OldGeezer comments

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

Two words: zombie banks. Just as you can have unhealthy companies, you can have unhealthy banks. Unhealthy banks can't lend money because they have to shore up losses on the investment side. Meanwhile, the healthy banks find it no easier to get capital because investors can't trust the banks to earn a genuinely profitable return and Federal Reserve is focusing on rescuing the unhealthy banks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

To reverse contraction via the private sector, companies must be allowed to fail and restructure (if there's anything worth salvaging). Otherwise, investors and potential private creditors don't have confidence that the remaining companies are healthy, capable of remaining solvent. When the government bails out companies, it keeps unhealthy companies in business. Those unhealthy companies compete with healthy companies for a smaller market. This actually hurts the healthy companies and can drive them into insolvency.

This is not a popular answer because it takes time for recovery and people are impatient. The irony is that the CBO acknowledges that the bailouts and "stimulus" will actually hurt the economy in the long run, in exchange for short term results of dubious value.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama forecasts record $1.75 tril deficit in his 1st budget See in context

Thank you for that. I was messing that up.

But I have say, budget surpluses are still a very good thing.

Budget surpluses are better than budget deficits, but the real measure has to be debt. You and I can't go to the bank and say, "See here, my debt is growing, but I occasionally balance my checkbook by borrowing money. So, why don't you lend me more money?" That's in fact what the U.S. government has been doing.

Yes, but it was actually heading down from his second term. And the rate of increase was NOTHING like with Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. In fact, unlike those presidents, the national debt did go down in relation to GDP.

Who makes the budget? The POTUS can propose a budget, but it is Congress that actually sets it, often irrespective of the President's wishes. In the case of President Clinton, the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 and throughout the remainder of his Presidency. It was a Republican Congress that created that 1997 budget that ended his first term with a reduction of debt/GDP. You wouldn't know that by reading that wikipedia article.

Nevertheless, GDP is not an indicator of economic health, but an indicator of economic activity. One can hardly argue that the dotcom bubble or the recent real estate bubble were healthy, yet they were significantly responsible for inflated GDP values. The same applies to government spending. Debt-driven spending is not healthy, but GDP includes government spending so as the government increases spending, GDP increases. As a percentage of the annual GDP, government spending has gone from 3.4% in 1930 to 20.0% in 2007. Yet, the government is a cost-center and its funds are derived from taxing producers (people who actually pay taxes) and debt.

It makes no real sense to be excited that we incurred less debt as a measurement of GDP. If anything, it's a testament to how much of how deceived the public is by politicians and bureaucrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

Anytime the government borrows money, it does so on the basis of future revenue. The projections made did not follow reality. The projections being made by this government will not follow reality. Politicians don't base their policies upon reality, but upon what voters will believe. The New Deal is good example of this. People believed in what FDR was doing, even though it didn't work and extended the Great Depression up until the ramp up for WWII, which was done with tremendous borrowing. In other words, the military-industrial complex and weapon sales is what pulled the United States out of the Depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama forecasts record $1.75 tril deficit in his 1st budget See in context

Yes, and I would go even farther and blame 90% of this mess we're in because of Bush.

Because the Executive branch makes the laws. Oh, wait! It doesn't! It still signs them, which makes the President partly responsible if he signs them, but not 90%.

If any of you Republican's can remember back when Clinton left office and turned it over to George Dubya, the U.S. had a budget surplus, AND we were starting to pay down the Nat'l Debt...."

Congress makes the budgets. Congress was principally Republican and killed many of President William J. Clinton's favorite programs. Nevertheless, the national debt increased during his term in office, even with budget surpluses. Why? The government was still borrowing more than it was paying back. It's like saying that you're not spending more than you make because there's still money in your wallet, when that money is borrowed.

President George W. Bush made plenty of mistakes, but I find the partisanship of the Bush-haters to be just as idiotic as the "Bush-bots".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

Not false. Also true. And yes, you have a point. But there are other ways to reduce the costs rather than just pass it off on consumers. What part of "Costs of operation are not being taxed" is true? Try none. How do you produce CO2? If you are a farmer, fisherman, rancher, trucker, manufacturer, or energy producer, you produce CO2 when you "produce" your goods and services.

I did not mean as a group. I meant individually. You had better specify then, because the top 100 most profitable companies from 2007 don't include many manufacturers such as Boeing and Pfizer. The fact is that aside from the big fuel producers like Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Conoco-Philips and transportation company United Airlines, the most profitable companies (besides Walmart) were insurance and financial services companies, not direct CO2 producers.

Cheap shot. I could as easily say you feel the need to let them ride roughshod over the populace because you think you know a way to ride on their coattails. Which you would base upon what statement of mine? The fact that I know what I am talking about? The fact that I believe that the government is spending too much money and on the wrong things?

I make no claim to the biggest reason, but both things are reasons. Except for incompetence of the government. I cannot agree with that. I do not think it is the fault of government for failing to see all the crazy things businesses and people will do, and did. Its a matter of not having a crystal ball, not of being incompetent.

Economists warned about problems in the markets before the dotcom bust and the sub-prime market crash. It is not magic. It is a matter of being willing to subordinate your own pride or beliefs and listening to the experts, then making decisions/policies based upon what you hear. It means that you acknowledge the limits of what you know. Individual consumers often don't bother trying to learn. Many business executives thought they knew better. Politicians generally think they know better and only listen to the people that believe the same as they do.

Investment implies expansion. This is no time to expand. Wrong again. Investment refers to investor capitalization. It is used to pay bills and operate the business, as well as expand. If investors don't see a good return on their investment, they pull out their capital and invest elsewhere. The company thus has less money to pay bills and operate the business. If the business loses more investor capitalization than it has liquid assets, it can't pay bills or operate its employee. If it fails to secure additional financing through bonds, loans, or investment, it goes out of business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

Incidentally, $645 billion over 7 years (what President Obama proposes) amounts to about $92.1 billion per year. This is roughly 13% of the total taxable 2005 income of U.S. corporations, before taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

likeitis wrote: "Costs of operation are not being taxed. Profits are." False. The proposed cap and trade policy would force companies to buy carbon permits if they produce a certain amount of CO2. This is where the administration plans to take in about $645 billion of revenue. This is not a tax on profits, but a tax on emissions (operational tax).

"Companies may transfer the taxes onto consumers to some degree in order to profit more, but there are are limits, which is why it does not cost 3 million dollars for a bulb of garlic." The limits are what the market can bear, which is why we import some foodstuffs, even though we produce more food than we consume. Companies exist to make a profit for its investors. If a company cannot transfer enough of its costs to make it an attractive investment, then investment dries up.

"Trust me, the companies paying the most tax, either today or under Obama's plans, are profiting plenty." The biggest group of corporate taxpayers is the small business with assets less than $1 million. In 2005, of the 5.1 million small businesses filing returns, 4.7 million had assets of less than $500 thousand. Small businesses paid $7.8 billion in taxes. This is more than the $7.4 billion in taxes paid by the 472,821 businesses with assets larger than $1 million. So no, I don't trust you.

"If they don't see that and feel the need to profit more on our backs, the problem is not Obama's, its theirs. Their greed needs to be reigned in." I see. You feel the need to stick it to "the man," right?

"Greed is a big reason why we are in this mess in the first place." The biggest reason for this mess is incompetence on the part of consumers, businesses, and government. Humans act in self-interest. Not all do so in a manner beneficial to themselves and others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition See in context

If you purchase a manufactured product, pay for a service (including your internet service), buy a home, shop for groceries, etc., you will be paying higher prices, even if you are not directly taxed. Why? Because companies transfer their costs of operation, including fees and taxes paid to the government, to their customers. Carbon taxes equals taxes on everyone except the survivalist types living in the wilderness. So unless you live in the wild, walk to work, and grow your own food, you should contact your Congress-critter immediately and let him/her/it know that they needn't bother running for reelection if they vote for any legislation containing a carbon tax scheme (eg "cap and trade").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama draws battle lines to reshape U.S. society See in context

It still amounts to incompetent politicians writing bad policy to fix bad policy written by incompetent politicians. It's dark comedy as people applaud them and ask that they be given a chance. They don't realize that most of those incompetent politicians are the same ones that voted for the bad policy to begin with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Cash handout? Stupid, wasteful idea, Japanese say See in context

"Stupid, wasteful and ineffective—and a shameless attempt to woo voters," but not limited to Japanese politicians, I'm afraid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe in life after death? See in context

People are afraid of death. Believing in life after death is a reasonable coping mechanism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel See in context

yabits and GJDailleult, If you read the entire paragraph, you would note that I wrote the following: "Moreover, GLBA allowed the mixing of consumer banking and investment banking, setting into motion a series of M&As and investment products based upon those sub-prime loans."

The sub-prime collapse and the securities collapse are tied together. If the sub-prime market did not collapse, the securities based upon them would not have collapsed. That's why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the CRA are part of the mess. The Democrats insisted on including those items. This ensured that sub-prime financing would become part of the market expansion. As the market ballooned, more non-CRA institutions got involved in sub-prime products, either by issuing their own sub-prime mortgages or by purchasing bundled instruments containing those loans. As with other bubbles, purchasers of those securities did not understand the risk, relied upon almost arbitrary ratings, and thought that they couldn't lose in the bull market. The result of the Republican and Democrat legislation was a proliferation of toxic loans and their concentration in investment securities.

The market poisoned itself, but the politicians provided the poison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama forecasts record $1.75 tril deficit in his 1st budget See in context

You are incorrect. The initial budget is just a proposal. Congress has its own budget office, the CBO, and creates its own budget proposals to be voted upon.

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Meanwhile, the Executive branch reports its recommendations to Congress, which has no obligation to follow.

Article II, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan turns to 'work-sharing' to avoid layoffs See in context

Correct, it's not socialism. Individuals employed in private industry are reducing risk (chance of getting laid off) at the cost of reducing benefits (reduced wages). This is completely in accordance with the principles of capitalism. You don't have to embrace high-risk/high-reward in order to be capitalistic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Democrats, Republicans spar over stimulus money See in context

This spending is insane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama forecasts record $1.75 tril deficit in his 1st budget See in context

Who makes the budget? Congress, not the President. The Executive branch can ask for a certain budget, but it is the Legislative branch that really determines the budget. So, before anyone gives any President credit or blame for a surplus or deficit, I would suggest that they give more of the credit/blame to Congress. I write this not to excuse any POTUS for signing a bad budget into law or asking for a bad budget, but to interject the reality of how the U.S. government (mal)functions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama announces U.S. combat in Iraq to end by Aug 31, 2010 See in context

It's easy to say that President George W. Bush and his administration was the cause of the war, but that would be mistaken. If it was not the 43rd President, it might have been the 44th, or the 45th that would have resumed the Gulf War (like the Korean War, the Gulf War did not end). People don't realize that the whole war was a culmination of decades of policy used to "fight" the USSR by overlooking the actions of other oppressive regimes, currying their favor, and ignoring the underlying instability of the region. From the moment that the world deemed it acceptable to trade with such countries, it funded the governments that were too eager to use such funds to increase their own ability to project power through military might. It is only inevitable that they became threats to other countries in the region... countries with whom First World countries (such as the United States and Great Britain) have treaties and agreements with.

The only victory there can be is a stable Iraq. The form that it will take is up to the Iraqi people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel See in context

The second bailout was pitched as necessary, when it was no more necessary than the first. The investment sides are in trouble, but the consumer banking side can survive. The logical course is to perform triage, using limited resources to save what can survive and allowing the mortally wounded to die. The government should have forced divestiture and allowd the the investment banking side to go belly up. This would have saved the consumer banking portion of the finance industry. Instead, the President and Congress listened to lobbyists from investment banking firms and pressed for a taxpayer-funded bailout. The truth is that attempting to "save" the investment side amounts to following the same failed Keynesian policies that extended the Japanese recession and left it in a weakened state. Indeed, government policy played a large role in creating the real-estate bubble.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act was the root of the bubble, but it was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that made it grown. It not only repealed portions of Glass-Steagall but it effectively required that banks make loans to individuals that would not be able to qualify for a regular mortgage (in accordance with CRA). This resulted in far more home loans than the market would have normally supported and a balloon began to form. Moreover, GLBA allowed the mixing of consumer banking and investment banking, setting into motion a series of M&As and investment products based upon those sub-prime loans. This was not easily discernible due to the depressive effects of the dotcom bubble's bursting. It might even be argued that it prevented from the dotcom bust from crashing the market. Nevertheless, when you act for short-term gains, you invariably pay for it in the long-run.

President Barack H. Obama encourages banks to give credit and for people to buy on credit in order to "stimulate" the economy. This is nonsensical. Credit, specifically the over-extension of it, is part of the problem. Individuals, companies, and financial institutions borrowed obscene amounts of money in anticipation of future earnings. (The consumer debt is over 2.6 trillion dollars, not including mortgages.) While such borrowing vastly increases the movement of currency and "economic growth", it amounts to a very delicate house of cards. A large number of defaults, a loss of confidence in the currency, or economic instability has the ability to bring it all down and so the house of cards fell.

January's inflation was quadruple that of the normal yearly rate and the government plans on spending more. This sort of spending is unsustainable. If we do not take the pain now, we will make things far worse in the long run... which might be sooner than we think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama announces U.S. combat in Iraq to end by Aug 31, 2010 See in context

likeitis said, "First off, you seem to be completely unaware of the level of al-Quaida involvement in Iraq. It was, is, and always has been minimal. The situation in Iraq that our troops have been trying to quell for most of their time there was a civil war, ie, it was as much Iraqi on Iraqi as anything." Incorrect. AQ's involvement has been critical from the beginning. It brought in money, weapons, and foreign fighters. It precipitated sectarian violence. For a period of time, AQ in Iraq dominated the insurgency. Of course, the alphabet media and other partisan outlets seem to downplay the role that AQ has in the insurgency.

"I remember, for example, a very senior Baathist commander. He comes from one of the main strains of the Baathist insurgency, linked to the faction headed by Muhammad Yunis al-Ahmed, who gives direction of money principally from Syria. He and some of his organization had a meeting with some very senior members of Zarqawi's organization, principally foreigners but also Iraqis. They thrashed out the issues that they had to deal with, and they're sitting down afterwards in the afternoon drinking some chai. They're just having a conversation. Eventually it turns [in] a certain direction and became somewhat heated, as the Iraqis called them Arabs. [And a senior foreign fighter] turned around and said, "You know, if you Baathist gang return to [the] power you seek, we'll be coming for you." And the Baathists snapped straight back: "We are under no illusions about that, and we will be ready." That's the way it's been from the beginning. [...] Now, that was the summer of 2004. So for anyone in intelligence circles to claim that this [leaning toward the Islamist faction within the insurgency] is a sudden development is deluding themselves. The real problem is that, despite the tensions, despite the turf wars, ... more and more Iraqi fighters are drifting to the Al Qaeda fight. Slowly but surely, the nationalists, the freedom fighters, as they identify themselves, [have] bit by bit lost ground within the insurgency. [...] Nonetheless, the point remains, [that] day you saw the subsuming of a local indigenous Iraqi fight, with very different agendas, by a foreign-inspired, foreign-led, foreign-funded global holy war. Now later, again, that was reversed, and right before the January 30, 2005, election in Iraq, the nationalist insurgents had reclaimed power in that area."

PBS interview with journalist Michael Ware

"The records are "one of the deepest reservoirs of information we've ever obtained of the network going into Iraq," according to a U.S. official closely familiar with intelligence on the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Analyzed and made public last month by the Army's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, the documents have led the U.S. military in Iraq to reassess some of its earlier assumptions about the insurgent group and those who carry out most of the suicide missions that are its signature method of attack.

Suicide attacks by the Sunni group against Shiite targets sparked the sectarian violence that swept Iraq in 2006 and the first half of last year. Al-Qaeda in Iraq carried out more than 4,500 attacks against civilians in 2007, killing 3,870 and wounding nearly 18,000, the military announced yesterday.

Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed."

"Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq's Foreign Insurgents", Karen DeYoung, Washington Post; January 21, 2008

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel See in context

"One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008."

President Barack Obama; Nov 3, 2007

Where the money came from: Agribusiness - $2,156,719 Communications/Electronics - $24,914,397 Construction - $5,165,930 Defense - $1,039,694 Energy & Natural Resources - $2,505,900 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - $37,610,335 Health - $18,707,862 Lawyers & Lobbyists - $43,102,997 Transportation - $1,589,610 Misc Business - $35,043,701 Labor - $470,824 Ideological/Single-Issue - $13,541,771 Other - $82,207,561

Source: OpenSecrets.org

Obama found room for lobbyists: "Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005."

Source: Politico.com

Politicians say a lot of things... and people believe them. Of course, it helps that the big media giants are in the tank (so far). The more things "change," the more they stay the same... or get worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama announces U.S. combat in Iraq to end by Aug 31, 2010 See in context

likeitis,

In 2007 President (then candidate) said: "My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war"

Disregarding the improper usage of the term "civil war" (AQ operatives are usually non-Iraqi), just what are "combat troops?" An MP brigade is as heavily armed (arguably more so) than an infantry brigade. Less than half of all units in Iraq are "combat brigades." In 2008, the mission transitioned from war-fighting to peacekeeping. Reflecting this, most current missions are SASO, not combat operations. In short, nothing is really going to change beyond the force commitment levels that were already negotiated.

Politicians said what they believed people want to hear. Anti-war protesters believed what they wanted to believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama announces U.S. combat in Iraq to end by Aug 31, 2010 See in context

The deployment cycles won't be significantly changing. Units will be redeployed to Afghanistan, instead of Iraq. The units remaining in Iraq will have the same SASO missions as they do now. The media just won't be called them "combat missions." That's change you can believe in. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Drought threatens drinking water for a million Australians See in context

SushiSake3,

If you lived in outback Australia and were having an increase in rainfall over historic averages, would you believe that climate change is a bad thing?

If you lived in outback Australia and were having a water shortage because major cities were draining water resources faster than they could be replenished, would you believe that cities are a good thing?

Perspective is shaped by life experience and, like life, varies from person to person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Drought threatens drinking water for a million Australians See in context

There's a "drought" despite increased rainfall. It must be due to "climate change" (which has fashionably become a negative). Population centers have been pushing the limits of natural freshwater resources for decades.

Now, considering the current economic crisis precipitated by growing demand for oil and gas, particularly by China and India (nuclear powers, btw.), and a near-monopoly by OPEC (with major member-states whose governments are targeted for destabilization by terrorists), a reasonable individual might justly fear a crisis that might very well spark an outright world war. Considering how much larger the world population is and how much more reliant nation-states have become on international trade for essential goods, such as food and medicine, the possible repercussions are far greater than some give credit for, even if nuclear war is discounted.

There is no single issue whose importance dwarfs all others (excluding end-of-life events such as a cataclysmic impact by a celestial body). As humankind has become more interconnected, the ripples in one part of the earth can become life-threatening. Note the food-riots in a number of countries as foodstuff production has been supplanted by energy production (i.e. ethanol) in other major food-producing countries (e.g. the United States).

Of course, some people like to focus on only one or two issues. That's fine. Just don't buy into the nonsense that those issues are the ones that 'really matter'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Drought threatens drinking water for a million Australians See in context

Actually, rainfall in Australia has been about 8.8% higher than the historical average.

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif

The increase in water consumption by Australia's population means that the water table continues to decline, despite the increased rainfall. So, don't blame it on climate change (though it's clearly politically expedient and advantageous for some). Blame it on a failure of society to implement timely solutions to reduce dependence upon the Basin for water.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.