Town Square

Post a New Topic

Fact Check - Obscene Profits

Original post made by Ken in South Pleasanton, Downtown, on Oct 25, 2009

Interesting article regarding obscene profits of the healthcare insurance industry.

Web Link

Perhaps the next step would be to put government limits on the profit margin a company or an individual is able to realize for their product or service? The only obscenity about this whole thing is the way our legislators on both sides of the aisle are continually misleading and hiding pertinent facts, padding cost estimates by omitting things they don't think are relevant, and continually spending money they (we) don't have. Vote them all out at the first chance you get.

Comments (49)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Good post, Ken.
Yes, let's see how many entities Obama has attempted to demonize.

Just a rough list off the top of my head...

- Las Vegas
- Corporate jet industry
- Coal industry
- Auto industry
- SUV owners
- FoxNews
- Insurance industry
- Talk radio in general
- Rush Limbaugh in particular
- Doctors
- Main street bankers
- Investment bankers
- Chamber of Commerce
- Christians

I am sure there are many more...or many more in the planning stages!

"Soooo many private businesses and other entities to demonize...so little time" is the motto of Obama and his Administration.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2009 at 11:21 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I hear that Rush Limbaugh doesn't need anyone to demonize him as he's quite capable of that himself. Web Link At least we can rest assured that the majority of his ranting can be brushed off as drug-induced paranoia.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 6:43 am

Let me amend my list above to also include others Obama and his Admin has demonized...

- Israel
- Sarah Palin
- Glenn Beck
- Big Pharma
- "Domestic Terrorists" like angry white republicans and former servicemen/women
- Tea Partiers
- The two young investigative reporters who uncovered ACORN fraud
- CIA

The list goes on...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:01 am

Here are a couple more...

- Big Oil (how could I forget this?)
- Gun owners and the NRA
- Farmers (especially in the San Joaquin Valley)
- Real scientists (who believe in scientific fact...that there is no such thing as man-caused global warming)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Moderate
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:08 am

Did you know that these SAME Senators and Congressmen are exempt from these Public Options? They get to continue to enjoy their luxury medical care. Obama himself refused to answer that question! I wonder what is going on????????? As citizens of this great country, we have the right to demand an answer from them! The Obamacare is good enough for the people but not good enough for the politicians?????


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 10:12 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Stacey - Try another punching bag or a different attack on Limbaugh, or at least link up a different article. This one is quite fair in that it sympathizes with prescription pain-killer addiction, but quite unfair in that it states that 14 years ago, when Barack Obama was 8 years old, Rush made comments about drug users and then demanded harsh penalties for drug TRAFFICKERS, but the headline is the hypocritical item here, saying that he demanded harsh penalties for other drug users.
Further hypocrisy in that Limbaugh was never convicted of any drug related crime, not even Dr shopping, which is the charge he surrendered on, and pled not guilty to.
Why not go back to fake racist quotes as well, while you are at it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:25 pm

"Investment bankers"

Where do you see evidence that Obama is demonizing investment bankers? He needs to do that. I voted for him so that he would do that. So far, he seems happy with half baked, window dressing PR measures, like capping salaries, but exempting companies like Morgan Stanley and Goldman.

Please tell me, if you can, what vital service companies like AIG, Morgan Stanley, and the like provide for society? Why was what they did so important that when they ran their companies bankrupt that George Bush called on the middle class to bail them out with tax payer dollars? Why didn't the CEOs of these wonderful corporations resign rather than take bailout money? What is it they actually do? Why did they deserve a bailout, but not the middle class? Do the rules of capitalism not apply to the wealthy? As far as I can tell these companies are nothing more than corrupt casinos. Their employees were writing bets that the companies could not pay, all the while giving themselves large bonuses. Now some of those very same employees are collecting record pay checks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jimf01,

Who cares if he was never convicted of anything? He abused a powerful drug. He admitted it. He's quite capable of demonizing himself.

P.S. "go back" to fake racist quotes? I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

P.P.S. That's ABUSE, not use. Rush is a drug ABUSER.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 26, 2009 at 1:06 pm

reply to 'a reader'
I suppose you also support the choice of Timothy Geithner as a trusted member of the Obama administration. The same Timothy Geithner who admitted to 'overlooking' taxes he should have paid and who also made millions on Wall Street before joining the untouchables of the Obama administration? If you were truly a "reader" you would have read about this many times over. I think you are more of a 'repeater' than you are a reader.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Ken,

Where did I say I supported anything but "demonizing investment bankers". I did say I supported that, but Obama isn't doing that. I wish he would. I thought Timothy Geithner was a rotten choice.

Sounds like you don't want to answer any of my questions. Should I assume from that you support bailing out investment bankers when they fail. George Bush bailed out all the large investment banks except Lehman. McCain/Palin supported that. Why? Is socialism only for the wealthy, but capitilism is for the lower classes? Is that what the being Republican is all about?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 1:53 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

The AIG bailout isn't socialism, the CEO of AIG did resign, and the taxpayers stand to make a great deal of the money back, if not actually profit off of this deal, therefore this is not socialism. The WSJ article gives you more info --> Web Link

Allowing credit default swaps to be handled the way they were was what brought the roof caving in. Allowing AIG to be an insurance company and an investment bank, and allowing all of the subprime lending is what started the death spiral. I agree with the WSJ article that AIG was too big to fail.

And how do you expect to get away with saying socialism is only for the wealthy? How much of the stimulus has gone directly to individuals or plowed into government programs for wealth redistribution?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 3:10 pm

jimf01,

That article reads like comedy now. Did you check the date on it. You say.

"and the taxpayers stand to make a great deal of the money back"

Find me anyone who reasonably believes that these days, regarding AIG. Even if it were true, I don't see how you can say it isn't socialism. It is the redistribution of wealth for the successful and productive to the unsuccessful. That is not capitalism. The bailout of AIG is up to $180 billion now with many expecting much more.

" CEO of AIG did resign"

Well, he really was fired. That is to the government's credit. Unfortunately many top executives are still there.

"And how do you expect to get away with saying socialism is only for the wealthy? How much of the stimulus has gone directly to individuals or plowed into government programs for wealth redistribution?"

That is exactly what I'm saying. Republican socialism is for the wealthy (TARP). Democrat socialism applies far more broadly, like the stimulus package, expanded health care, and the like. Republicans were against the other stuff, but for TARP.

Republicans telling people to trust the market when they were losing their jobs. But when it hit wealthy Wall Street firms, the government was there to save them.

Anyone care to tell me what these investment bankers do that is so important to society that they need massive socialist bailouts from the middle class?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 3:33 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Apparently the GAO and the stockholders, according to this CNN article --> Web Link
Bernanke has been steering this program, and Obama reappointed Bernanke. So there are a few people for ya.
When AIG turns a small profit and starts paying back money, it is a positive sign. They received $182bil and still owe $120 bil. . Since I have answered your questions, now you show me who the "many expecting much more" are, exactly?
The situation is just as unstable as the overall economy the way I understand it.
Republican socialism is for the wealthy (TARP). Democrat socialism applies far more broadly.
You say that like it is a good thing. AIG is paying money back, that is documented. Health care reform, as proposed, has promise of tossing $1T down a rat hole and chasing that with more (given the government record on spending for existing entitlements), and it doesn't even ensure everyone gets healthcare.
If you really really want to know what "investment bankers do that is so important to society ", you are going to have to do your own research. It just cannot be answered in a blog posting


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm

jimf01,

I don't see anything in that article you provided that said Bernanke, Obama, or the GAO believed that AIG would pay off all of its loans, much less at a profit to the government. What is said was:

"Still, GAO said it is too soon to determine if the insurer's stability is a trend or simply an anomaly. Until AIG can demonstrate stability over the long haul, it will be unable to pay its loans back."

In fact look at this headline regarding the same report:

"GAO: U.S. Unlikely to Get AIG Money Back"

Web Link

So, I don't think you have answered my question.

That you say AIG is paying back money again sounds like comedy. I mean, give me $180 Billion, and I'll pay you back $60 Billion -- no problem. There was a guy who ran such a scheme recently:

Web Link

So even if you believe the government is simply making prudent investments with tax payer money, this amounts to a rejection of capitalism. Why bail out wealthy failures and not poor or middle class ones? It is wealth redistribution. It is socialism.

"you are going to have to do your own research"

You're kidding, right? Why not just say I'm so important that I need a tax payer bailout. Just do the research on your own, but bail me out first. As far as I can tell investment bankers scammed the tax paying public and redistributed wealth to themselves from the middle class. They provided no valuable service to the public. They did not create wealth or improve the standard of living. Why should they be entitled to public funds when they failed?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm

"You say that like it is a good thing. "

Yes, if you're going to reject capitalism and free markets, I think you shouldn't limit government assistance to those who need it the least.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

jimf01,

I think this is what you need: Web Link

The government has experienced both profit and loss from bailouts. I wonder what the government did with the profit. They certainly didn't give it back to taxpayers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by poster boy
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:29 pm

wonder what old obambi is going to do when GM has gone through the 50 billion given them. rumor has it they have already gone through about 30 and nothing is selling because of safety concerns and quality. many lines are idle because they did not pay their suppliers and they will not ship to gm again. think they are building good safe vehicles? think again


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:24 pm

reader - in response you give info from newsmax and divert to Bernie Madoff. If I tried to back up my arguments with newsmax articles I would be laughed off the board entirely, they are not highly credible as a news organization.
If you continue to think that bailouts that get paid back are wealth redistribution, then I cannot help you any further. What was the last unemployment check, welfare check, or EIC credit that got paid back? That is wealth redistribution. I am not saying we do not need a safety net, so don't go there.
Thanks for the link Stacey, the airlines, Chrysler, Lockheed and NYC paid the govt back.
And yes you do need to do research, if you really think investment bankers create nothing and provide no service.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Stacey,

The questions of paying back the government were with respect to AIG. Have you seen anyone with any kind of credibility predicting that AIG will repay the money?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Maybe try the GAO website? AIG has already STARTED paying back to the tune of $60B, and they are working out details on another $25B repayment now.
GAO website --> Web Link
Look for Troubled Asset Relief Program: Status of Government Assistance Provided to AIG, September 21, 2009


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm

jim01,

Bailouts that don't get paid back a certainly wealth redistribution, and I would argue that bailouts that do get repaid are also wealth redistribution -- They take money away from other useful investments. Opportunity cost is lost when money is tied up that way.

My point about Madoff is that AIG hasn't demonstrated anything by paying back a small portion of the government's money. Anyone could have done that.

Regarding investment banking, all I've heard from that industry is vague talk about "wealth creation" and are now paying themselves record bonuses. Whose wealth were they creating? Have our retirement savings increased? Have the values of investments and real estate increased? Has our income risen? Why should they get record bonuses with our tax money and the rest of us get less?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Again, my point is that they paid back a portion. Nothing like all of it. I haven't seen a credible prediction anywhere that they would pay back all of it with interest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm

That GAO report says:

"Therefore, the ultimate success of AIG's restructuring and repayment efforts remains uncertain."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm

And all of those comments show your lack of fundamental knowledge of that industry, the pay structure in the industry, and the bailouts. AIG and investment banks do not exist for any of those purposes. The money was loaned less than a year ago, and 30% was paid back already, that is a good trend. That is not a small portion.
I am not even trying to defend AIG's actions, or the TARP program necessarily, you just lack knowledge of the subject. Do you know, for instance, how many of the companies that received TARP money have paid it back in full?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm

jimf01,

"just lack knowledge of the subject."

Show me where I'm wrong. I'll be happy to admit that.

"how many of the companies that received TARP money have paid it back in full"

That changes every day. Goldman and Morgan Stanley paid it back, but a better question is why did they take it in the first place? I thought they were all about free markets and capitalism and profits. They were the great titans of Wall Street. Why did they need government money?

"AIG and investment banks do not exist for any of those purposes."

Well the Goldman CEO sure claims it is about "those purposes":

Web Link

"Later on, Serwer asked how Goldman makes money. As part of his response, Blankfein brought up Goldman's principal investments: "Behind that investment is wealth creation and jobs."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm

And the FED isn't exactly helping.

Web Link

"This is a quiz. What do the record-high Wall Street bonuses have in common with the record-low yields for savers?

Answer: They show yet another way that prudent people, especially those living on fixed incomes, are being screwed by the government's bailout of the imprudent."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Another timely link. Looks like some more people can't figure out what they do.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

I don't understand, do you want the ones I already pointed out, or are you looking for additional things you were wrong about?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Which things? What didn't I understand?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:31 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

OK try to stick with me. You said:

Show me where I'm wrong. I'll be happy to admit that.

I said:

do you want the ones I already pointed out, or are you looking for additional things?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Maybe you mean that I was wrong about TARP being socialism or wealth redistribution if some portion of it may get paid back in the future and some other portion may not? How is that not wealth redistribution? Money is taken from tax payers who actually earned and given to failed companies (like AIG) who didn't earn it.

Bye the way, have you listened to Rush Limbaugh talk about TARP? What about Mark Levine or even George Will? They all used the term socialism to describe it.

Maybe it is about what the companies claim to do? But I backed that up with direct quotes from the CEO of Goldman. That was a direct quote and given in full context. Are you denying it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:47 pm

jimf01,

Then I'm asking you to repeat things that I was wrong about because I didn't understand the first time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

TARP money wasn't "given" to failed companies. It wasn't a welfare check. It had conditions and expectations of repayment, with interest. At least 10 companies have done so, in full. The US government also took stock positions and other controls over those companies, they are limiting executive pay, for instance.
The Goldman CEO made reference to some things you said, but he didn't say what you said, even in that article.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:58 pm

jimf01,

Did I read you right in that you were saying AIG share holders thought the government would get repaid its money. How do you work that out? AIG has a market capitalization of about $4.5 billion. That is what share holders say the company is worth. Yet they owe the government about $120 billion. How is AIG going to sell enough assets to pay a $120 billion debt.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:09 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

If people are buying shares, and they have to be since the stock is going up, then they believe there is value there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:13 pm

jimf01,

"had conditions and expectations of repayment, with interest."

And if the conditions are not met and the money is not paid back, then does it become socialism?

Even if it is repaid, it is wealth redistribution. It has that net effect.

Web Link

Bye the way, welfare checks come with conditions too.

Web Link

I don't get why you don't want to associate the terms wealth distribution or socialism with TARP. I'm by no means the first to do so. Is that what you're disagreeing with mainly? Or is it that I can't see what investment banks do that provides some great benefit to society?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm

jimf01,

"If people are buying shares, and they have to be since the stock is going up, then they believe there is value there."

Or it could mean that they are engaging in market speculation and don't believe there is any underlying value to the company. How can you say it isn't speculation driving the stock?

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Only penny stocks can move on pure speculation, generally speaking. Your wikipedia link says that part of speculation can be buying and holding a stock, it is not a classic pump and dump situation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:39 pm

I can provide many links were TARP is equated with socialism by both the left and the right. Just google or bing socialism TARP.

Here is one example just for fun.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:34 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Please provide one where it isn't two snippets of two separate conversations, taken out of context. I agree with the Democratic Congressman, if the money is not paid back, then we are talking about something different. Let's agree to let the process work out, shall we? As Stacey's earlier link showed us, there have been many large scale bailouts which were very successful, when the money was paid back, with interest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:57 am

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the government get its money back. I just haven't seen anyone say that we expect to get all of the AIG money back, with interest. I see opinions ranging from "uncertain" to "unlikely".

I don't think Republicans should be given a free pass on all the wealth redistribution talk because they are doing it too. They were bailing out the very companies who told us all to embrace capitalism and reject government control. Then as soon as those same companies get into trouble they find the big government religion. Also remember that Republicans resisted pay caps for bailed out companies also. On top of that, most people can't understand how these companies provide any benefit to society.

If you want, I can send you more links with the socialism tied to TARP, but they are pretty easy to find.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:31 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

If by "most people", you mean yourself, then I am in agreement 100%


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:39 am

jimf01,

No, I mean most Americans. Didn't you see that link above? Are you claiming that investment banks do provide some great benefit to society, and most Americans understand that benefit? I'm asking about investment banks like Goldman Sachs, not commercial banks. Why is it that you can't explain or list just one benefit these companies provide?

Strange the you ask for links, but say that " you are going to have to do your own research."

Maybe I should just say that you need to do some of your own research to figure out how George Bush redistributed wealth to the wealthy and used big government to help keep wealthy investment bankers employed.

Please, maybe you can just give a summary as to what tremendous benefit these companies provide that they required the biggest tax payer bail out in history?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:55 am

Start with these

Web Link

Web Link

Maybe you will understand at some point that investment banks do provide a valuable service.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 pm

jimf01,

" Investment banks profit from companies and governments by raising money through issuing and selling securities in capital markets (both equity, debt) and insuring bonds (e.g. selling credit default swaps), as well as providing advice on transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. A majority of investment banks offer strategic advisory services for mergers, acquisitions, divestiture or other financial services for clients, such as the trading of derivatives, fixed income, foreign exchange, commodity, and equity securities."

I don't see how any of that is so important that we need to abandon free markets to save investment banks that fail.

Here's a column that you may have already seen.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a reader
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm

This should be interesting.

"Why the Goldman Sachs-AIG Story Won't Go Away"

"The public might get some answers soon. Next month, the inspector general for the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil Barofsky, is scheduled to release a report on whether AIG overpaid the banks, and the extent to which the counterparties' own financial problems may have been at issue. "

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 29, 2009 at 8:37 am

absolutely agree that the secrecy about what was done with taxpayer money is troubling, to say the least, when you read this bit:

regulators used AIG as a slush fund to shield some of the banks from losses, using taxpayer money


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 29, 2009 at 9:00 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Not a big fan of Krugman, but he partly answers the question you are asking about saving failing investment banks. Krugman says:

"You can argue that such rescues are necessary if we're to avoid a replay of the Great Depression. In fact, I agree."


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Hayward NAACP officials threaten blog posters
By Tim Hunt | 21 comments | 2,142 views

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 19 comments | 886 views

The Giving Season
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 718 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 157 views