Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A debt of $516,348 for every U.S. household
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Surprised? You shouldn't be. I'd assume anyone with any economic sense would know we've been being fed an accounting crock of crap for decades. And it's been a real bi-partisan effort at that.
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.
And why don't they follow the rules of modern accounting?

Well, believe it or not, because they're the government and they set rules, but they don't have to follow them.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And $1.3 Trillion is what percentage of GNP?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I wish I could do accounting like they do... I could just put in any old numbers I wanted...

*sigh*

This is why if I go into govt work, I’m aiming for FBI, CIA, or NSA... I’d rather track money and stuff than mak up the lies the gumment uses for it’s books...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Also you will have to come up with $200,000 for a house $500,000 a million for every child, have $1,000,000 for retirement! Aaaargh! It’s hopeless! See when you begin to aggregate numbers up it all become very, very, very scary...the question IS, is the "scare" justified or not?

So again 1.3 trillion is about 10% or less of GNP, the number grew by 2.3% from last year ,LESS than GNP growth....

Yes Social Security, Medicaid, Prescription Drug Plans, all come with huge long-term costs! BUT, this is no more or less than environmental scare mongering, "If present trends continue...." yes, but present ttrends generally do not continue!

Bottom-line: this is no different than Gorebal Warmening, but today it’s Fiscal Conservatives/libertarians beating their alarum drum, "The Sky is falling, the Sky is falling."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ:

I’m surprised you fell for this silly article. Yes, the Feds have unfunded liabilities—Medicare being the largest. There are issues that need to be addressed, but this is not the way to do it.

For example, the article falsely correlates government debt to individual families as though a family will have to pay this debt. And, it assumes that the Feds must pay off this debt rather than rolling it over. Yes, there will be interest to pay, but that is not onerous. The article uses scare tactics by taking a number for debt 75 years from now without any kind of present value.

 
Written By: KB
URL: http://
KB, all it says is if we used the same accounting rules that corporations used we’d be presented with a completely different picture of our current state of affairs and what we face in the future.

Are you saying that’s not true?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
KB, all it says is if we used the same accounting rules that corporations used we’d be presented with a completely different picture of our current state of affairs and what we face in the future.
Now you’re being disingenuous McQ....that’s not all it’s about nor is it even the focus of the article. And governments are a little different than corporations. It’s the same sort of fallacy that folks make when they compare family economics with national economics.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Now you’re being disingenuous McQ....that’s not all it’s about nor is it even the focus of the article. And governments are a little different than corporations. It’s the same sort of fallacy that folks make when they compare family economics with national economics.
This isn’t about corporations, Joe ... it’s about accounting. Are you saying you’re satisfied with the accounting methods of the government and that they give you the proper information you need to make informed decisions?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The problem is that accounting in the public and private sectors are very very different. A whole lot of things just don’t apply from one to the other. The public sector doesn’t need to jump through any hoops to avoid paying taxes. The private sector doesn’t have the same constitutionally mandated budget and appropriations processes. They are different.

This is also why MBAs and many business trends are of marginal worth in the public sector. The government is the government. Running it like a business only sort of makes sense. In many cases it makes no sense at all.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
And yet governments AREN’T corporations....and so accounting between two systems is apples and oranges....GM doesn’t ahve the liabilities nor the assets nor the abilitty to manipulate money like the US government....so comparing one to the other does not give a complete view, UNLESS you take those differences into account. And let’s put the numbers into perspective, something the article didn’t do...ok the liability is 60 TRILLION dollars, what will be the collective GNP output of the US over the same period of time?

The $2,000 I owed on my first car may or may not be a heavier burden than a $15,000 debt on another car. It can only be determined by taking into account inflation and my current and then current incomes....not just noting that now I owe $15000 on a new car and that that debt burden 650% of my original debt burden! WOW, am I F*c(ed or am I OK? Only further study can demonstrate which is correct, though talking aobut a 650% increase in car debt certainly SOUNDS ominous.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
There’s absolutely no reason the same basic accounting principles shouldn’t be used. For one thing, Business Accounting is what they teach in school (trust me, I’ll show you my text book if I must), and I don’t know of a "federal accounting" cource (maybe at a true 4-year, but I doubt it). Why not use the same system? That way everyone would understand and be able to read the numbers with minimal study...

Oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
No Joe... Money is money, and the math is the same no matter what. There are different catagories for personal and corp accounting, but it’s all the same math, all the same principles.

A govt accounting ledger would just be HUGE with different accounts.

But no more so than it already is. And it would be understandable...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Well Scott when you get to "Government Accounting" or "Accounting for Non-Profits" get back to us....also classes taught in college...It’s why there is the GOVERNMENT Account Standards Board, not simply the Genreally accepted practices.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And yet governments AREN’T corporations....and so accounting between two systems is apples and oranges....GM doesn’t ahve the liabilities nor the assets nor the abilitty to manipulate money like the US government....so comparing one to the other does not give a complete view, UNLESS you take those differences into account. And let’s put the numbers into perspective, something the article didn’t do...ok the liability is 60 TRILLION dollars, what will be the collective GNP output of the US over the same period of time?
You see Joe, what you are saying is that unlike any other entity the government is the only exception that gets to spend with no limit today based on projected income in the future if everything goes right (and their projections are met). And you rationalize it because, well, they’re not a corporation.

What if their projections aren’t right (and, just for grins, name a couple of governmental projections having to do with economics which have been right)? What if they’re short? By a lot?

The bills still come due. And you know what their options are then.

Question: Do you have the information necessary, based on the way they account for funds today, to make an assessment of when they’re in a badly over-extended position?

That’s one of the purposes for the application of standard accounting principles for any entity, public or private. Why don’t they apply to the government of the US?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well Scott when you get to "Government Accounting" or "Accounting for Non-Profits" get back to us....also classes taught in college...It’s why there is the GOVERNMENT Account Standards Board, not simply the Genreally accepted practices.
I’m betting the "Accounts Recievable" and "Accounts Payable" all work the same with the debits and credits and the hey lady!!

[/JerryLewis]
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
McQ my point and I believe KB’s is that this little article is no more than the fiscal equivalent of "An Inconvenient Truth." True as far as it goes, but it is also propaganda. So again what is the collective GNP of the US for the next 75 years? Last year it was 13 TRILLION Dollars, assuming a 2.5 % growth rate in 75 years it will be....just a second, just a second....80 Trillion dollars...so the 60 trillion is bad, but how bad? And as the 60 trillion is CUMULATIVE debt can I accumulate the US GNP for the same period? If I can it’s 2,789 Trillion making the cumulative indebtedness 2% of Cumulative GNP. H’uuuummmmmm should I be worried now?

60 Trillion dollars is a lot of dollars, just like $15,000 is a lot of cash, but it’s magnitude has to be viewed against something, so 60 trillion alone is meaningless,just as $15,000 is meaningless unless we compare it to something, 60 trillion compared to 80 trillion is 75% and a cause for concern, 60 trillion compared to 2,785 trillion is not, just as $15,000 of debt is a bigger problem on a $10,000 income than on a $1,000,000 income.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m betting the "Accounts Recievable" and "Accounts Payable" all work the same with the debits and credits and the hey lady!!
I’m betting you’ll find some differences.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ:

I think you’re missing the point. You wrote:

"You see Joe, what you are saying is that unlike any other entity the government is the only exception that gets to spend with no limit today based on projected income in the future if everything goes right (and their projections are met). And you rationalize it because, well, they’re not a corporation."

McQ: We’re criticizing the article, not the idea that government should spend responsibly. The article dishonestly presented a number—$516,348—based on hidden assumptions, that suggests what a family’s share of government debt would be 75 years from now. The article floated a number, $59.1 trillion in liabilities with no comparison to the GDP then, nor did it explain what assumptions underlie that number. The article conflated government debt with families. The article assumed that government debt must be paid off like a mortgage. That is clearly false. Governments and corporations can keep rolling debt over indefinitely.

$59.1 trillion sounds scary, but if our economy grows by 2% per year for 75 years, then the annual GDP would be $60 trillion. In that context, $59 trillion is not so scary.

I am not extolling the virtues of government accountability, just pointing out that the USA Today article did a very poor job of covering this issue.
 
Written By: KB
URL: http://
but if our economy grows by 2% per year...
Yes, KB, but what if it doesn’t?

Do the liabilities go away?

