Election: Historic Beat Down

30 replies [Last post]
BigFirepower's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-09

The Democrats got one of the biggest political whippings of all time. Why?Personally, I think the conservatives in America showed up to vote, the liberals didn't.The economy stupid, or the stupid economy had much to do with it. Doesn't matter who/what you are, if the economy is a mess, it doesn't bode well.I doubt Obama reacts like Clinton. Obama is going to fight the GOP congress tooth and nail. So, next election, it will be about who blames who, what the economy is doing, and again... whether each party can motivate their base.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Big, i think you've got it nailed. We'll see if either side gets religion and drops the partison BS. The messege is clear, people want this mess cleaned up. Both parties are going to have to work together to get that done. The clock is ticking. And you can bet Bill Clinton got a call last night from the big guy asking "Now what?"

BigFirepower's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-09

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that?? 

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

If I was Obama, I would trust the Clintons about as much as I trust the fiscal conservatives.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

Five minute lecture on how he needs to get out of the White House more and mingle with the common people ( in response to questions about working with Repubs). Wow. Need to get this guy out of the White House ASAP. Two years, even Hillary would be an improvement. A big improvement.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-14

Obama called Boehner last night to ask him to be bipartisan and help get things back in order and Boehner asked him what the hell happened when I asked you and Pelosi for the same thing and you all turned a deaf ear on me? You're on your own, click---

squash2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-03-09

I think you guys are missing the point....Most of the HOUSE REPS who lost, did so because their district reverted to the norm. Those people got elected on the coattails of the OBAMA rush, so they were moderate dems at best.. And now since nothing was accomplished, everyone comes out and votes for the "other" party... I don't think it is so much that the Republicans had such a strategic plan, more so the democrats were so inept when they had full control..Same thing happened to Clinton, but republicans mucked it up so bad after they gain control that it allowed Clinton to get re-elected.. Of course he moved closer to center to get some legislation done, something Obama will have to do also.The election in 2012 could be interesting... Moderate/Liberal Republicans with a succesful business background like Romney will attract a lot of democrat votes.. However if they put up some backwoods senator(read: South Dakota) or Palin.. Obama will cruise if he acts like he is willing to negotiate the next 2 years..

SuperMan's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-09-18

BS Squash....  total BS.  Dems already controlled the house before BO.

squash2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-03-09

SuperMan wrote:BS Squash....  total BS.  Dems already controlled the house before BO.Then you don;t pay attention...109th Congress(years 5 and 6 of GW's reign)Senate: 55 Republicans 45 DemocratsHouse: 232 republican 202 Democrat (there were some vacant seats off and on)110th Congress (years 7&8 of GW.. essentially lameduck years since it was his second term, so everyone was trying to figure out who the next candidates were from each party to run for election. Also his favorability was down)Senate 48 Repubs, 48 Democrats 2 IndysHouse 233 Democrats, 232 Repub..(This was the start of the moderate democrats moving into the house, the ones I mentioned in the paragraph above)111 Congress (1 & 2 of Obama) and coattails of "also elected"Senate 57 Dems, 41 repubs, 2 indysHouse 256 dems, 178 repubs...ACCORDING TO MSBC todayHOUSE 239 repub, 185 Dem with 11 undecided... awful close to GW years 5&6.. that was my point... All the people who just lost were those who got elected on the coat tails of Obama crazyness in the presidential, and those that got voted in during GW's last 2 years...  

SuperMan's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-09-18

Anyone that quotes MSNBC is a flaming liberal.  Go hug a tree you hippie.

squash2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-03-09

SuperMan wrote:Anyone that quotes MSNBC is a flaming liberal.  Go hug a tree you hippie.The part I quoted MSNBC on was the outcome of this election not the words after it.. Just because your brain works slower doesn't mean you have to be mad..The CNN page was booting at the same time, but the msnbc election result came up quicker...I could have used the "Neo-Nazi we hate taxes but spend more than liberals and are homophobes" site, but i didn't have the password, can I borrow yours..?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

BigFirepower wrote:Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?Totally agree. Bill was in the same boat in 94. The question is will Bill help? Lots of talk that there's gonna be a dem presidential challenge in 2012. Mrs Clinton would be at the top of the list of hopefuls. So, intersting to watch.Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. Pa is a split state. Picture a big red letter "T" dividing the state. repubs hold sway in central, NW and NE Pa. Dems control the major population centers in Pittsburgh and Philly. Last night's senate race was very close and Toomey's victory had more to do with the dems not getting what they needed out of philly, rather than anything else. In a prez election year Sestak would have easily taken that race. The gov's office typically switches partys on almost every cycle. Onarato was a weak candidate. I wouldn't say PA was disaster versus what was expected.   BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that??  I believe there a couple reasons for this. Many states, my own included, have a large independent element.  These people will vote across party lines for whoever they beleive will do the best job.  The indy's are mixed in with a healthy split between red and blue in some of these states. The second reason for splits has to do with the campaign's themselves. Sestak lost because for as well as he did in philly he needed to do better.  While these candidates, congressman, senator, governor may be of the same party they are not on the same ticket and run seperate campaigns. Some are better at getting out the needed vote than others. In my state,NJ, you never know who is going to win. I voted for the guy who at 6 foot 7 inches will become the biggest man on the Hill, Jon Runyan. He's a repub, honest, and a nice guy. As an ex  NFL tackle he's got two years to figure out how to speak in complete sentences or he gets the hook. 

squash2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-03-09

BigFirepower wrote:Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that??  In my state(IL) it just happened and the explanation was simple.. The Governor, won 3 counties... out of 102... Of course 45% of the state resides in one county (Cook.. Also known as Chicago) So he didn't need any other counties if he could overwelmingly win Cook County (which he did..4 votes to 1) then he can just pick up scraps the rest of the way..In the senate race Alexi Ginnulias didn't get enough of a margin in cook county to defeat Mark Kirk..So IL re-elects a Democrat Governor, and a GOP senator..The other explanation and I have been told this by many people is that sometimes they only vote for best candidate locally (State on down to city) but nationally (Senator, US REp, President) vote for a party platform because the the federal guy is believed to be not helping the area directly but influencing national policy so they vote with what party represents what they like on a national level.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

I think the votes were anti Obama policy, not pro GOP. Personally, I don't care. I hate it when clients use an emotional reaction to make decisions regarding their investments and I hold the American people to the same standard when it comes to politics.What kills me is Boehner coming out the next morning after the elections to talk about how priority number 1 is to demolish the "monstrosity" that is the health care reform. Boy, how quickly they change their tune. In addition, he, out of the kindness of his heart, takes the time to impose on us what the votes meant and passes it off as fact presumably to justify his own agenda. So brutal.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-14

anabuhabkuss wrote:I think the votes were anti Obama policy, not pro GOP. Personally, I don't care. I hate it when clients use an emotional reaction to make decisions regarding their investments and I hold the American people to the same standard when it comes to politics.What kills me is Boehner coming out the next morning after the elections to talk about how priority number 1 is to demolish the "monstrosity" that is the health care reform. Boy, how quickly they change their tune. In addition, he, out of the kindness of his heart, takes the time to impose on us what the votes meant and passes it off as fact presumably to justify his own agenda. So brutal.But ana, that is exactly what we want along with many other things. I am guessing the comment Obama made to McCain is coming back to haunt him. It went like this- "It sounds good," Democrat Barack Obama replied. "In fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need the scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all. Some programs are underfunded. And I want to make sure we are focused on the programs that work."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95772062Cutting taxes DOES NOT increase deficits unless you spin the facts around which are that cutting taxes ONLY decreases revenue. The only way to reduce the deficit is to REDUCE expenditures. How many of you tell your clients that they need to TAKE more money from their employer to reduce their liabilities? NO ONE on this board would do that. The only way to reduce expenditures is to quit increasing them. Bush is guilty (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, the war) and Obama is guilty (Healthcare and FinReg). IT HAS ALL GOT TO STOP or we will be fuked soon!The economy is in the shape it is in because the American people ran their personal finances the same way as the government but the only difference is Joe Sixpack can't mandate his employer to increase his revenue.THE SPENDING HAS TO STOP BY ALL PARTIES NOT JUST RIGHT OR LEFT AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. 

BigFirepower's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-09

Thought everyone might find this a bit interesting, some research I did this morning. A little historical context... Carter won narrowly over Ford in 1976, had limited coattails.  The house after the election had a whopping 292 to 143 Democrat majority (One seat gain for Democrats)The senate after the election had 62 Democrat Senators, 37 Republicans (One seat gain for Republicans) Wow, surprising numbers. This is the last time a party had a veto proof majority.  In 1978 the GOP gained 15 seats in the House, 3 seats in the Senate. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Ana, i agree with you on the emotional response of voters.Boehner is a tough guy that wrote the repub partisan rule book in the nineties, so, expect no less from him than no compromise. The repubs only want to undo the cost controls of the healthcare bill, which leaves room for compromise. The repubs can no longer sit on their hands. If change doesn't happen now after this election, they'll own it.The debate is over whether obama failed on policy or process. Probably both. He promised to change the way DC did business and instead became Pelosi's bitch. Going forward, expect to see a very different prez. One like Reagan in 84 or Clinton in 94. Both of whom recieved eerily similar rebukes two years in. If that doesn't happen, Obama finishes out the term and rides in to the history books. On a positive Obama note, with life for most on this board, pretty damn good, It is easy to discount the bag of shit Obama was handed as he came into office. The guy, while alienating the repubs and conservatives has done a really good job of stabilizing the economy. And, unlike those on mainstreet who can be tricked by the campaign rhetoric, we know the truth that, that was no small task.As for tax cuts not increasing deficits, lets see: Not the case when Ronnie wrote the White Paper on deficit spending in the eighties. Bush 1 paid the political price for Reagan's flawed tax policy. And, didn't work during the boom economy for Bush 2 from 2002 to 2007. Both cases saw deficits soar. Again, you can try this at home by cutting your income below your expenses and see what happens to your debt. going an extra step and cutting your expenses sounds good but only works if those expenses are cut to less than your income. Applying this simple financial concept to the republican's proposed cuts seems lost on them. While we are already a trillion dollars in the hole on the budget, they are proposing 100 billion in cuts next year. This while at the same time proposing no increase in revs. In fact they want to cut revs. I leave the math to you, but if you question how we got to 13 trillion in national debt, well, there's your answer.  

BigFirepower's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-09

The USA, we love an underdog, but we hate excuses. Doesn't matter what party is in charge, blaming the last administration wears thin, very quickly. Bush, as far as I recall, didn't spend a ton of time bashing Clinton, or the Dot Com bubble bust, as an excuse for a terrible economy in 2002. Obama is long past the grace period, and much like a baseball team that changed the manager a couple years ago, blaming the last guy for continuing to lose is a recipe for failure. The Democrats, I don't think they realize it, left a long lasting impression about how they govern, and what type of ideology they bring to the table. There are little kids today, that will have their voting preference established from their impression crafted from this time period. Pursuing gays in the military, Olympics in Chicago, national health care, and raising taxes, was the Obama agenda the first two years. Well, duh, it's the economy stupid...Oh, and I do wonder, about attitude. The kind of smarmy attitude where during the State of the Union, you belittle the Supreme Court. That was a huge mistake, and symbolic of the leadership style that was pushy, arrogant, without compromise. If you go to wikipedia, you can look up all the past elections in the USA. This one, was really a historic one. The party that best understands why it happened, will be the benefactor. I admit, the people voted more about what they don't like, then what they do like. The GOP was just lucky to benefit from that.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

Thoughtful post, Big. Just seeing and hearing the adult political leadership in charge again is comforting. I think the broader implications of recent U.S. political history suggest things like:1. Increasing concentration of wealth and poverty.2. More awareness that Americans need to be allowed freedom to succeed or fail - need for a trend toward less taxation and regulation. 3. Reality that wealth redistribution - given the age and income demographics - is here with us to stay. 4. Need for advisors to approach clients differently in this environment. ( What is your written one page plan for dealing with taxes for the next three decades of your life?)5. For our business, there is opportunity for advisors to compete for business on the basis of wealth creation and protection in this environment. With regard to younger folks getting started or growing your book, I urge everyone to increase their street smarts about financial planning strategies and products and approach potential clients in a way that differentiate you from the average asset allocation or retail portfolio provider. Get down and dirty and talk to folks about where taxes and wealth redistribution will be going, given the demographic trends and broke baby boomers, and devise strategies that will ultimately lift all boats via capitalist practices. http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/practice/no_time_for_laziness/ 

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

N.D,I appreciate the sensible post. I guess where I'm coming from is this: At the end of the day, are voters angrier because they don't have a job or because they feel government spending is excessive? The GOP clearly thinks it's the latter. My intuitiion tells me that people are more stressed about doing what they can to keep a roof over their heads on a day to day basis than they are about obsessing what government is doing with their tax dollars. New, from McConell:"That means that we can — and should — propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly," McConnell said."But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things."No mention on what's in it for the American people.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-14

What's in it for the American people?Hopefully, it will be an incentive to save instead of spending. It will be a flat tax of some kind on consumption maybe with a monthly prebate for those below the average yearly income level which is ~$50k. We are sick and tired of being forced to pay taxes with the belief that no matter who wins the election, our voices are not heard and our money is wasted on agendas we did not ask for. This way if Washington does not do what we want, we can choose to not pay them. Politicians vote what they think is best for us and not we we actually want. Enough is enough. And they will be continually kicked out of office until the government becomes more fiscally responsible.

BigFirepower's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-09

ND, I think you're exactly right. In a horrible economy, you CANNOT start raising taxes, dramatically. OTOH, if you take a knife to the federal budget, and start firing folks in the govt, you also have a negative effect on the economy. Both sides are right, both political parties are wrong. A sensible approach right now, is to extend the Bush tax cuts 2 more years, and "see what happens". In the meantime, let the fed continue to nurse along the economy. Congress should work hard to create incentives to start new business, hire workers, and spend capital on equipment. The best time to fully work on income/expenses, is when the dust settles a bit. Much like a portfolio, making drastic changes during times of volatility, almost always leads to good intentions gone bad results.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

Well said, guys. With the fed printing money, and being a consumer economy, we are going to have to just spend, inflate and grow our way out of this mess, and let the chips fall where they may. The government cutting will come, a dem was elected governor in my state and I think that's fine, let the dem cut the dem government workers. Most of this has been about jockeying for position on the taxation and regulation side, and the short term threat is reduced.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

(duplicate).

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Personal outstanding consumer debt has dropped, delinquincies have fallen 18% (does not take into account mortgage payments, of course). One argument being made about why this economy has slowed down despite the efforts of the fed is because people are saving. 10% can't save because they are unemployed. Those that are employed have seen their salaries drop, particularly in the tech industry. People have been working very hard to cut personal spending. Those stimilus checks that arrived in mailboxes? Not a budge. Consumer debt went down, though! another point is if you're stretched, financially, due to loss of job or what have you, how can you expect to save? Sell your home? Uhhh..I have another question for you all. Even if the we cuts taxes, let's be honest; some of these earnings have been record breaking while unemployment stays steady. Is it not apparent that companies do not feel the need to help with jobs when they can make profit with less overhead?I'm much more interested to see what happens with jobs. I think when that's in play, that would be the best time to fully work on income/expenses. I hear what you guys are saying, though.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

Job creation is only driven by real demand. That is a problem, from what you say.

Times7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26

Extending Bush tax cuts is about trying to hold up demand for the middle earners, and will just make the rich richer. That is invevitable, it won't do anything to create real demand.

Prime Time's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-05-05

BondGuy wrote:Ana, i agree with you on the emotional response of voters.Boehner is a tough guy that wrote the repub partisan rule book in the nineties, so, expect no less from him than no compromise. The repubs only want to undo the cost controls of the healthcare bill, which leaves room for compromise. The repubs can no longer sit on their hands. If change doesn't happen now after this election, they'll own it.The debate is over whether obama failed on policy or process. Probably both. He promised to change the way DC did business and instead became Pelosi's bitch. Going forward, expect to see a very different prez. One like Reagan in 84 or Clinton in 94. Both of whom recieved eerily similar rebukes two years in. If that doesn't happen, Obama finishes out the term and rides in to the history books. On a positive Obama note, with life for most on this board, pretty damn good, It is easy to discount the bag of shit Obama was handed as he came into office. The guy, while alienating the repubs and conservatives has done a really good job of stabilizing the economy. And, unlike those on mainstreet who can be tricked by the campaign rhetoric, we know the truth that, that was no small task.As for tax cuts not increasing deficits, lets see: Not the case when Ronnie wrote the White Paper on deficit spending in the eighties. Bush 1 paid the political price for Reagan's flawed tax policy. And, didn't work during the boom economy for Bush 2 from 2002 to 2007. Both cases saw deficits soar. Again, you can try this at home by cutting your income below your expenses and see what happens to your debt. going an extra step and cutting your expenses sounds good but only works if those expenses are cut to less than your income. Applying this simple financial concept to the republican's proposed cuts seems lost on them. While we are already a trillion dollars in the hole on the budget, they are proposing 100 billion in cuts next year. This while at the same time proposing no increase in revs. In fact they want to cut revs. I leave the math to you, but if you question how we got to 13 trillion in national debt, well, there's your answer.   Unbelievable.  This is the fundamental difference in how Democrats and Republicans view your money.  A man earns $100 of which he sends $35 to the federal government and keeps $65.  Conservatives see this as $35 in revenue, while liberals see this as a $65 expense, an expense that if not reduced to $60 will add $700billion to the national debt.  Welcome to Amerika where you should be happy with what your  government lets you keep if some politician (who will vote himself a pay raise and spend your money on stupid crap as long as it gets him votes) decides you can.Spending creates deficits.  I am not saying that overspending is a disease limited to one party, both parties are infected.  However, as I illustrated in the "The way we were" thread, liberals have certainly earned their reputations as big spenders.BTW, federal tax receipts went up after Bush cut taxes.  How on earth is that possible?  Must be voodoo.  

Counting Crows's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-11-06

BondGuy wrote:Big, i think you've got it nailed. We'll see if either side gets religion and drops the partison BS. The messege is clear, people want this mess cleaned up. Both parties are going to have to work together to get that done. The clock is ticking. And you can bet Bill Clinton got a call last night from the big guy asking "Now what?"Bill!!!jesus christBill  damnitBiLl, get over here and watch thismanlook at that...................SOB  did you hear what he just said?Damnit Honey.DID HE JUST SAY THAT?       THIS IDIOT BELEIVES ALL OF HIS BSMANHOW THE FUKC DID I EVER LOSE TO THIS MF TOOL?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

anabuhabkuss wrote:Personal outstanding consumer debt has dropped, delinquincies have fallen 18% (does not take into account mortgage payments, of course). One argument being made about why this economy has slowed down despite the efforts of the fed is because people are saving. 10% can't save because they are unemployed. Those that are employed have seen their salaries drop, particularly in the tech industry. People have been working very hard to cut personal spending. Those stimilus checks that arrived in mailboxes? Not a budge. Consumer debt went down, though! another point is if you're stretched, financially, due to loss of job or what have you, how can you expect to save? Sell your home? Uhhh..I have another question for you all. Even if the we cuts taxes, let's be honest; some of these earnings have been record breaking while unemployment stays steady. Is it not apparent that companies do not feel the need to help with jobs when they can make profit with less overhead?I'm much more interested to see what happens with jobs. I think when that's in play, that would be the best time to fully work on income/expenses. I hear what you guys are saying, though.First and foremost, companies have no obligation to help with job creation. They exist only to make money for their shareholders/owners. In the event that they take an operational loss such as introducing 'New Coke' or Smith and Wesson introducing a Mountain Bike line, do the employees volunteer to take 25% pay reductions? The risk of failure is the opposite side of the reward for success. From a practical standpoint it's in the business' best interest to create a desire for people to want to work there so they provide benefits and profit shareing etc. That is just a product of self-serving decisions made in what is thought to be in the companies best interest. That is exactly how it should work. Job creation is quite related to this governmental idea of Keynsian economics. However the government has it wrong. Keynesian economics (I'll refer to it as KE from here on) is a debateable concept. The theory has limitations and possibilities. Despite where you weigh in on the theory, you have to accept one given which both sides must agree upon. That given is that KE presupposes that the money the government spends is spent in a worthwhile way. Government hasn't accomplished worthwhile spending. Even if KE works in theory, it can't work in application without spending worthwhile. A second point about how job creation is tied to KE is how government policy affects aggregate demand. Demand is a function of future expectations. If you expect there to be inflation in the future you will spend more readily now. If you expect deflation you will save more readily now. Uncertainty in the future clouds expectations. Clouded expectations reduce aggregate demand (i.e. paralysis to make decisions). Government should not cloud the future. Unfortunately all this government has been able to do is make the future more uncertain (more looming regulation that isn't clear, potentially higher or lower tax rates on wages, no clarity on future estate taxes, etc). Jobs are clearly a huge function of policy, and that policy has failed to deliver what is needed. That is the referrendum on Obama and the Dems more than anything else.

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

deleted, double post

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×