June 24, 2004

Arithmetic

William J. Clinton (2004), My Life (New York: Knopf: 0375414576), p. 537:

In later years I was often asked what great new idea my economic team and I brought to economic policy making.... I always gave a one-word answer: "arithmetic". The American people had been told for more than a decade that their government was a gluttonous leviathan swallowing their hard-earned dollars to no good end. Then the same politicians who told them that, and served up tax cuts to starve the evil beast, would turn right around and spend themselves to reelection, leaving the false impression that the voters could have programs they didn't pay for... that the only reason we had big deficits was wasteful spending on foreign aid, welfare, and other programs for poor people.... We had brought arithmetic back to the budget, and broken America of a bad habit...

There are other, more important reasons to vote against George W. Bush. But the childlike glee with which he has tried to undo all the progress on restoring fiscal balance made in Clinton's and in his own father's administration--that is surely sufficient.

I am still surprised that no high-level resignations accompanied the unveiling of the latest Bush budget earlier this year.

Think of it: Snow, Bolten, Mankiw--all had been sent out in the fall to say that "the administration plans to cut the deficit in half by 2009." All loyally carried this message. And come the release of the budget, what do we find? That the deficit is "cut in half" by 2009 only by the expedient of ignoring $160 billion in costs of policies that George W. Bush wants to implement, and that thereafter the deficit bounces back upwards and is projected to grow faster than ever. They mortgaged their credibility, and the White House then failed to make the payments.

Posted by DeLong at June 24, 2004 08:05 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

This is fairly similiar to what happens in journalism, I think -- careerism or "success positivism", where there are no criteria except career success measured in dollars (and perhaps also power and fame).

Didn't Adam Smith said quite a bit about how capitalism couldn't survive without a general society-wide acceptance of various ethical, professional and legal codes of behavior? IE, that the desire for profit cannot be the only motive, but must be overridden at times by others? In our present system the big financial players have enough loose change to distribute bribes very widely to ensure that their activities are unconstrained by any professionalism.

Whether it's financial incentives in the case of governmental economists or not I don't know. Maybe it's power and fame, though it's also likely that these players have reason to expect big payoffs once they stop pretending to try to live off their pitiful government salaries. (Reagan got a million for one trip to Japan and two short speeches.)

A fair amount of contemporary social science and economics seems to consist in trying to show that all behavior either "always really is", or should be, purely self-interested in some nitty-gritty way. I think that this tendency is really destructive.

Posted by: zizka / John Emerson on June 24, 2004 08:38 PM

____

Keep in mind those guys are the second string. Maybe he could bring back ONeill, LIndsey, Hubbard and Daniels?

Posted by: bakho on June 24, 2004 09:22 PM

____

But golly, in a previous comment, I've already explained how the Bush deficit will all work out balanced in the VERY VERY end (of time). Do I need to explain this all over again? I can even work it out so that the present value works out right too. Yeah I know, my first solution didn't get PV right. But hey, that was just for "explanatory purposes" only.

BTW variants of this eternal budget balancing paradox are called the MONTY HELL problem. We can even get stochastic!

Sorry, I can't be too serious talking 'bout BUSH budgets.

Posted by: CSTAR on June 24, 2004 09:24 PM

____

And the boom in tax revenues from the tech bubble had nothing to do with it?

Posted by: am on June 24, 2004 09:36 PM

____

(from Billmon.org)

It only seems fair in this age of WMD madness, that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Check out this article early this AM from Associated Press:

(AP) Former Presidential candidate Al Gore announced today that the White House needs to be invaded immediately.

"We now have hard evidence of covert possession of NEP's (National Energy Policies) and proof that corrupt judicial officials allowed the Vice President to hide the evidence of those NEP's from the American people!

Furthermore, there is documentary evidence Cheney has been shopping for nuclear power plants along with their massed stockpile of deadly NEP's! And I'm here to tell you, if you want to see the kind of damage a nuclear power plant can do, just Google on "WPPSS", the largest municipal bond default in US history, a $2.25 billion dollar nuclear fiasco that taxpayers and bondholders are still paying off.

We cannot wait! We have proof Bush and Cheney have NEP's and have been trying to purchase nukes. We can't wait for the UN, we have to go into the Oval Office by November 2nd *and forceably remove these terrorists from office*!!"

Vice President Dick Cheney, when asked to remark on Mr. Gore's allegations concerning the NEP's, said only, "Tell Al to go fuck himself! I'm the leader of the Free World! Hell, we *own* the Free World!!" (italics Cheney's)

Mr. Cheney was then taken away in an ambulance to Bethesda Naval Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Whitehouse spokesman said Cheney has developed a penchant lately for digging holes in his backyard and planting suitcases full of $M's in cash, with sleeping bags and survival rations.

[end]

Posted by: Tante Aime on June 25, 2004 12:34 AM

____

There wasn't a deficit under Clinton only if you counted the Social Security surplus. Otherwise, the federal gov. ran a deficit (as usual).

So maybe Bush says 2+2=6 and Clinton said 2+2=5.

Posted by: Andrew Boucher on June 25, 2004 03:43 AM

____

am,

Tax revenues from the tech bubble had nothing to do with it? I didn't see anybody here make that claim. Think of it in terms of the pattern of response. Clinton got a fiscal lift from capital gains taxes, due to elevated equity prices and trading volumes, but he did not turn that into an excuse for tax cuts and higher spending. Under Bush, the answer to slow growth is tax cuts (even if they don't take effect during the anticipated period of slowdown), and right policy when growth is not slow is tax cuts. The right policy to boost employment is tax cuts. Meanwhile, Bush has boosted spending on his own, and let Congress boost spending outrageously, without a single veto. So yes, Clinton got some help from the economy, but Clinton also took steps to restrain the deficit. Bush pledge "lock box" behavior during his first campaign, then violated the pledge. He is not talking about cutting the deficit in half, which is to say, undoing half the damage he has done, but is relying almost entirely on the economy (and fuzzy math), rather than his own policies, to do the job.

Posted by: kharris on June 25, 2004 04:56 AM

____

Oops, make that "he is now" rather than "he is not."

Posted by: kharris on June 25, 2004 05:15 AM

____

Speaking of arithmetic, maybe someone can help me with a "tax shift" argument I'm having with a conservative. His argument is basically that deficits don't matter, because:

"The feds are always dealing how to raise cash to pay for obligations. But I think that is a different discussion than what we started with.
I look at aggregate American taxpayer income, and economic activity in general, as our "reserve" that can be tapped at any time by either taking some of it through taxes or borrowing some of it. Congress makes that choice annually. We really don't loose anything by, say, not taxing it now, but borrowing it. And if you are tempted to say that the interest cost on borrowing is an avoidable cost, remember that the lost interest and lost opportunity cost on taking funds through taxes instead of borrowing the funds is also a cost to the taxpayer."

I'm not an economist, but this doesn't make sense to me. Is it only the pressure on interest rates due to deficits that makes the above untrue, or is their faulty arithmetic involved as well?

Posted by: TerryB on June 25, 2004 05:42 AM

____

am: "And the boom in tax revenues from the tech bubble had nothing to do with it?"

When good fortune comes your way, you still usually have to do something to take advantage of it. If Clinton hadn't increased taxes on the rich back in 1993, then there would have been no surpluses in the late 1990s, tech bubble or no tech bubble.

Similarly, as long as Bush is president, we will continue to have massive deficits even if the economy booms in his second term, just like with Reagan.

Anyway, I've got a blackboard, some chalk, and a TI-83. Weapons of math instruction!

Posted by: RT on June 25, 2004 07:06 AM

____

Iíve heard this theory before. Skeptical. My guess why the theory is wrong:

Because the wage-earner is subsidizing growth in equity markets and wealth? This productive pool of entrepreneurship that becomes more efficient with time subsidizes mistakes by the equity markets or subsidizes stresses imposed on the markets through irresponsible government spending.


Posted by: alk on June 25, 2004 07:07 AM

____

Andrew: There wasn't a deficit under Clinton only if you counted the Social Security surplus.

Right. Only if you look at reality, rather than the fiction about Social Security.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 25, 2004 07:30 AM

____

Zizka wrote:

"Didn't Adam Smith said quite a bit about how capitalism couldn't survive without a general society-wide acceptance of various ethical, professional and legal codes of behavior? IE, that the desire for profit cannot be the only motive, but must be overridden at times by others?"

Greenspan also said in the wake of the accounting problems that Capitalism requires an underlying morality because if all contracts have to be litigated, the system is no longer efficient and will collapse.

It's a classic game theory problem, of course. Each player benefits from cheating, but the game requires that they do not cheat, and law is too inefficient a remedy to be applied in every case (or even a large percentage of cases, really).

Humans evolved moral systems largely to deal with problems like this, but the ultimate foundation of the moral system is the expectation of reciprocity. In the small bands where we have spent most of our evolutionary history, this is relatively easy to enforce. In larger societies, it requires strong cultural forces, religion primarily (I'm following David Sloan Wilson, author of Darwin's Cathedral, in this). Can the required morality exist in a global, secular, Capitalism? It may exist for a while as simple inertia from previously dominant cultural forces, but that cannot last. I see no cultural forces that can constrain the entire world, nor am I sure such would be a good idea (because the loss of cultural diversity would be a loss to the aggregate cultural knowledge of mankind). And, as Greenspan suggested, if we have to rely solely or even primarily on law (e.g., on the WTO), we are doomed.

I think globalization enthusiasts have been rather too focused on comparitive advantage and cheaper consumer goods to give sufficient thought to more fundamental issues.

Posted by: Martin Bento on June 25, 2004 07:37 AM

____

This might sound like a joke, but I mean it
seriously: the fundamental difference between
the two parties is that Democrats want to see
wage-earners with good salaries as an essential
part of the American dream, and Republicans
regard wage-earners with good salaries as a
dangerous impediment to corporate profits.

Posted by: Bruce on June 25, 2004 07:40 AM

____

Bruce, both parties want to see Americans with good salaries and high living standards. They just have different methods of obtaining that goal.

Democrats want to see the government mandate social order, wages, trade, and income redistribution, and Republicans want to create a society that isn't burdened by high taxes, regulation, mandates, and restrictions. The Republican strategy naturally leads to higher corporate profits as well because government mandates, high taxes and trade barriers are expensive and hurt profits, overall employment and wages paid.

Posted by: wtf on June 25, 2004 07:55 AM

____

The key argument Mr Clinton is making is that the usual claims "that the only reason we had big deficits was wasteful spending on foreign aid, welfare, and other programs for poor people" are not true. The reason we have big deficits is that we are not collecting enough revenue to pay for programs that people want or are necessary for our common defense.

Anyone who has looked at the distribution of government spending recognizes the truth of Clinton's statement. Many Americans are convinced otherwise by demagogues touting borrow and spend policies. Many Americans believe that there is some easy way to cut a lot of government spending in a way that will be painless and not affect important programs. This is because they do not understand where the majority of the money spent by the government actually goes. They fail to appreciate the adage "penny wise, pound foolish".

wtf is correct that both parties want Americans to prosper. It is one of the keys to re-election. For the middle class, Mr Bush thinks the economy takes care of them without effort, a sort of non-policy. For the wealthy, Mr Bush makes it his job to enrich his wealthy campaign contributors by emptying the US Treasury into their pockets. This is why we have $500 Trillion deficits.

Posted by: bakho on June 25, 2004 08:27 AM

____

kharris, am doesn't deserve your consideration. The fact is, the idea that the surplus resulted from the high tech boom is ridiculous: you could remove the entire capital gains tax revenue from the Clinton surplus years and there would still be a surplus; you could eliminate the personal income taxes of everyone who worked for a dot-com and there still would be a surplus. This is simply a bogus argument that the desperate right-wing makes.

wtf is closer to reality except when he or she tries to describe Democratic policies, at which point he or she journeys off into a fantasy land of government mandates....

Posted by: howard on June 25, 2004 09:05 AM

____

Howard, a question for you:

Would there have been a surplus if the extra revenues collected in the form of SSN and Medicare taxes were actually set aside for those programs rather than being spent? If the answer is "No", then there wasn't really a true surplus was there?

Posted by: wtf on June 25, 2004 09:09 AM

____

I just found the following quote:

"Capital gains taxes - the taxes people pay when they book sales on things like stocks and houses - soared in the 1990s, dumping some $416 billion into Federal coffers between 1993 and 1999. In 1991, according to the CBO, capital gains taxes brought in just $27 billion, or 6 percent of individual tax receipts. But in 1999, capital gains brought in a whopping $98 billion, and they accounted for 11 percent of all taxes paid by individuals."

Perhaps the enormous capital gains being realized during the Clinton terms did play more of a roll in the so called "surplus" than you give credit for?

Posted by: wtf on June 25, 2004 09:25 AM

____

oh wtf: let's start with the "surplus" formulation. Yes, if every single time we discuss the budget, we want to set aside social security and only discuss what's happening elsewhere in the budget, that's fine, we can do that. But the common usage is to deal with reality and treat the budget amounts as fungible, and i simply used the common usage. iirc, btw, the last clinton budget was in absolute surplus, that is, sans social security revenues.

Now, as for capital gains: yes, if you want to have an honest discussion, we can acknowledge that it was certainly a helpful thing to have more rather than less capital gains revenues. Even so, the capital gains revenues do not, by themselves, explain the entire shift in fiscal position.

And that's the entire camount of capital gains revenues, which i use just to point out the ridiculous nature of the claim. But capital gains revenues didn't just come from people selling amazon, yahoo, and global crossing stock. They came from people selling GM and Ford and AT+T stock, too. When you get the highest year's capital gains revenues (which actually i thought i remembered as being '98 and not '99, but it's been a while since i looked at the numbers), you're welcome to try and make a judgement as to what percentage of the number is attributable specifically to high tech, and even more specifically to bubble-valuation shares of dot-com companies.

After all, for every seller of a seemingly overpriced stock, there was a buyer. Now these buyers may well have been foolish, they may well have believed in the greater fool theory, and in some cases, they may well have been misled by dishonest accounting and breathless wall street cheerleaders. But these were legitimate transactions nonetheless, so i've never understood why the revenues - as many right-wingers would have it - are tainted.

Do you really think that the only bubble in stock market history was the dot-com bubble of the late '90s? Do you not think that George Bush today benefits from capital gains revenues from people selling what i still regard as vastly overvalued shares in amazon, yahoo, or ebay? Do you not think that there were other stock-market valuation excesses that produced capital gains revenues in the past? (As a side note, read Adam Smith's - the contemporary nom de plume Adam Smith, not the Scottish economist - first two market-based books, the money game and supermoney, and get a sense of a past valuation bubble in tech.)

So, bottom line: sure, some aspect of the positive fiscal movement that took place during the clinton years was attributable to capital gains revenues, and sure, some of those capital gains revenues are attributable to tech bubble valuations; regardless, they don't serve as an explanation for the Clinton years, they are icing on the cake.

The explanation, strangely enough, is very simple: a combination of higher taxes and spending restraint, the very conditions, as we noted only yesterday, that george bush and the republican congress have eviscerated.

Posted by: howard on June 25, 2004 09:58 AM

____

First off, you cannot say it is okay to use money that is collected to pay social security to balance the overall budget and call that a surplus. That would be the same as me getting a credit card, maxing with a large cash advance, parking the money in a savings account and calling that saving. The bill will come soon enough (about 2017).

I never claimed that the only capital gains were from tech stocks, the overall market was rising and the overall market saw a correction. Capital gains were paid on the overall market, and I don't think those tax revenues were tainted. I hope there are a lot more capital gains, it would be great for the economy and for the average American.

And I am well aware of the history of stock market bubbles (and tulip and South Sea bubbles too).

Howard you stated "The explanation, strangely enough, is very simple: a combination of higher taxes and spending restraint, the very conditions, as we noted only yesterday, that george bush and the republican congress have eviscerated."

I think the truth is actually a combination of roubust economic growth and spending restraint.

Bush is attempting to encourage economic growth but has yet to attempt the spending restraint part. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that Kerry would be any better at controlling spending and most of his proposals to encourage job creation are somehow tied back to more government spending. So we are kind of stuck aren't we?

Posted by: wtf on June 25, 2004 10:13 AM

____

Terry B -

I too, am not an economist, but I find many faults with your conservative friends idea. First, is moral, it is my generations debt, we should pay the bill and who knows what burden the future will bring? Second it is not a closed system, the taxes defered (by not assesing them) do not flow back into American hands per se, it could end up in a multi-national corp and dissapear out of our system. Third the paper money system is always fighting inflation, if you "starve the beast" it makes more food out of paper and we all pay the flat tax of inflation.

Posted by: jim hurt on June 25, 2004 10:32 AM

____

Terry B -

I too, am not an economist, but I find many faults with your conservative friends idea. First, is moral, it is my generations debt, we should pay the bill and who knows what burden the future will bring? Second it is not a closed system, the taxes defered (by not assesing them) do not flow back into American hands per se, it could end up in a multi-national corp and dissapear out of our system. Third the paper money system is always fighting inflation, if you "starve the beast" it makes more food out of paper and we all pay the flat tax of inflation.

Posted by: jim hurt on June 25, 2004 10:34 AM

____

Terry B -

I too, am not an economist, but I find many faults with your conservative friends idea. First, is moral, it is my generations debt, we should pay the bill and who knows what burden the future will bring? Second it is not a closed system, the taxes defered (by not assesing them) do not flow back into American hands per se, it could end up in a multi-national corp and dissapear out of our system. Third the paper money system is always fighting inflation, if you "starve the beast" it makes more food out of paper and we all pay the flat tax of inflation.

Posted by: jim hurt on June 25, 2004 10:34 AM

____

Terry B -

I too, am not an economist, but I find many faults with your conservative friends idea. First, is moral, it is my generations debt, we should pay the bill and who knows what burden the future will bring? Second it is not a closed system, the taxes defered (by not assesing them) do not flow back into American hands per se, it could end up in a multi-national corp and dissapear out of our system. Third the paper money system is always fighting inflation, if you "starve the beast" it makes more food out of paper and we all pay the flat tax of inflation.

Posted by: jim hurt on June 25, 2004 10:34 AM

____

Terry B -

I too, am not an economist, but I find many faults with your conservative friends idea. First, is moral, it is my generations debt, we should pay the bill and who knows what burden the future will bring? Second it is not a closed system, the taxes defered (by not assesing them) do not flow back into American hands per se, it could end up in a multi-national corp and dissapear out of our system. Third the paper money system is always fighting inflation, if you "starve the beast" it makes more food out of paper and we all pay the flat tax of inflation.

Posted by: jim hurt on June 25, 2004 10:34 AM

____

wtf, fine, i'm happy to stipulate that in all discussions we have in the future, we will play discussions of the budget strictly by Hoyle.

As a result, i'd like you to share your thoughts with us on the fact that george bush is presiding over the largest budget deficit as a percentage of gdp in the post-world war ii era, since, of course, we can't count in the social security revenues. i look forward to reading them.

since we appear to have nothing more to discuss on capital gains, let's just say, with respect to clinton, as our host here has many times, that the growth we saw in the '90s (which, of course, produced more tax revenues than less growth would have) was triggered by the recognition within the bond market that this time was different, that we finally had an administration that was serious about balancing the budget, and therefore the market finally relaxed and the bond vigilantes, who had essentially imposed a roughly 200 basis point budget indiscipline premium on long bonds, went off to other endeavors. The result - predicted, after all, by Rubin - was a private investment led boom.

In short, the growth wasn't exogenous to the policies; the policy combination - increased taxes at the top, increased tax relief at the bottom, and spending discipline (for which, i'll note again, for the record, that i'm happy to credit the role of congressional republicans), produced the growth.

And the higher tax rates at the top helped bring in additional revenue when that growth kept growing.

As for Kerry, he starts by acknowledging that there is a problem, which by definition makes him better on fiscal discipline than Bush. He also intends to increase taxes back to Clinton levels at the high end, which will also help. He certanly will fight to retain the inheritance tax, which is the ticking time bomb of revenue holes down the road. And, since the GOP congress has no intention of being his friend (any more than it had any intention of being Clinton's friend), will, in the great tradition of split control, likely exercise more spending discipline than it has under a president whom it nominally supports and who has no personal interest in spending political capital to cut spending....

Posted by: howard on June 25, 2004 10:52 AM

____

"that the growth we saw in the '90s (which, of course, produced more tax revenues than less growth would have) was triggered by the recognition within the bond market that this time was different, that we finally had an administration that was serious about balancing the budget, and therefore the market finally relaxed and the bond vigilantes, who had essentially imposed a roughly 200 basis point budget indiscipline premium on long bonds, went off to other endeavors. The result - predicted, after all, by Rubin - was a private investment led boom."

So bonds had lower yields under CLinton because of higher taxes. Tell me again Howard, what have bonds been yielding in the last few years. What eveidence is there that defecits cause higher interest rates? The defecit seems to be pretty large but interest rates seem to be pretty low. The whole "crowding out" arguement sounds good in theory but doesn't hold up in practice.

"And the higher tax rates at the top helped bring in additional revenue when that growth kept growing."

Exactly how did higher taxes keep growth going? Does the coincidence of growth coupled with tax hikes automatically mean that taxes equal growth? If so, shouldn't the economy be stagnating now since Bush has taken the opposite approach?

Maybe all of the entrepeneurs and business leaders were so motivated to make additional investments in their businesses and take additional risks because the higher taxes Clinton passed gave them the ability to really help out the federal balance sheet on April 15th of each year? Yippee!

Posted by: wtf on June 25, 2004 11:52 AM

____

aw, c'mon, wtf, try a little harder.

First, just to be clear, yes, there is a huge pile of evidence that deficits lead to higher interest rates, as, of course, they must, lest supply and demand stop having any meaning whatsoever. Feel free to check in with, oh, alan greenspan, fer instance.

The reason we haven't seen higher rates in the long bond since the return of structural deficits is because the supply of capital in the world is very large, and some of the owners of that supply (chinese and japanese central bankers) have concluded that buying us government paper is a useful form of export subsidy, but this condition cannot - and will not - last forever.

(And you have noticed, have you not, that the second we got a good jobs report in March, the long bond shot up 100 basis points?)

As a simple matter of fact, when the Fed Funds rate is 1% and the Fed is worried about deflation, long rates near 4% are, in fact, pretty damn high in real terms, and they have been.

As for bonds and the Clinton years, yes, as a simple matter of fact: after the Clinton tax hike, and once it was clear that spending restraint was going to happen, the bond vigilantes melted away. Are you denying this rather standard history? (Me? I remember it especially well because i played it through zero-coupon bonds.)

Now, as for the second half of your comment, i have no idea how you imputed me the meaning that you did. I said, pretty clearly, i hoped, that "higher tax rates at the top helped bring in additional revenue when that growth kept going." This too is rather a commonplace: if i earn $300K and i'm taxed at 38%, that will produce more revenue than if i earn $300K and i'm taxed at 33%. I have no idea what else you think i'm arguing, although i'll happily make my position clear: over the course of the business cycle, the federal budget should be in balance, with deficits during periods of negative or slow growth and with surpluses during periods of faster growth.

The appropriate level of spending is a political determination; you prefer less spending, and i encourage you to support politicians who will fight for that. In the long term, lower spending will allow lower taxes; higher spending requires higher taxes.

What makes no sense is acting like spending and taxation are two completely different and unrelated matters, which is what started this post to begin with.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. In the real world, Clinton and his advisers put forward an economic policy that they believed would produce lower interest rates and a private-investment-led boom. We got lower interest rates and a private-investment-led boom (in fact, we got overinvestment, but that's life under capitalism). What's so confusing about that?

Posted by: howard on June 25, 2004 12:37 PM

____

I don't understand the argument by wtf. The argument seems to be in favor of fiscal irresponsibility. The GOP wanted to enact huge tax cuts and Clinton stomped all over that one with his "save SS first". If wtf is concerned about the deficit, then he must recognize that following the tax cut desires of the GOP Congress would have taken us far away from budget balance. We saw what happened to the budget once Clinton was no longer in the way- $500 Billion deficits.

Posted by: bakho on June 25, 2004 01:51 PM

____

wtf- You can write what you will, but when the results consistently refute your rhetoric, your credibily goes to zero.

Posted by: bakho on June 25, 2004 01:52 PM

____

WTF -- your claim that profits are greater under republicans is factually incorrect.

For example, in the 8 years of Reagan after tax profits rose 148%, but under the 8 years of Clinton they rose 175%.

If you can not even get a simple matter of public record like this correct why should be take any of your other analysis seriously.

But it seems to be true of most of the defense of Reagonomics, supply-side economics, etc,
one hears is that they do not gets the facts correct.

If Reagonomics, supply-side, etc., policies are so great, why do you have to lie about the results so much?.

Posted by: spencer on June 26, 2004 05:45 AM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 03:01 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 11:14 PM

____

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 09:33 PM

____

Non scholae sed vitae discimus - We do not learn for school, but for life. (Seneca)

Posted by: drunk girl on July 9, 2004 01:10 PM

____

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - I see the better way and approve it, but I follow the worse way

Posted by: forced sex pics on July 9, 2004 06:29 PM

____

Adeste Fideles - Be present, faithful ones

Posted by: rape drawings on July 10, 2004 02:29 AM

____

Muppets love Viagra!

Posted by: Viagra on July 14, 2004 04:58 AM

____

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Posted by: cialis on July 14, 2004 11:57 PM

____

Kontaktanzeigen are pretty cool, aren't they?

Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen mit Bild on July 16, 2004 06:49 AM

____

Hire a car to feel higher!

Posted by: Car hire UK on July 21, 2004 03:03 AM

____

Post a comment
















__