0
0

SUV Bailout To Keep America Humming


 invite response                
2007 Dec 2, 6:24am   28,667 views  268 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

fat ass hummer

Lawmakers in Washingon are near final agreement on a proposed $400 billion bailout of SUV buyers. The massive amount of debt taken on by drivers in an attempt to ensure that their vehicles are significantly bigger than their neighbors' vehicles has resulted in millions teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. "We need to keep these people in their Hummers, at whatever cost to taxpayers" said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson is expected to announce details of the plan as soon as Wednesday, said sources familiar with the matter. With more than 2 million drivers facing higher interest costs and the possible loss of their oil-company-friendly vehicles if they cannot meet the payments, the future of US overconsumption is at stake. The White House on Friday said it was appropriate to build a "bulwark" against the SUV sector's woes. "After all", said President Bush, "it would not be American for us to live within our means and be responsible for our own financial decisions. Those who failed to spend themselves deeply into debt should pick up the tab to keep real Americans riding high."

--Patrick

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 268       Last »     Search these comments

1   skibum   2007 Dec 2, 6:27am  

Wait....do you mean SUV or SIV?

2   econostag   2007 Dec 2, 6:43am  

This is totally ridiculous. Only a $400 million bailout! That will only work out to $4 a household. We need a lot more! How about letting us deduct gas expense on our schedule A's. I could go for a tax credit too. Maybe low interest rate government loans for new gas guzzlers. Remember the more we spend on gas the more money the Arab states will have to bail out our financial institutions.

3   econostag   2007 Dec 2, 6:51am  

Oh, sorry, I guess that it is a $400 BILLION bailout. That would be $4,000 per household. That might be OK.

4   HeadSet   2007 Dec 2, 7:00am  

I could go for a tax credit too.

You jest, but there actually was a tax credit for 6.000 lb+ trucklike vehicles.

5   anonymous   2007 Dec 2, 7:07am  

Brilliant!

BTW there has been that gov't write-off if you bought a huge enough SUV, and used it for your business. Or your wife did to sell Avon out of. Or something.

The problem with these SUV losers is they didn't buy huge enough ones and start some bogus small business to use to write them off.

6   Steveoh   2007 Dec 2, 8:12am  

Now that's comedy!
Sad thing is... truth IS stranger than fiction.

Doesn't "Awnold" have like 5 Hummers?

7   HelloKitty   2007 Dec 2, 8:35am  

Yeah the SUV bailout happend in 2002 after "Nine Eleven Changed Everything".

You could write off a 6000 pound vehicle up to 100k of purchase price all in the same year. That is up to 33k 'free money' in the higher tax brackets. My accountant said he had many clients buy them drive them around a while and resale at a loss but the tax break more than made up for the the loss.

Even if now this tax break exists only the cap is 25k max write off so 1/3rd of 25k=$8k free money in tax write off which will pay for a lot of gas even for an H2.

This tax policy is free money for the self employed, the rich who want to use it, GM, and the Oil Companies. Its a win win win win policy!

8   Malcolm   2007 Dec 2, 11:35am  

So which is most abhorrent to a strict free market person? A tax incentive for an SUV? or A tax deduction for buying a Prius?

9   Zephyr   2007 Dec 2, 11:57am  

Heavy vehicles are a danger to the rest of us on the road, and they are wasteful gas guzzlers. For the greater good of society I believe that their purchase should be discouraged.

I would like to see our government policy makers show some courage and institute an excess weight tax on all vehicles.

Such a tax would be a one-time-only tax applied at the time of new car sale. The tax would be calculated on the weight in excess of some reasonable/normal standard such as 4,000 pounds. So, for every extra pound above 4,000 the car would be taxed at some flat rate such as $10 per pound. A car weighing 5,000 pounds would have a weight tax of $10,000. A 6,000 pound hummer would pay a weight tax of $20,000.

This would discourage the unnecessary purchase of heavier vehicles. Over time the share of heavy cars on the road would decline, making the roads safer and reducing our consumption of oil.

Unlike a gas tax, an excess weight tax would be totally voluntary since you could choose to purchase a lighter vehicle.

I would not exempt business purchases from this tax. I would place a cap (maybe $25,000 per vehicle) on the tax so that heavy commercial trucks would not get taxed to uneconomical levels. Of course, the tax would be a deductible business expense for legitimate tax-paying businesses.

10   azrob   2007 Dec 2, 1:20pm  

"strict free market" means child slave labor... dangerous conditions, toxic waste tossed into the schoolyard to save disposal fees...

government regulations of a market are a necessary evil; policies that support a sustainable economy and safe effective competition would be wonderfull.

The SUV tax write off was a piece of shit, should never have been written, and is unbelievable that it still exists; cars should absolutely be taxed on a sliding scale depending on their mileage, thus the government encourages a sustainable economy (less dependance on foreign oil) but doesn't "mandate" it; You can still buy a hummer, just pay a lot more for it...

It pisses me off that the dem's talk of cutting gas taxes when the price goes up... higher prices lead to conservation through market forces, they out to have taxed gas a couple dollars a gallon a decade ago, and we wouldn't be in the fix we are in now...

11   HelloKitty   2007 Dec 2, 3:15pm  

I cant complain too much about taxes, being self employed under Bushco is pretty good tax wise.

I used to think the Iraq war was a huge waste of money but now I finally realize no matter who is in office I wont see any of my tax dollars ever again and thus complaining is pointless.

If the feds spent that war money domestically they would probably just build a train to Las Vegas from every major city in the US so you could get fleeced easier by the crooks in LV.

12   justme   2007 Dec 2, 3:48pm  

Zephyr,

A weight-based tax would not be a bad idea. Or a weight/passenger, although any kind of formulaic tax can be defeated with bogus folding seats and such. I like better a combined MPG and displacement (cylinder volume) tax. it tends to capture weight indirectly.

A combination approach with higher gas tax is probably needed. Just don't earmark the gas tax for Ethanol research or something equally brain-dead.

Speaking of efficiency, has everyone noticed that the Dems are trying to send Bush a law that will force a 35 MPG fleet average, by YEAR 2020!!!

This is only slightly better than nothing. 2020 my patootie. The EU is shooting for, what was it, 45mpg by 2012? The US is absolutely pathetic. On top of that, Bush will veto the proposed law, it looks like.

13   Different Sean   2007 Dec 2, 5:04pm  

have a look at this site, guys -
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

hee hee, déjà vu...

14   DennisN   2007 Dec 2, 5:36pm  

I like better a combined MPG and displacement (cylinder volume) tax. it tends to capture weight indirectly.

Post-war Britain imposed a tax based not upon displacement, but rather on cylinder bore diameter. This had the unintended consequence of causing an entire generation of poor engine design in the UK: engines with small bores and long strokes. This made them poor revving and, in conjunction with old bearing designs, made them require a rebuild at only about 40K miles.

Part of the problem is that other governmental regulations are driving a weight increase: bumper and crash-worthiness standards. My 1959 Austin-Healey "Bugeye" Sprite with 1275 cc engine only weighed around 1400 lbs. but of course it was a death-trap in an accident. My highest observed mileage in that car was 46 mpg on a drive from Mt. Hood OR to San Jose. My present 2004 Mazda Miata is a comparable vehicle but now weighs around 2500 lbs. in part to comply with all the crash safety regulations. With an 1800 cc engine it only gets around 32 mpg highway. If you think this is bad, the comparable Pontiac Solstice weighs 3,000 lbs.!

Displacement is a poor stand-in for fuel economy. A modern Corvette has a 6+ liter engine but delivers about 30 mpg highway. On the other hand, putting in too small an engine in a big car doesn't help fuel economy at all.

15   DennisN   2007 Dec 2, 5:44pm  

There's also a sad intellectual property aspect to this debate. Honda's VTEC design enables small engines to have great performance and economy, and it's too bad it isn't an industry standard. However Honda has agressively-defended patent(s) on the VTEC design and won't license it to other manufacturers. I wonder when those patents will expire?

16   justme   2007 Dec 2, 10:37pm  

DennisN,

Fair enough. As I hinted earlier, formulaic rules have to be carefully crafted to avoid the laws of unintended consequences. Straight MPG is fine with me,
for personal vehicles (not buses).

But as I mentioned in earlier threads, even an efficient vehicle can get lousy MPG if it is driven by a fool with a lead foot. Hence taxing consumption (fuel) is also necessary.

As for VTEC, I think of it as mostly a marketing concept. I have not observed small Honda engines producing radically better MPG than similar Toyota engines, for example. Maybe the patents did expire, but the trademark did not.

17   HeadSet   2007 Dec 2, 10:44pm  

How about a true Captalist approach?

Remember, under Capitalism there is no free good. The drivers of vehicles should also pay for the air they pollute. If drivers had to pay for the 30,000 gallons of air they use per gallon of gas burned, you might have seen more fuel efficient vehicles come about naturally. Or more efforts to develop electric vehicles like the Tesla. After all, a full size electric car was available in 1925, popular with women (no crank start at the front).

Another radcal idea. Had the gov not built highways, and the only roads between towns were toll based private turnpikes, we would not have the urban sprawl and related issues since people would have factored the the true cost of a long commute into the choice of where they live. Also, personal aviation may have been more developed, such as more advanced version of the 40's era Hillercopter.

I am not saying that unfettered anarchy is the way to go, just that each time gov spending or the tax code is used to engineer a result, there is an unintended result.

18   HeadSet   2007 Dec 2, 10:49pm  

Another Capitalist solution:

If we decide that air for use in internal combustion engines should remain a subsidized free good, how about charging road use by mileage and weight? After all, the vehicle would pay when it uses the road, and heavier vehicles cause more wear. Again, this would better factor in the true cost of long commutes, and thus encourage lighter vehicles, consoidated trips, car pooling, and alternatives such as rail and bus.

19   Duke   2007 Dec 2, 11:41pm  

Brand,

Given my relatively short time on this blog I can't help but feel that my remarks are of the lower quality to which you refer.
I will promise to post less, but with greater defense in the future.

20   DinOR   2007 Dec 2, 11:44pm  

Ahem... (boy is THIS embarrassing) but after 3 years of renting and using up my "get out of jail free" cards "I"... am seriously considering taking advantage of Section 179 in the tax code.

Oh believe me, these dealership sales guys know exactly how to exploit the code to fullest extent! They know which of their models qualifies (and everyone seems to have one/several). So I have about 27 days left to mull it over for this year (and I sure could use it).

I suppose it wouldn't cut any ice hear to note that my office will be only a 1/2 a block from my front door? How much of a negative could it be if I seldom if ever d-r-i-v-e it? I'm not asking for empathy here but when you have two daughters get married in the same year, can no longer claim them as dependents and have "played out" your start-up costs... options start to get thin.

21   DinOR   2007 Dec 2, 11:56pm  

Duke,

Whatever you do, don't post less! After the weekend I'd read several of the posts about how things have gone "downhill" around here and I for one would LOVE to see some of the old crowd back. That doesn't mean by any stretch things have gone downhill.

People change, the scenario has changed and true, we're no longer trying to determine if there's a bubble, we now have the sober charge of gauging it's destructive path. So rather than absolutely rolling around naked in it like HP, or "out bearing" like they do at Ben's we've elected to take the high road and make observations from further out in the blast zone!

Some of the comments about re-inventing the blog to keep it more on target and fresh are probably accurate but look at some of the blogs where they try to re-invent themselves every 30 minutes?

Oh and HARM, you're not in OR yet but definitely trending in the right direction! Don't you wish you had an overpriced POS no one can qualify for to sell BEFORE you could move on w/ your life!?

22   Duke   2007 Dec 3, 12:28am  

I am still thinking about the fortress here in the BA. I am wondering how far a geographic area can bifurcate.
Right now we can know for certain in the BA that there is a recession and job loss in the housing sector. Agents, brokers, residential construction workers are losing their jobs and I am not certain what will re-employ these people in the short term. This means that homes for this class of worker should be under some pressure for now.
The tech crowd has no bad news (other then the potential loss of equity) and thus they can hunker down for the foreseable future. This means, for now, there is not a lot of pressure to sell in the fortress.

In theory, once the second tier homes drop enough, potential fortress buyers will move into San Jose, Campbell, Fremont, etc with the expectation of improving the local schools and homes thus putting pressure on the fortress. However, we are not seeing that. It turns out we are seeing second teir areas with large gentrification efforts as being labeled over-improved. Homes with a great deal of MEW upgrades are not commanding premiums.

We do see the tighter lending standards affecting prices, but not that much in the fortress as homes that could move have moved over the last 8 years HAVE moved. We simply dragged future sales into the now.

So, the question remains, how much can the market split? I am guessing Manhatten may be a comparable for fortress versus second tier pricing. Are there home premiums of 50% for comparable quality homes only blocks away in New York? Any insight to the East Coast?

By the way, I ask about New York for the simple reason that the first real boom in the Bay Area coincided with the Aeronautics and Aerospace industry exodus from New York in the late 50s. Since then they have been a decent bellweather for BA market behavior.

23   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 12:57am  

As usual, misunderstandings about free market is available in plenty everywhere. Sigh.

>“strict free market” means child slave labor… dangerous conditions, toxic >waste tossed into the schoolyard to save disposal fees…

NO. In a strict free market, some private entity would own the schoolyard and would be able to successfully prevent toxic waste from being dumped into their yard. It is the tragedy of commons that makes it happen today.

Dangerous working conditions have slowly been eliminated not because of government but because, in a free market, it is to the employers advantage to keep his employees safe and healthy. You see, in a free market otherwise, some other employer would be able to attract the employees away since they cannot be forced to work for one company (free market is nothing but absence of force.)

>You can still buy a hummer, just pay a lot more for it…

You already do. Both upfront and then every time you fill it with gas. Remember that gas is taxed and so the less fuel efficient your vehicle, the more you pay in taxes. Not that I agree with that, but the scenario you ask for is already present.

If we want to prevent subsidizing gas prices, stop invading other countries in order to get control over their gas supplies.

24   trippedleft   2007 Dec 3, 1:13am  

“We need to keep these people in their Hummers, at whatever cost to taxpayers” The debt taken on by your model of economy is far too great for any pony tricks such as this to actually make a difference. The span of time it takes to burn through $4000 is nothing, this will be spent in a couple of months and another need for free money will be right behind. The taxpayer owes something like $60 trillion. A few more months out of your GM Hummer will change nothing. Band-aids would not keep the titanic afloat, why would it help here?

25   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 1:51am  

The OB, how do you know why you are being set on moderated?

It could also be because of (a) irrelevance of your posts to this thread and website and (b) your tendency to keep on talking about things and places you have no first hand experience with?

Ultimately, this is a private website - not a state-run, public forum. Your freedom of speech rights don't apply here. The moderator, at his discretion, gets to decide if your posts are positive additions to this site or not. If you feel you absolutely need to say what you feel like, you can always build a similar site of your own. No one can stop you.

Your attempts to play the victim amuse me.

26   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 2:16am  

Duke, I agree with you about the bifurcation. A lot of towns that used to be included in the "bay area" are no longer considered part of the fortress. Examples are Stockton and Tracy and Gilroy where no one is pretending that the market is doing well. But right around the bay, the market is still strong.

I anticipate the market to spoil in the strongholds as well, but it will take time.

The last to fall will the places with good schools.

27   StuckInBA   2007 Dec 3, 2:20am  

Duke :
The tech crowd has no bad news (other then the potential loss of equity) and thus they can hunker down for the foreseable future. This means, for now, there is not a lot of pressure to sell in the fortress.

That's true. But I look at it in a different way. Recently, a person who has bought a house in Fortress mentioned to me about the timing of the decision. The worry is - all the life savings has been put into the house, and even a 10% drop would wipe it out. I didn't say it aloud, but in reality that's only half the worry. They will be putting all their life's savings into this house for the foreseeable future.

And that's a problem most buyers in the Fortress don't get, or refuse to get. Even if they don't have to sell or manage to sell for even, they have taken a big hit of opportunity costs. Their problems will not apparent for a long time. It will hit them when they are near retirement or when their kids are facing the cost of collage education.

And that's the best case scenario given current conditions.

28   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 2:29am  

Many in the tech crowd that I know can actually weather this storm. Many families in the tech industry make 200k+ a year and can afford the payments even after the rate reset (assuming they got variable rate loans, which many did anyway).

But all that weathering will be borne with a grin only under the assumption that the prices will come back up in a few years.

If 5 to 10 years pass and still their house is not worth the amount they agreed to pay for it, that might lead to a lot of frustration. They will see people who chose rent have a lot more liquid cash and spend it on things like vacations and whatnot, while they would be stuck putting all their money towards the mortgage and living frugally.

That might lead to a fire sale where people take a one time loss (assuming it is not too big) and moving into a smaller place or a different geographic region or even going back to renting.

I know at least one couple who bought in 05 but sold in 06 and went back to renting because the commute was easier that way and they realized they had overpaid. They were lucky enough to get out without a loss.

29   HARM   2007 Dec 3, 3:05am  

Wow, Zephyr and I actually agree on something --will wonders never cease? (though DennisN pointed out that fuel economy, not weight, would be a better metric).

Dangerous working conditions have slowly been eliminated not because of government but because, in a free market, it is to the employers advantage to keep his employees safe and healthy. You see, in a free market otherwise, some other employer would be able to attract the employees away since they cannot be forced to work for one company (free market is nothing but absence of force.)

Have to disagree with you on this, sriramgopalan. The supposed "employers advantage to keep his employees safe and healthy" did not prevent pre-Civil War 'employers' from keeping slaves for >300 years, child labor another 50, habitually allowing unsafe working conditions, and dumping huge quantities toxins into rivers, lakes and the atmosphere until EPA & green regulations started in the 1970s.

And as to that free market always translating into "absence of force", tell that to victims of Ludlow, Bay View, Haymarket, Anaconda Road, Matewan, Virden, etc.

Unfortunately, we all live in the real world -- not the world of economic theory-- where people and companies frequently behave abominably.

30   HARM   2007 Dec 3, 3:24am  

Oh, and by the way, it's only "to the employers advantage to keep his employees safe and healthy" because that employer would be fined and/or thrown in jail if they did not.

There is no 'natural' advantage to treating one's employees well in every situation. If that were so, we might wax nostalgic about the "good ol' days" when the ancient Athenians pampered their salt mine slaves, or when the Romans were so kind to their household servants, or how well we and Brits treated those Coolies who built our railroads for us.

31   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 3:32am  

HARM, slavery is clearly not acceptable in a free market. The "absence of force" definition should have made that clear. After all, slavery wouldn't have existed without force.

I see such arguments commonly brought up, but why do you assume we had free markets in the past (during the days of slavery and so on)?

People were able to keep slaves for > 300 years, precisely because the system was NOT free.

I never for a moment assume that people and companies will not behave abominably. After all, look at the behavior of wall street now and bankers during the real estate bubble. I loathe those bastards. And should they ever use force as an instrument of achieving what they want, they should pay the price.

Punishing people and corporations when they commit crimes is not contrary to free market principles (somehow, people make the implicit assumption that laissez faire means lawlessness, which far off the mark.) If a corporation has unsafe working conditions, the employees should quit and if they have marketable skills, find other jobs which offer better working conditions. If they don't, well, they have no choice but to rely on the kindness and charity of society.

Giving example of bad corporations doesn't necessarily show that free markets are bad ideas; no more than examples of individual crimes show that freedom for people is a bad idea. In both cases, infringement of rights and use of force should be punished.

As long as there is no force (usually through a government-established monopoly), people can always choose not to be customers or employees of a corporation.

As far as dumping stuff is concerned, like I said, before this is the tragedy of commons. When everyone owns something, it effectively means no one owns it. Which leads to abuses, human behavior being what it is. Personally, I am fine with regulations on environmental areas, but in a purely free world, some private party would own the rivers, lakes etc. as well and would prevent such dumping.

Just to reiterate, we have never had true free markets in this country. Ever. Bringing up examples from the past only illustrates this misconception.

32   HARM   2007 Dec 3, 3:34am  

@Original Bankster,

I checked the moderation list and did not see your name, email or IP address listed. I think it might be your use of the word "socia1ism", which automatically triggers moderation, as it contains the string "cia1is".

33   GammaRaze   2007 Dec 3, 3:42am  

Oh HARM,

OB was feeling so good about himself, covered with self-pity about his free speech being violated by politically correct, self-righteous moderators.

Why did you had to go and burst that bubble?

34   HARM   2007 Dec 3, 3:50am  

Punishing people and corporations when they commit crimes is not contrary to free market principles (somehow, people make the implicit assumption that laissez faire means lawlessness, which far off the mark.)

I understand your meaning of the term "free market", which is probably close to Randy H's and somewhat close to mine, but this is clearly NOT the definition most people have, nor is it synonymous with "laissez faire capitalism" in the strictest sense. If you asked Larry Kudlow or David Brooks for a definition, you would probably get something close to 'laissez faire socialism' (where taxpayers bear the cost of bad decisions by the rich-&-powerful, but ordinary citizens are not allowed to regulate this behavior through government). In other words, privatize profits, socialize risk --and please keep those fat government subsidies a-comin'.

If a corporation has unsafe working conditions, the employees should quit and if they have marketable skills, find other jobs which offer better working conditions. If they don’t, well, they have no choice but to rely on the kindness and charity of society.

Good luck with this "strategy". I can see that you've never actually been faced with this situation in real life. If a company is allowed by government to continue with aforementioned unsafe working conditions and they can profit from it, guess what eventually happens? Everybody has to start doing it in order to compete, and we get our proverbial "race to the bottom". Just look at our construction and agriculture industries for some fine examples (Got illegals?).

35   EBGuy   2007 Dec 3, 3:55am  

“I”… am seriously considering taking advantage of Section 179 in the tax code.

I must say, it really pains me to write this... but I think we have a winner. It seems that the 2008 Toyota Highlander hits the gross vehicle weight of 6,000 lbs. while having somewhat repectably fuel economy numbers. Oh, and it also has the ability to to haul the around the kids (and their spouses) for the Stumptown RE Disaster Tour 2009.

36   HARM   2007 Dec 3, 4:02am  

@DinOR,

"I'll buy that for a dollar!"

37   DinOR   2007 Dec 3, 4:10am  

"Stumptown RE Disaster Tour 2009" LOL! :)

Yeah! Bring your friends (and a designated driver!)

Trust me, sinking to this level... definitely felt like a new low. Even for me. I would feel a lot more guilty if I were actually going to drive it. OR weather sucks, but never quite so bad you can't walk half a block.

I have no question this will be repealed/toned down (again) in short order. One way to look at it is that I don't really have any inventory/cap eq. TO... depreciate and am frankly uncomfortable with some SUV. The truth is though, I'm in a hole. I don't want to cobble together some fictitious start up (and open myself to some REAL liability) when this is so cut and dried? Like I say, I have another few weeks to kick it around. If anyone can show me how a sole proprietor can that much bang for the buck... I'm all ears.

38   Duke   2007 Dec 3, 4:16am  

Sriram, StuckinBA agrees with you as he mentioned the notion that price never going down was fundamental to the reason people buy in the fortress.

I must admit I just don't get this.

It seems to place an emphasis on home as investment as opposed to home as neighborhood that has the characteristics people like. Usually, good schools, close to work, safe, close to things people enjoy; roughly in that order.

Once you can afford payments in that neighborhood, the trick has always been to tune out the noise of equity gains and losses.

Becasue even though housing is, in general, far more stable in prices then most anything, it is still subject to market variability. And buying when a home has gone up 150% in 4 years shoud be a red flag for anyone in the home-as-investment crowd.

39   EBGuy   2007 Dec 3, 4:18am  

And let it not be said that Toyota does not know their "Section 179 target market". The base model of the 2008 Highlander Hybrid has a Gross Vehicle Weight of 5935 lbs. You've got to "upgrade" (I mean "upsell") to the Limited version to hit the 6,000 lb. limit.

40   DinOR   2007 Dec 3, 4:32am  

This has "some" info but each mfr. knows which of their vehicles meets the acid test.

www.selfemployedweb.com/section-179.htm

I believe even Volvo has their XC-90 that makes the cut. The dealerships go out of their way to make sure you understand they are not in the business of giving out tax advice (as do I) but then readily admit that a great portion of their Sec. 179 sales are to people that will likely never engage the 4WD.

I will... have to say however that if you are t-r-u-l-y self-employed (not part-time consultant) and never plan to drive it enough (or hard enough to make mileage an issue) it's simply something you have to consider? It additionally takes some "heat" off of your other accounting practices. (Client lunches/golf, etc.) as well as making things a LOT more simple.

Comments 1 - 40 of 268       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions