4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:10 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Links please.



Here ya go

http://www.bls.gov/

Cycloptichorn


No, I want a link to the specific graphs and/or statistics you cited please. I don't want to have to sift through an entire site to find them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:11 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Links please.



Here ya go

http://www.bls.gov/

Cycloptichorn


No, I want a link to the specific graphs and/or statistics you cited please. I don't want to have to sift through an entire site to find them.


Really? I didn't want to do that either, but someone was being pretty obstinate, so I did.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:15 pm
Meaning you can't because you didn't find them on that site? Or you picked them up from a site you knew could not be shown to not be a Bush-bashing site?

Whichever it was, I still haven't seen anything that negates us being in the midst of a really REALLY good economy right now or that ALL GROUPS are benefitting from it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Meaning you can't because you didn't find them on that site? Or you picked them up from a site you knew could not be shown to not be a Bush-bashing site?

Whichever it was, I still haven't seen anything that negates us being in the midst of a really REALLY good economy right now or that ALL GROUPS are benefitting from it.


I haven't seen anyone show evidence that ALL GROUPS, or even that most of them, are benefitting from the economy.

Any website that disagrees with what you say, Fox, is by definition a Bush-Bashing site. Right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:20 pm
Well the only way I can interpret that is that you're talking out of your hat again Cyclop and you can't back much of anything you're saying. I'm getting pretty used to that though, and I put it into that 'exercise in futility' class trying to have a reasonable discussion with you on it. And since we're back to your insult mode, I'll get back to everyday pursuits here. Thank you for your time.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:36 pm
Fox has a hard time with facts that shows the incompetence of Bush, even those produced by government departments and the Federal Reserve.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 04:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Fox has a hard time with facts that shows the incompetence of Bush, even those produced by government departments and the Federal Reserve.


CI would find it impossible to prove what Foxfyre has a hard time with other than what Foxfyre tells him. Foxfyre, however, can make an argument without insulting people and doesn't post a lot of garbage citing it as facts that cannot be supported from any source.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 05:35 pm
c.i. would find it impossible to get out of a wet paper sack.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:45 pm
From the NYT:


June 7, 2005
The Bush Economy
With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.

In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

Mr. Johnston's article quotes a prominent economist who argues that people care more about the chance to move from one income class to another (upward, of course) than about income distribution. But during the Bush years, the two main sources of class mobility - a good job and money for higher education - have increasingly failed to materialize for those who most need them. Last week's jobs report from the Labor Department confirmed that a strong labor market recovery has not taken hold. Wages for most working people failed even to outpace inflation in the past year.

That might be more bearable if things were rough all over. But the share of economic growth that is going toward corporate profits, which flow to stockholders and bondholders who are concentrated at the top of the income scale, is at historic highs.

Which brings us back to the super wealthy and the merely rich. The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon. One cause is that the further up the scale one goes, the more of one's income comes from investments, which under the Bush tax cuts enjoy about the lowest rates in the tax code. But many families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents and preparing for their own retirement.

There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:49 pm
Who is the writer? Where is your link C.I.? And this writer is still citing data from 2002. This is 2007. I know you are really challenged on dates and stuff, but five years can make a HUGE difference in a nation's economy. In 2002, the first Bush budget was barely being implemented and the Bush economy would not be able to kick in for some time after that. And we were still in the smoke of 9/11.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:52 pm
From CNNmoney:+

The state of the Bush economy
In speech, Bush to tout stronger economy, promise jobs -- but also to raise controversial proposals.
January 20, 2004: 5:03 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - In his annual State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush will likely spend time trumpeting the recent strength of the U.S. economy, and he will also float several new economic policy proposals.

In the process, he is likely to draw criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

In describing the state of the economy in his speech, scheduled to begin at about 9:00 PM ET, Bush will likely highlight the 8.2-percent annualized growth rate in gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the economy, in the third quarter of 2003, the fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 1983.

When it comes to jobs, however, Bush will have to perform a careful dance, with 2.4 million jobs lost since Febuary 2001, a month after he took office.

Bush will likely argue that tax cuts he pushed to passage last year will eventually create jobs. In support, he can point to non-farm payrolls that have grown by 278,000 jobs since July, the best stretch of job growth since late 2000.

In addition, some economists hope that number of new jobs will be revised upward in coming months, as the Labor Department may belatedly count thousands of self-employed workers and employees of start-up companies.

Still, when arguing for the tax cuts, the Bush administration promised they would create about 300,000 jobs every month, beginning in July 2003 -- most economists doubt last year's numbers will be revised that dramatically.

And an Economy.com study last year found the tax cuts added less than two percentage points to GDP growth in the third quarter, suggesting most of the economy's growth was due to pent-up demand after the first months of the war in Iraq.

Nevertheless, the tax cuts were clearly of some benefit. And Bush is expected to push in his speech for making those cuts, which are set to expire by 2011, permanent, along with other proposals.

Here's a round-up of what to expect.

Extend the tax cuts
Bush has already pressed for making permanent, or at least extending, the tax cuts Congress passed in 2001, 2002 and 2003 -- a proposal that is likely supported by some businesses and some lawmakers seeking reelection.

"usiness leaders and owners will tell you that if there's uncertainty in the tax code, it will make it difficult for them to plan for the future," Bush said earlier this month. "Permanency in the tax code will mean more job creation."

But such a move could carry a hefty price tag.

If the tax cuts are made permanent, the accumulated budget deficit for the years 2004 to 2013 could exceed $5 trillion, according to separate studies by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the sometimes-liberal Brookings Institution, forecasting firm Decision Economics, and Goldman Sachs.

If the cuts aren't made permanent, the accumulated deficit for 2004-2013 is forecasted to be $1.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Brookings study, and others, have warned that massive budget deficits could push interest rates higher and hurt the economy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:54 pm
C.I. the CNN article is dated January 2004. It is now 2007. I give up. You either cannot read or you cannot understand that the 2002, 2003, and 2004 economy is not relevant to the 2007 economy. Oh well.

Also without links we don't know whether your sources are credible or not anyway. Simply changing the color of the title does not turn it into a link.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:57 pm
Picture speaks a thousand words.


POVERTY GRAPH:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/povertygraph.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:58 pm
Americans are doing so well economically that almost seven million more Americans are now without health insurance since Bush took over the white house.

Progress, conservative style.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:59 pm
Taking a deep breath.

I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.....I will not feed the trools, argue with idiots, or...........

(Of course since CI demands links and proof from everybody else but refuses to provide any for his own stuff, we can assume the graph is from Mexico or Bangladesh maybe. Shrugs. Who knows. It sure as hell doesn't tell you what is being measured or by what criteria anyway. And there's no reason to think stuff like that isn't made up out of thin air is there.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:04 pm
From PBS:

Number of Americans without Health Insurance Hits Record High

According to a new U.S. Census Bureau report, the number of uninsured people in America has increased by 1.3 million to 46.6 million, including 400,000 more children. Health Correspondent Susan Dentzer discusses the story behind the alarming numbers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:05 pm
If you're unhappy about the 2004 report, please find us a more current one. PLEASE! I beg you to find it for us.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:10 pm
From the LA Times:

job creation under the bush administration
According to the LA Times, Al Qaeda recruitment is way up among Iraqi citizens.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 07:10 am
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 08:40 am
The tale of the haves and the have nots.

State of U.S. Economy

Quote:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Radio Actuality
January, 24 2007

Transcript
The overall U.S. economy remains fundamentally sound, with solid, albeit non-spectacular economic growth, low unemployment, slowing inflation and steady interest rates. The U.S. economy grew almost 3 and a half percent last year and is expected to grow at just under 3 percent in 2007. The economy created 1.8 million new jobs last year and should top that figure this year. Inflation should continue to moderate with overall inflation around 3 to 3 and a half percent and the core rate at 2.3 percent. On balance, both sector statistics and top line numbers are telling us the same story - despite the recent slowing, the economy still has plenty of momentum. It appears that the Fed has achieved the proverbial soft landing.

-Martin Regalia
Chief Economist and Vice President
U.S. Chamber of Commerce


U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty

Quote:
Posted on Thu, Feb. 22, 2007

By Tony Pugh

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.

The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

The growth spurt, which leveled off in 2005, in part reflects how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in an unstable job market that favors skilled and educated workers. It also suggests that social programs aren't as effective as they once were at catching those who fall into economic despair.

About one in three severely poor people are under age 17, and nearly two out of three are female. Female-headed families with children account for a large share of the severely poor.

Nearly two out of three people (10.3 million) in severe poverty are white, but blacks (4.3 million) and Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) make up disproportionate shares. Blacks are nearly three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be in deep poverty, while Hispanics are roughly twice as likely.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, has a higher concentration of severely poor people - 10.8 percent in 2005 - than any of the 50 states, topping even hurricane-ravaged Mississippi and Louisiana, with 9.3 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. Nearly six of 10 poor District residents are in extreme poverty.

---

`I DON'T ASK FOR NOTHING'

A few miles from the Capitol Building, 60-year-old John Treece pondered his life in deep poverty as he left a local food pantry with two bags of free groceries.

Plagued by arthritis, back problems and myriad ailments from years of manual labor, Treece has been unable to work full time for 15 years. He's tried unsuccessfully to get benefits from the Social Security Administration, which he said disputes his injuries and work history.

In 2006, an extremely poor individual earned less than $5,244 a year, according to federal poverty guidelines. Treece said he earned about that much in 2006 doing odd jobs.

Wearing shoes with holes, a tattered plaid jacket and a battered baseball cap, Treece lives hand-to-mouth in a $450-a-month room in a nondescript boarding house in a high-crime neighborhood. Thanks to food stamps, the food pantry and help from relatives, Treece said he never goes hungry. But toothpaste, soap, toilet paper and other items that require cash are tougher to come by.

"Sometimes it makes you want to do the wrong thing, you know," Treece said, referring to crime. "But I ain't a kid no more. I can't do no time. At this point, I ain't got a lotta years left."

Treece remains positive and humble despite his circumstances.

"I don't ask for nothing," he said. "I just thank the Lord for this day and ask that tomorrow be just as blessed."

Like Treece, many who did physical labor during their peak earning years have watched their job prospects dim as their bodies gave out.

David Jones, the president of the Community Service Society of New York City, an advocacy group for the poor, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee last month that he was shocked to discover how pervasive the problem was.

"You have this whole cohort of, particularly African-Americans of limited skills, men, who can't participate in the workforce because they don't have skills to do anything but heavy labor," he said.

---

`A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS'

Severe poverty is worst near the Mexican border and in some areas of the South, where 6.5 million severely poor residents are struggling to find work as manufacturing jobs in the textile, apparel and furniture-making industries disappear. The Midwestern Rust Belt and areas of the Northeast also have been hard hit as economic restructuring and foreign competition have forced numerous plant closings.

At the same time, low-skilled immigrants with impoverished family members are increasingly drawn to the South and Midwest to work in the meatpacking, food processing and agricultural industries.

These and other factors such as increased fluctuations in family incomes and illegal immigration have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate in at least 32 years.

"What appears to be taking place is that, over the long term, you have a significant permanent underclass that is not being impacted by anti-poverty policies," said Michael Tanner, the director of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, disagreed. "It doesn't look like a growing permanent underclass," said Sherman, whose organization has chronicled the growth of deep poverty. "What you see in the data are more and more single moms with children who lose their jobs and who aren't being caught by a safety net anymore."

About 1.1 million such families account for roughly 2.1 million deeply poor children, Sherman said.

After fleeing an abusive marriage in 2002, 42-year-old Marjorie Sant moved with her three children from Arkansas to a seedy boarding house in Raleigh, N.C., where the four shared one bedroom. For most of 2005, they lived off food stamps and the $300 a month in Social Security Disability Income for her son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Teachers offered clothes to Sant's children. Saturdays meant lunch at the Salvation Army.

"To depend on other people to feed and clothe your kids is horrible," Sant said. "I found myself in a hole and didn't know how to get out."

In the summer of 2005, social workers warned that she'd lose her children if her home situation didn't change. Sant then brought her two youngest children to a temporary housing program at the Raleigh Rescue Mission while her oldest son moved to California to live with an adult daughter from a previous marriage.

So for 10 months, Sant learned basic office skills. She now lives in a rented house, works two jobs and earns about $20,400 a year.

Sant is proud of where she is, but she knows that "if something went wrong, I could well be back to where I was."

---

`I'M GETTING NOWHERE FAST'

As more poor Americans sink into severe poverty, more individuals and families living within $8,000 above or below the poverty line also have seen their incomes decline. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University attributes this to what he calls a "sinkhole effect" on income.

"Just as a sinkhole causes everything above it to collapse downward, families and individuals in the middle and upper classes appear to be migrating to lower-income tiers that bring them closer to the poverty threshold," Woolf wrote in the study.

Before Hurricane Katrina, Rene Winn of Biloxi, Miss., earned $28,000 a year as an administrator for the Boys and Girls Club. But for 11 months in 2006, she couldn't find steady work and wouldn't take a fast-food job. As her opportunities dwindled, Winn's frustration grew.

"Some days I feel like the world is mine and I can create my own destiny," she said. "Other days I feel a desperate feeling. Like I gotta' hurry up. Like my career is at a stop. Like I'm getting nowhere fast. And that's not me because I've always been a positive person."

After relocating to New Jersey for 10 months after the storm, Winn returned to Biloxi in September because of medical and emotional problems with her son. She and her two youngest children moved into her sister's home along with her mother, who has Alzheimer's. With her sister, brother-in-law and their two children, eight people now share a three-bedroom home.

Winn said she recently took a job as a technician at the state health department. The hourly job pays $16,120 a year. That's enough to bring her out of severe poverty and just $122 shy of the $16,242 needed for a single mother with two children to escape poverty altogether under current federal guidelines.

Winn eventually wants to transfer to a higher-paying job, but she's thankful for her current position.

"I'm very independent and used to taking care of my own, so I don't like the fact that I have to depend on the state. I want to be able to do it myself."

The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10 percent of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003 - the latest year available - and that only 36 percent received food stamps.

Many could have exhausted their eligibility for welfare or decided that the new program requirements were too onerous. But the low participation rates are troubling because the worst byproducts of poverty, such as higher crime and violence rates and poor health, nutrition and educational outcomes, are worse for those in deep poverty.

Over the last two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.

"It's shameful," said Timothy Smeeding, the former director of the study and the current head of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University. "We've been the worst performer every year since we've been doing this study."

With the exception of Mexico and Russia, the U.S. devotes the smallest portion of its gross domestic product to federal anti-poverty programs, and those programs are among the least effective at reducing poverty, the study found. Again, only Russia and Mexico do worse jobs.

One in three Americans will experience a full year of extreme poverty at some point in his or her adult life, according to long-term research by Mark Rank, a professor of social welfare at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

An estimated 58 percent of Americans between the ages of 20 and 75 will spend at least a year in poverty, Rank said. Two of three will use a public assistance program between ages 20 and 65, and 40 percent will do so for five years or more.

These estimates apply only to non-immigrants. If illegal immigrants were factored in, the numbers would be worse, Rank said.

"It would appear that for most Americans the question is no longer if, but rather when, they will experience poverty. In short, poverty has become a routine and unfortunate part of the American life course," Rank wrote in a recent study. "Whether these patterns will continue throughout the first decade of 2000 and beyond is difficult to say ... but there is little reason to think that this trend will reverse itself any time soon."

---

`SOMETHING REAL AND TROUBLING'

Most researchers and economists say federal poverty estimates are a poor tool to gauge the complexity of poverty. The numbers don't factor in assistance from government anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps, housing subsidies and the Earned Income Tax Credit, all of which increase incomes and help pull people out of poverty.

But federal poverty measures also exclude work-related expenses and necessities such as day care, transportation, housing and health care costs, which eat up large portions of disposable income, particularly for low-income families.

Alternative poverty measures that account for these shortcomings typically inflate or deflate official poverty statistics. But many of those alternative measures show the same kind of long-term trends as the official poverty data.

Robert Rector, a senior researcher with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, questioned the growth of severe poverty, saying that census data become less accurate farther down the income ladder. He said many poor people, particularly single mothers with boyfriends, underreport their income by not including cash gifts and loans. Rector said he's seen no data that suggest increasing deprivation among the very poor.

Arloc Sherman of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that the growing number of severely poor is an indisputable fact.

"When we check against more complete government survey data and administrative records from the benefit programs themselves, they confirm that this trend is real," Sherman said. He added that even among the poor, severely poor people have a much tougher time paying their bills. "That's another sign to me that we're seeing something real and troubling," Sherman said.

---

States with the most people in severe poverty:

California - 1.9 million

Texas - 1.6 million

New York - 1.2 million

Florida - 943,670

Illinois - 681,786

Ohio - 657,415

Pennsylvania - 618,229

Michigan - 576,428

Georgia - 562,014

North Carolina - 523,511

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

---

© 2007, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McClatchy correspondent Barbara Barrett contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2024 at 03:33:04