Before busting the bank

Markos, on Congress doing the right thing today, and hoping for an alternative:

And with those alternatives, hopefully we have options that offer solutions to the problem, but don't destroy an Obama's administration to invest in progressive priorities like health care, education, and alternate fuels. Hopefully we have a solution that places the burden of the bailout on those who most benefited from it. Hopefully we have a solution that provides tangible benefits to those most harmed by this crisis, not those who have benefited. And sure, the wingers may not like it (since what they seem to want is more regulation, which is what got us here in the first place!), but we have the majorities. And if the crisis is as bad as Bush claims, let him try to veto a more equitable solution to the crisis.

It's almost as if, the administration thought this election through already, and decided that if they could bust the budget wide enough, then Democrats, incoming with 60 votes in the Senate, 250 in the House, and a President, would be able to do nothing but cut costs.  Try to spend anything in '09, and the Republicans would be re-born as fiscal deficit hawks running against the spendster libruls.

 

I don't pretend to know the solution here, other than taking the fiscal downer now, which is admittedly trite. I also have to wonder about the tact to 'own' this thing as well, making it a Democratic bill that takes on Bush, which has its own set of problems. Its become so poisoned that to let the Republicans off the hook would seem to be handing them a gift. At the end of the day, I am doubtful that this "no" sticks, and won't be at all surprised to see a dozen votes flip to pass this behemoth budget buster pass as is. We win it all, and are able to do nothing but raise taxes and cut spending.

 

Tags: 2008 (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Re: Before busting the bank

But what medicine will we be taking?  Krugman's suggestion:


...the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms -- basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That's what the plan should have looked like.

Paul Krugman - Bailout questions answered NYT 29 Sep 08

The Republicans aren't going to like that but what choice do they have now?  The problem is our fingerprints on it but with a daily tanking market that would not be such a scary issue, I would have thought.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-29 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Well, that's be the other option-- that of owning this and married with Bush for it too, without Republican congressional backing. Pelosi knows that's like handing 5 points to the other side, hence the Hobson's choice they feel they are in here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-29 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Exactly, and Krugman agrees with you:


But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes -- and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

Paul Krugman - Bailout questions answered NYT 29 Sep 08

At some point the American public is going to have to take some 'ownership' of this issue themselves.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-29 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Looks like everyone is on the same page today, tough choices for Democrats, and candidates:


What to do next? Roubini wants mergers between tottering American firms (including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) and solvent foreign banks and insurance companies. Krugman  argued that support for the bailout, given the leadership in Washington, was the best available alternative, but he has also advocated a more far-reaching approach - modeled upon one undertaken by the Swedes in the 1990s in response to their banking crisis - that would involve the government's, in effect, nationalizing tottering institutions by buying stock in them.

I know too little to comment on what proposals might or might not work, but it seems clear that the Democrats face a pretty stark choice: whether to continue fiddling with the Treasury plan to make it more acceptable to a score of Republicans or Democrats, or to refashion a plan of their own that is not defined as a "Wall Street bailout" and that does go further in attempting to infuse capital into the credit system. It is a question of policy, but also of leadership--and it becomes more acute in the context of a looming change in administration.

What will the candidates do? John McCain's campaign has already blamed Barack Obama for the failure of the Democratic-sponsored bill. That's to be expected. And Obama has promised that the Democrats in Congress will get the job done. McCain clearly has nothing substantive to offer, but Obama might have to consider whether he should attempt to fill the leadership vacuum in Washington. That would be risking a presidential election that looks more and more favorable to him; but he must recognize, if he hasn't already, that the country is gravely in risk from the paralysis in Washington.

John B Judis - Apres Le Deluge New Republic 29 Sep 08

Well, George, this is a fine mess you've gotten us into...  Obama, whatcha' gonna' do?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-29 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

More and More I am liking Krugmans approach.

I hope he is showing this to Dodd or some of those guys who can reframe a bill that makes sense.

If we are going to be stuck with an albatross, and having to bail out GWB and Phil Gramms sorry Butts, I want a bill NOT written by Wall Street as so much of the Paulsen bill was.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-29 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Public reaction has been so strongly against passage of this bill, I hope you are not right and I hope they do have to reconfigure it pretty drastically.

What I don't understand is why this can't wait until after the looming election.  

People want action on a variety of "Democratic" issues and I think the only thing that will happen if we hamstring ourselves with an expenditure this stupid, assuming we have the votes, is a tax system that starts channeling money back downwards.`

by mady 2008-09-29 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

This has been the plan all along: to dismantle the New Deal by bankrupting the government.  It's called "starving the beast".

by Jess81 2008-09-29 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

And, goddammit, he's doing it again.

This time, it's under the username "budapest".  Zeroing out all my posts: I've lost TU again.

Sorry.

by Jess81 2008-09-29 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Budapest is running amuck on a couple of threads?

Moderators, you have a germ in your blog!

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-29 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

It's that rankles/reebus guy.  He's got like 10 usernames.  After this one loses rec/rate, he's going to go on a run under the name "amsterdam" - he used that one to rec up budapest so that they'd both be able to hide-rate.

I earned his wrath by throwing responding to his posts with two inflamatory, and contradictory posts so that no one would be sucked in by his trollery.

by Jess81 2008-09-29 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

And that was gibberish.  

I earned his wrath by quoting him at him, basically.

by Jess81 2008-09-29 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Apparently, he's targeting me for having uprated you. It's easy enough to figure out which drawer these socks are coming from. I'm more than a little annoyed that the admins can't deal with such an obvious attack on the site's integrity.

The goal is to cripple site moderation in order enable more disruptive and trollish commentary. You'd think Jerome, et al, would want to discourage that.

by BobzCat 2008-09-29 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

You are right. Bad thing is, Obama will spend. He'll have too. He has got to pay the piper if he is elected. Don't bet on a majority in the house, I think the Republicans have a great chance. I have been urging them to put the blame for the FMae/FMac mess on the dems where it belongs. We have the golden goose and Obama is #2 receiver of donations. Obama has two old CEO of these two corps on his payroll. How will his minions react to that when McCain hits him hard next debate. Palin will bring this up Thursday, that should lite up Biden and really get some good comments from him. Follow the money and the dems have the fingerprints all over this mess and they know it.

by cuffy meigs 2008-09-29 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

give me a fucking break.  this whole mess is a direct result of deregulation, the third manifestation of the reagan trinity (more god, less spending, less regulation)

by bluedavid 2008-09-29 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

This whole mess has democrat fingerprints all over it. People like Dodd, Frank, Raines, Johnson and Gorelick should be in prison. The river started in FMae and FMac. Everything went downhill. Repubs wanted regulation on these but without 60 votes, nothing gets done. No dems were willing to cross over pre 2006. And since 2006, business as usual for the corrupt dems. Franks is still saying nothing is wrong along with Dodd.

by cuffy meigs 2008-09-29 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Well, with all due respect, General Franks is wandering a little outside his area of expertise there...

by failsafe 2008-09-29 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

"Repubs wanted regulation" is the funniest thing I've read all day.

by cmize 2008-09-29 05:36PM | 0 recs
Is this oliver or richmond?

McCain has got nothing left bro, whether it's fair or not, McCain is holding the bag moreso than Obama for this bailout failing.  Even if Palin "wins" the debate against Biden, do you think that would actually push back into a tie?  He may get three-five points from it, but six-eight?

McCain's down ten points to start the fourth quarter without possession of the football.

by Blazers Edge 2008-09-29 03:48PM | 0 recs
A brand new Republic Troll!

Obama has two old CEO of these two corps on his payroll.

Come on Cuffs, you floated the two advisors talking point already:

Re: Obama's New Ad Hits McCain On CEO Pay (none / 0)
Problem, Obama has Raines and Johnson on as advisors. Isn't he preaching against this. That is why people I know say he is 10 feet wide and 2 inches deep. The do as I say but not as I do just really irks me. He was big on selling the Chrysler 300 for a hybrid but when he came here for a rally, gas guzzling suburbans, large buses, large planes. Am I supposed to do without for the elites like him to have more? by cuffy meigs on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST

Obama talked to Johnson for about 1/2 hour one time.  He gave back the money for being on the VP team.

Nice try though. I am sure we will be hearing LOTS of Republic talking points from you, now that your boy McCain is being spanked!

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-29 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A brand new Republic Troll!

Wash, did you see Daschle's email? Lot's of behing the scenes secretive stuff in O's campaign. That is how he wins. Destroys the opposition and easy victory. But he has never had an opponent as formidable and aggressive as McCain in his Illinois and US Senate run. You will never know exactly what he is up too. Like the Rev. Wright. He never heard just one of the deflamatory sermons? Cmon, his wife practically mirrors the Rev. Remember Wash, Obama knows he lost his spending platform and he cannot win on anything else.

by cuffy meigs 2008-09-29 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A brand new Republic Troll!

Dude, the trolls around here not only know how to use CAPS and boldface AT THE SAME TIME; they also know how to spell.  You'll have to step up your game.

by failsafe 2008-09-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A brand new Republic Troll!

What is a deflamatory sermon?

by cmize 2008-09-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A brand new Republic Troll!

I'm not sure, but I think a bunt cake pan is involved.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-09-29 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A brand new Republic Troll!

With all due respect, kindly fuck off.

by lojasmo 2008-09-29 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Good lord, all of the McCain talking points in one paragraph!
You should get extra points for that one, cuffy!

I'm really looking forward to Governor Palin talking about the economy at the debate, it should be quite entertaining.

by skohayes 2008-09-29 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

"Don't bet on a majority in the house, I think the Republicans have a great chance."

Not after today, they don't...

Democrats responsible for this mess?  Sure, right...  What world are you living in?   This is the inevitable result of Reaganomics...  no regulation leading to great fraud!  It's the republican way!

I hope Palin brings up the Fannie Mae stuff, then we can find out how McCain's campaign manager is STILL on Fannie Mae's payroll, specifically to lobby McCain...

by LordMike 2008-09-29 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Republican trolls = hide rated on sight.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-09-29 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

F and F aren't the source of the problem. That is a lie the Republicans have been doing their best to spread around, but it is still a lie. The bill to protect credit default swaps from any regulation was a wholly Republican backed bill, and it is the major source of our troubles. F and F were brought down by being over-leveraged (something that both the Dems and the Repubs allowed), and by being pushed into being a purchaser of mortgage backed securities from the ibanks to shore up the system in the past two years. F and F loan backing for the CRA program was overwhelmingly to safe fixed rate mortgages. Those loans had nothing to do with the current crisis, which was brought about by bad ARMs with unreasonably low teaser rates sold by unregulated non-banks, and backed by under-regulated ibanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear-Sterns, using unregulated credit default swaps to create the illusion of safety for the derived securities, which were then sold to F and F (eventually leading to their downfall).

by letterc 2008-09-29 07:48PM | 0 recs
Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

again.

After all, when he's got Robert Rubin and Roger Altman as his main advisers on this crisis, you can't really expect him to stand for American homeowners, and to force the rich to pay for this.

And you shouldn't be surprised.

When Obama starts listening to guys like David Sirota or James K. Galbraith, or Nader, then I might be impressed.

by neaguy 2008-09-29 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

Jesus, it's a new Troll Onslaught.

Man, it must be getting ugly at Texas Darlink's hell hole and at NoQuarters for them to let you out of your cages.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-29 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

This place is infested with them.  Poor Jess81 is being hounded by a serial TR abuser.

Just another reason I barely waste my time on MyDD anymore.

by fogiv 2008-09-29 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

Budapest hit me on a couple of other threads as well.

I guess it is so depressing over at NoQuarter and Texas Darlin's internet pit of anger, they are flocking over here.

Moderators, ban Budapest. Not posting, just going from thread to thread Hide Rating....

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-29 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

It started this morning. Someone apparetnly stocked up the basement with a case of Mountain Dew and ten family size bags of Doritos, and has been on a tear all day. I imagine they think it's the wingnut version of World of Warcraft. In any case, my entire comment history is polluted with troll droppings now. Ick.

by BobzCat 2008-09-29 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

I actually just checked to see if HillaryIs44 had closed down, and the inmates were fleeing like cockroaches from a dumpster.  But it's still up and running, so...  back to the dumpster with ya, trolls!

by failsafe 2008-09-29 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

Yeah, he should listen to a few non-economists about this.  That's the ticket!

by rfahey22 2008-09-29 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprisingly Obama on the wrong side...

Nader?  LOL!  I'll be happy if Nader just starts listening to himself.

by failsafe 2008-09-29 04:50PM | 0 recs
Dems should scrap the Bush bailout altogether...

Yup, get the money to the injured not the injurers, and institute major re-regulation.

At the beginning of this election cycle I wrote that it really looked like we were doing Roosevelt/Hoover all over again.  Seems to be turning out that way.  

by mady 2008-09-29 03:52PM | 0 recs
Here's what I predict.

One of the candidates will ride into town on a white horse and save the day.  The other candidate will be toast.

by GFORD 2008-09-29 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's what I predict.

I agree, but it's Obama's move now, don't you think?  McCain rode into town, deputised the trouble-makers, shot up the saloon and rode off again.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-29 04:31PM | 0 recs
Yes

That's how I see it.  The Republicans pulled a childish stunt that is one of a long string of childish stunts.  I see it backfiring on them when we pull off a stunt of our own that trumps theirs. ;)

by GFORD 2008-09-29 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's what I predict.

I doubt it. There will have been so much finger-pointing and blame-gaming going until this bill finally gets passed, people won't know who actually got the thing done.

And frankly, McCains "friends" in the congress havent been doing him many favors lately. Virtually none of them backed him up on his story that he rode in and saved the day during the final negotiations on this bill.

Add that to the comedy stylings McCain portrayed yesterday when he claimed credit for passage of the bailout plan HOURS BEFORE IT FAILED.

If my 401k didnt suck so bad right now, I couldnt stop laughing at this clown.

by KoolJeffrey 2008-09-29 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Frankly, I was generally in favor of the bill until the details came out this morning.  Grandfathering golden parachutes was the final straw for me.  Nonetheless, I think a palatable bill which is tougher on execs and which more strongly guarantees that taxpayers will be paid back fully for any funds put up within 5 years would be fine.

People have to remember that this will not be anywhere as costly as it is being portrayed - a lot of the loans are salvageable, and protections can be put in to guarantee paybacks. The idea of riding it out sounds fine as long as you believe this is all about saving greedy folks on Wall Street.  I suspect most who feel that way haven't tried to get a car loan recently nor have much of their retirement dollars in the stock market.  

No, this isn't going to be fun, and the final bill will have plenty of areas deserving criticism, but leaving this until after the election will hurt a lot more ordinary people than Wall Street types.

by LanceS 2008-09-29 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Well, in many ways, this is the best thing that could have happened...

The American public and the blogosphere at large were in complete and total denial of the crisis before us...  Now, that they "got what they wanted" (i.e. no bailout), we are seeing the financial world plummeting into the abyss...

...and now, many of those same deniers are scared.  While a yes vote was politically toxic yesterday, a no vote may be just as toxic tomorrow.

By Friday, the economy may be almost gone.... A lot of people were warned about this possibility, but today, they stopped ignoring it....

What does that mean for us?  It means that it's politically OK to actually "own" the bill now...  So, that means we can actually craft a good, democratic bill that will do more for much less...  

Better get cracking.... the economy disappears in a few days...

by LordMike 2008-09-29 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Youre damned right they better get cracking. My broker just told me the market is looking at a 2500-point drop within 72 hours if nothing is passed.

Jerome might be right about being able to do nothing but make cuts and raise taxes in January, but remember we were faced with a similiar situation in 1992 and Dems were able to find a way through it. And we came so close to getting a health care plan out of that crisis.

The problem this time is the wars....

by KoolJeffrey 2008-09-29 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

The more I hear about how Sweden handled their problem, the more I like it.  There's no reason we can't have tax payer owned banks.  It's probably not the best long term solution, but better then just buying up all the bad loans and letting Wall Street start to play another round of "let's make stupid loans".  And once the banks are fixed, they can be put up for sale and cover our investment in them.

And all the investors that made those bad investments they didn't understand... too f'ning bad.  

by j royale 2008-09-29 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Yeah, I doubt it can happen because, amazingly, "dirty commie" still scares people in this country in a way I don't even think it does in Germany (wtf?!).  But this seems like the best bet, and we can always sell the banks off again once things recover -- Fannie and Freddie were de-nationalized in the 60s, after all.

And if the Swedes could do it, we definitely can.  Our bikini team could totally take theirs down.

by failsafe 2008-09-29 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Dems should scrap the bailout altogether...

By the time all that happens, the market will probably have dropped 25%.

by KoolJeffrey 2008-09-29 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Am I missing something...didn't the DOW tank right after 9/11?  And while it took a few years, it rose out of the ashes AND there was no second great depression...

And while we are at it, there are SOME differences that make me want to wait a BIT longer before I lop off my own head and run around screaming:

1.  FDIC.  Something they did not have that gives us all a GREAT amount of short-term security.  This will SAVE a lot of Mom-and-Pops because their actual SAVINGS will not evaporate if the bank falls.

2.  There is no Dustbowl, no great agricultural impact.  We do not lack for necessities.

I say we wait it out and see what happens.  Let the DOW drop to 8300, it has been there before THIS CENTURY and last I looked, we all survived.

Then, let team Obama make a suggestion on how to fix it.  Remember, I have hope and have not been let down yet.

by Hammer1001 2008-09-29 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Before busting the bank

Dow has nothing to do with it really.

Get ready for businesses being unable to borrow against credit lines which means fewer jobs which means deeper recession.  Get ready to not be able to get a mortgage, which means a longer housing crisis, which means deeper recession.  Get ready for your credit cards to go away.

Savings aren't the issue.  Credit contraction and no liquidity will inflict huge damage on the economy.

Get ready to be completely pwned by the Chinese and the Saudis.

Yay, us.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-09-29 05:56PM | 0 recs
Let The Bankers Flip Burgers!

I guess maybe it's time for Obama to spin off the Raineses and Johnsons. Everyone in the House who had "high powered economic advisers" got their tails handed to them today, regardless of party.

The people quite simply have lost all faith in these expert hot-shots. WE DO NOT FEEL INCLINED TO BAIL OUT RECKLESS BANKERS ANYMORE! We simply do not want to. If that means the stock market goes down to zero, it's just another number to us.

We don't want anymore fancy economic mumbo-jumbo! No more money to bankers. If you read the blogs and watch the polls, this sentiment is running at 1,000 to 1. How much mumbo-jumbo will it take to beat that? We don't want our taxes doubled. If a few "experts" have to find work flipping burgers, so be it. We are not going to pay any more for this. This is really quite simple!

by blues 2008-09-29 05:59PM | 0 recs
I really really wish it was that simple,

but I have the nagging feeling that when the remaining automakers lay off all of their employees (you're not buying a car with a wad of cash), businesses don't make payroll (tomorrow), and the rest of the places where that mumbo-jumbo meets the people, sentiments may change.

by chrisblask 2008-09-29 06:48PM | 0 recs
The People's Response Was That Simple

But behind that, hundreds, probably thousands of the most independent economists insisted that a banker's bailout would do nothing to help the grass roots economy in the long run (long run = 1 month). So here is my present position on the matter:

If these banks are really bankrupt, they are effectively worth nothing. So the banks themselves should be seized under the eminent domain Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Since they are actually bankrupt, they should cost the taxpayer $1.00 per bank. That's a lot less than $700,000,000,000.ºº, I should think, and at least the public would own them.

We are talking 700,000,000,000.ºº Dollars, and a population of 300,000,000. Now:

700000000000/300000000 = 2333.333333333334

With the bailout, each man, woman, child must give $2333.³³ to rich bankers who made bad deals.

I live in a community of 30,000; a very small city.

2333.333333333334×30000 = 70000000.000000015

Instead of giving this money to the rich bankers who made the bad deals, we could give $70,000,000.ºº to my small city. If it costs $10,000,000.ºº to build one industrial enterprise, my city could build 70 industrial enterprises.

Why do we need to relieve rich bankers who made very bad deals? What are we nuts? Why keep listening to the bone-tossing economics mumbo-jumbo artists? Once we give the money to the bankers, they will move to Switzerland or England or Israel or Australia and take it all with them. We will never get it back!

Why give all our money to these con artists? Why not give it to our own communities, so they can use it to build sustainable enterprises, like wind farms? The economists have had their chance to play with our fortunes. We better stop listening to them right now, and begin moving to save our sorry selves!

by blues 2008-09-29 07:14PM | 0 recs
I feel the same level of dissatisfaction

with a bank bailout, but I know something has to be done to get the credit market alive.  Does giving each person (or each community, based on population) a pile of cash do anything to fix that?  Can people buy cars?

by chrisblask 2008-09-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Buying Cars Contributes Nothing

Communities building cars creates a productivity system. Give them a fish? Or teach them to catch them? That is our real choice now!

by blues 2008-09-29 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Buying Cars Contributes Nothing

The cars are an analogy and an example.

And if people can't buy them, no-one gets paid to build them...

by chrisblask 2008-09-29 08:30PM | 0 recs
The key is to do things

That help mainstreet..bring in our programs that help the majority of people and have a favorable rating. The health care issue will be a huge success if done correctly, regulating Wall Street and give investors a say on the board, remove tax loopholes on the rich and businesses...they gorged themselves under Bush now they can pay their share to correct our country.  Remove the SS cap to eliminate the solvency issue. We have to quit being chickens and allowing the Republicans to manipulate us..lets play offense for a change.

by netgui68 2008-09-29 06:56PM | 0 recs
Think I Don't Watch The Wires? I Watch Always!

I even watch the ultra-hard-core investment specialists! For example:

Bernanke PROVED Paulson Plan Bankrupt

I am not some 20 year old maven! I can feel the tsunami rolling on in! You better get to high ground!

by blues 2008-09-29 08:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads