The Puzzles of U.S. Political Economy Today

Three points to serve as background:

First of all, from the day after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the policies followed by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. administrations have been very helpful. They have been good ones. The alternative--standing back and watching the markets deal with the situation--would have gotten us a much higher unemployment rate than we have now. Credit easing by the Fed and support of the banking system by the Fed and the Treasury have significantly helped the economy: have kept things from getting much worse.

Second, the fact that investment bankers did not go bankrupt last December and are profiting immensely this year is a side issue. Each extra percentage point of unemployment lasting for two years costs us $400 billion. A recession twice as deep as the one we have had would have cost us as a country some $2 trillion--and cost the world as a whole four times as much. In that scale and context the bonuses of Goldman Sachs are rounding error. And any attempt to make investment bankers suffer more last fall and winter would have put the entire support operation at risk: as Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Kohn said, ensuring that a few thousands investment bankers receive their just financial punishment is a non-starter when attempts to do so put the jobs of millions of Americans--and tens of millions outside the United States--at risk.

Third, the Obama administration's fiscal boost program has also significantly helped the economy: aid to impacted states has been a big win, the jury is still out on the effect of the tax cuts in the stimulus, and the flow of government spending on a whole variety of relatively useful causes is in train and is boosting production and employment in the same way that everyone's boost to spending boosts production and employment. And the cost of carrying the extra debt incurred is extraordinarily low: $12 billion a year of extra taxes would be enough to finance the fiscal boost program at current interest rates, and for that cost American taxpayers will get an extra $1 trillion of produced goods and services and employment will be higher by about ten million job-years.

Thus the big valid complaints about policy over the past fourteen months are not that it has run up the national debt and not that it has rewarded the princes of Wall Street, but rather that it has, if anything, been on too small a scale--that we ought to have done more.

Yet these policies appear, somehow, to be political losers in Washington right now: nobody is proposing to do more along the same lines. This is strange: usually when something works the natural impulse is to do it again.

So what is going on?

Comments

[kingaj12]

Brad -

I think it is just that the chattering classes are having a hard time reacting to what needs to be done when the banking system blows up.

After all, a big government that spends money on entrenched clients (defense industries, investment banks) is fine and dandy. But once that big government runs out of clients to spend money on -- then what? Spending money to help ordinary folks with jobs, health care and affordable housing is a bit too much of a U-turn for this country's governing consensus.

2009 Nov 22 11:41 AM

[kingaj12]

Basically we need programs that will spend enough money fast enough and have a high probability of getting something useful at the end.

The technical school system in Germany has always impressed me, although I don't know much about it. Would a national program to establish high-technology training for non-college goers spend enough money fast enough? Even just equipping some of those furniture engineering labs I saw in Germany would be a huge boost to the machine tools industry.

2009 Nov 22 12:22 PM

[tuckfinitee]

Mr. Delong you sir are a revelation. You're like a poster boy for the worlds greatest philosophers. Cervantes, Swift, Voltaire, Clemens, Potter, Parkinson.

You need to explain to the ignorant masses why the actions of the Fed the last two years aren't confiscatory. That money flows from the public to the opm mafia(gov/fin complex if you prefer)should always be increasing. That no other way of life is possible and that this is the best of all possible worlds.

2009 Nov 22 12:38 PM

[Kimball Corson]

Brad,

There is an acute vacuum of good and trustworthy information easily available and understandable to the public on the recovery programs and what has happened. The public now does not have a clue about what has really occured with the programs for the economy and is too ready to think the bankers walked off with the bailout monies and someone must have gotten off with the stimulus monies too -- all because -- where is the improvement we should be seeing by now in the economy? There are rumors galore out there fed by fools and enemies of the Administration.

It is stupid.

Obama should take the time, by a good series of fireside TV chats with charts and tables, to explain in simple language what has occured in each and every program, what the problems in each are, how we are fixing them and what we need to continue doing and start doing to keep the recovery moving and deal with unemployment. He cannot expect support without explaining what has been done and where we are. He needs to lead here.

This is not hard, but it seems to be escaping him and everyone around him, and the public is too ignorant, clueless and quick to draw adverse inferences, especially when helped along by opportunistic and stupid politicians and right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts and their guests.

Dumb, dumb and dumber. Put yourself in Joe, the plumber's, shoes and go figure. Because you know and understand does not mean that he does.

2009 Nov 22 08:35 PM

[Tom E.]

Our biggest problem is that we are sending all our private sector jobs out of the country.

www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../


Big Picture: "Speaking with Marketwatch’s Rex Nutting, I learned yet another incredible datapoint: Over the past decade, the U.S. private-sector has lost 203,000 jobs.

That’s right: Zero job growth for 10 years.

In the 1940s, we created 10 million jobs. In the 1990s, we added 19 million new jobs. Even during the much-maligned 1970s, we added almost 16 million jobs.

The 2000s might be zero. Some economy, huh?

The government has created 2.1 million jobs over that period — primarily teachers. And, that’s the weakest government job growth in nearly two decades."

2009 Nov 22 09:45 PM

[Kimball Corson]

Brad,
The back and forth exchange which follows is why the Administration needs to have full disclosure and complete explanations to have the American public understand the programs involved and where we are. In what follows, the original statement is mine from an article here entitled 25 Reasons We Will Not Have a Depresion, followed by a rebuttle comment in parentheses followed, after a space, by my rejoinder. This is growing part of what the Administration is up against.

TO: Archman Inv

I do not think you have disposed of much at all. Here is why:

--The Baltic Dry Index is up
(Good for the world- doesn't mean the US is improving)

U.S. is improving as part of BDI. LA Port reports shipping way up. Our exports are up -- wrong here.

-- Multinationals and related companies are improving fast
(Really? Where? Maybe because they are selling more to overseas, so that doesn't mean the US is ok.)

Again, U.S. multinationals are improving fast. I did not say U.S. was O.K. or improving fast. Wrong again.

-- The U.S. share of world GDP is staying about constant
(Yeah- massive gov't spending will do that, especially at the expense of future generations)

Gov't spending has not been to equalize. G20 also has gov't spending. Wrong here.

-- With exceptions, the world economy is improving well
(Yep and that is why investors should concentrate for the next 100 years on overseas markets)

You don't disagree, but are just trying to sound like it. Also,100 years is much, too much. Five or ten maybe. Wrong again.

-- UPS (UPS) and FedEx (FDX) are seeing and expecting
increased traffic (They aren't but they are allowed to lie. And more than likely will change their tune once our gov't cannot spend another cent)

Lying? Indeed. Talk about reaching. wrong again.

-- The rate of new jobless claims is dropping steadily
(Yes, from 550K to 525K. Wow, more happy talk rationalization.
Overall unemployment at almost 20% nationwide and 35 million Americans on food stamps now. The new acceptable norm I guess)

Not rationalization, fact. And not just last month either, for several months. I did not say employment situation was resolved or people weren't on foodstamps. I said what was accurate. -- wrong again.

-- The housing market is tending to bottom
(As someone who is in the business, I can assure you, we are still in a full blown depression, do not fall for the media lies)

In fact housing has bottomed in some markets and turned around in others, while some other markets lag. The picture is mixed and leans toward bottoming overall. Some markets are seeing price increases and new starts. On average, we are bottoming -- wrong again.

-- New housing starts are up in many areas
(Again, housing starts are up, but there is still a 10 month supply on the market and growing everyday with foreclosures- again, do not fall for any hype. There should be no houses being built right now)

You are not challenging what I said, but as usual, sliding sideways.
Also 10 month supply is down from 12 1/2 month supply. Backlog is much more in bottom housing rungs now -- Starts are up as I said. Wrong again.

-- The U.S. private sector is slowly getting deleveraged
(LOL. Way to funny. Overall Us household debt is still at 122% of income. We have a LONG way to go. Rationalizing is fun though)

122% is much lower than it was -- close to 160% of disposible income in 2007-- and secondly, you ignore corporate debt which is down too. I said we were getting deleveraged and that is true. -- wrong again.

-- Oil prices could be a lot worse
(You're getting desperate now)

Wrong again. Do you want over $100/barrel prices back? You sound like it.

-- Leading economic indicators (LEI) are on the rise
(Seeing as the top 10% of people in this country control 90% of its net worth, its nice to see someone can afford to be happy and buy stuff)

Ignores my point. LEI are up. wrong again.

-- Soros and Buffett are buying, e.g., Wal-Mart (WMT)
(Billionaires who have not a care in the world can do that. And if they are wrong, they have a few more billion to fall back on)

Billionaires watch their money like hawks; much more than we do, they live and die by their money; that is why they have so much of it. Wrong again.

-- U.S. exports are picking up
(Sure why not, the rest of the world is not as bad off, unless you are Britian, Spain. etc)

Got a disconnect here. You mean I am right?

-- Big TARP banks are doing better
(Did anyone ever hear of Mark to Market? Oh I forgot, they threw that out the window so banks could survive. Thank goodness the FED is handing them money so they can trade their way to bonuses cause they certainly aren't making real money the old fashioned way)

Banks are paying TARP monies back big time. The stock warrants we bought for cash from the big banks have appreciated massively and we are auctioning them off. As I said, the TARP banks are doing better. wrong again.

-- The velocity of money is improving
(Yes, it is being created faster and faster and the next 3 generations have a lot to look forward to)

Does that comment mean velocity is not increasing -- velocity, V, being different than increasing M. If so, wrong again.

-- Inflation and deflation are under decent control
(It wouldn't matter anyway, the government has not put out an honest "CPI" or "PPI" report in years)

A snide throw away. I am correct and you slide sideways.

-- GDP growth, while small last quarter, was not negative
(Again thank you uncle Sam)

GDP growth was 3.5%. Factoring out gov't contribution, it was .5%
Wrong again.

-- The dollar is not in freefall
(At this point since it has lost 95% of its value of the past 75 years it is almost at zero anyway. You sound like a CNBC guest.)

Snide throw away. I am correct. Your comment is a slide off sideways.

-- Our debt-to-GDP ratio is not at all bad, contrary to popular belief
(Wow now you really sound like a CNBC guest. I wont even justify that lie with a response)

Snide disparaging throw away comment, while sliding off sideways. I am correct.

-- Most economists do not believe a depression is very likely
(You mean the same people who typically get nothing right and saw none of this coming in the first place. Better start thinking for yourself pal)

I do. I forsaw what was coming, made money on it and wrote about it. I am an economist. Several others, e.g. Roubini, and others not technical economists also saw what was coming. None of us now foresees a depression as being at all likely. Wrong again.

-- Price earnings ratios of large cap stocks are at a discount
(Getting desperate here aren't we?)

Snide throwaway and slide off to the side. I am correct for big cap multinationals

-- We are economically better off than we were a year ago
(Again what time do you appear on the Kudlow show? Bold faced lying is a popular pastime on that show)

Snide, disparaging throwaway and a slide off to the side. I am correct.

-- Credit availabilty, while not good, is not frozen as it was
(Yeah and things are so good and the banks trust all the indebted up their eyeballs Americans that they want to lend them money..LOL)

Snide throwaway. Comment is not directed to statement.

-- The retail sector is doing better, according to the NBER

(Listening to liars who have ulterior motives never made anyone a cent in the markets. Look at the National Association of Realtors. They are professional salespeople and liars)

X lies, therefore Y lies. Cheap shot. My comment is correct.

-- Government will have paid-back TARP moneys to use soon
(LOL the biggest taxpayer heist in the history of the world happened last year and they are flushing money down the FNM & FRE black holes faster than they can print it. CIT another loser.)

Snide comment and a slip to the side, not directed to my statement.


Ok I think I have dispelled that list of nonsense. Next.

Wrong again. NOT CLOSE. You and those like you are one reason the Administration needs full and complete disclosure, explanations and transparency, to keep this sort of disconnected, irrational thinking and foolish from spreading and compromising our continuing recovery efforts. Americans need to know. Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers should all take note here, were they easily able. This problem is big and growing along several lines.

2009 Nov 23 05:46 AM

[Kimball Corson]

CORRECTION: In my reply to Archman Inv set out above, in discussing household debt to disposible income ratios, I made a mistake. Our ratio has dropped from 133% in 2007, not 160%. 160% is the figure for Australia in 2007. I misread a chart.

2009 Nov 23 11:13 AM

[acttang]

In all fairness, trying to make housing affordable to all people has always been the US government's goal, and that's why they created the monsters known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. To a large extent, the same good will contributed to the sub-prime phenomenon. What's worth of worrying is not that they try to do too little, it's quite the opposite. Let me quote this: Road to hell is paved with good intentions.


On Nov 22 11:41 AM kingaj12 wrote:

> Brad -
>
> I think it is just that the chattering classes are having a hard
> time reacting to what needs to be done when the banking system blows
> up.
>
> After all, a big government that spends money on entrenched clients
> (defense industries, investment banks) is fine and dandy. But once
> that big government runs out of clients to spend money on -- then
> what? Spending money to help ordinary folks with jobs, health care
> and affordable housing is a bit too much of a U-turn for this country's
> governing consensus.

2009 Nov 23 12:56 PM

[Gary A]

I know what is going on. The Federal Reserve allowed off balance sheet banking that was cooked up at Basel 2. I go into this at dontpaycreditcards.com...

The Fed allowed this massive bubble and then they profit off the resulting deflationary spiral. Government debt increases. Look at Japan. We are headed in the same direction debt wise.

This is accompanied by the raiding of the treasury by folks associated with the Fed, like Geithner and the Goldman Sachs moles in government.

This massive fraud would all be criminal, from the ponzi housing to the usury of credit cards to the raiding of the taxpayer to the falling dollar if the government weren't allowing it. That is why all these guys in government will lose their jobs.

In order for them not to lose their jobs they need to reign in the private Federal Reserve Bank, who owes allegience to the Bank of International Settlements and not to the US government or citizens.

That our sovereign nation did not have the power to put the bank corporate bondholders first in line for losses rather than the taxpayer is criminal.

We will be paying for years and this fraud will go unpunished. That is why these politicians are toast unless they do something. I am posting this on my instablog because I can't understand why educated individuals cannot see the massive theft by these powerful but common criminals taking place!

2009 Nov 23 01:11 PM

[Robert0713]

It's The Distribution, Stupid. The Right Wingnuts also complain: "where's the consumer, we must have revenue growth in companies", and blah, blah, blah. What such folks happily ignore is that starting with Reagan the Right Wingnuts (Gramm-Leach-Bliley are especially culpable) aided and directed a massive transfer of income and wealth from the many to the few: top 1% = 8% of income 1980, 23% in 2007.

Along the way, the disappearing Middle Class spent the equity (unearned, of course) in housing to maintain consumption, since median income fell (slightly) from 1980 to 2007 (it rose a bit during Clinton, then fell back under Bush; surprise, surprise).

The will be no real recovery unless and until there is a Middle Class which sucks up most of national income. As it stands now, the US is a Banana Republic where, rather than some extractive industry, financial services sucks up national income. Britain, by the way, is worse.

Like it or not: the Right Wingnuts have poisoned the well of capitalism by destroying the consumer. They'll never admit it, of course.

2009 Nov 23 01:55 PM

[Gary A]

They have captured the Democrats who continue the theft, as the big banks get bigger and the credit available to small business declines.


On Nov 23 01:55 PM Robert0713 wrote:

> It's The Distribution, Stupid. The Right Wingnuts also complain:
> "where's the consumer, we must have revenue growth in companies",
> and blah, blah, blah. What such folks happily ignore is that starting
> with Reagan the Right Wingnuts (Gramm-Leach-Bliley are especially
> culpable) aided and directed a massive transfer of income and wealth
> from the many to the few: top 1% = 8% of income 1980, 23% in 2007.
>
>
> Along the way, the disappearing Middle Class spent the equity (unearned,
> of course) in housing to maintain consumption, since median income
> fell (slightly) from 1980 to 2007 (it rose a bit during Clinton,
> then fell back under Bush; surprise, surprise).
>
> The will be no real recovery unless and until there is a Middle Class
> which sucks up most of national income. As it stands now, the US
> is a Banana Republic where, rather than some extractive industry,
> financial services sucks up national income. Britain, by the way,
> is worse.
>
> Like it or not: the Right Wingnuts have poisoned the well of capitalism
> by destroying the consumer. They'll never admit it, of course.

2009 Nov 23 02:05 PM

[robert.b.ferguson]

Shot gun weddings between bank holding companies and investment houses. Repeal of Glass/Steagall. Risk mitigation for stupidity that seemingly replaced liquidity equals the perfect storm. President Obama doesn't seem to have a plan for much of any thing and what little he has revealed is mostly political pay back. Those investment firms should have been allowed to crash and burn with their assets being purchased by stronger institutions. What made Goldman more important than Lehman other than political connections? The world didn't end when Lehman fell what makes any one think it would have been different with Goldman or AIG? This is all a lot of political B.S. now we are debating stimulus 2.0. Well I think the only way to handle your debt is to live within your means. As for stimulus 2.0 Just fughetaboutit.

2009 Nov 23 03:41 PM

[Allen Charles]

I find it interesting that China chose to stimulate their economy by giving the money directly to their buying public and have successfully kept their growth above 7 to 8 percent while we have been in recession or just holding our own with little to no growth and higher unemployment.


On Nov 22 11:41 AM kingaj12 wrote:

> Brad -
>
> I think it is just that the chattering classes are having a hard
> time reacting to what needs to be done when the banking system blows
> up.
>
> After all, a big government that spends money on entrenched clients
> (defense industries, investment banks) is fine and dandy. But once
> that big government runs out of clients to spend money on -- then
> what? Spending money to help ordinary folks with jobs, health care
> and affordable housing is a bit too much of a U-turn for this country's
> governing consensus.

2009 Nov 23 05:22 PM

[MGK]

Brad,

I have to take issues with all your points:

1) "the policies followed by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. administrations have been very helpful."

The question is helpful to whom? Your assumption that the only alternative was to do nothing is a paper tiger. Of course doing nothing would have been worse, but the approach the USG took was to give taxpayer money away with little or no strings attached in an almost random fashion (some banks took TARP funds simply to avoid the perception that only the bad ones needed the money). We have gotten nothing in return and the problems have all been dealt with "extend and pretend."

2) "the fact that investment bankers did not go bankrupt last December and are profiting immensely this year is a side issue."

Not a side issue at all. When the USG puts this many resources in play with little tangible results and certain groups reap big rewards, somethign is very wrong. If GS really didn't have any exposure to AIG, then they could easily give up the $12.9B they received from USG payments to AIG. They have more than enough "bonus" to give back to US taxpayers. The fact that the chairman of NY Fed was buying GS stock while negotiations were ongoing is an outrage deserving of a perp walk.

3) "the Obama administration's fiscal boost program has also significantly helped the economy"

Really, they have misread everything along with Bernanke (who said the subprime issue was contained). They claimed that unemployment would go to 9% without the stimulus. Right now they wish they were right.

The point is all of the actions have served to kick the can down the road and obscure the underlying conditions. Most of the stimulus money has gone to maintain state workers temporarily instead of dealing with long term structural budget problems. The Obama approach to foreclosures has been to delay the inevitable leaving bad loans on the books longer than they need to be. Fannie and Freddie are zombies and FHA is now picking up the slack and on its way to becoming the next big bailout.

TARP supported the investment banks; the FED is funneling cash to banks, GDP is solely due to USG spending, and somehow the average guy in the street is supposed to find solace in the DOW and the S&P. TBTF simply got bigger and Bernanke and Geithner are doing all they can to reinflate the bubbles that got us into the this mess in the first place.

What exactly have we done that is different from Japan? Why should we expect a different outcome?

2009 Nov 23 05:59 PM

[Kimball Corson]

Brad, income distribution is a serious problem, as Robert0713 says. In 2007, the 58th percentile and below in household income received 25% of the income. With a few reasonable and simple assumptions, I now estimate that share has fallen to 21%. That has implications. The three major consequences for the economy of this deterioration in distribution are:

(1) the consumer base in the U.S. and therefore consumption expenditure has markedly deteriorated

(a) because the majority of Americans have less income to spend, that is, they have a smaller share of a shrinking income pie, and

(b) because higher income households spend a much smaller percentage of their income on consumer goods and services than lower income households, that is, their average propensity to buy especially consumer goods is much less,

(2) much more income and dollars are now being rerouted into secondary financial markets, worldwide, by these higher income families that do not use most of their income for consumption, driving those assets prices up worldwide, and,

(3) government programs to stimulate and aid consumption and aggregate demand are not getting enough traction where it matters to seriously jump start the economy. It is not helping the lower almost 60% enough to seriously raise their consumption expenditures, given the income distribution we now have.

The economy is becoming ever more dysfunctional because of these problems.

Too, the anecdotal evidence is not only suggestive and supportive, but it is devastating as well: people not having enough food at the end of the month, as Wal-Mart executives and other food retailers are saying. Worse, a report was released recently saying that 49 million Americans, or almost 1 in 6, are not getting enough food to eat regularly. A teacher in a U.S. elementary school asked a young boy what he had for breakfast that morning and he said, "Nothing. Today is not my day." That is how bad the distributional problem is.

Congress has been taking care its members and the well-to-do, with their highly paid lobbyists, for so long, the income distribution has thereby become badly skewed. The tax cuts for the rich and the virtual elimination of the estate tax are only the more conspicuous, obvious and recent examples. Income is skewed so badly now it is to the point where in my opinion, the country, especially with the oppressive governmental regulations we have for small businesses, can no longer function well as a capitalistic, entrepreuerial society.

Until we collectively address this point and our huge trade deficit I think we are going to stay largely stuck where we are or fairly close to it. Only Congress can fix this problem by using the tax system and possibly a negative income tax to correct the maldistribution.

But Congress and those who patronize its members are doing well because of the maldistribution, so why should they fix it? The rest of the population doesn't know or understand and therefore care, so where is the impetus for changing the maldistribution.

Obama is dropping the ball by not better informing the public about all that is going on, all the way around. It might be his most important function in this mess and he is failing at it.

2009 Nov 23 06:30 PM

[icandoitdon]

how refreshing to know that the same pack of thieves who benefited so handsomely from the lack of regulatory oversight on the way up are also profiting at taxpayer expense on the way down.

as for the "things would have been worse" argument that justifies this thievery, says who? the path not taken is inherently unknowable. what is more easily predictable, however, is that there are likely to be many long term adverse consequences created as a result of propping up these dinasaurs through the twin gifts of taxpayer assumption of their worthless investments and subsidy of their operations through artificially depressed interest rates .

let's be clear as to what happened here. the federal government decided to force losses onto the taxpayer class rather than the investors class. even today the federal government continues encourage borrowers...however imprudent their leverage...and punish savers. cash for clunkers. housing tax credits. stimulus checks. pile it on, folks....the country needs you to spend like drunken sailors just to keep treading water.

think of it. the housing market...a huge driver of consumer wealth...continues to depend on the federal government's efforts to prop up prices with contrived (low) mortage rates and buyer rebates. if this doesn't speak volumes to you about the continuing cost of the u.s. having bailed out wall street and the ability of our economy to stand on it's own, it's because you' not listening. what it tells me is that we're not out of this mess by a long shot.

2009 Nov 23 10:19 PM

[Steve in Greensboro]

Yep, that stimulus program worked just as advertised.

Obama promised us if we passed the stimulus package that unemployment would not go over 8%. And, doggone it, he delivered on his promise. It didn't just go over 8%, it went over 10%! That's what I call exceeding expectations. All we need to do to get unemployment over 20% is to keep doing what we are doing.

2009 Nov 24 10:02 AM

[cribbooky]

Big Brother says the recession is over so it must be over. Just because they are keeping interest rates at near zero, extending unemployment benefit duration, and "considering" the extension of TARP stimulus is no reason to doubt that the recession is over as we have been told. Shut up and pay your taxes.

2009 Nov 24 01:58 PM

[Teutonic Knight]

Mr. Brad DeLong -

Thank you for a good article. I particularly like your using the word "..Puzzling...".

Well, if you look back our history over the past ~ 60 years since the end of the Second World War, two words sum up our nation's naiveté - - - "Bail Out and Bubbles".

One could go back and examine our deeds, economically and politically on immigration, foreign wars, dot.com, housing, S&L, credit crisis, national debts, mortgage crisis, auto incentives, SUV's, and others too numerous. One thing is clear, we never stop creating "Bubbles and Bailouts" indispensably.

TK

2009 Nov 24 02:30 PM

[Bruce Krasting]

Brad, You want more QE? More POMO? More clunkers? More home buyer credits? More Zero interest rates? Bigger deficits?

This stuff works? Sure it does, but just for a short while. Then the pain begins.

These things do not work for us. They hurt us. They are the drugs that we are addicted to. They are killing us.

2009 Nov 25 08:23 AM