SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
stephen schwarzman
The Pro-Trump Oligarchs Driving Americans Into Homelessness
The principle cause of today’s crisis of homelessness and housing affordability has one, single, primary cause: billionaires treating housing as an investment commodity.
Oct 26, 2024
America’s morbidly rich billionaires are at it again, this time screwing the average family’s ability to have decent, affordable housing in their never-ending quest for more, more, more. Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, and Denmark have had enough and done something about it: We should, too.
There are a few things that are essential to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that should never be purely left to the marketplace; these are the most important sectors where government intervention, regulation, and even subsidy are not just appropriate but essential. Housing is at the top of that list.
A few days ago I noted how, since the Reagan Revolution, the cost of housing has exploded in America, relative to working class income.
It seems that everywhere you look in America you see the tragedy of the homelessness these billionaires are causing. Rarely, though, do you hear about the role of Wall Street and its billionaires in causing it.
When my dad bought his home in the 1950s, for example, the median price of a single-family house was around 2.2 times the median American family income. Today the St. Louis Fed says the median house sells for $417,700 while the median American income is $40,480—a ratio of more than 10 to 1 between housing costs and annual income.
In other words, housing is about five times more expensive (relative to income) than it was in the 1950s.
And now we’ve surged past a new tipping point, causing the homelessness that’s plagued America’s cities since former U.S. President George W. Bush’s deregulation-driven housing- and stock-market crash in 2008, exacerbated by former President Donald Trump’s bungling America’s pandemic response.
And the principal cause of both that crash and today’s crisis of homelessness and housing affordability has one, single, primary cause: billionaires treating housing as an investment commodity.
A new report from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies reveals how billionaire investors have become a major driver of the nationwide housing crisis. They summarize in their own words:
— Billionaire-backed private equity firms worm their way into different segments of the housing market to extract ever-increasing rents and value from multi-family rental, single-family homes, and mobile home park communities.
— Global billionaires purchase billions in U.S. real estate to diversify their asset holdings, driving the creation of luxury housing that functions as “safety deposit boxes in the sky.” Estimates of hidden wealth are as high as $36 trillion globally, with billions parked in U.S. land and housing markets.
— Wealthy investors are acquiring property and holding units vacant, so that in many communities the number of vacant units greatly exceeds the number of unhoused people. Nationwide there are 16 million vacant homes: that is, 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
— Billionaire investors are buying up a large segment of the short-term rental market, preventing local residents from living in these homes, in order to cash in on tourism. These are not small owners with one unit, but corporate owners with multiple properties.
— Billionaire investors and corporate landlords are targeting communities of color and low-income residents, in particular, with rent increases, high rates of eviction, and unhealthy living conditions. What’s more, billionaire-owned private equity firms are investing in subsidized housing, enjoying tax breaks and public benefits, while raising rents and evicting low-income tenants from housing they are only required to keep affordable, temporarily. (Emphasis theirs.)
It seems that everywhere you look in America you see the tragedy of the homelessness these billionaires are causing. Rarely, though, do you hear about the role of Wall Street and its billionaires in causing it.
The math, however, is irrefutable.
Thirty-two percent is the magic threshold, according to research funded by the real estate listing company Zillow. When neighborhoods hit rent rates in excess of 32% of neighborhood income, homelessness explodes. And we’re seeing it play out right in front of us in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires are making a killing.
As the Zillow study notes:
Across the country, the rent burden already exceeds the 32% [of median income] threshold in 100 of the 386 markets included in this analysis….
And wherever housing prices become more than three times annual income, homelessness stalks like the grim reaper. That Zillow-funded study laid it out:
This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability—the share of income people spend on rent—crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.”
This trend is massive.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Meet Your New Landlord: Wall Street,” in just one suburb (Spring Hill) of Nashville:
In all of Spring Hill, four firms… own nearly 700 houses… [which] amounts to about 5% of all the houses in town.
This is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
“On the first Tuesday of each month,” notes the Journal article about a similar phenomenon in Atlanta, investors “toted duffels stuffed with millions of dollars in cashier’s checks made out in various denominations so they wouldn’t have to interrupt their buying spree with trips to the bank…”
The same thing is happening in cities and suburbs all across America; agents for the billionaire investor goliaths use fine-tuned computer algorithms to sniff out houses they can turn into rental properties, making over-market and unbeatable cash bids often within minutes of a house hitting the market.
After stripping neighborhoods of homes young families can afford to buy, billionaires then begin raising rents to extract as much cash as they can from local working class communities.
In the Nashville suburb of Spring Hill, the vice-mayor, Bruce Hull, told the Journal you used to be able to rent “a three bedroom, two bath house for $1,000 a month.” Today, the Journal notes:
The average rent for 148 single-family homes in Spring Hill owned by the big four [Wall Street billionaire investor] landlords was about $1,773 a month…
As the Bank of International Settlements summarized in a 2014 retrospective study of the years since the Reagan/Gingrich changes in banking and finance:
We describe a Pareto frontier along which different levels of risk-taking map into different levels of welfare for the two parties, pitting Main Street against Wall Street… We also show that financial innovation, asymmetric compensation schemes, concentration in the banking system, and bailout expectations enable or encourage greater risk-taking and allocate greater surplus to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
It’s a fancy way of saying that billionaire-owned big banks and hedge funds have made trillions on housing while you and your community are becoming destitute.
Ryan Dezember, in his book Underwater: How Our American Dream of Homeownership Became a Nightmare, describes the story of a family trying to buy a home in Phoenix. Every time they entered a bid, they were outbid instantly, the price rising over and over, until finally the family’s father threw in the towel.
“Jacobs was bewildered,” writes Dezember. “Who was this aggressive bidder?”
Turns out it was Blackstone Group, now the world’s largest real estate investor run by a major Trump supporter. At the time they were buying $150 million worth of American houses every week, trying to spend over $10 billion. And that’s just a drop in the overall bucket.
As that new study from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies found:
[Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman’s] Blackstone is the largest corporate landlord in the world, with a vast and diversified real estate portfolio. It owns more than 300,000 residential units across the U.S., has $1 trillion in global assets, and nearly doubled its profits in 2021.
Blackstone owns 149,000 multi-family apartment units; 63,000 single-family homes; 70 mobile home parks with 13,000 lots through their subsidiary Treehouse Communities; and student housing, through American Campus Communities (144,300 beds in 205 properties as of 2022). Blackstone recently acquired 95,000 units of subsidized housing.
In 2018, corporations and the billionaires that own or run them bought 1 out of every 10 homes sold in America, according to Dezember, noting that:
Between 2006 and 2016, when the homeownership rate fell to its lowest level in 50 years, the number of renters grew by about a quarter.
And it’s gotten worse every year since then.
This all really took off around a decade ago following the Bush Crash, when Morgan Stanley published a 2011 report titled “The Rentership Society,” arguing that snapping up houses and renting them back to people who otherwise would have wanted to buy them could be the newest and hottest investment opportunity for Wall Street’s billionaires and their funds.
Turns out, Morgan Stanley was right. Warren Buffett, KKR, and The Carlyle Group have all jumped into residential real estate, along with hundreds of smaller investment groups, and the National Home Rental Council has emerged as the industry’s premiere lobbying group, working to block rent control legislation and other efforts to control the industry.
As John Husing, the owner of Economics and Politics Inc., told The Tennessean newspaper:
What you have are neighborhoods that are essentially unregulated apartment houses. It could be disastrous for the city.
As Zillow found:
The areas that are most vulnerable to rising rents, unaffordability, and poverty hold 15% of the U.S. population—and 47% of people experiencing homelessness.
The loss of affordable homes also locks otherwise middle class families out of the traditional way wealth is accumulated—through home ownership: Over 61% of all American middle-income family wealth is their home’s equity.
And as families are priced out of ownership and forced to rent, they become more vulnerable to homelessness.
Housing is one of the primary essentials of life. Nobody in America should be without it, and for society to work, housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable.
Singapore, Denmark, New Zealand, and parts of Canada have all put limits on billionaire, corporate, and foreign investment in housing, recognizing families’ residences as essential to life rather than purely a commodity. Multiple other countries are having that debate or moving to take similar actions as you read these words.
America should, too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
RFK Jr’s Housing Policy Gives Republican Mega-Donor a Pass
If Kennedy was serious about combating the rise of corporate homeownership—or the perception that he’s a de facto Republican candidate, for that matter—he would call out Blackstone’s nefarious influence by name.
Nov 29, 2023
At a time when working Americans struggle to make ends meet on multiple fronts, one cost-of-living crisis stands out as particularly dire: the national housing crisis. In our largest cities, decades of systemic underbuilding—de facto mandated by bans on multifamily housing—have made housing a nightmare for longtime residents and newcomers alike. But the housing crisis extends well past New York and San Francisco: Extreme inequality and poor monetary policy have made it difficult to rent and own homes across much of rural and suburban America. The crisis has been exacerbated by the rise of corporate home ownership, which has put housing security further out of reach for working Americans.
Since launching his quixotic presidential candidacy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made the issue of corporate homeownership central to his campaign. On the campaign trail, Kennedy has notably criticized investment firms BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street by name, arguing they will someday be able to “outbid your children.” But interestingly, Kennedy’s railing against corporate homeownership has not extended to the firm that best embodies the encroachment of finance into housing: Blackstone.
It’s unlikely Kennedy’s hands-off approach to Blackstone is a coincidence. Since originally entering the race as a reactionary candidate running in a Democratic primary, Kennedy has been accused of being a Republican plant. Given that Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman is a Donald Trump-loving Republican mega-donor, it’s pretty easy to connect the dots on Kennedy’s rhetorical silence. In the 2022 cycle alone, Schwarzman gave over $35 million to congressional Republican campaigns. If Kennedy was serious about combating the rise of corporate homeownership—or the perception that he’s a de facto Republican candidate, for that matter—he would call out Blackstone’s nefarious influence by name.
With prospects for homeownership in coastal metropolitan areas increasingly unrealistic for middle-class Americans, Blackstone and other private investors’ push into the Sunbelt threatens remaining opportunities for homeownership.
It’s a shame, really, because at a time when Blackstone is pushing even deeper into the housing market, it would be useful to call attention to the company’s detrimental impact. The time of Blackstone being content with its status as a commercial real estate giant is long gone. Since the financial crisis, the company has established a strong presence in everything from predatory rent-to-own schemes to student housing. Blackstone’s seemingly insatiable quest for dominance in the rental home market has been met with criticism in and outside the United States.
Blackstone’s early push into housing occurred in the aftermath of the subprime mortgage crisis, when it profited handsomely off home foreclosures. Like other major institutional investors that have pushed into housing, Blackstone has taken advantage of strict zoning laws that constrain the development of new housing. Invitation Homes, owned by Blackstone from 2012 to 2019, even acknowledged in an SEC filing that it invests “in markets that we expect will exhibit lower new supply.”
At a time when home prices in key markets continue to skyrocket, Blackstone and similar firms have caused further pain by accelerating the corporatization of U.S. homeownership. In America’s Sun Belt, a macroregion known for relatively affordable middle- and working-class housing opportunities, private investors’ impact has been particularly dire. By one metric, over a third of homes bought in markets including Atlanta, Phoenix, and Charlotte were made by corporate investors in the first quarter of 2021.
With prospects for homeownership in coastal metropolitan areas increasingly unrealistic for middle-class Americans, Blackstone and other private investors’ push into the Sunbelt threatens remaining opportunities for homeownership. Given the evidence that corporate homeownership efforts disproportionately target housing stock in Black-majority neighborhoods, these schemes threaten to further exacerbate the racial wealth gap.
As negative headlines surrounding Blackstone’s housing push mount, it’s no surprise that the company has desperately tried to reclaim the narrative in its favor. Blackstone has aggressively touted Home Partners of America, a rent-to-own company acquired in 2021, as a service to help tenants eventually own their own properties. Given that around 85% of renters of single-family homes by one estimate wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage, it’s not hard to see the program’s appeal.
But rather than giving renters a shot at the American dream, tenants in Home Partners’ properties have faced nightmarish housing conditions, made worse by high prices and predatory contract terms. Even worse, this has often been accompanied by harm to tenants’ credit scores, putting the dream of homeownership even further out of their reach.
The harm caused by Blackstone’s efforts to dominate rental housing extends beyond tenants and prospective homebuyers. First launched in 2017, the Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust (BREIT) has come under fire by regulators for its unconventional, if shady, investment structure. Funded largely through borrowed money—BREIT “invests with roughly 50% borrowed money” with a focus on rental apartments in Sunbelt communities, perThe Wall Street Journal—BREIT’s limits on redemptions amid investor discontent has caught the ire of the SEC.
It’s not hard to see why: A trust that aggressively limits withdrawals in the face of investor discontent should not be trusted to continue its expansion in one of the country’s most crucial economic sectors. In a congressional testimony earlier this year, Duke law professor Gina-Gail S. Fletcher compared BREIT’s unethical practices to that of FTX, the notorious crypto hedge fund founded by Sam Bankman-Fried.
Given that Republicans were only able to capture the House by the narrowest of margins in 2022, it’s easy to make the case that Blackstone CEO Schwarzman’s millions played a decisive role. Amid the Republican-induced chaos of the 118th Congress in the House, party lawmakers have pushed hard for policies that would make the housing crisis even worse. This includes Republicans’ push for cuts to housing assistance and efforts to sabotage the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency that has fought hard for tenants. While Kennedy has cried foul about supposedly disproportionate media criticism of his campaign, his silence on Blackstone is yet another mark against taking him seriously as a candidate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Billionaires Hate Social Security
The real goal of billionaire-funded Social Security rhetoric is to prevent the public from drawing a connection between Social Security’s finances, the working-class retirement crisis, and the ludicrous amounts of wealth held by America’s billionaires.
Jun 08, 2023
Consider the billionaire.
I’m not talking about people who were born into wealth; they have their own issues. Let us specifically consider the so-called “self-made” wealthy person, the driven CEO or investor. He (and it is almost always a “he” in our society) is likely to share some characteristics with other billionaires and members of his cohort. Social science and simple observation tell us that these powerful figures are more likely than other people to be:
●addicted to making money (which is psychologically distinct from greed)
●obsessed with making money, which leads to bad behavior
●surprisingly worried about the money they have
●less empathetic and more self-interested than other people
●breakers of certain laws and social norms
●less charitable on a percentage basis
●and, determined to cut Social Security.
About that last item: While there may be exceptions here and there, the billionaire class overall is overwhelmingly opposed to Social Security. Most wealthy people would, in fact, like to see its benefits slashed. A 2013 study compared the political opinions of the wealthy with those of voters as a whole and found “major disagreement” between the two groups regarding Social Security. Among all voters, there was a 46 percent gap in favor of expanding its benefits rather than cutting them. The wealthy had the opposite take; they favored cuts, rather than expansion, by a gap of 33 percent.
The tax question surely accounts for some of the billionaires’ antipathy toward Social Security but, even so, their feelings seem to run unusually high on the subject.
Strikingly, the richer someone was, the likelier they were to want Social Security cuts. Each additional $10 million in personal wealth added measurably to the desire for Social Security cuts. The authors note that “this finding may help explain why cutting these popular programs has remained on the political agenda.”
Ya thinks?
Billionaires pay for think tanks and news outlets which fill the airways with lurid talk about the program’s costs. Billionaires and corporate CEOS have more political influence than any other part of society. That’s why, despite the outcome of the recent ‘debt ceiling’ crisis, they still represent an existential threat to Social Security.
Distraction
The real goal of billionaire-funded Social Security rhetoric is to prevent the public from drawing a connection between Social Security’s finances, the working-class retirement crisis, and the ludicrous amounts of wealth held by America’s billionaires.
We are supposed to be horrified, for example, by the gap between Social Security’s income ($1.244 trillion for this year) and its cash outlays ($1.237 trillion). We are not supposed to notice that Michael Bloomberg’s wealth gain since September of last year ($17.7 billion*) would cover almost the entire 2023 shortfall of $22 billion all by itself, or that the entire amount could be recouped by throwing in Bill Gates’ gains during the same period.
That’s right: the nine-month income of two billionaires alone would erase Social Security’s entire actuarial imbalance for a full year. (And 2022 was a bad year for billionaires; “bad,” of course, being a very relative term.)
A trillion-plus dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But the personal wealth of just ten Americans would cover Social Security’s entire budget for an entire year. Not that it would, at least under current law. The law dictates that Social Security’s costs be covered by a payroll tax levied for that purpose alone. But a wealth tax, or something like it, could be a popular option if the program faces a real funding crisis.
There are already sound proposals to “scrap the cap” on income that is taxed for Social Security, and to include investment and other sources of income in that tax. Billionaires would face a tax hike under these proposals, although their total taxes would still be well below mid-20th century norms.
The tax question surely accounts for some of the billionaires’ antipathy toward Social Security but, even so, their feelings seem to run unusually high on the subject.
What They Say
The billionaires’ vituperation toward Social Security can be seen in Elon Musk’s ill-informed tweet about it (which The Intercept’s Jon Schwarz ably dissected). It can be found in CEO conclaves like “Fix the Debt,” where the heads of corporations like JetBlue, Bridgestone, and Microsoft, as well as government largesse recipients like Honeywell, GE, Boeing, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs assembled to attack programs “entitlements.”
It oozes through op-eds like this one from predatory billionaire Steve Schwarzman, who magnanimously promised to “share the pain” of financial sacrifice with elderly Social Security recipients living on a few hundred dollars a month. (5.5 million seniors reportedly faced food insecurity in 2021; Schwarzman “took home a record $1.27 billion for 2022”.)
The goal is to frame Social Security cuts in false, technocratic terms as the inevitable outcome of simple arithmetic. They want it to look as if the decision to cut benefits made itself. That way, they leave no fingerprints on the corpse of retirement security.
It’s reflected in Mitt Romney’s bitter words at a 2012 fundraiser, when he told a roomful of fellow rich people that “they”—it’s always “they,” not “us”—"they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, that they are entitled: to health care, to food, to housing, you name it.”
Added Romney, “That's an entitlement."
Most of all, it can be seen in works of the late billionaire Peter G. Peterson, a conservative hedge funder and former Nixon cabinet member who lavished money on politicians from both parties in pursuit of his curious obsession: to reduce government spending, with a special focus on cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The foundation, astroturf groups, and think tanks Peterson created have worked for decades to elevate the national debt above all other policymaking concerns, regardless of the effect on working Americans, with a special focus on cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
The goal is to frame Social Security cuts in false, technocratic terms as the inevitable outcome of simple arithmetic. They want it to look as if the decision to cut benefits made itself. That way, they leave no fingerprints on the corpse of retirement security.
Why They Hate
But why? Why do the ultra-wealthy hate Social Security so much? It’s not just self-interest, although there is certainly that. The answer lies in the anthropology, as well as the accountancy, of the billionaire class. Social Security represents everything the typical billionaire loathes, including community, solidarity, and the empowerment of the working class.
Social Security isn’t charity, and that galls them. Social Security is run for working people – people who know they have earned those benefits.
Billionaire CEOs belong to a group whose membership is earned through obsession, greed, competitiveness, and lack of empathy. It is a population self-selected for sociopathy and work-life imbalance. It’s hard to make a billion dollars without cheating people, and it’s hard to cheat people when you see them – really see them, through the eyes of understanding and emotion. That’s why someone like Schwarzman can equate his own “sacrifice” (of what, a fifth or sixth yacht?) with the suffering of an ailing grandmother trying to get by on $75 per week.
It's impossible to bargain with them by telling them they already have enough money to live like an emperor. At that level, money works the way social media likes work for some other people: it doesn’t affect their lives in any material way, but it boosts their sense of worth and validation. That’s why they’ll never quit. That’s why they’ll never say, “I have enough.” There is always someone else who is gaining on them every time they stop to eat, sleep, make love, express an emotion ...
Sure, they’ll write a check to charity from time to time. That’s good for the ego. It brings applause, praise, black-tie dinners, and fawning requests for more money. But Social Security isn’t charity, and that galls them. Social Security is run for working people – people who know they have earned those benefits. Pay a tax, with no effusive speeches or stroking of the ego for America’s 0.001 percent? The idea offends their sense of self-importance.
This is why they love to hear politicians like Alan Simpson insult Social Security recipients by calling them “greedy geezers.” They think they’ve won life’s race. People who have lived other kinds of lives – filled, perhaps, with love and kindness rather than competition and exploitation – are losers to them. In their minds, people like that are nothing. For them to ask anything of the wealthy is, well, impudence.
Controlling the Discourse
Unfortunately, the billionaire class increasingly controls US news outlets. Their obsession has warped the national discourse for decades. It has wormed its way into the media ecosystem, as billionaire-funded think tanks, lobbying groups, and politicians flood the airwaves and newspapers with false talking points about the “unaffordability” of such programs. “Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process,” ABC’s Martha Raddatz once told the national audience for a vice presidential debate. (Neither half of that statement is true.)
Their obsession is reflected in a news industry that has been increasingly centralized under billionaire control. Media elites sometimes sounded like jilted lovers when they reported that neither party pushed for Social Security or Medicare cuts in the debt ceiling deal.
The Washington Post, which often channels billionaire views on Social Security, ran a must-read article under the headline, “How a billionaires boys’ club came to dominate the public square.” As Michael Scherer and Sarah Ellison note,
“Technological change and the fortunes it created have given a vanishingly small club of massively wealthy individuals the ability to play arbiter, moderator and bankroller of not only the information that feeds the nation’s discourse but also the architecture that undergirds it.”
The billionaires’ obsession is also reflected at non-profit outlets like NPR—which, despite the word “public” in its name, relies heavily on corporate and billionaire donors for survival.
Dialing for Dollars
What the billionaires say, usually goes. “... (E)conomic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” a 2014 study found, “while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Things have only gotten worse since then. Billionaires poured nearly $1 billion ($881,000,000) into the last round of congressional elections. How does this affect policy? Politicians who carry out the wishes of billionaires, corporate CEOs, and lobbyists raise more money, of course. But there is also a process of acculturation, where elected officials become so steeped in the world of elite consensus that they come to believe in it themselves.
Consider, for example, the infamous slide deck which advised incoming Congressional Democrats to spend four hours a day on “call time” and one hour per day on “strategic outreach,” both of which involve raising money for their next campaign. Imagine spending four to five hours a day calling people who despise Social Security, and it soon becomes clear that only a miracle has protected Social Security so far—and miracles don’t last forever.
It would be a mistake to assume that the recent “debt ceiling deal” means that Social Security is safe.
Unless you’re a candidate with mass support like Bernie Sanders, campaign fundraising requires constant immersion in the anti-Social Security mindset of the ultra-wealthy—which, when combined with the GOP’s longstanding hostility to the program, means that the people who make our laws are steeped in a worldview that considers “entitlement programs” expensive and superfluous.
That’s why it would be a mistake to assume that the recent “debt ceiling deal” means that Social Security is safe. Neither party wanted to take the unpopular step of calling for benefit cuts in this round of negotiations. But the billionaires and corporations who drive our political system won’t stop trying. That’s how they got where they are; by persisting until they win.
Previous attempts to cut Social Security have come in the form of ‘bipartisan commissions’ whose role was to obscure the process and shield both parties from blame. (Mitt Romney’s TRUST Act would follow the same playbook, as would other billionaire-backed proposals.) The White House has correctly called these commissions “death panels,” which may be one reason why billionaires primarily contributed to Republican candidates in the last election cycle. But public opinion must be mobilized to prevent any further softening of President Biden’s position on Social Security, before the billionaires let their money do the talking in the 2024 race.
Because, when it comes to money in politics, Bob Dylan’s words hold true: money doesn’t talk, it swears.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular