Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

1
2

Thom Hartmanns Bogus Tax History

By indigenous follow indigenous   2015 Feb 5, 9:56pm 35,524 views   120 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


I’ve seen some pretty crazy things from the Facebook page “U.S. Uncut,” but recently I saw their reprint of some “facts” from Thom Hartmann that had more than 60,000 shares. This particular billboard was so absurd that I felt compelled to share it and set the record straight. Here’s the image:

Thom Hartmann

There are many things one could say about the above. (Here’s someone else’s takedown.) Let me focus on just some of the more obvious, and in the following I’m going to be lazy and talk as if presidents changed tax rates directly, even though of course they signed legislation that Congress sent them:

==> Hartmann’s narrative implies that the worst boom-bust cycles should have occurred before 1913, since in those dark days the federal income tax was zero (except for wartime). But of course the Great Depression and the Great Recession have both happened with positive federal income tax rates, so even on Hartmann’s own terms, the two worst economic periods in U.S. history are hard to square with his theory-free historical narrative.

==> Hartmann’s narrative completely ignores the role of credit creation and artificially low interest rates in spawning an unsustainable boom, which is inevitably followed by a bust. Rothbard wrote the definitive book on applying Austrian business cycle theory to the Great Depression, and here’s an article I wrote doing the same with the 2008 crisis.

==> Hartmann says Warren Harding cut taxes down to 25% in 1922. No, Harding and then Coolidge cut rates gradually, not reaching a 25% rate until 1925. (For all of my claims on the actual history of the top US federal tax rate, refer to this document.)

==> Hartmann blames the 1929 crash on the boom fueled by the Harding[/Coolidge] tax cuts earlier that decade. OK, then why wasn’t the Clinton boom in the 1990s responsible for the dot-com crash in 2000?

==> Hartmann says Roosevelt “fixed” the foolishly low tax rate of 25% that Coolidge enacted. But for some reason Hartmann ignores the fact that Herbert Hoover raised the tax rate to 63% in 1932, which coincidentally (?) led to the worst single year of the Depression. I’m sure Hartmann ignored that part of the history in the interest of brevity.

==> Hartmann is right that FDR did raise rates, up to 79% in 1936, 81% in 1941, 88% in 1942, and 94% (!) by 1944. So look again at Hartmann’s narrative. After talking about how the 25% tax rate of Harding [sic] caused the Great Depression, Hartmann says that FDR jacked rates up to more than 90 percent and the economy boomed. The innocent reader might have thought that FDR did this right away, and the economy was immediately restored to vigor. Yet even using conventional accounts of “wartime prosperity,” the Great Depression lasted at least until 1940. So FDR’s great policy of jacking up tax rates (e.g. to 79% in 1936) still yielded an awful economy for at least four years. One almost gets the sense that massive tax hikes aren’t the way to fix a depression, ya know?

==> Hartmann totally ignores the tax cuts spearheaded by Kennedy (and carried through by Johnson after JFK was shot). Kennedy’s argument for his cuts sounded very much like supply-side Reaganomics, too. I guess Hartmann left that part of history out because his keyboard broke.

==> Speaking of which, Hartmann blames the early 1980s recession on Reagan dropping the top tax rate down to 28%. But again, if you refer to the pesky historical record, you’ll see that the tax rate under Reagan was cut only gradually, not reaching 28% until 1988. A Chicago School economist on steroids might argue that investors in 1980 looked ahead eight years, rationally expected the coming 28% tax rate, deferred investment accordingly, and caused a bad recession…but I don’t think that’s what Hartmann was getting at.

==> One last observation: Hartmann says the economy boomed because of the 39 percent tax rate under Clinton’s wise reaganstewardship. Under Reagan, the top tax rate was 70% in 1981, 50% from 1982 through 1986, then it dropped to 38.5% in 1987, and it was not cut to 28% until 1988. Isn’t it weird that Reagan’s nutty, low low rate of 50% in the first half of the 1980s caused the worst economy since the Great Depression, but Clinton’s soak-the-rich rate of 39% led to a booming economy?

In summary, one really has to wonder at a movement that is so unconcerned with the actual facts that it can proudly trumpet such nonsense. The power of envy and the lust for State power is truly impressive.

« First    « Previous    Comments 78 - 117 of 117    Last »

81   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 4:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

And what's left after the (reduced) tax was passed to the employee's paycheck.

In any case, it doesn't even matter, because tax rate by definition is the rate of what employer pays and what employee doesn't get.

Whose definition is that?

What is a 25% income tax? 25% of the money that the employer pays but the employee doesn't get as after-tax income. If that 25% tax is suspended, it's entirely possible that the employer and employee split 12.5% each. However, despite that hypothetical outcome, the tax rate is still called 25%, not 12.5%. Capisch?

82   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 4:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Only if there is no competing employer. Perhaps in your case, there are no employer competing to hire you. That's why you are unemployed and paid nothing, which is indeed the LEAST possible. Period

Wrong again--no matter how many employers there are, they will each pay the least amount possible.

LOL. Least possible compared to what? Is a $5mil / year CEO position (also employee) the least possible? BTW, glad to know you are an unemployed wanker.

83   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 4:43pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

control point says

Sure, any debt forgiven, or personal gift, etc. that you mentioned are exactly that, INCOME. Which would increase the denominator, lowering the percentage of the (now higher) income paid in taxes. Seems you left that part out.

You are wrong. A person can not declare bankruptcy every year. The year in which a person declares bankruptcy and has his/her debt discharged, chances are that he/she would have a much higher "income" than his/her usual years due to the debt forgiveness. That kicks him/her into the higher tax bracket at 25%, at which point both you and I know 50% total marginal tax rate is easily achieved. For all the other years, the debts are accumulating as the person spends more money than he/she earns, therefore also incurs higher tax rate due to spending.

This is a waste of my time, you are so far over your head yet you dont even know it. I feel bad for you, I really do. You're wrong, you know it, and your ego won't let you admit it. Now you can sit around here all you want and act like you know something, but at least now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you don't. Too bad I thought you were better than the others around here.

You are indeed wasting your time with your pointless personal attacks. Your limited number of brain cells would be more fruitfully employed if you let them work out the details like illustrated in my previous paragraph.

84   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 4:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

What is a 25% income tax? 25% of the money that the employer pays but the employee doesn't get as after-tax income. If that 25% tax is suspended, it's entirely possible that the employer and employee split 12.5% each. However, despite that hypothetical outcome, the tax rate is still called 25%, not 12.5%. Capisch?

Nope. We've been over this enough times that you clearly are trolling at this point. I give up.

85   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 4:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

LOL. Least possible compared to what? Is a $5mil / year CEO position (also employee) the least possible? BTW, glad to know you are an unemployed wanker.

Obviously in the board's eyes, yes.

Glad to know you've resorted to name calling. Guess you realize you're having your lunch handed to you...

86   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 4:50pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

What is a 25% income tax? 25% of the money that the employer pays but the employee doesn't get as after-tax income. If that 25% tax is suspended, it's entirely possible that the employer and employee split 12.5% each. However, despite that hypothetical outcome, the tax rate is still called 25%, not 12.5%. Capisch?

Nope. We've been over this enough times that you clearly are trolling at this point. I give up.

Better late than never. A 25% income tax is a 25% income tax even if a suspension would see both parties taking half; you never refuted that, so stop lying is a good move.

87   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 4:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

LOL. Least possible compared to what? Is a $5mil / year CEO position (also employee) the least possible? BTW, glad to know you are an unemployed wanker.

Obviously in the board's eyes, yes.

Only to the idiots who have no clue.

Glad to know you've resorted to name calling. Guess you realize you're having your lunch handed to you...

Not name calling, but you are apparently an employable person trolling the internet; aka. a basement dwelling wanker.

88   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 4:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Better late than never. A 25% income tax is a 25% income tax even if a suspension would see both parties taking half; you never refuted that, so stop lying is a good move

So, I'm assuming when I get my W2, this is on there right?

89   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 5:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Better late than never. A 25% income tax is a 25% income tax even if a suspension would see both parties taking half; you never refuted that, so stop lying is a good move

So, I'm assuming when I get my W2, this is on there right?

What's technically on W-2 is not nearly as important as the actual cost that the employer has to incur in order to hire you. For example, if the employer is required to pay your medical insurance, housing and retirement on top of wages, you are much less likely to be hired even if those other items do not show up on your W-2. OTOH, if you are long-term unemployed, if the government gives cash incentives to the employer to hire you, you are far more likely to be hired even if the incentive doesn't show up on the W-2.

90   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

What's technically on W-2 is not nearly as important as the actual cost that the employer has to incur in order to hire you. For example, if the employer is required to pay your medical insurance, housing and retirement on top of wages, you are much less likely to be hired even if those other items do not show up on your W-2. OTOH, if you are long-term unemployed, if the government gives cash incentives to the employer to hire you, you are far more likely to be hired even if the incentive doesn't show up on the W-2.

Should I take that as a "no" then?

91   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 5:33pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goes to show W-2 does not reflect the full cost of hiring you.

92   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 5:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Goes to show W-2 does not reflect the full cost of hiring you.

Obviously. It shows you the taxes that you have paid--not the full cost of hiring you.

Do you think the commission paid to a headhunter should go on the new employee's W-2?

93   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 5:55pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Commission paid to the headhunter is also operational expense, but it is not tax taken by the government as result of hiring you.

If the government collects a "hiring fee," then yes that would be tax collected by the government as a result of hiring you. Comes to think of it, payment towards mandatory unemployment benefit insurance is just like that.

94   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 6:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

If the government collects a "hiring fee," then yes that would be tax collected by the government as a result of hiring you. Comes to think of it, payment towards mandatory unemployment benefit insurance is just like that.

Yep, businesses pay taxes too.

95   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 6:39pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

LOL. Who do you think really pays for the mandatory unemployment insurance? hint: hiring anyone is optional.

96   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 6:42pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

LOL. Who do you think really pays for the mandatory unemployment insurance? hint: hiring anyone is optional.

LOL is right. I think the company really pays for it. The money (typically) comes from a bank account controlled by the company. This money could be dervied from retained earnings, from investors, from revenues, etc. Regardless of where it came from, however, it is paid by the company.

97   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 6:50pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

LOL. Who do you think really pays for the mandatory unemployment insurance? hint: hiring anyone is optional.

LOL is right. I think the company really pays for it. The money (typically) comes from a bank account controlled by the company. This money could be dervied from retained earnings, from investors, from revenues, etc. Regardless of where it came from, however, it is paid by the company.

Goes to show your utter lack of basic financial sense of the real world. It's like saying the government pays for welfare instead of taxpayers paying for it; slave owners pay for the food of the slaves instead of slaves paying for their own food with their labor. Perhaps it is a necessary lie for a welfare bum like you.

98   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 7:07pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

The year in which a person declares bankruptcy and has his/her debt discharged, chances are that he/she would have a much higher "income" than his/her usual years due to the debt forgiveness. That kicks him/her into the higher tax bracket at 25%, at which point both you and I know 50% total marginal tax rate is easily achieved. For all the other years, the debts are accumulating as the person spends more money than he/she earns, therefore also incurs higher tax rate due to spending.

Yes, yes - this average worker was granted enough unsecured debt in which he succeeded to increase his purchases enough to push his tax burden above this mystical 50% of total earned income, including your ridiculous property tax as a renter and employer portion of payroll taxes. Then he declares bankruptcy on that debt and although we have defined him as an "average' worker whose income is above the median, where he must pass the MEANS TEST in order to declare chapter 7 - but he somehow passes that means test and is able to discharge those debts. Then of course immediately after that he is again able to secure enough unsecured debt to resume him spending at a level that is needed to push his tax burden again above 50%. He keeps doing this forever so his tax burden stays above 50% every year.

Somebody get Reality some straws! The funny thing is I haven't even yet pointed out that the total burden, if we are accepting your employer portion of payroll taxes, must actually be grossed up to account for them. That is, though the employee only has w-2 income reflective of $43k, since we are including the 7.65% employer payroll tax as income, we must gross total income up to included it. So that 15% marginal tax bracket he is in, well it is effectively only 15%/107.65%, or 13.9%. The 7.65% employer portion itself is only 7.1% of this higher effective income. You get the point....anyway lets go ahead and reduce that 47.9% to 44.5%.

Oh, and that 55.8% you had - well it included 5.8% for health "tax" that I think we agree is really only the penalty and 1.5%. So reduce it to 51.5%. Grossing all of this up to the higher income would yield total tax burden of 47.8%

The point of all of this, of course, is I am allowing all of your moving the goalposts arguments and still showing you that you cannot reach 50%.

99   indigenous   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 7:11pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

control point says

The point of all of this, of course, is I am allowing all of your moving the goalposts arguments and still showing you that you cannot reach 50%.

Even if you were right which you are not, you are then enslaved 45% of your life instead of 50%, that is ok with you?

100   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 7:15pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

control point says

is I am allowing all of your moving the goalposts arguments and still showing you that you cannot reach 50%.

I already showed it can easily be over 50%. As for moving goal posts, you were the one who moved it to begin with. My original statement was "close to 50%," which even you proved that I was correct with that 47.8% number.

BTW, even your "43k" was a goal post moved by you, as I originally stated "40-50k." $43k happens to be just below the 25% threashold after standard deductions. Someone making closer to $50k would be immediately facing 25% marginal rate, and easily blow past the 50% mark even by your math.

101   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 7:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Goes to show your utter lack of basic financial sense of the real world

OK--keep telling yourself that. The insult at the end definitely gives your losing argument more weight though.

102   Oilwelldoctor   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 7:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reading tea leaves.

103   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 8, 8:09pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

W, even your "43k" was a goal post moved by you, as I originally stated "40-50k." $43k happens to be just below the 25% threashold after standard deductions.

I chose $43k because that is the SSA number (2013) for average net compensation. Given that we are probably going to be 2-2.5% higher than that in 2015, I guess I should use $44k.

However, if you don't see the difference between that and requiring that the worker is single with no dependents, doesn't own a home, does not contribute to his 401k, does not have a student loan, spends more than he makes and then miraculously declares chapter 7 and is immediately granted unsecured debt again,

Even though the "average" person probably has all of those, while the "average" single person certainly does not make 43k. The average wage for a single person is likely nowhere near $43 (or 44)k.

Why don't you think that the 25% tax rate is placed where it is, for a reason? $43k for a single person is probably in the 70th percentile (this link with 2010 data says 80th) of all single people of income. I don't think it is a stretch for the top quarter of single filers to pay a marginal federal tax tax of 25%, they are, after all, not average.

http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

104   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 8, 9:56pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

1. Average is not the same as Median.

2. "Close to 50%" does not require being over 50%

3. A person making only $40-50k is highly likely to be spending more than his/her income, due to debt as well as getting money from family and friends. Home equity loans can last many years, and paid off when the home is sold.

4. Social Security income does not count home equity gains, stock market gains, or most other one-time gains that can easily put a person's taxable income into the 25% bracket.

105   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 3:52am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

Reality says

3. A person making only $40-50k is highly likely to be spending more than his/her income, due to debt as well as getting money from family and friends. Home equity loans can last many years, and paid off when the home is sold.

Gifts are an addition to income, untaxed. So $10k given increases the denominator by $10k, which is not subject to income taxes. Good luck getting to 50% with that. A home equity loan (wait, I thought they were renting and weren't able to itemize?? See what I mean, moving the goalposts) is realized income in the year the home is sold, again untaxed up to $250k.

Any other additions to income that would push someone into a higher tax bracket makes them no longer an "average" income earner. You're missing the point - if we are talkng about an "average" income, by math they MUST be in the 15% marginal bracket. If they aren't they have additional income and are no longer average.

106   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Feb 9, 5:45am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

control point says

You're missing the point - if we are talkng about an "average" income, by math they MUST be in the 15% marginal bracket. If they aren't they have additional income and are no longer average.

Please don't confuse him with facts. It really messes up things.

107   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 6:05am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

1. Average is not the same as Median.

Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out that $43k is high for an average income for a single person. I looked around a few places for an average number, but could not find it. So I was using the former source to estimate based on income percentile. It has since occurred to me the average data could be calculated usingthe IRS tax return website. Most recent year is for 2012.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Filing-Status

Total AGI for all single filers was $2.27T. There were 66.65M single returns filed. Simple division gives us an average AGI at $33,422. Since this is 2012 data, we should probably adjust for wage growth (3 years) at 1.5% per year. This takes us to $34,948. Still much lower than $44k. This would include all capital gains, etc.

108   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 9, 9:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

control point says

Gifts are an addition to income, untaxed.

No. Gifts are not income. Gift money is already taxed on the gift giver's income (if not gift tax on top of it).

109   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 9, 9:54am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says

You're missing the point - if we are talkng about an "average" income, by math they MUST be in the 15% marginal bracket. If they aren't they have additional income and are no longer average.

Please don't confuse him with facts. It really messes up things.

No. The $43k is social security income, which does not include one-time gains that can put one's marginal rate in the 25% bracket. On top of that, a person making $43k on average over a decade does not necessarily make exactly $43k every year. Slightly over $43k would put one in the 25% bracket.

110   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 9, 9:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

control point says

Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out that $43k is high for an average income for a single person. I looked around a few places for an average number, but could not find it. So I was using the former source to estimate based on income percentile. It has since occurred to me the average data could be calculated usingthe IRS tax return website. Most recent year is for 2012.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Filing-Status

Total AGI for all single filers was $2.27T. There were 66.65M single returns filed. Simple division gives us an average AGI at $33,422. Since this is 2012 data, we should probably adjust for wage growth (3 years) at 1.5% per year. This takes us to $34,948. Still much lower than $44k. This would include all capital gains, etc.

AGI is after standard deduction and numerous other deductions and credits. The stock market and real estate gains in 2013 and 2014 have been much greater than 1.5%. 2012 was near the RE bottom. Some of the properties that I bought in 2012 have doubled in price.

Also, a lot of filers file in order to get welfare benefits. They are not even workers, and have nearly no income. So the simply division drastically reduces the average, resulting in a number that does not at all reflect average worker income.

111   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 10:02am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

AGI is after standard deduction and numerous other deductions and credits.

No it is not. That would be taxable income. Next.

112   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 9, 10:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

control point says

No it is not. That would be taxable income. Next.

Your choice not to answer the remaining 80% of my previous post shows that was sufficient for blowing you out of water:

"The stock market and real estate gains in 2013 and 2014 have been much greater than 1.5%. 2012 was near the RE bottom. Some of the properties that I bought in 2012 have doubled in price.

Also, a lot of filers file in order to get welfare benefits. They are not even workers, and have nearly no income. So the simply division drastically reduces the average, resulting in a number that does not at all reflect average worker income."

113   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Feb 9, 10:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

control point says

You're missing the point - if we are talkng about an "average" income, by math they MUST be in the 15% marginal bracket. If they aren't they have additional income and are no longer average.

People do not make the exact same income every year. Someone making $50k in one year and $36k in another would average out to $43k a year, but he gets hit by 25% marginal rate in the $50k year while not being compensated by a 5% marginal rate in the $36k year.

In any case, even if a person makes $43k every year, no more no less (which is an absurdly idealistic assumption), 47.8% is still "close o 50%"!

114   control point   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 10:19am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Your choice not to answer the remaining 80% of my previous post shows that was sufficient for blowing you out of water:

How many times am I going to prove you wrong before you give up? What credibility do you have at this point to warrant further rebuttal from me? You argue against easily verifable facts, like the amount of the Obamacare penalty and what actually is AGI, and you want to go any further? Why? You cannot fathom how far my regard for your intellect has fallen during this conversation.

Addtionally, you posted the final paragraph after I replied. In reply to the first - FINE, make it 5% per year growth for combined wage and capital gain income. IT will still not get you to a level that will push income into the 25% bracket.

In reply to the second, of course you would want to exclude the bottom income earners from the average. That is called selection bias. Let's chop off all income below the median and see what that does to the average, Yay math! I'm the smartest. 141+! 141+! 141+!

115   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 10:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Goes to show your utter lack of basic financial sense of the real world.

So, who is paying the payroll tax on a new company with no sales?

116   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2015 Feb 9, 2:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It is relatively easy to end up with a total of 42% marginal total tax rate (federal, cali state, social security, medicare, SDI) and to pay an effective tax rate of 30% when property tax is accounted for. I am not even talking about other taxes such as consumption, gasoline, etc. But the issue is not even the amount, the problem is that despite these taxes, there's still no public option for childcare, healthcare, no guaranteed paid sick time via federal law, etc. There's no reason why with the tax rates being what they are that these things are not being accomplished. The money is not being implemented/managed in prudent manner with clear sense of priorities.

117   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Feb 9, 6:36pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Also, a lot of filers file in order to get welfare benefits. They are not even workers, and have nearly no income.

Pure bullshit. You don't have to file a 1040 to get welfare benefits. If you're going to make shit up at least try to be creative about it.

« First    « Previous    Comments 78 - 117 of 117    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions