How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15236665
How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes
MN Gordon , July 1, 2022

“It’s like going to the ATM in Vegas and then going to the roulette wheel and it comes up red and you go back to the ATM.”

The remark was recently made by Steve Mermell. The man retired last year as city manager of Pasadena, California. He knows a thing or two about how borrowing to enhance pension fund returns can result in spectacular losses.

The Wall Street Journal article did not clarify whether red was a winning turn of the roulette wheel or not. Within the article’s context it didn’t really matter.

The main point was that public pension funds are grossly underfunded. Consequently, more and more pension funds are borrowing money to play the markets. The goal is to boost returns to cover their massive funding gaps.

If you recall, public-sector retirement plans offer defined benefits, where retiree pension checks are calculated based on salaries and years of service. Private employers, on the other hand, generally offer defined-contribution plans (like 401Ks), where payouts are based on market returns.

If you live long enough, and are a recipient of a public pension fund you will get out far more than you put in. If you work in the private sector, there’s a good chance you will outlive your retirement savings.

Certainly, pension funds can attempt to fill their funding gaps by requesting increases in yearly contributions from governments and workers. But the public-employee unions go full ape when such measures are proposed. So the remaining option is to take on greater risk. What could go wrong?

The late Robert Citron could tell you. As he discovered the hard way, even the most calculated bets will eventually go against you.

Something Special

Nearly 20-years ago, while providing consulting services to a county sanitation district, we crossed paths with a grumpy fellow who had only a secondary interest in providing industrious work. His primary interest was deliberating on his upcoming retirement; he could bend your ear off.

Between sips of coffee and bites of a glazed donut one Friday morning, he told us of an important milestone that would be reached within six months. This would be achieved by the coalescing of two critical marks: (1) his 55th birthday, and (2) exactly 36 years of doing time at the district.

As he explained it, after 55 years of age the retirement formula went from 2 to 2.5. So after collecting a paycheck every two weeks for the past 36 years, something special was about to happen.

He could take a factor of 2.5 and times it by 36 to equal 90. Specifically, he would now receive 90 percent of his final year’s pay for the rest of his life. He set his retirement date accordingly.

Mr. Grumpy was an entitled member of the roughly $469 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The nation’s largest public pension fund. It’s so large it takes 2,843 full time equivalent positions to administer it.

At last count, there were over 2 million members in the CalPERS retirement system. Some of these people may have done good work prior to retirement. Others were likely career loafers. All, without question, did their time with purpose and intent and eyes squarely on the prize.

Are they feeling lucky?

Starting this month, CalPERS will add leverage for the first time in its 90-year history. Perhaps it will all work out just fine. Regardless, the fund’s managers have their work cut out for them.

Legacy Costs

Officially, CalPERS has roughly two-thirds of the money it needs to pay benefits that state and local governments have promised their workers. But this is based on an assumption of future investment returns averaging 7 percent a year. Historically, CalPERS’ returns have fallen well short of this assumption.

Over the last 20 years, the average annual return has been 5.5 percent. Hence, the unofficial gap between what CalPERS has and the promises it owes is much larger than advertised.

For instance, if CalPERS investment returns assumption was lowered to its historical average, unfunded liability would rise from $160 billion to over $200 billion. For this reason, the mega pension fund will now attempt to lever its returns.

In the case of Pasadena and Steve Mermell’s experience, funding the local pension plan it once offered to its police and firefighters has been a decades long struggle. In 1999, in an effort to keep pace with its inflation-adjusted benefits, Pasadena borrowed $102 million through municipal bonds. The borrowed money went towards its pension obligations.

The idea was simple enough. The pension fund could immediately begin earning on a larger amount of money, while the bonds would be paid back gradually.

But then the stock market crashed during the dot com bust in 2001-03. Yet the city still had to make bond payments at interest rates north of 6 percent.

Pasadena then went back to the ATM in 2004 with another pension-obligation bond. Several years later, in 2007-09, the stock market crashed again. Still, the city’s pension legacy costs remain. As noted by the Wall Street Journal:

“The local police and fire pension plan has been closed for nearly 50 years. Pension recipients have dwindled to fewer than 180. But the city still owes about $135 million in bond debt on the plan. Payments on it are expected to be about $6 million in 2022.”

What a complete cluster.

Following Pasadena’s closure of its local pension plan, public pensions are managed by CalPERS. To add insult, the city’s annual contributions to CalPERS have doubled since 2015, to about $70 million last year. That’s more than the city spends on transportation.

What to make of it…

How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes

Without question, gambling with public money is a foolish thing to do. Nonetheless, many pension funds – like CalPERS – are now using leverage to juice returns.

According to a Municipal Market Analytics analysis of Bloomberg data, more than 100 city, county, state, and other governments borrowed for their pension funds last year. This is twice the highest number that did so in any prior year.

Standing behind these pension funds are state and local taxpayers – that’s you, acting as the ATM. Moreover, when the investment returns of public pension funds fall short, governments are primarily responsible for filling the void. This means cutting other spending and services or increasing taxes.

Covering pension fund obligations is a massive drag on state and local government finances. The fact is, there’s a legion of public workers out there who’ve been promised a retirement that’s no longer affordable.

These grand promises must be broken.

You can witness the effects when traversing through just about every city in America that has been in existence for more than 60 years. By repeatedly reallocating spending from much needed services, the present and future conditions of cities and municipalities are being transformed to unlivable hellholes.

Your neighbor, who retired from the city over 25 years ago, may frequently lament the shoddy conditions of the streets and sidewalks. He may bemoan the lack of resources to address burgeoning homeless encampments and the mobs of mentally ill zombies flailing about on the tired asphalt.

Yet it has never occurred to him that he and his retired cohorts are receiving money that should be used to maintain basic municipal services. The generous promises made many decades ago – the entitlements – are now destroying the world around them.

Source: https://economicprism.com/how-public-pe ... hellholes/
#15236677
BlutoSays wrote:How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes
MN Gordon , July 1, 2022

“It’s like going to the ATM in Vegas and then going to the roulette wheel and it comes up red and you go back to the ATM.”

The remark was recently made by Steve Mermell. The man retired last year as city manager of Pasadena, California. He knows a thing or two about how borrowing to enhance pension fund returns can result in spectacular losses.

The Wall Street Journal article did not clarify whether red was a winning turn of the roulette wheel or not. Within the article’s context it didn’t really matter.

The main point was that public pension funds are grossly underfunded. Consequently, more and more pension funds are borrowing money to play the markets. The goal is to boost returns to cover their massive funding gaps.

If you recall, public-sector retirement plans offer defined benefits, where retiree pension checks are calculated based on salaries and years of service. Private employers, on the other hand, generally offer defined-contribution plans (like 401Ks), where payouts are based on market returns.

If you live long enough, and are a recipient of a public pension fund you will get out far more than you put in. If you work in the private sector, there’s a good chance you will outlive your retirement savings.

Certainly, pension funds can attempt to fill their funding gaps by requesting increases in yearly contributions from governments and workers. But the public-employee unions go full ape when such measures are proposed. So the remaining option is to take on greater risk. What could go wrong?

The late Robert Citron could tell you. As he discovered the hard way, even the most calculated bets will eventually go against you.

Something Special

Nearly 20-years ago, while providing consulting services to a county sanitation district, we crossed paths with a grumpy fellow who had only a secondary interest in providing industrious work. His primary interest was deliberating on his upcoming retirement; he could bend your ear off.

Between sips of coffee and bites of a glazed donut one Friday morning, he told us of an important milestone that would be reached within six months. This would be achieved by the coalescing of two critical marks: (1) his 55th birthday, and (2) exactly 36 years of doing time at the district.

As he explained it, after 55 years of age the retirement formula went from 2 to 2.5. So after collecting a paycheck every two weeks for the past 36 years, something special was about to happen.

He could take a factor of 2.5 and times it by 36 to equal 90. Specifically, he would now receive 90 percent of his final year’s pay for the rest of his life. He set his retirement date accordingly.

Mr. Grumpy was an entitled member of the roughly $469 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The nation’s largest public pension fund. It’s so large it takes 2,843 full time equivalent positions to administer it.

At last count, there were over 2 million members in the CalPERS retirement system. Some of these people may have done good work prior to retirement. Others were likely career loafers. All, without question, did their time with purpose and intent and eyes squarely on the prize.

Are they feeling lucky?

Starting this month, CalPERS will add leverage for the first time in its 90-year history. Perhaps it will all work out just fine. Regardless, the fund’s managers have their work cut out for them.

Legacy Costs

Officially, CalPERS has roughly two-thirds of the money it needs to pay benefits that state and local governments have promised their workers. But this is based on an assumption of future investment returns averaging 7 percent a year. Historically, CalPERS’ returns have fallen well short of this assumption.

Over the last 20 years, the average annual return has been 5.5 percent. Hence, the unofficial gap between what CalPERS has and the promises it owes is much larger than advertised.

For instance, if CalPERS investment returns assumption was lowered to its historical average, unfunded liability would rise from $160 billion to over $200 billion. For this reason, the mega pension fund will now attempt to lever its returns.

In the case of Pasadena and Steve Mermell’s experience, funding the local pension plan it once offered to its police and firefighters has been a decades long struggle. In 1999, in an effort to keep pace with its inflation-adjusted benefits, Pasadena borrowed $102 million through municipal bonds. The borrowed money went towards its pension obligations.

The idea was simple enough. The pension fund could immediately begin earning on a larger amount of money, while the bonds would be paid back gradually.

But then the stock market crashed during the dot com bust in 2001-03. Yet the city still had to make bond payments at interest rates north of 6 percent.

Pasadena then went back to the ATM in 2004 with another pension-obligation bond. Several years later, in 2007-09, the stock market crashed again. Still, the city’s pension legacy costs remain. As noted by the Wall Street Journal:

“The local police and fire pension plan has been closed for nearly 50 years. Pension recipients have dwindled to fewer than 180. But the city still owes about $135 million in bond debt on the plan. Payments on it are expected to be about $6 million in 2022.”

What a complete cluster.

Following Pasadena’s closure of its local pension plan, public pensions are managed by CalPERS. To add insult, the city’s annual contributions to CalPERS have doubled since 2015, to about $70 million last year. That’s more than the city spends on transportation.

What to make of it…

How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes

Without question, gambling with public money is a foolish thing to do. Nonetheless, many pension funds – like CalPERS – are now using leverage to juice returns.

According to a Municipal Market Analytics analysis of Bloomberg data, more than 100 city, county, state, and other governments borrowed for their pension funds last year. This is twice the highest number that did so in any prior year.

Standing behind these pension funds are state and local taxpayers – that’s you, acting as the ATM. Moreover, when the investment returns of public pension funds fall short, governments are primarily responsible for filling the void. This means cutting other spending and services or increasing taxes.

Covering pension fund obligations is a massive drag on state and local government finances. The fact is, there’s a legion of public workers out there who’ve been promised a retirement that’s no longer affordable.

These grand promises must be broken.

You can witness the effects when traversing through just about every city in America that has been in existence for more than 60 years. By repeatedly reallocating spending from much needed services, the present and future conditions of cities and municipalities are being transformed to unlivable hellholes.

Your neighbor, who retired from the city over 25 years ago, may frequently lament the shoddy conditions of the streets and sidewalks. He may bemoan the lack of resources to address burgeoning homeless encampments and the mobs of mentally ill zombies flailing about on the tired asphalt.

Yet it has never occurred to him that he and his retired cohorts are receiving money that should be used to maintain basic municipal services. The generous promises made many decades ago – the entitlements – are now destroying the world around them.

Source: https://economicprism.com/how-public-pe ... hellholes/


These people worked for that money. It was part of the conditions of employment.

To re-write retroactively the conditions of employment is an act of bastardary.

That the US does not have a proper superannuation system, and local governments etc are allowed to raid these funds is an incitement US governance,

The principle here is that Employment contracts and retroactively modified is pretty scary is applicable to all contracts?

SO contracts and rule of law mean nothing?


It is the lies of capitalism and ponzi scheme nature of the stock market which is to blame and the enthusiasm of market capitalists to gamble recklessly with other people's money.
Last edited by pugsville on 03 Jul 2022 09:45, edited 1 time in total.
#15236757
pugsville wrote:These people worked for that money. It was part of the conditions of employment.

To re-write retroactively the conditions of employment is an act of bastardary.

That the US does not have a proper superannuation system, and local governments etc are allowed to raid these funds is an incitement US governance,

The principle here is that Employment contracts and retroactively modified is pretty scary is applicable to all contracts?

SO contracts and rule of law mean nothing?


It is the lies of capitalism and ponzi scheme nature of the stock market which is to blame and the enthusiasm of market capitalists to gamble recklessly with other people's money.



First of all, don't get angry with me. I posted the article with no commentary and provided a source. You're free to make up your own mind.

Secondly, I have heard the term superannuation but never knew what it meant, so I looked it up in investopedia. I'm not sure what a "proper" superannuation plan is, but it sounds pretty much like a pension.

I quote: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/superannuation.asp

"It is important to note the even though benefits under a Superannuation plan are not impacted by market fluctuations, the funds in the plan are typically managed by a trustee that will invest those assets in a mix of equities and fixed securities. In that sense, there is some risk that a market downturn could impact the solvency of the fund. In such cases, the plan could become underfunded, meaning there are not sufficient funds to meet future obligations. "


Thirdly, on contract and rule of law meaning nothing, you tell me. Does it?

https://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009 ... lders.html



Finally, I'll take THESE key sentences from the original article:


"Specifically, he would now receive 90 percent of his final year’s pay for the rest of his life. "

"Officially, CalPERS has roughly two-thirds of the money it needs to pay benefits that state and local governments have promised their workers. But this is based on an assumption of future investment returns averaging 7 percent a year. Historically, CalPERS’ returns have fallen well short of this assumption."

"Over the last 20 years, the average annual return has been 5.5 percent. Hence, the unofficial gap between what CalPERS has and the promises it owes is much larger than advertised."

"According to a Municipal Market Analytics analysis of Bloomberg data, more than 100 city, county, state, and other governments borrowed for their pension funds last year. This is twice the highest number that did so in any prior year."


What the article and I am telling you is there's a problem. Best to tackle it now with reality before the SHTF (it already kinda is). Municipalities can declare bankruptcy and then promises get wiped by math. See San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo, California.

Above all, for people like you, pugsville... who kinda live in a constant fog, don't be surprised when it happens. Prepare yourself mentally for what's about to happen. It's just math.


Last edited by BlutoSays on 03 Jul 2022 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
#15236758
Patrickov wrote:If what @pugsville says is true then @BlutoSays is a closet Communist, as that's what the Chinese Communist Party does.


You would have to believe that I approve of what's happening. I don't. This whole thread hinges on future promises that aren't in line with reality.

Secondly, CalPERS is a California state government entity.
#15236765
BlutoSays wrote:First of all, don't get angry with me. I posted the article with no commentary and provided a source. You're free to make up your own mind.

I do. Unlike you I dont get a set script of memes and articles to post everyday. You post withourt conmmentary because you donlt understand anything you post.

BlutoSays wrote:Secondly, I have heard the term superannuation but never knew what it meant, so I looked it up in investopedia. I'm not sure what a "proper" superannuation plan is, but it sounds pretty much like a pension.

I quote: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/superannuation.asp

"It is important to note the even though benefits under a Superannuation plan are not impacted by market fluctuations, the funds in the plan are typically managed by a trustee that will invest those assets in a mix of equities and fixed securities. In that sense, there is some risk that a market downturn could impact the solvency of the fund. In such cases, the plan could become underfunded, meaning there are not sufficient funds to meet future obligations. "

As usual you have poor sources of information. That's not how superannuation works.,


BlutoSays wrote:Thirdly, on contract and rule of law meaning nothing, you tell me. Does it?

https://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009 ... lders.html

As usual you post stuff without understand stuff you post. Read it .


BlutoSays wrote:Finally, I'll take THESE key sentences from the original article:


BlutoSays wrote:"Specifically, he would now receive 90 percent of his final year’s pay for the rest of his life. "

SO ? It was the term of employment. The Guy did the the work. He is entitled to it,.

BlutoSays wrote:"Officially, CalPERS has roughly two-thirds of the money it needs to pay benefits that state and local governments have promised their workers. But this is based on an assumption of future investment returns averaging 7 percent a year. Historically, CalPERS’ returns have fallen well short of this assumption."

"Over the last 20 years, the average annual return has been 5.5 percent. Hence, the unofficial gap between what CalPERS has and the promises it owes is much larger than advertised."

"According to a Municipal Market Analytics analysis of Bloomberg data, more than 100 city, county, state, and other governments borrowed for their pension funds last year. This is twice the highest number that did so in any prior year."


What the article and I am telling you is there's a problem. Best to tackle it now with reality before the SHTF (it already kinda is). Municipalities can declare bankruptcy and then promises get wiped by math. See San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo, California.

Above all, for people like you, pugsville... who kinda live in a constant fog, don't be surprised when it happens. Prepare yourself mentally for what's about to happen. It's just math.

The House of cards falls over because the entities involved did not fund their pension plans properly. They relied on a wall st ponzi scheme because the market always goes up, Well it's basic bad financial management. It;s their naive trust in Capitalism which is wrecking their finances,

The fault is not the pensions. The fault is incredibly poor financially planning and relying on the stock market to magically generate money. Stock market crashes happen, betting your finical future that they don't is just stupid and has nothing to do with pensions and workers.

The Article blames the pensions and workers.

Totally wrong, it was the Entities who chose to fund the pensions that way. They could have fully funded the pensions. The bought into the ponzi scheme to fund it with "free money". Well that never works. There idiocy is the problem.
#15236770
pugsville wrote:The fault is not the pensions. The fault is incredibly poor financially planning and relying on the stock market to magically generate money. Stock market crashes happen, betting your finical future that they don't is just stupid and has nothing to do with pensions and workers.


First thing first, I think the very root of the problem is the concept that "you gave me money, and then I need to return to you more than what you gave me".

To be fair, giving my money to someone else to manage, governments included, means that poor financially planning is bound to happen.

The smaller the management organization is (like local governments), the higher the probability that the people in charge make such mistakes, because they usually do not have enough knowledge or professionality.

But conversely, the bigger such an organization is, the more likely that an incident will be SHTF, although the probability of a problem happening is considerably lower.

Either way, though, such mistakes are made without the one giving the money knowing it, and the one giving the money often have little means to take the money back.

When I take control of my own money and make investment mistakes, I am in full knowledge, responsibility and accountability of it. Pension funds inevitably reduces accountability.

As such, my stand on pension is rather close to BlutoSays, i.e. I rather hold my own money.

Unlike him, though, I don't expect others can treat money like I do, so I accept that pension is a necessity.
#15236776
Breaking the contract is often going to mean doing it in bankruptcy court. Cities don't react well in the aftermath of a bankruptcy.

There's less money, so less in the way of services. Businesses and people that can, just up and move to a place where things actually work.
#15236782
pugsville wrote:SO contracts and rule of law mean nothing?

Contracts are supposed to be consensual. However, once a union is certified, the employment contract is entered into under duress; the law may hold that it is not duress, but in fact, it is. In principle, contracts made under duress are not enforceable. So when unions pursued the monopoly privilege of certification, they were making all their contracts unenforceable in principle. They made their bed, now they need to lie in it.
#15236788
late wrote:Breaking the contract is often going to mean doing it in bankruptcy court. Cities don't react well in the aftermath of a bankruptcy.

There's less money, so less in the way of services. Businesses and people that can, just up and move to a place where things actually work.



Already happening.
#15236791
If unrealistic promises are made such as we're going to get 7% growth every year in perpetuity, I don't find fault with financial planners. They probably aren't the ones making the lofty promises. They're the ones turned to, to fulfill ridiculous promises given by municipal gubmint leaders and yoonyen leaders.

"The House of cards falls over because the entities involved did not fund their pension plans properly. They could have fully funded the pensions." - pugsville

No one is going to fund a pension plan without figuring in investment returns. If you did, you'd have to roughly double the cost of labor, because you are stating you are going pay someone for thirty years after having worked for thirty, while not counting on any investments (rough numbers, but you get the drift).

"As usual you have poor sources of information. That's not how superannuation works." - pugsville.

Oh, OK, what did you disagree with at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/superannuation.asp

Spell out what you disagree with.
#15236853
Truth To Power wrote:Contracts are supposed to be consensual. However, once a union is certified, the employment contract is entered into under duress; the law may hold that it is not duress, but in fact, it is. In principle, contracts made under duress are not enforceable. So when unions pursued the monopoly privilege of certification, they were making all their contracts unenforceable in principle. They made their bed, now they need to lie in it.


Strange definition of duress.

The Unions are not responsible;e for the entities bad financial management.
#15236854
BlutoSays wrote:If unrealistic promises are made such as we're going to get 7% growth every year in perpetuity, I don't find fault with financial planners.

IOf finical planners job iusnt to stop unrealitisc problems like expecting 7% growth every year in perpetutity, what the hell *IS* there job? It's exactly why they exist. They failed in this case or were not listened to,

BlutoSays wrote: They probably aren't the ones making the lofty promises. They're the ones turned to, to fulfill ridiculous promises given by municipal gubmint leaders and yoonyen leaders.

Neither were th unions or employees.

BlutoSays wrote:"The House of cards falls over because the entities involved did not fund their pension plans properly. They could have fully funded the pensions." - pugsville

No one is going to fund a pension plan without figuring in investment returns. If you did, you'd have to roughly double the cost of labor, because you are stating you are going pay someone for thirty years after having worked for thirty, while not counting on any investments (rough numbers, but you get the drift).

That's how they got here. Repeating the same thing and expecting different results is not very smart.




BlutoSays wrote:"As usual you have poor sources of information. That's not how superannuation works." - pugsville.

Oh, OK, what did you disagree with at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/superannuation.asp

Spell out what you disagree with.

[/quote]

I don't have time for remedial education of everyone of the internet. Correcting your misconceptions is full time job. I don't want it. You could not possibly pay me enough,.
#15236904
I favour freedom and individualism (although they can never be absolutes), but so many Americans favour collectivism and paternalism. There should be no company pension schemes, health care plans, sick or pregnancy pay. Wages should be increased to compensate and the organisation of pensions and private health care plans left to individuals. These final position fixed benefits schemes are a particular disgrace that no progressive should support. So many people seem to yearn for a modern Feudalism where the individual is in effect tied to their job for life.

Americans are an inspiration in terms of their support for gun rights and their legal protections of free speech. However in some ways I feel they can be more collectivist and conformist than we British.
#15236913
Rich wrote:
I favour freedom and individualism (although they can never be absolutes), but so many Americans favour collectivism and paternalism. There should be no company pension schemes, health care plans, sick or pregnancy pay. Wages should be increased to compensate and the organisation of pensions and private health care plans left to individuals. These final position fixed benefits schemes are a particular disgrace that no progressive should support. So many people seem to yearn for a modern Feudalism where the individual is in effect tied to their job for life.

Americans are an inspiration in terms of their support for gun rights and their legal protections of free speech. However in some ways I feel they can be more collectivist and conformist than we British.



Doesn't work, it's why we have pensions and government health care plans.

There's still millions of people suffering with crappy health insurance. You think your health system is bad, come here.
#15236977
wat0n wrote:Everyone knows public pension systems that assume population won't age over time are going to go broke. There's nothing particularly new here.

The problem is as much conceptual as demographic. Defined-benefit pension plans based on investment are not sustainable, especially exorbitantly generous ones, like CA's public service pensions, that pay out 90% of the final year's income for life. Many employees arrange to make their final year far more lucrative than the average of their previous years by taking maximum overtime, accumulated vacation pay, etc. in their final year, boosting that year's income well into six figures. The public pension plan then has to finance a jet-set lifestyle for these greed robots for life.
And yes, it's gonna fuck up many Western governments. Not just local governments but national governments too.

National governments can just issue money, as they did for COVID relief. For junior governments and private pension plans, the obvious way out from under unsustainable defined-benefit pension liabilities is (surprise!) inflation.

@Rancid @BlutoSays Well, the House Chairman[…]

Jordan Klepper vs. Wisconsin Trump Supporters _ Th[…]

This just proves that NATO, by accepting Finland […]

[b]Serbia .. servia (semi - turkey ) belongs to[…]