Bailout Scorecard: Ignorant Masses 1, Elites 0
I know it's rude in DC policy circles to ever hold people accountable for the things they said way back when they were two weeks younger, but I like to break rules.
Remember all those folks who said that it was absolutely essential that the bailout bill be passed immediately or the economy would collapse? How can these people explain the fact that 10 days after he has had the full legal authority to act, Secretary Paulson has still done nothing with the $700 billion that Congress handed him. Doesn't Paulson realize the urgency?
Remember those who said that it was so urgent to pass a bailout package that even a badly designed bill had to be approved. Even if Secretary Paulson's proposal for buying bad assets through a reverse auction mechanism was a complex and inefficient way to re-capitalize the banks, it was still essential that he be given the money to go this route. What does it mean that even Secretary Paulson has now abandoned this approach? (Give Paulson credit for good judgment and being willing to change his mind, but what a waste it would have been if he had followed the initial course.)
Finally, remember the political leaders who assured the public that the restrictions on executive compensation included in the bailout would ensure that the taxes paid by school teachers and fire fighters were not subsidizing the income of the multi-millionaire bankers who had wrecked their banks and the economy? It turns out that these restrictions are not likely to affect executive compensation at all.
This is not just a question of trying to rub anyone's face in the ground for being wrong. This is how Washington politics is played. Imagine that the bailout had gone down a second time. Suppose that the financial markets and credit markets had panicked in the same way that they actually have panicked since the bailout's passage.
The newspapers would be filled with news stories, columns, and editorials condemning the ignorant hordes who just can't understand economics, and who forced their leaders in Congress to vote against the bill. However, when bad things happen after Congress follows the advice of the elite (who, by the way brought us to this crisis in the first place), no one is supposed to say anything.
Well, the real story here is that the elites brought us this mess. They were too dumb to see an $8 trillion housing bubble and to recognize the damage it would cause when it burst. They didn't know what they were doing then and they still don't know what they are doing now.
Could be because someone just discovered that the plan could just as well come up with values for the securities held by banks that are way below what currently appears on their balance sheets… taking away much of what remains of blissful ignorance… and turning it really into a “take-down” plan… and who wants to be responsible for that?
And that is why the preferred shares route, is much more lenient, on all.
October 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how it went down: they were holding a gun to our kids' head and threatening to pull the trigger if something wasn't done. Even Krugman, when he acknowledged this wasn't working said still that we could not have done nothing - it was too dangerous.
So ok, it didn't turn out to be a solution. It was always a big fat risk. Everything is at this point, but screaming about what is being tried and not being tried, which seems to me to be more than a little counterproductive at this point.
Especially since we're about 100 days out from a new president.
Whatever they do is a stopgap but I was not prepared to sit there and watch the Mother of all Bank Runs and that's what we were looking at.
October 12, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember all those folks who said that it was absolutely essential that the bailout bill be passed immediately or the economy would collapse?
But no one said its provisions had to be implemented, immediately, did they.
October 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baker is writing revisionist recent history for propaganda effect. He says:
Remember all those folks who said that it was absolutely essential that the bailout bill be passed immediately or the economy would collapse?
My version of the history is that "all those folks" were saying that Congress needed to address the problem and the proposal right away and not go home for recess. That worked, they didn't go home, they passed a bill.
But I give him a break because he also says
This is how Washington politics is played and that does strike me as a correct assessment.
I never understood the "outrage" about Paulson's 3-page proposal. From the moment I saw it, it was clear that it was just a proposal, it's vagueness and simplicity a jab in the ribs to get the ball rolling, to scare the bejesus out of Congress to sit down and do something ASAP, to get a rise out of them, to get them to work. Why bother writing up a book proposal, Congress was going to write a different one anyway! The point was to get them to empower him to do something now, and not several months from now. The point was also to insulate the ability to do something from the politics of presidential race, which would assure delay for several months. Mission accomplished. Smart politics played.
October 12, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Did we really want several months of the input of the U.S. masses and media into the bill? Imagine that going on right now while stuff like this is going on. Any people out there think things couldn't be worse right now? I disagree. If Congress was still arguing about a bill, I think things might be much worse.
Also, it strikes me after writing the above that in this post we may have Baker basically complaining that Paulson is now being too cautious with taxpayer monies in order to make the point that Paulson's original proposal was not cautious enough with taxpayer monies?
October 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't give me this crap, Dean. YOU were one of the people that said we needed a bailout package. YOU were one of the people who said we needed this bailout package.
And you're really going to jump on the bash-the-elites rail? With your Ph.D from Michigan and your BA from Swarthmore?
Who do you think you are, really? Do you think you're a member of the ignorant masses? You're a hyper-educated elite, Dean.
If you're going to do this, at least do a better job. Wear overalls. Adopt a Southern accent. Pretend you spent some time on a farm or grew up on the streets.
October 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who's seen my attempt to elucidate a housing rescue plan knows I'm no expert on economics so I don't mind asking this.
Paulson has been doing something the past few days--going to meetings with muckety-mucks, looking at pieces of paper, speaking to the media. Could you explain how this particular set of somethings actually amounts to nothing? Is it because he hasn't spent any of the money? Is it because the Dow is still down? What do you feel he ought to have done with the 700 billion by now?
Also, is it possible, as I think Ellen and Tena are implying, that the main objective was to get a plan passed, then stand around seeming planful and keeping eveyone's spirits up for the next couple of months until the new crew arrives? (One is reminded of the bumper sticker that says "Christ is coming. Look busy.")
I would really like to understand how you arrived at this conclusion....
October 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
$64,000 Question:
What happened over the last 10 days to make Paulson change his mind on what to do with the $700 billion?
October 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
He actually thought about it? (That 3 page plan wasn't really too fleshed out, ya know...)
October 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like seeming planful; that's going to get me clear through to my next performance review!
But I don't know if the current administration is really just trying to keep it from melting down around them for the next 100 days.
They're not exactly in this for the greater good. They're spending every minute trying to figure out how they can maximize the status quo and keep the institutions unquestionably under private control.
October 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of playing Krugman's "Russian Roullette" you think they're playing "kick the can"? I'd agree with you, but now that Europe is involved and sinking fast, a real, non-Bush solution must be found.
It's amazing though: Paulson and Bernanke were that committed to Bush before Europe got infected to actually play along with W's top down bailout. They sold-out their reputations in this life, and in the history books.
October 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was apparent from the beginning of the drumbeat for the $700 Billion that it was a bad idea. Anyone with any sense at all knew it as evidenced by the nearly unprecedented level (nearly unanimous) of public opposition to the theft of the money for the rich. The little people understood from day one what was going on. It was only the "smart" people, their betters who didn't see exactly what the hell was going down.
The most striking thing of all, and it is nearly beyond belief, is that the cowardly Democrats were the ones who did all the heavy lifting for Bush's last big raid on the US Treasury. Then again, they're so incredibly stupid and cowardly he just might be back one more time before he leaves DC and they are such chickens they'll probably do it again. What's worse though is how apparent the bailout/burglary legislation makes it that the Democrats are actually not all that different than the Republicans when it comes to being the lackies who do the bidding of predatory wealth in America. It is instructive and people should carefully take note particularly as it relates to all this talk of "change" being bandied about in this election.
The same corporate Democratic whores who approved the tax cuts for the rich, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the FISA revisions with get out of jail free cards for the telecoms, and now the great $700 billion heist are the ones so many people are hoping will be the ones to usher in "real" change after Obama wins? Think again suckers! This is highly unlikely unless and until voters make it clear that it isn't just the Republicans who will be swept aside, but also the collaborator Democrats who have enabled all these disasters for lo these past 8 years.
I hate to rain on the parades of so many who are all excited about wining the Presidency this time, but look at the facts. Obama supported the rotten FISA and bailout bills. He is clearly a confirmed member of the insider crowd in DC and they love him because they are very comfortable with the fact that he's not going to do much, if anything, to upset the status quo there. After all, he is running ads on tv that are selling the myth that there is some sort of middle ground between the insurance companies and real national health care like every other decent nation has and everyone who is serious knows that's just a fantasy. As long as the insurance companies are in charge of health care we are all screwed and people know it. Did you see how the little line spiked on CNN in the debate when Obama bashed the health insurance companies? Yet he won't go against them. How is this man going to lead "real" change when he isn't really for "real" change? And it isn't just on healthcare. For God's sake he's for the expansion of nuclear power, an even more obscenely large defense budget, etc... He is for a centrist brand of politics that masquerades as a "practical" approach that's motto is "go slow" and that is both antithetical to real change and which ensures that the advantage on the political/legislative playing field remains with the interests of corporate wealth and power.
Bottom line is this, when liberals/progressives forgot everything they had been saying they would finally demand through the Bush years to get behind Obama, they freely relinquished all the real leverage they would have otherwise had to demand real, substantive change starting in January 2009 as it applies to all issues incluing this economic catastrophe and the phony $700 billion bailout/heist. If anyone expects the poltroons and liars in Congress headed by Reid and Pelosi to spearhead an agenda for real change they are fooling themselves. The entire governing establishment in DC is corrupt to the core with precious few exceptions--such as Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, etc... They will continue to do idiotic things like the $700 billion giveaway to the rich until the people make it clear they will be replaced if these shenanigans continue.
October 12, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to rain on the parades of so many who are all excited about wining the Presidency this time . . . .
From my reading those who hang out on this side of the Cafe's front page aren't all that enthusiastic.
October 12, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
the cowardly Democrats were the ones who did all the heavy lifting for Bush's last big raid on the US Treasury
We have very different visions of what went down.
I saw a Democratic Congress say to the administration: we see the problem, but we are going to do it our way, not yours, using Obama's economic advisors and not yours, because we think he is going to be the next president.
Then a bunch of House members on the far right and far left of the House spectrum, including quite a few up for re-election, voted against the House bill.
Then the grown-ups in our government set-up, the Senate (as visualized by the founders to do things like insulate foreign policy from populist passion,) saw the reality of what had to be done, what refinements had to be made, and that some members unfortunately had to be bought off because of re-election pressures, to get something urgent done, and some other changes were necessary to the bill in order to adjust it for a new presidency and a new Treasury Secretary in 2009.
And they put the right pork in the bill to get the right votes for those under re-election pressure to enable it to pass. Meanwhile, some House members got out of Washington, and went home (away from the DC lobbyists, and into the world of local "lobbyists") and found out that their email inboxes were not an accurate representation of the opinion of their actual constituency of grown up people that make up the economic engine of this country and also vote often, and that, yes indeed, it was true that credit was being frozen out there for plumbing supply companies and farmers and the like. And the House came back, and some switched their votes, whether honestly because of constituent input or dishonestly because of preferential pork, and passed the Senate bill.
I basically saw it working just like in the history books, as intended. Even to the point where, even though under time pressure, the Congressional leaders made it so that more law can be made to amend the results in the next Congressional sesssion. The Senate played its role as grownups, not totally beholden to passions of the electorate. You apparently saw them protecting their wealthy friends, I saw them trying to ameliorate a world recession against the tide populist irrational self-defeating will to have revenge against economic winners to one's own detriment, a actual known syndrome.
Congress is not done dealing with this and with the recession, they are still working on the "new world order" as it were. Who knows, we may get closer to single payer health insurance sooner than expected because of this, with circumstances quickly developing beyond the wildest dreams of Obama's health insurance advisors. whatever the results, despite the outrage of the far right and the far left, deficit spending by governments is the story for the foreseeable future, worldwide.
You see U.S. government "shenanigans," but I see other world leaders doing more along the lines of "shenanigans" than us. Are you with the Tories and not Labour? Is Gordon Brown "corrupt to the core" to "insist that co-ordinated international action along the lines of his £500bn bank bail-out is the only way to ease "extraordinary" turmoil on markets."
October 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the reality of what had to be done"
What they did, most certainly did not have to be done and it grows clearer with every day that this is the case.
"What had to be done" according to officialdom, was to sign a blank check for the relief of the wealthy thieves and conmen who engineered this economic debacle. That they did, but as far as anyone with any common sense can see, what the Congress did, did not in any way, shape or form "have" to be done.
There were and are numerous alternatives that are far more beneficial to those who have to pick up the tab. The rush to push through the heist was not, as you believe, an example of how the system is supposed to work. Quite the opposite in fact. Our system is designed to slow down red herrings like the $700 billion theft so that a more sober, clear direction can be considered. That is what insulates our system from "the passions" of the people. Instead, what we saw was panic at the highest level from the White House and Treasury who then used the media to stampede Congress into passing a an ill-conceived piece of shit that isn't going to do anything to stop the ongoing collapse of the financial system but that does heap nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt on the common people to pay off and for our children and grandchildren to payoff during the period of time we start getting used to being ruled by the Chinese, from whom it is all being borrowed.
The "grown ups" as you referred to them, acted like a bunch of scared little girls and did as their masters wanted. What they did not do was to protect the people's interests.
October 12, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as you are, and for many of the same reasons. By the way, Dodd and Schumer, among others on the Dem side, were supporters of Gramm/Leach/Bliley. Oh, and Clinton signed it.
More recently, Pelosi set the trend they were taking when she said Impeachment is off the table, giving Bush another blank check to add to the one he already grabbed.
A pox on both parties.
October 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andy Kohut says that opinion was closely divided as became more evident when the house turned down
artappraiserBailout #1.
Perhaps. But I take Paulson at his word. Had Congress been so foolish as to simply pass his proposal do you think Paulson would have said :" just one minute I think you need to add a level of oversight".
Right now what concerns me is our silence on Paulson's intention to purchase non-voting bank shares. I'm going to blog on that.
October 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always appreciate and read your input on this, will be checking out your blog.
October 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
flavius,
Public opinion was not divided at all about opposing the bailout for the rich. Only when the questions were engineered to give no alternative and when the questions assumed the bailout as a fait accomplis was opinion divided.
What it boiled down to was whether, once the bailout was presented as a fait accomplis, people still opposed the raid on the treasury. Many people were willing to acquiesce on the assumption that the bailout would actually do some good. Nobody, including Kohut, asked if they would support the heist if it had little or no chance o doing any good.
October 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You created a bigger problem to deal with.
The markets needed reassurance that something, anything, is done now.
The crisis is real, finding the solution is the trouble, but we don’t have all day to wait and see what happens.
Imagine you have cancer, you can clearly see you have it, your doctor says we need to act quickly it is spreading.
So you decide to delay and the condition has spread to another area. Sure, you got a second opinion, and it tells you, you're condition requires a more radical procedure. But Oh No! You want another opinion. When will you make a decision?
Paulson comes before the Congress, giving an outline of his plan, knowing full well Congress was going to tinker with it, but for sure Congress needed to act, something needed to be done now, it is an urgent matter.
Congress gets flack from the uninformed, so a delay happens, and the problem spreads.
Did we go into remission? No!
The whole World body starts to feel the effects of the growing cancer, and now what was a serious matter then, could be potentially, a death-dealing blow.
So here we are watching the cancer spread and now were dealing with what is the right approach now, infighting between those with an opinion, all the while the cancer isn’t abating in it’s progression. It’s now going to cost more, because the problem got bigger.
Deal with it, or die.
October 12, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crisis is real . . . .
What makes you think so?
The stock market's adjusted to a valuation which bespeaks fair value in a recession (unless you think we're not in or heading into a recession).
Banks have access to all the credit they want what with the Fed offering cheap money via TAF, TSLF, and PDCF not to mention paying interest on bank reserves and they look like they'll get even more out of TARP.
Money market funds are flush. With the exception of some corporations which are having to pay higher rates than they'd like to, businesses who can demonstrate the Three C's (capacity, character, and credit) aren't having problems getting loans. And the Fed Friendly is loaning to companies that can't get money anywhere else.
Where's the "crisis"?
October 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I believe were in a recession, that in it's self, is a crisis for some.
The old adage: A recession is when my neighbor is out of work.
A depression is when I'm out of work.
I don't want to slip into a Depression; I believe that would be a crisis.
When I hear global markets are showing critical signs of collapse, I see that as a cause of alarm.
How it eventually impacts America, is what I'm concerned with.
October 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As respects the real economy -- in contradistinction to the banking and hedge fund casino -- it appears that consumers/savers are in the process of adjusting their time preferences. In other words they are beginning to increase their preference for savings over consumption.
The result will be the discovery that a lot of folks (principally, entrepreneurs and home owners) have made a bunch of malinvestments. Nothing unusual, that; it's the usual result of Fed-generated low interest rates.
There's nothing that government can do to prevent a post-boom recession. Well; that's not completely accurate. It can pump out the money (2001-2004) and produce a harsher adjustment (2008-?).
October 12, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to break the discussion thread.
Dean's latest post from the Arena at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Dean_Baker_3CD25D14-556F-41DA-8F0E-C78CF9891AD0.html
Dean, please post this at TPM - it is a great point.
October 12, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two major events. One is economic recession. The other is the end of Ponzi financing and over-reliance on monetary policy in general. They interact.
Where recession is concerned, the forecasting and policy issues have to do with how deep and how long, e.g., can a decade long recession be avoided and, if so, how.
The crisis in financial markets involves a major adjustment in asset values.
If you are out of a job, were the last in on a Ponzi deal, or are involved in a financial institution, there is a crisis for you and those in a similar situation and that has some ripple effect.
If you are simply a frightened ordinary depositor shuffling money around, that's plain old panic and doesn't help. If you have retirement savings, they are and will take a hit to the extent they've been invested in inflated assets.
They've done quite a bit to protect depositors and to make credit available. Cleaning up the mess in the financial institutions, getting regulation back in place, and starting to use fiscal policy is not going to happen quickly.
As far as the financial crisis goes, it's not clear that many people have a great deal of confidence in Paulson and Bernanke. Paulson is going to identify his tiger team next week. They'v got to start triage on the banks. He's got to pick people and make moves that make sense.
I'm not sure how orderly you can expect the asset price adjustment to be. There's still a lot that needs to be sorted out. The credit default swaps (CDS's) are one of the dumbest forms of insurance I've ever seen and they've tried to protect yields set in a Ponzi scheme. I don't see how they can possibly hold together as this sorts out.
There is no such thing as fast enough in this kind of situation. Let's hope someone starts paying attention to keeping the real economy going. I don't expect that from this administration. Maybe Paulson will be able to clean up some of the institutional messes. I don't think it's going to be pretty.
October 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crisis in financial markets involves a major adjustment in asset values.
While there's no question that there's a "major adjustment in asset values" going on, I fail to see why you think there's a "crisis in financial markets."
And if there were, why should any of us care? See, above.
October 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I meant is that if you were dependent on what you aptly describe as a casino, then it may be a crisis for you either because you have, or will, lose your job or some money. I was looking for some way to point out that the effects of all the hubbub are fairly localized. Others, of course, will make money off of what is going on.
I think the recession and need for regulation are the bigger problem.
What should we call what is going on? I'm not implying any disagreement with what you've been saying. Just looking for language.
October 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. Our views seem very similar, and we shouldn't (I shouldn't) separate us by "language."
My frustration comes from everyone's willingness to adopt the language of the Paulsons and the Wall Street banks. I don't believe there's evidence to support the cries and moans coming from these favored financiers and don't want us to be buying in to their self-serving description of what's happening.
Off topic. Those whining banks are said to have been putting the squeeze on the hedge funds to increase their cash collateral. The hedge funds have had to sell the only assets they own that still enjoys a large, liquid market -- shares of stock. So -- DOW 8000!
October 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem and no offense was taken but I appreciate expressions of good will.
I asked a wise old bird in the neighborhood what she would call it. She replied, "Oh. Goldman Sachs doing it again" and immediately asked if I'd heard about the GS guy Paulson just put in charge.
October 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, "where is the crisis?" is a good question.
You all know what I am going to say: the crisis is in the housing sector, where it's been since values got out of whack, lending expanded to meet the wackiness, and millions of people were drawn into the mess as "free-marketers" on both sides of the aisle cheered the party on.
Whatever the pros or cons of the bank/global financial market bailout, the reason it's not working is: the proposal that's supposed to calm the fancy-pants markets that few of us understand got passed by fanning the flames of panic about the housing market and retirement savings, which are a lot easier for the average American to figure out.
I don't know what it's going to take to make people figure out that the same kind of "I just don't know where the money is going to come from" trepidation that has frozen the financial markets is precisely the same kind of fear that's been affecting decision-making at kitchen tables all over the country for years.
The solution lies in addressing the housing problem, and nothing will work unless that happens. And one hint--letting prices "fall back to their 'real' levels is not the solution.
October 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . frozen the financial markets . . . .
I really wish people would stop repeating the Administration and its banker buddies' self-serving propaganda.
There is evidence that certain banks are finding it more profitable to borrow from the Fed than from the marketplace. But there's no evidence that the financial markets are "frozen."
October 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... so all this talk of banks not trusting each other is not true?
It is kind of hard to stop repeating others' self-serving propaganda if we don't actually know what the propaganda is.
Any hints about which statements are true and which statements are false ?
October 12, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As they say, "talk" is cheap.
Nobody cares whether banks trust each other or don't -- unless it affects their ability to make loans. It doesn't.
Banks have all the money they want and no need to borrow from other banks -- and thus, there's no "credit crisis" resulting from a lack of trust.
October 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been following all of the commentary pretty closely, especially those by economists such as Dr. Baker, Dr. Krugman and Dr. DeLong, and I still haven't come up with a single solitary person who backs these bailouts who doesn't stand to profit from them. I see no evidence of a "Mother of All Bank Runs" or "credit crunch" or anything like that. Just a bunch of elites pulling the biggest scam in history. Stock market collapse? I don't know. The Dow Jones went down to the 7000s in 2002 or so and nobody panicked then.
I think the main thing that Paulson is waiting for is the election. It was all a set-up. After that there's a two month period when they will be able to do anything they want. Which is steal everything they haven't been able to steal during the Clinton-Bush years. And Obama won't do a thing to stop them.
October 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The presidential election is a few weeks away and then we limp through until January 20th when President-Elect Obama takes office. In the interim Obama will be making cabinet appointments including a new Treasury Secretary and the transition will start. I hope Treasury is one of his first appointments to build confidence in the financial sector and signal to investors that the worse is over.
In hind sight the Paulson remedy of buying up bad debt is not the way to stabilize the banks, the British system of buying into them is sounder. We all rebelled against taking over someone else’s debts when we followed the rules and they greedily made their own rules. Kudos to Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, this may guarantee their re-election.
Something did need to be done, but all the great financial minds in this country don’t work for the Treasury and the Fed. A little more time and less pressure politics would have led to a better bailout bill. Here’s to a new Administration, a new Treasury Secretary and may be even a new Fed Chairman.
October 13, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this video about Sarah Palin. It's crazy hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1exiyBYnJ00
October 13, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this video about Sarah Palin. It's crazy hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1exiyBYnJ00
October 13, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink