Paul Krugman Guts Obama on Social Security

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 14:49

Ok, so Obama lost the activists because of his recent 'McLurkin isn't against the Happy Gays' line, and now he's intent on losing the wonks.

In the clip above, you'll watch Obama's attack on Clinton over Social Security be dismantled by Paul Krugman.  Obama is arguing that there is a fiscal crisis Clinton is ignoring, and this is a big problem for a few reasons.  One, there is no crisis with Social Security, which is something progressives understand.  There are many crises around the world, including fiscal ones in this country.  But Social Security is fine.  Two, politically speaking, Social Security was the issue upon which Bush's momentum in 2005 crumbled because of a large progressive organizing effort.  That Obama is using the need to shore up Social Security as an attack on Clinton, well, this makes me want to say that I'm disappointed that Obama is abandoning the politics of hope. 

On another level, I just feel bad for progressive Obama supporters.  It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction.  A lot of Obama supporters at this point will become much quieter since there's little that is positive to say, which will allow the more ardent types to occupy more of the conversation.  That's really unfortunate, but it's just a reality that Obama has given up his role as a participant in the progressive conversation.  He'll be back as he's too giant a figure to leave permanently.  But his campaign at this point is leaving him not just scarred as a Presidential figure, but as a political figure in general.  He has just shrunk dramatically in stature.

Matt Stoller :: Paul Krugman Guts Obama on Social Security

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

obamastoller (4.00 / 1)
I know Matt got a lot of shit for taking on Obama before things started to tank the way they have, but it's becoming clear to me that he was prescient (and not just right by accident.)

I think a lot of us became very excited about Obama because he reminded us of Dean -- we felt that there was a real chance this ballsy guy would be smart enough to win an election but wise enough to be progressive.

That excitement blinded us to the fact that we were reacting to much of the surface (OMG facebook numbers! Viral messages spreading through the social network!) but not much of the substance. Just take teh gays; Dean was out in front in favor of gay marriage when it was politically problematic; now as the country moves over to Dean's vision, Obama, what? Crazy!

I talked a while ago with an editor of the Chicago Defender. I hope I run into her again soon, because I'm curious to see what the take on this is in the black community.

Also, I think we should reward Matt by making a YouTube video that shows girls pillowfighting over an iPhone showing OpenLeft.

Fake it till you make it (4.00 / 2)
He remind just a little of Dean, but what was more obvious was that his campaign made a strategic decision to try and recycle the energy that made Dean for America a phenomena, but as you said because the actual candidate/campaign itself wasn't "there" this ended up being totally superficial. The signs have been there all along.

I also think that with Colbert (and Burma) quickly trouncing Obama on Facebook, the notion that he's an internet or youth powerhouse is pretty much blown. He may still be leading in these categories (although the youth polling out of Iowa I've seen favors Sen. Clinton), but he's clearly not actually tapping into the true potential support that exists.

I too feel kind of bad for the people I know who are working on this. You know they can sense that things are starting to come apart at the seams. It's not over yet, but the momentum is clearly not good.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
So Long Obama! (0.00 / 0)
Who says Obama supporters are going to get quiet? This Obama supporter is officially un-supporting Obama today. There are so many reasons I am pulling my support it's hard to name them all. But needless to say, this social security issue and the McLurkin incident are among those reasons.

I think if I had to vote today, I would go for Dodd.

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is a big disappointment.  If he wanted to prove his independence and good judgment, he should have taken her (and the rest of the field) on over Iran.  he could have proved his position on Iraq wasn't a fluke and he really is a leader.

But Social Security?  He (or his advisers) must buy into the fiction that this is a "youth" issue.  Obviously it isn't, and it isn't a progressive issue either.

Bad instincts, bad advice, bad judgment.  And bad omen.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Yes to Dodd (0.00 / 0)
DFA is polling its members to see which candidate the organization should endorse. Originally I would have been very excited to endorse Obama.

And I say this not because of media hype but because of his voting record, and his ability to woo swing voters.

I think he is tanking on all sides. Now I have not given up on him. I am sure he will be back next time and I will watch him very close to see if he deserves a nomination then.

But for now it is Dodd.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Que DD2 Attacking FDR For Getting Us Into This Mess! (0.00 / 0)
C'mon!  I know you can do it!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Obama on Social Security (0.00 / 0)
This is just one of the things that can happen when you hire David Axelrod as your chief campaign advisor, all of them, ultimately, bad.

Shades of 2000 (4.00 / 1)
Re: "It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction."

For me, that moment happened with Al Gore, re Elián González.

It tasted worse to me than the Repubs' later, similar, thing with Terri Schiavo, because I hadn't expected any better from them.

Am I missing something? (4.00 / 1)
So Obama wants to raise the payroll cap on Social Security? Good. The cap as it exists now ensures that SS is funded through a regressive tax, wherein the wealthier someone is the lower percentage of their income is taxed for SS.

So what is the problem here? Are you upset that Obama is going after the 'wrong' issue? Are you upset because SS really is not in crisis? (I would imagine that the vast majority of voters believe it IS in crisis)

Please explain why this is such a disastrous move on Obama's part.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

uncorking the SS genie (4.00 / 3)
That many people believe ghosts does not mean that we should create policies around the needs of ghosts.  There's this pundit heavy habit of talking about the need to 'do something' about Social Security', which inevitably means destroying the program.  Social Security is fine.  It's fine.  Don't mess around with it.

[ Parent ]
Social Security (4.00 / 1)
The head of the social security administration trust fund during the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administration's differ with you Matt.

Social security will start paying out more money than taking in money around 2017.

He recommended making some changes during the next administration. These changes are as follows:

1.. lift the cap gradually over the next 20 years. This will effect maybe 6% OF THE POPULATION.

2, iNVEST 29% of the fund in equity investments.

3. Tax the proceeds of the estate tax for social security. That is estates over 3.5million for single people and 7 Million for married couples.

Their is not a crisis but action does need to take place.

Clinton's solution similar to 1983 is in-appropriate for it raised the retirement age and taxed the benefits of social security for medicare. He was against this measure for this time period.

Bottom line, Obama's positions are reasonable democratic positions for social security.

Finally, if you look at the latest Iowa poll in which he is even with Clinton, hardly show's that his campaign is imploding.

[ Parent ]
Re:Social Security (4.00 / 1)
My understanding is that yes, as BDM states, SS solvency is an issue to be addressed, though not a crisis. I also understand that increasing the income cap on SS taxes is among the most progressive solutions to ensure SS is solvent in the long term. I believe that Obama is a) addressing an 'issue' that MANY Americans are concerned with b) addressing an issue that is a legitimate issue, even if it is not a crisis and c) offering a progressive policy proposal to this issue.

Seriously people - SS taxes are REGRESSIVE. Obama is saying we should change this. Good For Him.

I mean, sure Obama has been faltering a bit recently, but this hardly seems like a nail in the coffin. It is a minor policy prescription from a progressive perspective that will probably play only the most minor role in the reminder of these primaries.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
SS "defecit" (4.00 / 1)
Social security will start paying out more money than taking in money around 2017

The very reason why there is a trust fund.  The retirement of the baby boomers is not some bolt from the blue.  It has been foreseen (and already dealt with) for some time.  The 1983 Greenspan Commission agreement was forged largely to deal with this unavoidable occurrence.  The other reason for that agreement was that SS was facing a much more real and IMMEDIATE crisis back then.  SS was staring down the barrel of a deficit within the next year or two, with next to no trust fund.  And guess what?  They fixed it (not 10 years ahead of time, but one year ahead of time), and guess what else?  The sky didn't fall.

There is no SS crisis.  There may be some problems (far) down the road, or there may not be.  The point is that I could probably come up with 100 ... yes, 100 ... more pressing issues that demand our focus as a nation right now.  And Obama is not doing the progressive cause any favors by chumming the waters with this SS sh*t.  That is why we're angry.  The GOP and its enablers are doing a fine job brainwashing the public into believing this nonsense without  a top tier Dem candidate echoing their talking points.

[ Parent ]
So at best it's a bit of wonkish detail (0.00 / 0)
That's a comparatively minor adjustment. That's not a big enough difference to make into a major issue in a presidential campaign, as the fix is so simple.

All this really does is feed a "Democrats divided" meme on social security, giving free rein to the likes of Bob Kerrey, and increase the suspicion amongst the population that something is seriously wrong with social security, when that's just not true.

I say this, incidentally, as someone who does not expect to get an old-age pension in my home nation that pays out at a rate that is sufficient to live on without other savings. I'm not oblivious to the problems that would be caused by that kind of shortfall, although for demographic and structural reasons America probably has much less reason to be concerned than the UK does. But there is still no way that this is a good long term strategy for the Democrats or for social security. Nor is it a sufficiently large difference for it to be a smart move to take in a primary.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I don't get it (4.00 / 3)
You didn't think that Hilary's non-answer on Social Security in the debate was abysmal and patronizing?  She was unwilling to put anything on the table in order to debate it.  That seems Orwellian to me, or a way to say that she actually has no ideas but is too proud to admit it.  If she thought it was solvent she should have said so.

So what I am saying is that I think that Obama's critique of Hilary is quite accurate on that particular issue.  Perhaps his solution to a perceived problem is too much for a minor flaw in your opinion and that I can understand, although I think that raising the cap makes a lot of sense as a progressive way to fund a program that so many American's dependent upon.  This particular "do something" about Social Security is clearly designed to improve funding for the program not destroy it.

I don't see what you are really trying to say except to remind us that you detest Obama.  You are entitled to that and you have a platform to spread your dislike, but frankly I think that you are eroding your credibility is attacks based on that dislike rather than an argument that is actually persuasive.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
Indeed -- (0.00 / 0)
I completely agree with LandStander. If Social Security can't be abolished (which is preferable in my eyes) then at the very least it should be made less regressive. God forbid Obama do that.

Also, I'm not comfortable with the idea that anyone not greater than or equal to FDR's leftism is not a progressive. This is a disgusting notion, and while such strict guidelines should be applied to dire issues (Iraq, deficit) it need not apply to lesser issues (Social Security, which we've established as safe). Let's leave the fundamentalism to religious nuts, hm?

[ Parent ]
I'm trying to find a way to read your comment (4.00 / 1)
that doesn't involve interpreting it as a guy desiring the abolition of SS at the same time he decries an overly exclusive definition of progressive.

And the FDR reference... are you saying that agreeing with the New Deal is setting the bar too high in terms of determining who is and isn't a progressive?

Perhaps I'm misreading you.

[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.00 / 1)
Tearing down the safety net for the elderly is so laudable, and such a vote winner too.

Also, the perception that FDR was a leftist may be why the rest of the western world finds America so difficult to understand.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
GOP boogymen (4.00 / 1)
I would imagine that the vast majority of voters believe it IS in crisis

Largely because people like Obama keep reinforcing that idea.  Thanks alot.  He had to pick SS to attack Hillary on?  She is vulnerable on so many fronts, and he picks the GOP's cause celebre?  What a putz.

[ Parent ]
just to make it clear (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a particular problem with the specific fixes Obama is proposing. Or that they don't pass some purity test.  I agree that the payroll tax should be made less regressive, in fact I would favor abolishing the income cap altogether.  That's not the point.  The fact that he's raising this issue at all is the problem, and particularly the way he's raising it.  The implication is that we should all be jumping up and down about the looming crisis (a GOP perennial) and why isn't Hillary jumping up and down with us?  Its not helping.  We should be jumping up and down, just not about SS.

For the record, I'm not a fan of either Obama or Hillary.  So, I have no dog in this race.

[ Parent ]
Obama said yesterday SS is NOT in crisis (0.00 / 0)
I think there's a firestorm of overinterpretation going on here.

I needled Obama on Saturday for trying to make hay out of his minute differences with Hillary on Social Security, but I also looked at the YouTube that Obama's campaign had posted on his SS event.

He doesn't get around to his position until the last couple of minutes of an 11-minute video, but when he does, he starts off by saying that Republicans have exaggerated the danger facing the Social Security program.

His message here isn't issue-specific ("OMG, Social Security is headed over the cliff, and Hillary doesn't realize it") so much as thematic: He's willing to face issues head-on, while Clinton is paralyzed by a Washington, D.C. mentality.

Social Security just happens to be the current example, because Obama's campaign thinks they caught her in a gaffe on the subject. (And because the previous example they used, Iran, showed Obama hedging badly himself.)  Edwards is coming around to the same theme, using lobbyist money as his example.

It's also possible that he's focusing on Social Security in Iowa because of its salience to the older voters likely to participate in the caucuses.

Social Security Fixes are the eptiome (0.00 / 0)
of Washington insider think.  It seems like he's trying to win the Tim Russert primary or the Fred Hiatt primary.

The fact that he may not really believe this is an issue but is making an issue out of it for political gain is hardly inspiring.

[ Parent ]
Well, he is grasping at straws (0.00 / 0)
But my point is that if Hillary had given her non-answer on trade instead of Social Security, Obama's new ad might well be about trade.

I think it's the contrast with her vagueness that drove this ad, not a desire to please Tim Russert or David Broder.

[ Parent ]
not really disagreeing (0.00 / 0)
I don't really know what the disagreement here is.  Obama made a character attack on Clinton relying on right-wing frames on Social Security.  It might have been about trade, but it wasn't.  I don't know why he did it, but I don't see how you and I disagree.

[ Parent ]
Just correcting a misinterpretation (not just by you) (0.00 / 0)
You said in your post, "Obama is arguing that there is a fiscal crisis Clinton is ignoring."  Krugman, Josh Marshall, and Atrios all said similar things.

In light of this snowballing consensus, it seemed like a useful factual note to mention that Obama specifically said on Saturday that Social Security is not in a crisis -- and indeed, because it's not in a crisis, he rejects any proposal for privatization, reducing benefits, or raising the retirement age.

Several other commenters have noted the same thing below. 

[ Parent ]
Dis-agreeing (0.00 / 0)
Matt from your statements, then I take it that it is al right with you that Clinton not give any answer's when questioned on social security. That is what you are saying.

This came out when Clinton was pressed about social security at an event in Iowa and wouldn't answer the question. When she spoke to the person in private she gave an answer that she wouldn't givce in public.

She is afraid to simply lift the cap on social security to prevent more money going out than coming in on social security. She is afraid of being attacked by the republican's as raising takes on social security. Yes it will affect people making over 100,000 thousand dollars a year or the top 6 percent of the population. She favor's the regressive tax on social security.

Why are you afraid to take a strong democratic position for grdually raising the cap on social security taxes,

Paul Wellstone of my home state would roll in his grave about the comments on this blog of so called progressives.

[ Parent ]
He Can't Have It Both Ways (4.00 / 2)
If he's not making a big deal and buying into rightwing frames, then how is his modest, though good, proposal a sign of a fundamental difference with Clinton?

This is his problem in a nutshell: he can't challenge the Versailles consensus relying entirely on Versailles advisors.  I know that the DLC crowd has been trying to do this ever since before there was a DLC, but it just doesn't work.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Older voters aren't the ones who are upset (0.00 / 0)
"Older voters", by whom I assume you mean those who are already getting SS, don't think the system is broken, and expect to collect until they die.  To the extent theelderly are worried, it is more for their children and especially their grandchildren. 

The people who are worried are either policy types who don't like SS on ideological grounds or under 60's who think it won't be around for them.  It can be put on a more solid footing by postponing the retirement age slightly over time and raising the cap over time, but neither of these is going to affect OLDER voters; rather, both will affect mostly later Boomers (depending on when it is phased in) and the wealthier workers.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Overreaction (4.00 / 2)
Krugman is one of my last American heroes, but I don't get what he's going on about here. I don't see Obama doing sky-is-falling alarmism about Social Security. He's proposing making the SS tax minimally less regressive. I don't think he'll get any traction with this, but that's another issue. To me he's acknowledging that the propaganda-fed CW is that SS will be dead in a generation. In my world, that is what people think, or at least suspect. I don't see any harm in proposing a minor change in the way it's funded.

Obama hasn't been at the top of my wishlist for some time now, but this looks like an innocuous proposal that most progressives would agree with being blown up into a major scandal. Gotcha politics at its worst.

This debate isn't actually about Social Security (4.00 / 3)
Obama said clearly on Saturday that social security is not in crisis.  Via the AP.
In Des Moines, Obama spoke about his solutions for Social Security, and said President Bush's argument that the system is broken and needs an overhaul is an exaggeration.

"The underlying system is sound. The actual problem is a projected cash shortfall that can be readily solved. But the longer we wait to solve the problem, the bigger it grows," Obama said.

Amy Lorentzen - AP 28 Oct 07

A couple weeks ago, a questioner asked Clinton at an Iowa rally if she supported raising payroll taxes or decreasing benefits to pay for social security, and she answered negatively on both counts.  After the rally however, she went up to him and gave a different answer.

That questioner endorsed Obama on Saturday, triggering the campaign to make an Iowa-centric play and go after Clinton on social security.

The real issue though isn't social security, it's trust/transparency/honesty.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

what it's about (4.00 / 2)
This is not really about social security.  It's worse than that. It's about hitting at Clinton because the pundits say he should and not being bright enough to find a good issue, so he uses social security.  Never mind that it's a republican meme and has been discredited over and over again.

It's just incompetent politics.

Incompetent Politics is exactly the word (4.00 / 1)
Attacking Clinton from the Right is not going to reassure folks like us.  Nor should it.

This is going to cost Barack, and that doesn't make me happy.  But he needs to get burned on this one.

Don't use GOP frames to bash other Democrats.  Ever.

[ Parent ]
Options other than Clinton (4.00 / 1)
Part of the reason why so many of the Obama supporters (of which I am very reluctantly one) are willing to give him doubt after doubt is because he really and truly feels like the only choice. With all due respect to the Edwards folks, this race seems to me like it is Obama or Clinton, Clinton or Obama.

Originally I thought that Obama would be a great progressive. He still might be (policy-wise), but I'm not sure of that as I once was. Now I view him as the better of the two candidates that I believe have a shot at the Democratic nomination. Not good, but better.

A lot of the frustration I feel is towards Obama because he is bringing this all on himself. (To be fair, I think that a lot of it is his very poor choice in advisors, but he made that choice and ultimately he "owns" is campaign.) What frustration I don't feel towards Obama is towards the rest of the Democratic party for failing to put forth a single credible, genuine, electable, strong progressive. (I put Obama and Edwards on the same level in terms of these criteria.) I think that a lot of this gets projected at Matt for pointing out Obama's flaws. (The same thing happens when Edwards' flaws are highlighted.)

If it is between Obama and Clinton and all we're doing is tearing them both down then what good are we doing? We don't have any other alternatives and no one is really suggesting any. Again, it isn't Matt's fault that Obama is imploding (at least as a progressive if not electorally), but how can we do something, anything, positive?

damn right, this issue isn't about social security.... (4.00 / 1)'s about the political acumen of someone looking for the Dem nomination who appears willing to rush into a RW frame in order to please the talking heads inside the Beltway.

Remember, social security has been described by right-wingers as the "soft underbelly" of the welfare street.  Bush's attempt to start dismantling it in 2005 was all about starting to take apart the welfare state. 

If there was serious concern about fixing looming financial problems with government programs, attention would have been focused on Medicare, which has much more urgent financial issues.  Or how about talking about the tax cuts for the rich, which have cut the financial legs out from under all government programs.

The single success that the Democrats had while in minority in Congress was pushing back against the attempt by Bush to start dismantling SS.

What does it say about any candidate's political judgement that they choose that issue as the one with which to go after the presumptive front-runner for not taking it seriously?

It reminds me of Kenny Baer, Dem strategist, guest-blogging for TPM around the time of the SS debate, declaring that he knew nothing about SS so he was going to use his stint to blog about British politics.  I mean, WTF?  Is this the kind of people that Obama has advising him?  And is he dumb enough (you can be intellectually smart and politically dumb) to think he's getting good advice?

One thing's for sure: This guy would be a disaster as the nominee.  He'd spend the whole election going after the pundit vote.

HRC War Room in Full Force... (4.00 / 2)
Obama proposes lifting a very regressive cap on Social Security taxes and is attacked for using right-wing talking points. Huh?  The "liberal" blogs are eating this up, but, the strange thing is, no one is attacking him for what he actually said.  They are putting a right-wing "spin" where it doesn't seem to belong. 

Hillary is playing a lot of people for tools. I just didn't think so many "informed" people would be eating out of her hand so readily.

I don't think it's the HRC war room by any means (0.00 / 0)
It's just a knee-jerk response to seeing Obama mention Social Security; if Hillary was using the issue against Barack, I think Stoller et al. would respond the same way.

And there is some value to reminding people, when the subject comes up, that Social Security isn't in a crisis.  But Obama's actual words and policy stands should count for something as well.

[ Parent ]
obama's words (4.00 / 1)
Keep in mind Obama called Clinton a liar over Social Security, which is utter nonsense.  Sure his policy ideas weren't that bad, but he used them to attack Clinton's character.

[ Parent ]
What's fair is fair... (0.00 / 0)
I believe Obama criticized Clinton for "ducking, hedging, dodging and spinning" a serious issue.  I know the article  by Perry Bacon Jr. in the Post termed it as an attack on character, but that is the analysis of a Post writer and not Obama's words.

Valid concerns, on virtually any serious issue (e.g. the Iraq War, Lieberman/Kyl, telecom immunity, etc.) surround HRC as she is constantly "ducking, hedging, dodging and spinning."  Making these criticisms "character attacks" and therefore "unfair" is a play right out of the HRC campaign's manual.

BTW, she has to play it this way.  HRC is the chosen candidate of the wealthy (as evidenced by their contributions); raising the cap on Social Security hits her core constituency. 

[ Parent ]
social security (0.00 / 0)
Matt you are just not objective about Obama IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

I would say from your incessant criticisim of him and in many ways an over obsession of his every move strikes me as a shade of racisim.

[ Parent ]
Wrong time, wrong strategy (4.00 / 1)
I don't think anybody here would complain if social security taxes were made less regressive. But this is the wrong time and the wrong strategy. Obama has played into right-wing frames, he's picked a programme whose financial woes are not that serious and it's all for what is essentially a process story.

This should be a legislative move, initially buried deep in his list of priorities, quietly passed through Congress and only then trumpetted (and with a very much more progressive framing) as a definitive solution, ensuring a safety net for the vulnerable for the forseeable future.

Afterwards you can, if you must, talk about social security having been saved. But doing it right now just leads to attacks on the welfare state and the suggestion that rather than strengthening the programme it should be privatised.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
former supporters (0.00 / 0)
It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction.
Not really.  I don't expect them to be perfect.  I thought the inclusion of transgendered people on ENDA and then summarily removing them was a positive step.  (Compared to ignoring them all together previously). 

South Carolina had like a 90% vote against gay marrage.  I am a liberal in a very conservative state.  I don't expect anyone to be great and progressive.

That being said I am no longer willing to support Obama over defending McLurkin.  If he had a gay preacher with a strong defense of his beliefs on there and hadn't defended McLurkin I'd have accepted that, but what Obama did wasn't nearly good enough.

Bad day (0.00 / 0)
Man, what a monumentally stupid day for the Obama campaign.  I didn't check any news/blogs accept for Yglesias until tonight, but every move they've made today has been breathtakingly awful.

The campaign leadership should be sacked after such a sorry performance.

I'm back in the undecided camp after over a year as an Obama supporter.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox