Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Free Market for Agribusiness

I remember when farmers boasted of being self-reliant, taking care of themselves withhout any handouts, rigorous individualists and believers in the free market. What do we have now? Farmers being paid for not producing and not selling. We don’t call them handouts any more, they are subsidies.

Now that there is legislation in Congress to reduce farm subsidies, Congress finds it hard to do this. The worst part about this situation is that most of the subsidies are going to agribusiness and not to small farmers. Liberal Kevin Drum quotes conservative Spruiell at the Corner:

Ninety-two percent of farm-dwellers derive either all or most of their income from sources other than farming or subsidies....The other 8 percent — commercial farmers who derive most of their income from farming and subsidies — earned an average of $200,000 last year — an increase of 22 percent from 2006. This year, income for this group is projected to hit $230,000 — another 9.3-percent increase. The USDA, which calculated these estimates, reported last year that the windfall for commercial farmers is due in large part to "demand from the rapid expansion of ethanol production."

....Right now, Congress is attempting to renew farm subsidies for five more years, even though the vast majority of the payments go to farmers who are making six figures a year. The chief obstacle is President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill in its current form. Bush, who signed the massive 2002 farm bill, has set an unbelievably low bar for Congress to clear, calling only for modest spending restraint in the wake of record farm incomes. Yet Congress cannot even bring itself to cap payments to millionaires, among other simple reforms.

There are at least 2 things terribly wrong. The first is obvious. People earning more thant $200,000 a year are making money off the government - that's us - for doing and offering nothing.

The second is that subsidies are being spent for the "rapid expansion of ethanol production." This obviously is catering to corn states who are using corn to make ethanol. These states don't need subsidies. Business is good, thank you. Besides, corn ethanol offers almost no improvement in carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, corn subsidies have raised food prices all over the world.

We daily annouce to the world that we believe in free trade. What a farce. The only reason U.S agribusiness gets the business is that the many subsidies of corn and ethanol make their corn and other food products artificially cheaper. Take away the subsidies and poor nations would be able to sell their farm products and make a living.

I'm happy to see that President Bush has threatened a veto - the only veto I approve of.

The free market has been suspended by the Congress/agribusiness coalition. Make agribusiness earn its money and restore the free market.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 2, 2008 10:30 PM
Comments
Comment #251974

Oh my god, we may be in agreement.

Corn/Food to ethanol is killing people and worse for the environment in numerous ways than burning gas.

And now that we’ve started killing people to make fuel, we can’t get the congress to stop. The democrats EXPANDED the corn to fuel and INCREASED demand from ethanol from outside the US even though they were warned time and again it would kill people and was bad for the environment.

Pandering to radicalized and ignorant citizens willing to do anything to “save” the planet has them destroying the planet and killing people then taking a big bow for doing it.

It’s time to outlaw food to fuel and to reduce ethanol requirements MASSIVELY until more eco friendly ethanol can be produced and we stop ruining the environment and starving people to death to do it.

The democratic congress passed that death bill, they can’t say they didn’t.

Posted by: Stephenl at May 2, 2008 11:16 PM
Comment #252003

The level of bloat, waste, graft, pork-barrel, and corporate welfare, and welfare for the wealthy is truly ridiculous.
Just check out these subsidies for one farm (H Bar H Farms Gp / Farwell, TX 79325):

    Year / Conservation Subsidies / Disaster Subsidies / Commodity Subsidies / Total USDA Subsidies 1995-2005:
  • 1995 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $40,614 ___$40,614

  • 1996 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $52,806 ___$52,806

  • 1997 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $42,550 ___$42,550

  • 1998 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $76,898 ___$76,898

  • 1999 $5,040 _$0 _____ $80,000 ___$85,040

  • 2000 $1,050 _$0 _____ $147,208 _ $148,258

  • 2001 $1,050 _$4,992 _ $229,849 _ $235,891

  • 2002 $1,711 _$0 _____ $131,314 _ $133,025

  • 2003 $1,050 _$0 _____ $128,299 _ $129,349

  • 2004 _ $0 __ $0 _____ $-8,199 __ $-8,199

  • 2005 _ $0 __ $76,348 _ $0 ______ $76,348

  • Total $9,901 $81,340 $921,339 __ $1,012,580
And that is just the tip of the severely bloated iceberg …
    (01) $57.3 Billion (year 2005; with 4,487 federal employees) for the Dept. of Education (Executive Branch)?
  • (02) $371 Billion (year 2005; with 2 million federal employess) for the (www.defenselink.mil/sites/) Dept. of Defense (Executive Branch)?

  • (03) $40 Billion (year 2005; with 180,000 federal employess) for the Dept. of Homeland Security (Executive Branch)?

  • (04) $66.8 Billion (year 2005; with 67,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Health and Human Services (includes Medicare and Medicaid) (Executive Branch)?

  • (05) $Billions for subsidies for farms (some owned and operated by corporations) ?

  • (06) $Billions for welfare for foreign nations ?

  • (07) $Billions for the war on drugs?

  • (08) $19.1 Billion (year 2005; with 109,832 federal employees) for the Dept. of Agriculture (Executive Branch)?

  • (09) $5.8 Billion (year 2005; with 40,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Commerce (Executive Branch)?

  • (10) $31.3 Billion (year 2005; with 16,100 federal employees) for the Dept. of Energy (Executive Branch)?

  • (11) $10.8 Billion (year 2005; with 71,436 federal employees) for the Dept. of the Interior (e.g. land management, Indian arts, park services, minerals, etc.) (Executive Branch)?

  • (12) $22.0 Billion (year 2005; with 109,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Justice (e.g. FBI, Attorney General, ATF, prisons, Tax Division, etc.) (Executive Branch)?

  • (13) $11.9 Billion (year 2005; with 17,347 federal employees) for the Dept. of Labor (Executive Branch)?

  • (14) $10.3 Billion (year 2005; with 30,266 federal employees) for the Dept. of State (Executive Branch)?

  • (15) $61.6 Billion (year 2005; with 60,100 federal employees) for the Dept. of Transportation (Executive Branch)?

  • (16) $10.8 Billion (year 2005; with 115,897 federal employees) for the Dept. of the Treasury (Executive Branch)?

  • (17) $51.0 Billion (year 2005; with 219,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Veteran Affairs (Executive Branch)?

  • (18) $Billions for the dysfunctional Judicial Branch (e.g. Supreme Court, Courts, etc.)?

  • (19) $Billions for the dysfunctional Legislative Branch (e.g. Senate, House of Representatives, President of the Senate, etc.) ?

  • (20) $Billions for the hundreds of Independent Agencies (e.g. National Science Foundation, NASA, Federal Reserve System, etc.)?

  • (21) $Billions for the dozens of quasi-official Agencies (e.g. Smithsonian, Technology Reinvestment Project, National Consortium for High Performance Computing, etc.) ?

  • (22) $Billions for the dozens of Federal Boards, Commissions, and Committees (e.g. Appalachian Regional Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, U.S. Institute of Peace, etc.) ?

  • (23) $Billions for the hundreds of Tangential Non-Government Agencies (e.g. Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, The Food and Drug Law Institute, CSPAN, ) ?

  • (24) $Billions for the for these (acuf.org/issues/issue35/050503gov.asp) top 10 ways the federal government wastes money?

  • (25) $Billions for the hundreds of redundant programs:
    • 342 economic development programs;
    • 130 programs serving the disabled;

    • 130 programs serving at-risk youth;

    • 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;

    • 50 homeless assistance programs;

    • 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations.

Also, the tax system is REGRESSIVE. Warren Buffet paid a smaller percentage (17.7%) of federal taxes than his secretary (30%) making $60K per year. Some people think we have a PROGRESSIVE tax system. It’s not. It’s not even NEUTRAL (i.e. a flat income tax).

Other abuses that did not all come about by mere coincidence that are resulting in these 17+ economic conditions that have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

Maybe voters will become less complacent, less apathetic, and more educated about these things when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #252045

This is one of the reasons, Paul, so many in the heartland are going to be voting Democrat this year. The sea change is evident in the polling numbers. Family farmers as a majority are not fairing any better under the Republican economy than their urban counterparts. A change is called for, and McSame ain’t the name of the game.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #252062

Yeah, but will voting Democrat make things better?
No.
Not much better.
Voters need to vote out as many incumbents (in BOTH parites) as possible.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #252069

d.a.n said, “Yeah, but will voting Democrat make things better?”

Yes, in some ways. Worse in others. That is what sustains the duopoly parties musical chairs. There is no question that domestic needs will be better addressed by Democrats, infrastructure will be in better hands, education standards and resources will probably increase. Greater resources will be directed toward energy alternatives that don’t trade one waste crisis with another.

On the other hand, it is very likely shareholders and investors will not get as wealthy as fast as in the past 8 years, and even if PayGo is observed, the national debt will continue to increase though one can hope not at the torrid pace of the last 7+ years. Our foreign policy will become more dependent upon international cooperation, which may prove to be a net positive but, will certainly become far more complicated and certainly at times, more unwieldy. And illegal immigration is likely to continue and our borders remain as insecure as under Republicans.

Certainly our health care system will evolve under Democrats, but whether it ever actually yields any net economic benefit for the future over the present broken system, is rather far fetched, at least in the next 20 years or so.

But, the alternative is leaving the current lot of Republicans in control, and that, as clearly demonstrated in 2006, is not what the American public is in the mood for. So, for better or worse, likely somewhat better in some ways, and worse in a whole lot of ways, simply because of inertia carried forward from the policies of the last 7 years.

A one party controlled government is bound to get carried away with its power. If there is to be a shining light at the end of the Democratic takeover, it can only come in the form of 50% of the electorate choosing to become Independent voters with the will and intent on checking Democrats and Republicans excesses election after election by, as you recommend, a rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment amongst them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2008 3:45 AM
Comment #252087
David R. Remer wrote:
  • d.a.n wrote: Yeah, but will voting Democrat make things better?
Yes, in some ways. Worse in others.
Excluding the presidential candidates, do any incumbent politicians in Congress deserve to be re-elected?

The differences are so small, what is truly warranted is for voters to stop repeatedly rewarding most (if not all) incumbent politicians in the two party duopoly in do-nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
Who ever the next president is, how effective can that president be if sabotaged and saddled with the same do-nothing Congress?
Wouldn’t it be best to vote out a LOT of bad politicians in BOTH parties in Congress?
Of course, that’s the problem.
Not enough voters get it.
They are irrationally fearful of the OTHER party, they will never consider challengers, since challengers are usually in the OTHER party.
This situation did not come about by mere coincidence.
Too few voters understand that the two-party duopoly and that irrational fear empower and sustain high incumbency rates.
Therefore, the incumbent politicians enjoy 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

David R. Remer wrote: That is what sustains the duopoly parties musical schairs.
Absolutely. Especially with 93%-to-99% re-election rates for Congress.

Since voters won’t vote for challengers (who are usually in the OTHER party), the incumbents enjoy very cu$hy 93%-to-99% re-election rates in Congress.

David R. Remer wrote: There is no question that domestic needs will be better addressed by Democrats, infrastructure will be in better hands, education standards and resources will probably increase.
Hmmmmmm … Maybe, but not enough; not by merely swapping the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY. Especially since the debt is so large, which will constrain spending, and so many economic conditions are now worse than ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.
David R. Remer wrote: Greater resources will be directed toward energy alternatives that don’t trade one waste crisis with another.
Hmmmmmm … Maybe, but not enough; not by merely by the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY taking turns. We’ve tried that enough to know it isn’t working and things have still been getting worse (over all) for over 30 years (of which the Democrat party controlled the majority of those past 30 years). Simply letting the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY take turns will not make enough diffence, since most Democrats currently already appear to go along to get along (e.g. Iraq, wire-tapping, torture, constitutional violations, illegal immigration, debt, borrowing, spending, subsidies for the weatlhy, campaign finance, etc.), and debt constraints are now so large. It’s hard to find any significant percentage of issues that really differentiate the politicians in either party (based on their actions; not just rhetoric). And how about Congress giving itself 9 raises in the last 10 years, while our troops risk life and limb, go with out armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits? More of Congress’s disgusting deeds by BOTH Decocrat and Republican incumbent politicians: One-Simple-Idea.com/Links1.htm
David R. Remer wrote: On the other hand, it is very likely shareholders and investors will not get as wealthy as fast as in the past 8 years, and even if PayGo is observed, the national debt will continue to increase though one can hope not at the torrid pace of the last 7+ years.
That depends. If the Democrats simply raise taxes, the tax system will still be regressive. The shape of tax curve is what is important (something too many Americans don’t understand).
David R. Remer wrote: Our foreign policy will become more dependent upon international cooperation, which may prove to be a net positive but, will certainly become far more complicated and certainly at times, more unwieldy. And illegal immigration is likely to continue and our borders remain as insecure as under Republicans.
The Democrats position on illegal immigration alone is a net negative. But once again, the two parties are really not that different on this issue. They pretend there are differences, but we both see the results. McCain voted for the amnesty of 1986, which quadrupled the problem. The politicians prey on the voters misplaced compassion, and refuse to face the estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in annual net losses due to illegal immigration (which doesn’t even include the untold costs of crime (VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com). These massive losses are affecting education, health care, welfare, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, our prisons, border security, safety of our highways, and law enforcement.

How can anyone reconcile the problems with healthcare, hundreds of hospitals closing, and costs to U.S. tax payers while ignoring the impact and massive costs of illegal immigration?
What happened after the last amnesty of 1986 ?

Likewise with the costs (in lives, limbs, and monetarily) of the nation-building and policing the civil war in Iraq.
How can anyone reconcile the economic impact and the massive costs of the nation-building and policing Iraqis’ civil war?

Here is roughly where most of medical expenditures go (in descending order):

  • (01) Hospitals and doctors (52% of medical expenditures in year 2006);

  • (02) Pharmaceutical corporations (10% of medical expenditures in year 2006);

  • (03) Insurance companies (12% of insurance premiums (not expenditures); health insurance, malpractice insurance for doctors, etc.);

  • (04) Illegal Immigration (many billions in some states; 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare and/or Medicaid, and/or Medi-Cal; total net losses due to illegal immigration are $70-to-$338 Billion per year; hundreds of hospitals are closing (60-to-84 in California alone) shifting more burdens to other hospitals; 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp); 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, which also use medical services aside from the daily cost of incarceration; the costs of illegal immigration go far beyond medical expenditures alone; statistics from the Los Angeles Dept. of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County received over $36 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in January 2008, 25% percent of all welfare and food stamps benefits are going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens received over $19 million in welfare assistance for January 2008, and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations, for a projected annual cost of $420 million; with the additional cost of $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $420 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to Los Angeles County taxpayers far exceeds $1 Billion per year, which does not include the million$ (or billion$) for public education);

  • (05) Politicians, government (Medicare fraud of about $30 Billion per year, bureaucracy, inefficiencies, waste, bloat, and see list of lobbying spending above; Congressman Bill Frist (R-TN), who owned a large portion of the HCA hospitals, bilked $1 Billion from Medicare, and $631 Million was returned, and the investigation was discontinued);

  • (06) Lawyers (2% of medical expenditures in year 2004; malpractice, 195,000 people die annually due to preventable medical mistakes; etc.);

  • (07) Patients themselves (bad habits, smoking, addictions, obesity, lack of exercise, etc.);
There are many things that can be done to reduce health care costs, but if the problems above and the other 10 abuses continue to go ignored, a new vast government-run universal health care system will most likely fail. If the abuses continued to be ignored (e.g. greed, illegal immigration, fraud, excessive government bureaucracy), a new universal health care system will not be run any better (and perhaps worse) than the other vast Social Security and Medicare systems. Especially with a federal debt of $9.4 Trillion (not even including the $12.8 Trillion (www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2) borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching), $53.2 Trillion in nation-wide debt, inflation, and a U.S. Dollar that has been falling drastically since year 1999.

Why does anyone think another amnesty won’t quadruple the problem again? When tens of millions of illegal aliens are given anmensty, they will suddenly no longer be attractive to the illegal employers. The we will see the problems with importing the impoverished, less educated, and less skilled by the tens of millions.

David R. Remer wrote: Certainly our health care system will evolve under Democrats, but whether it ever actually yields any net economic benefit for the future over the present broken system, is rather far fetched, at least in the next 20 years or so.
With so much debt, if this new health care system is mismanaged as badly as Social Security and Medicare, a universal health care system may be the last straw:
  • Total Domestic Financial Sector Debt = $15.8 Trillion
  • Total Household Debt = $13.88 Trillion
  • Total Business Debt = $10.16 Trillion
  • Total Other Private Sector Foreign Debt = $1.8 Trillion
  • Total Federal Government National Debt = $9.4 Trillion
  • Total State and Local Government Debt = $2.2 Trillion
  • __________________________________________________
  • Total = $53.2 Trillion
  • Including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, the total is $66 Trillion! (over $216K per person).
David R. Remer wrote: But, the alternative is leaving the current lot of Republicans in control, and that, as clearly demonstrated in 2006, is not what the American public is in the mood for.
Or, the better alternative is to vote out a LOT of irresponsible incumbent politicians in BOTH parties?

But of course, as stated above, that’s not likely, because too many voters are too easily manipulated by clever politicians capitalize on the voters’ iirrational fear, voters who will never consider challengers (especially in the OTHER party). It’s all about the party. And the end result is 93%-to-99% re-election rates. And the voters wonder why the top 10 abuses, after 30 years, continue to make deteriorating economic issues worse every year?

David R. Remer wrote: So, for better or worse, likely somewhat better in some ways, and worse in a whole lot of ways, simply because of inertia carried forward from the policies of the last 7 years.
Yes. The problem is the “worse in a whole lot of ways” is likely to allow the top 10 abuses of the last 30 years to continue to make deteriorating economic issues worse every year. With so much debt, the potential for an ecoomic meltdown continue to increase. We’re reaching a point where “somewhat better in some ways” may not be enough.
David R. Remer wrote: A one party controlled government is bound to get carried away with its power.
True. They always do. But one-party rule isn’t the real problem. The real problem is 93%-to-99% re-election rates in Congress, perpetuated by politicians that capitalize on the voters apathy, complacency, irrational fears, irrational fear of the OTHER party, greed, selfishness, hatreds, prejudices, laziness, and ignorance. The politicians fuel the petty, circular partisan warfare, and too many voters are all too happy to wallow in it, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than admit THEIR own party is no better.

The voters may be the biggest problem, since they actually reward and empower the very people that are using and abusing them; the same politicians that perpetuate the same 10 abuses that have been causing deterioating economic conditions for over 30 years. Well, the fact is, the voters only have themselves to thank for it. How stupid is it to give Congress dismally low (11%) approval ratings, and then reward the incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates. Why is it so difficult for enough voters to understand this?

David R. Remer wrote: If there is to be a shining light at the end of the Democratic takeover, it can only come in the form of 50% of the electorate choosing to become Independent voters with the will and intent on checking Democrats and Republicans excesses election after election by, as you recommend, a rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment amongst them.
The voters would be wise to start now by voting out as many bad politicians in BOTH parties as possible. But we both know that’s not likely, until the pain levels get much worse.

So the only true comfort (and it won’t be very comforting) is that voters will probably figure it all out when enough of them are jobless, homeless, and hungry.
They may finally get it when not getting it becomes too painful.
Self preservation and pain may then finally trump apathy, complacency, irrational fears, irrational fear of the OTHER party, greed, selfishness, hatreds, prejudices, laziness, and ignorance.
The built-in self correction mechanism is pain and misery.
It will most likely (based on history) be the only thing that works.
But there are no guarantees that it will come in time.
What the U.S. could be facing is decades and centuries of decline and deterioration into obscurity.

How would you rate each candidate on the top 6 issue/categories that most Americans consider the most important issues (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/)?

  • (01) : 42% - Economy

  • (02) : 21% - War in Iraq

  • (03) : 18% - Health care

  • (04) : 10% - Terrorism

  • (05) : 07% - Illegal Immigration

  • (06) : 02% - Other: (Abortion, Education , Energy, Environment, Free trade, Guns, Homeland Security, Housing, Iran, Same-sex marriage, Social Security, Stem cell research, Taxes)

How would you rate each candidate on these issues (here’s my estimates)?

  • (01) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[x] , All[_] : Economy; Stop these 10 abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm)

  • (02) Clinton[x] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[x] , None[_] , All[_] : War in Iraq; bring home troops

  • (03) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[x] , Obama[x] , None[_] , All[_] : Health care; eliminate middle men, fraud, waste;

  • (04) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[x] , All[_] : Terrorism, Homeland Security; secure our borders and existing laws and immigration laws;

  • (05) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[x] , All[_] : Illegal Immigration; enforce existing laws; no amnesty

  • (06) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Social Security (stop plundering surpluses);

  • (07) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Education;

  • (08) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Energy;

  • (09) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Environment;

  • (10) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Free (and fair) trade;

  • (11) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Nader[_] , Obama[_] , None[?] , All[_] : Taxation; make fair and simpler;

None of their positions and voting records/positions are much to brag about.

Therefore, the next 4 years do not look very encouraging, and the potential for adequate improvements are small.
The potential for these 10 major abuses to continue to worsen the already deteriorating economic conditions are high.
Some of the deteriorating and painful economic conditions are already unavoidable.
The next administration is going to inherit one of the worst situations in over 100 years.

Thus, I don’t think the real solution available to voters is to simply vote for Democrats or Republicans.
I don’t think voting only Democrat will be good enough.

The real solution is for enough voters to do what they were supposed to be doing all along.

  • Stop repeat offenders.

  • Stop repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm

  • Stop letting the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY merely take turns while giving themselves a raise every year for accomplishing worse than nothing.
At any rate, the voters will have the government they elect and deserve (along with the increasingly painful consequences).

Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2008 12:17 PM
Post a comment