discipline—hey, just borrow more! What difference does it make!

                      You should certainly see that. In a government where being able to afford what you buy isn’t an issue, why should decision-makers bother to make good decisions?

                    • Are you out of your mind?

                      Did you really just say “as long as GDP keeps growing faster than debt let’s just keep going into debt?”

                      Discussion over, that is patently ridiculous. It ultimately boils down to a “Just print more money argument”.

                      Duck Tales even understood the nonsense and distilled it down to child-level.

                      The Keynesian argument is very simple. -Charles

                      The Keynesian argument also relies on believing an economy can be CONTROLLED. Which it can’t.

                      (I don’t know about the tax side) -Charles

                      Unfortunate, because it tosses a big monkey-wrench in everything you’ve asserted.

                      you are too intelligent yourself to wish away such evidence

                      “Evidence” it is not. It is opinions of *respected* Keynesians. Respected by other Keynesians. Should we believe everything a Creationist says simply because other Creationists hold him high regard? No. It’s all opinion when it comes to wild theories like Keynesian Economics.

                • Austerity in Europe?

                  You mean minuscule cuts associated with much increased taxes?

                  And the economy shrunk?

                  No kidding…

                  Not a mark in the victory column for Keynesians.

              • That is no better analysis than to say you are echoing the views of the Tea Party, which is to be expected. So what? Is the Tea Party right, or wrong? Is Keynes right, or wrong? That’s the issue, not whether one is consistent.

                • No, you drummed out an article you found and pushed it as though it were somehow a ‘non-spendist’ type (based on your qualfiers: works at TCU, published in Forbes) actually going against a ‘non-spendist’ grain and actually advocating for spending. You assumed that ought to help cause us to rethink opposition to more spending.

                  Only it turns out he is a Keynesian also, so in reality you didn’t bring anything new the to table.

                  Which puts things at square one prior to your post introducing John Harvey’s ‘ideas’

                  • You think Keynesian is an insult; I think he was largely right. Got it. We disagree. Noted. No need to rehash what you think.

                    What would be novel is if you were to offer some data, some examples, some history, something resembling economic argument, rather than ad hominem argumentation, in support of your belief. I have yet to see that.

                    • Did I use Keynesian as an insult?

                      Or did I use it to identify the school of thought to which John Harvey subscribes in order to show why his answer would match Paul Krug’s assessment which Jack originally referenced above?

                      You need to look up ad hominem: it certainly doesn’t apply to identifying a person’s philosophy or school of thought.

                      From 1929 to 1933, the US gov DOUBLED outlays relative to GDP (fairly Keynesian solution). Unemployment ballooned from 3.2% to 25.2%. That doesn’t quite bode well for the Keynesian ideal.

                      Keynesians will then proceed to cite that two periods of massive government spending was associated with decreasing unemployment and high-five for success. Except, those two periods are WW1 and WW2, when the War created a demand and the demand was met by soldiers (employed, no less by the government). Not quite examples to rest one’s laurel’s on for a Keynesian victory.

                      On occasion, you’ll see isolated, limited, and ultimately VERY temporary economic boosts from ‘stimuli’, they never generate more economic activity than they cost. They ultimately run up the debt. Which Keynesians will conveniently say isn’t that big of a deal. Of course, they need to say the debt isn’t a big deal, or their theories fall flat on their face.

                    • Of course, if Keynes were right, then the Bush era ‘profligacy’ that Obama loves to decry ought not to have led to a 2008 economic collapse…

          • Texagg04,

            You say, “Did you really just say “as long as GDP keeps growing faster than debt let’s just keep going into debt?”

            No, I did not. Here’s what I did say, quoting directly:
            “…debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal.”

            Never did I advocate “just keep going into debt.” It depends on whether it’s needed or not. And whether more debt is a big deal depends on the relative size of it.

            Honestly I don’t know anyone at all who merely advocates bigger government for the sake of bigger government; and yet it seems that Keynesianism is frequently accused of just this belief. It’s a pure straw man.

            • http://usdebtclock.org/

              Gross debt to GDP ratio currently stands at 106% and climbing. Debt is climbing 6% faster than GDP. For every dollar earned, we owe 1.06 more. And the solution is still to spend more, and faster.

              “…debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal.” So now that we see it’s not growing at a lower rate than GDP…

              • Yes. Charles is a smart man, and I respect him, so “you just don’t understand” has some traction with me. But I really don’t understand, and the argument of the Keynesians seems abstract and full of denial, no matter how many times I try to track with it. Maybe what appears stupid is really wise, and what appears wise is really stupid. I’m not convinced, making me wise, or stupid. Time will tell.

                • Keynesianism is:

                  abstract: they look at the statistics which describe the aggregate of millions of INDIVIDUAL decisions. Those stats look like big massive unified movements of the economy (but they aren’t unified movements, they are just aggregate stats). Then they think they can effect big massive unified movements through big massive unified governmental action. It ignores that in the end, the economy is an aggregate of millions of individual decisions, not huge brushstrokes.

                  full of denial: pretends like debt does not matter. It’s the elephant in living room that explained away through all manner of circumlocution. pretends like inflation doesn’t matter.

                • That’s because it is.

                  He’s blinded by ideology – the statement “the economy will improve if the government spends enough” is impossible to disprove, because no matter how much you spend, any failure to improve things can be answered with “we didn’t spend ENOUGH that time, THIS TIME it will work!”

                  We are currently at 110% debt to GDP. Our economy can probably survive another 15% – at that point the only way out is by hyper-inflating our way out, and even then only if we don’t then adjust federal spending to match it – we’d have to leave SS and the Medi’s untouched entirely.

                  People like Chuck refuse to accept it because it requires them to admit that they were not only wrong, but disastrously wrong.

              • Aaron, thanks for bringing data to the table; very useful, and a good point you make. One thing to remember is that a big source of government spending right now is unemployment-related, and will be cured by growth. If we get growth back, federal revenues will go up, federal payments will go down, and the deficit will decline.
                It’s definitely worth debating how to get the growth engine going; the one thing that seems like a bad idea in that regard is to continue cutting government, until growth gets back in the saddle. The private sector has been growing for about 3 years now; that growth is offset by the decline in the public sector (mostly state & local) so that the total growth is so-so. Until we get closer to full employment, all you get from laying off federal employees is more unemployment payments. Yes we need to lower debt – but there’s a time to do it and a time not to do it. The times matter.

      • Jack,

        You say, “The problem you seem to omit is that increasing debt to the point where it competes with the availability of private capital ends up suppressing GDP, and permanently.”

        What YOU omit is the qualifying clause that every Keynesian I know includes, and most critics conveniently ignore. Government spending does indeed crowd out private capital WHEN THE ECONOMY IS AT CAPACITY. No argument. Agreed.

        The question is whether that is an absolute truth; in other words, when the private sector is operating at 80% capacity, demand is low, etc. do things work the same way? I think it’s pretty clear it doesn’t have the same effect. You can’t crowd people out of a room if the room is half empty, and you can’t crowd private capital out of investment if there’s insufficient demand for that investment in the first place.

        The whole essence of Keynesianism, as I see it, is this refusal to have a one-size-fits-all ideology. Keynes’ counter-cyclical advice is exactly the same as a good trader – buy when everyone else is selling, sell when everyone else is buying. Same as a good CEO in a capital goods business–buy capital equipment when the industry is under-capacity and you can get equipment cheap. In the same vein, Keynes argues the government should spend WHEN THE ECONOMY IS SUFFERING FROM LACK OF DEMAND. When the economy is humming at capacity, when there truly is not enough credit to go around, and “crowding out” is a real fear, that’s when the government should pay down debt and de-leverage.

        I find it frustrating that people who criticize Keynes seem to insist on ignoring this crucial distinction: it’s not always pro-government, it depends on the state of the economy. Ask any CEO right now – if the government cuts back on expenditures, how many new people are you going to hire and how much will you invest? They’ll tell you the one has little to do with the other until and unless we get demand and capacity utilization back up.

  2. Oh yea, like the pilot assuring its passengers, “we are out of gas, but we are still flying … so enjoy the flight a few more minutes.” Typical thinking of irresponsible Americans to say that all is well….lets just play dumb and maybe the problem will just … go away by itself. These are the folks who cant handle real responsibility. And they are the ones who will screw the future generations to come. But to hell with our kids, grandkids … because Im just dandy myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.