Is that obvious to you now in terms of how they account for themselves and are you able to make informed and rational decisions based on the information they give you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
KB, you’re a pessimist and no doubt a Hillary/Jimmy Carter "Our Best Days Are Behind Us" Democrat....the US economy will grow at 2.5%, not 2%! Meaning that EVERY American has ....$9,326,667.00 to their credit! That the 2,789 Trillion (in the future) divided by America’s curent population...I’m rich, we’re ALL rich....and my calculation is as valid as the other calculation, and just as useful, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m betting the "Accounts Recievable" and "Accounts Payable" all work the same with the debits and credits and the hey lady!!
I’m betting you’ll find some differences.....
Somehow I can’t help but doubt that...

Seriously, what sort of random book-keeping must the Gov’t. use for A/R and A/P to be so different?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
but if our economy grows by 2% per year...
Yes, KB, but what if it doesn’t?
And McQ what if it does, or if monkey fly out of our butts, or if the Vogons build the Space Hyper-Biway thru the Earth or the White Mice find the Question to Everything? It’s 75 years down the road, and it’s tough to be pessimistic OR optimistic, that far out... it’s 1865, what will the US look like in 1940? It’s 1900 what will the US look like in 1975? It’s 1932 what will the US look like in 2007? It’s 2007 tell me what the GNP will be in 2082....

This is one where you don’t like being caught out, by someone pointing out some OTHER Inconvenient Truths, sure neither does AlGore, but hey it’s called a public policy debate for a reason!

Now I’m off to spend some of my $9,000,000 Woo-Hoo!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ:

You asked, what if the economy does not grow by 2% a year?

To be fair, I’m assuming you mean what if it grows by less than 2% per year and that you also mean real (after inflation) growth of 2%.

If it grows by a lot less than 2%, then benefits (Medicare & Social Security) would get cut. No doubt there would also be calls for increased taxes on the ’rich.’

Consider though, the likelihood that our economy would grow by much less than 2%. I went to the US Bureau of Economic Analyis:



They have data on GDP growth back to 1929, which is a great place to start because it is before the Great Depression. Their data show annual real GDP growth of 3.41% for those 77 years (including the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, that booming 1950s, stagnant 1970s—Jimmy Carter and so on and then through to 2006).

I think the odds are relatively small that GDP growth in the future would be significantly less than 2%, which is 60% of the 77-year average.
 
Written By: KB
URL: http://
You asked, what if the economy does not grow by 2% a year?
OK, let’s be generic about it then.

What if projections don’t happen as they’re assumed they will?

Do the liabilities accrued go away?

And, if not:

"Is that obvious to you now in terms of how they account for themselves and are you able to make informed and rational decisions based on the information they give you?"
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later"

Things have certainly changed since I took accounting. Way back then, expenses incurred now that were to be paid in a future period were put on the balance sheet as a liability, not on the income statement as a current expense. The expense is recognized on the income statement when it is actually paid. This makes more sense to me. Suppose a large expense, say a balloon payment, is counted immediately. What happens ten years from now when it is actually paid? How is it accounted for then? One of the differences, I think, between government accounting and the rest of the world is that governments do not produce balance sheets.
 
Written By: tmactual
URL: http://
Then there are things like stock options; how do you put a value on them today? It is pure guesswork. Guesswork does not belong in financial statements upon which decisions are made that may involve large sums of money and the financial security of stockholders and employees.
 
Written By: tmactual
URL: http://
Well, if it’s ten years off, it’s not considered current, is it? :)

If it’s less than a year, it’s current, more than a year it’s a long term and handled differently (usually you pay into a holding account so that in ten years it’s all there to be paid).

Marking the expenses when they are incurred helps ’keep you honest’ in the sense that you can’t forget if you mark it NOW, and it helps allow those whop look at such things see where the money for a company is right now, or at least will be at the end of the fiscal year...

Not marking expenses as they are incurred is how you get implosions like Enron...

And you don’t count money until it’s earned, also keeping you a little more honest.

In theory.
Then there are things like stock options; how do you put a value on them today? It is pure guesswork. Guesswork does not belong in financial statements upon which decisions are made that may involve large sums of money and the financial security of stockholders and employees.
I swear to god if you make me get my text book I will NOT be a happy man...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Then there are things like stock options; how do you put a value on them today? It is pure guesswork. Guesswork does not belong in financial statements upon which decisions are made that may involve large sums of money and the financial security of stockholders and employees.
Well the liabilities mentioned aren’t guesswork, they’re already owed. They aren’t going anywhere and they are going to get bigger.

But the income? Guesswork. But you’re ok with that I assume? They can guess any income they choose just so it somehow covers those liabilities, right?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Well, if it’s ten years off, it’s not considered current, is it? :)"

Nope, which is why it belongs on the balance sheet as a receivable/payable rather than of the income statement as an expense/revenue.


"Marking the expenses when they are incurred helps ’keep you honest’"

That is what the Liability section of the Balance Sheet is for.

"Not marking expenses as they are incurred is how you get implosions like Enron..."

Ther was a bit more to Enron than that. And they were liabilities, not expenses.

"And you don’t count money until it’s earned,"

Define ’count’. You recognize it as an asset, a receivable on the ballance sheet, until you actually collect it, when it becomes revenue on the income statement.

"But the income? Guesswork. But you’re ok with that I assume? They can guess any income they choose just so it somehow covers those liabilities, right?"

No. Guesswork of any kind should be avoided whenever possible, and is, if I recall correctly, required to be footnoted. Many of the rules of accounting are meant to remove or minimize any guesswork. As I said, income isn’t recognized as income until it is actually collected. Until then, it is a receivable, an asset, and any student of accounting can tell you that there is an account specifically designed to write off uncollectable receivables. There is also, according to my hazy, beer-sodden memory, an offsetting account called ’Allowance for Uncollectables’ or something like that which writes down the asset. Similar to depreciation, I think.

Jeez, I actually remember some of this stuff. Sort of.

" Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later."

The more I think about it, the more I really doubt the accuracy of this statement. The accounting rules I spoke of, and which I only imperfectly remember, are not just arbitrary rules, they are the product of literally centuries of business experience. They have been adopted as a response to all manner of frauds, scams, incompetencies, and unexpected events, and the needs of investors, regulators, managers, and others, for precise and accurate, and standardized, information on the financial state of an organization. It would take some explaining for me to see why such a change is necessary or desireable.

I tire. My attention span has been exceeded, and my brain is overstressed. I need a cup of cocoa. Adieu, mes amis.
 
Written By: tmactual
URL: http://
"still, does buying their $30 stock make me liable for $70 worth of debt?"

No. The whole idea of incorporating is limited liability. Investors(stockholders) are liable only for the amount they invest, the stock price. The corp. is liable, not you. If the corp. cannot pay, it files for bankruptcy, and your stock becomes toilet paper. Lloyd’s of London, the legendary insurance company, for example, was not incorporated. It was basically a partnership. It was very trendy to be a partner in Lloyd’s. Until it had some very heavy losses. Most of the "stockholders" were very surprised to find they were personally responsible for the company’s losses. Lots of personal bankruptcies resulted from the unknowing gamble those people took.
As with Lloyd’s, we are all liable for the debts of our government.
 
Written By: tmactual
URL: http://
In Governmental Accounting (especially the Federal Government) capital expenditures are an expense to the current budget. In a corporation, the item is put on the balance sheet as a long-term asset and then depreciated over it’s usefull life.

When the Federal Government builds a new Federal Courthouse, it is all an expense to taxpayers THIS YEAR. While that courthouse may be used and provide benefits to taxpayers for the next 40 years, taxpayers in the future only pay for operation of the building, not the building itself. The B-52 bomber has been on the inventory for 50 years. The initial cost was expensed when the bombers were built. Refurbishment/upgrade costs were expensed in the the year incurred. Unlike state governments, the Federal Government does not even have a fund to recognize the value of these Capital assets.

The reason that the accounting systems differ for corporations and governments, is that the purpose of the entities are substantially different. Governments have no product to sell, hence no need to match the cost of selling/delivering a product with the revenue that the product produces. Governments are all about controlling expenditures vs. budget.
" Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later."

The more I think about it, the more I really doubt the accuracy of this statement. The accounting rules I spoke of, and which I only imperfectly remember, are not just arbitrary rules, they are the product of literally centuries of business experience. They have been adopted as a response to all manner of frauds, scams, incompetencies, and unexpected events, and the needs of investors, regulators, managers, and others, for precise and accurate, and standardized, information on the financial state of an organization. It would take some explaining for me to see why such a change is necessary or desireable.
Remember the undelying principle of accounting of matching. If an expenditure/expense/commitment has been made, the accounting system needs to provide some recognition of it to ensure that the cost of producing revenue is matched with the revenue produced. In a government situation, there has to be some recognition that a portion of the budget has already been committed, and can not be spent again.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Thank you, Loren. I was hoping someone who appears to know something about accounting would show up.

"When the Federal Government builds a new Federal Courthouse, it is all an expense to taxpayers THIS YEAR."

How does that work, since it obviously can’t be built in one year? Is there a Courthouse account somewhere which is drawn down as construction progresses, or do they bother to keep track at all, just paying construction costs out of petty cash or something as they occur?

"Remember the undelying principle of accounting of matching."

Yeah, that is why I doubt the accuracy of the statement, at least for corporate accounting. If an asset produces revenue in the future and you have already expensed the cost of the asset, what do you match the revenues to?

By the by, is "null@root" a little joke?

**************************

"I don’t think you’ll find a legal or constitutional scholar that will back up the claim that we are each personally liable for the decisions of our government."

If you pay taxes or own taxable property, you are de facto liable for government spending. Unless they just print the money, but that is another sort of tax. For that matter, we all pay the price for government decisions, liable or not.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"How do we opt-out?"

Emigrate.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"How do we opt-out?"

Or, you have heard the saying about "death and taxes"?
Emigrate to a higher plane.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
How does that work, since it obviously can’t be built in one year? Is there a Courthouse account somewhere which is drawn down as construction progresses, or do they bother to keep track at all, just paying construction costs out of petty cash or something as they occur?
I haven’t actually audited a Federal government project, so I can’t say how their process works with 100% accuraccy, but with the county governments that I audited the process went like this. A budget was passed that included a capital project. When the contract was let for the project, the funds were "committed". So the system could show the funds while budgeted, and not yet spent, were not available to spent again. As the project was completed and payments were made, they would be drawn down against the commitment. Even if the project was not completed within the budget year, funds could still be drawn against the previous budget commitment If the project went overbudget, an additional budget allocation needed to be made in the year that the overbudget was realized. In the state I was in at the time (Montana) it was a crime for government officials to overspend it’s approved budget. The governing board could pass supplemental budgets, or transfer dollars from one budgeted item to another, but department heads could not just overspend.
If an asset produces revenue in the future and you have already expensed the cost of the asset, what do you match the revenues to?
Well then, you incorrectly expensed the cost of the asset, and vbiolated the matching principle of accounting. In a business context, if you purchase a capital asset, you add an asset to your balance sheet, and then depreciate the item over the estimated useful life. The depreciation is the expense that is matched against the revenue that is produced. If the item purchased is one that is consumed as you make your revenue, then at time of purchase, it goes into inventory (an asset). As it is consumed, it is removed from inventory and expensed as a cost of goods sold. If the item produced is not sold within the accounting period, then the cost to produce it is removed from cost of goods sold, and reclassified as finished goods inventory(an asset). When finally sold, the cost is again reclassified from finished goods inventory to cost of goods sold.

I am not in public practice any longer, so I did not study Enron in depth, but as I understand it, what was happening there was they created a lot of partnerships with Enron as general partner. Contracts were made by the partnerships and the revenue was recognized by Enron either immediately, or on an accelerated basis, while the costs were not yet incurred, or were left at the partnership level, without inclusion at the Enron level.
By the by, is "null@root" a little joke?
no more so than twas@brillig without a top level domain is.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Very good site. Thanks for author!
 
Written By: Brenda
URL: http://www.google.com/
Placed to bookmark!
[url=http://discount-018.retwizard.info/]discount 018[/url] [url=http://sale-065.retwizard.info/]sale 065[/url] [url=http://wire-021.retwizard.info/]wire 021[/url] [url=http://renta-047.retwizard.info/]renta 047[/url] [url=http://trading-001.retwizard.info/]trading 001[/url] [url=http://legal-017.retwizard.info/]legal 017[/url] [url=http://money-012.retwizard.info/]money 012[/url] [url=http://renta-046.retwizard.info/]renta 046[/url]
http://management-037.retwizard.info/ http://bank-026.retwizard.info/ http://estate-073.retwizard.info/ http://party-012.retwizard.info/ http://sale-104.retwizard.info/ http://stud-035.retwizard.info/ http://trust-009.retwizard.info/ http://career-002.retwizard.info/ http://trade-011.retwizard.info/
income 003 renta 043 mortgage 019 invest 018 sale 007 loan 019
 
Written By: Chanel
URL: http://trademark.retwizard.info/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider