by Linda Beale
(cross posted at ataxingmatter)
One can question the timing of implementation, but can one argue against the financing? …Rdan
Since Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001 (and then, Iraq), we have been paying for war as an afterthought. In the Bush era attempt to treat war as something that happened “over there” and didn’t disrupt the credit-fed consumer binging happening “over here,” there were no pics, no war bonds, and certainly no war taxes to pay for it. Instead, we actually cut taxes year after year after year, reducing government revenues at a time when we were passing supplemental appropriations year after year after year to pay for the war. With reduced taxes and increased military spending, that meant we borrowed to pay for the war of choice that Bush led us into.
In most wars, this country’s citizens and leaders have been somewhat wiser on the fiscal score. In the past, we generally raised taxes to pay for the huge expenditures that war necessitates–for caring for soldiers overseas and after they come home, for tanks and trucks and planes and drones and all the guns and missiles, not to mention warships and fuel, the construction of bases and building of roads and provision of power and all the other expenses of going to war (including, increasingly under Bush, the privatization of the military and the much higher costs of contracted mercenaries compared to Army soldiers and of Halliburton cafeterias that, in quite a few cases, didn’t serve the food they charged the US for).
Now that Bush and much of the Bush Congress are gone from office, it’s time to look at the costs of war when we think about what our tax burden should be. As one writer notes:
[O]ne thing literally everyone agrees Vietnam showed, from flaiming liberals to fire-breathing neocons, is that it’s a very bad idea to get involved in a long, grueling, expensive war without explaining to the American people how much they will have to sacrifice, and securing their support.” The Economist, David Obey’s war tax (Nov. 27, 2009).
David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, introduced on Nov. 19–with 10 Dems as co-sponsors–the “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010” to do just. See Pincus, If It is to be fought, it ought to be paid for, Wash. Post, Dec. 1, 2009. How? by adding a graduated surtax, in 2011, to the income tax for those earning more than $30,000 a year. The rate would be 1% on incomes up to $150,000 and more above that–generally, a few hundred dollars, with the rate on higher incomes set to generate enough revenues to pay for the prior year’s cost of being at war, with returning GIs and families of those killed in combat exempt. And the surtax could be delayed (from 2011 to 2012) if the economy is weak.
The article notes an irony that has been mentioned also in the context of the health care reform debate about paying for government action. IN health care, many of those (especially republicans) who argue that “oh no, we can’t do this to fix the health care system, it costs too much and will create deficits” are the same ones who supported the series of Bush tax cuts that led to huge deficits, and their argument was “deficits don’t matter.” In the war tax debate, many of those most eager for further commitment to Afghanistan are unwilling to support taxes to pay for the conflict rather than living on borrowed money. (Or, they’d probably be willing to cut various “entitlements” for the vulnerable amongst us, even while extending even more “entitlements” to corporate taxpayers those who own significant financial assets in the way of further tax cuts.) Note the article quotes Lindsey Graham as saying spending has been out of control “since the administration came into power.” Funny–the spending that has happened was necessitated by the economic mess left by the Bush Administration, that fought wars and INCREASED SPENDING while cutting taxes. Was it spending out of control? or was it spending while going on a multi-year tax cut binge that was out of control? I’d say the latter.
If you want the right’s take on this, read Amy Ridenour–a self-admitted Rush Limbaugh enthusiast. She thinks Rush’s “logic” is fine. By the way, his argument translates to: we’re in debt [implying it’s all Obama’s fault and not because of the Bush screwups of the economy and the huge amount of borrowing already committed under Bush] so this argument about paying for the war is silly when we already have so much debt; and/or yeah, well, just cut the spending on all those silly programs that progressives have put in place since Roosevelt (Rush calls it the “Fair Deal, New Deal, Rotten Deal, Raw Deal and Great Society”)–ie, the programs (subtracting out Rush’s trash talk) that we as a people have decided over many decades to use to support the vulnerable and improve opportunities for decent living standards for all. And like many right-wingers, Ms. Ridenour claims that her goal is supporting “principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense.” Amy, how do not paying for the wars we CHOOSE to wage add up to either “personal responsibility” or “commitment to a strong national defense” or even “free market”–since there is no such thing as a “free” market without the stability, institutional structure, and legal forms provided by a stable and functioning government?
At any rate, mainstream commentators seem to think the bill wouldn’t pass, which means that they seem to think that it won’t get substantial Republican support, which the Rush-Ridenour excerpt surely suggests is correct. See David Obey’s war tax, Economist (Nov. 27, 2009). Those very people who are gung ho for war (“commitment to strong national defense”) and gung ho for not having deficits aren’t likely, that is, to vote to pay for the war in which they are so gung ho for others to fight. As the Economist article hints, how better to support the troops than paying for their fight?
It’s time to remove all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Also remove troops from all european bases (close those), and other bases around the world. I thought Obama might do that, but it appears the new boss is teh same as the old boss. 40% of each federal tax dollar goes toward the military, and it needs to stop – it is weakening us not strenthening us.
The “War-tax” is stupid. Its a politcal stunt and won’t pass. Just like Rangel (Democrat) who repeatedly pushed to start a draft.
But, given that. Yes by 2004 or 05 the War on Terror should have been included in the yearly DoD appropriations bills, with small supplements to cover the unplannaed overages. It should be now (is it under Obama? I really don’t know). The use of supplementals was all about the political optics for the yearly budget.
The supplements did have one good aspect. It required the Congress and Senate to reaffirm their overwelmingly bi-partisan support every year for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Which they did reguardless which party had the majority in Congress.
As for the total spending. Rdan the evidence is OVERWELMING that Obama and the Dems are in out of control spending mode and make the Bush and the R’s look positively spendthrift in comparison! (BTW the Dems backed all of Bush’s budgets without much resistance even when they wrote the budget bills after 2006).
Bottom line if the Dems had any real concern about the deficit they would be raising taxes and reducing the size of government. They are doing neither. And this also blows the roof off the idiotic idea that the Dems were the fiscal conservatives.
Yes, we can all pine away for the godd ol’ days of Clinton and Gingrich and the beginning of the information age and downsizing the US military. But those days are gone.
And I again post this graph – which would have been great to place at the top of this post:
Islam will change
nice to be back on the same page with you. i’d add three things
first, the PURPOSE of the deficit is to make it impossible to finance “big government” (meaning the New Deal)
second, the Republicans don’t have to be logically consistent. they just have to say things that make the people feel good about doing something stupid. like voting against taxes while running up a defict borrowing to pay for a dubious war.
third, i think you should help the people to understand that the New Deal is not about helping “the poor” it is about a way that ordinary people can pay for their own expected expenses. the great advantage of Social Security and Medicare is that they finesse the inflation question through pay as you go financing.
this is not the rich paying for the poor,, or even the young paying for the old. it is each generation paying in advance (in effect) for its own forseeable needs.
what will be interesting to see is after the Republicans have destroyed the government… will it be there for them when they need it, as they so easily forget they to.
rdan, Sorry my bad, seems I’m replying to Linda.
Mcwop – If you honestly beleived that you either did not listen to any of Obama’s speeches during the campaign or are on some mind-altering subtances.
And I pointed out way before the Obama/Clinton cage-match wound up, exactly what has occured durrng the past year. There was never any chance that Obama would do any of what you seem to believe. Heck he won’t even be out of Afghanistan by 2011 (nor Iraq).
Islam will change
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how Team Bush managed to throw a major war that completely failed to stimulate the domestic economy.
…to throw a major war…
I would quibble with your use of the indefinite article “a”. It would be more accurate to ask how Bush managed to throw two major wars that completely failed to stimulate the domestic economy.
It should be now (is it under Obama? I really don’t know). The use of supplementals was all about the political optics for the yearly budget.
Yes, the Obama budget numbers reflect an honest attempt to include the full costs of the wars and to avoid supplementals. That doesn’t mean Obama won’t have to ask for a supplemental because no one can guesstimate these things all that accurately, but the idea is that at least the budget should reflect an honest and best guess assessment of the costs of the two wars.
Introducing a war tax in the current economic environment does not make sense, but if Republicans honestly believe that we can’t expand the national debt, then it’s pretty hard for them to argue that Congress shouldn’t plan for war tax revenues beginning in the budget year (FY2012).
I would expect Obama and the democrats to tax anything and everything that they can from healthcare, gasoline, financial transactons, carbon, beer & wine, value, and income. War just adds to their list of excuses.
Using the star war movies as the analogy we are in the episode of “The Empire Stikes Back”. If you go down their road then purchasing power goes from the consumer to the government and they just tell us what they’re doing is in our best interest. They might even pull a scientist out of their butt to be their authority. So personal consumption under the democrats is headed down and public expenditure is going up.
The good news though is that at the end of the day we’ll end them again since we live in a democracy we can throw the bums out in a timely orderly fashion any time we want to. My hope is that we throw them about sooner rather then latter. No need to be like the old Soviet Union looking forward 5 years to greener pastures that that we never get to.
I am of two minds on the budget versus the supplemental issue. If the war costs had been in the whole budget, then total costs would have been buried with little chance of actually seeing the light of day. As it is the non-DOD agencies war expenses are still today buried. Anyone care to pull them out?
Secondly, as they were previously in supplementals they were completely visible. Otherwise, how would we get the easy headlines over costs?
So, if they are now buried, is “O” trying to hide the actual costs? If they are not buried or only partially so, is that necessarily a good/bad thing?
I have not had anyone explain that to date.
Also, this kind of silly mindset fascinates me. “Those very people who are gung ho for war (“commitment to strong national defense”) and gung ho for not having deficits aren’t likely, that is, to vote to pay for the war in which they are so gung ho for others to fight. As the Economist article hints, how better to support the troops than paying for their fight? “
How does anybody think the war is not being paid for whether in the “Big Budget” or in a supplemental? Also, how can anyone think the war is being fought on totally borrowed funds? Obviously those who think this do not understand the Federal process.
Why don’t you tell us? Is it because they cancelled the crusader program?
you’ll have to tell me: did FDR introduce a war tax “in the current economic environment”?
otherwise i can’t say i think much of the conventional wisdom. the folks who make and are still making money can pay a higher tax. the gov needs to use the money to create jobs to do things that need to be done. or pay down the debt and stop lying about Social Security.
Yes, FDR did institute a war tax. It was called rationing.
Supplementals were something that got started under Clinton. They were pretty small and initially they were a response to unforeseen funding requirements to pay for Balkan war expenses in Bosnia and Kosovo. But the Pentagon kind of liked them because they gave politicians cover on both sides of the debate over funding. When Rumsfeld first took over one of his early initiatives was to eliminate supplementals because they were an impediment to disciplined budget execution. Supplementals created a kind of moral hazard because overspending too early in the fiscal year was not punished. So supplementals contributed to budget creep. Rumsfeld was right about that. The irony is that Team Bush ended up relying on supplementals more than any other administration. The first one or two supplementals were justified, but by FY2004 the case for supplementals was preposterous.
Right, Coberly. The object of the game is to control how the government’s revenues are spent. The people who decry deficits don’t know and don’t care what the government actually does. All that matters is that tax money doesn’t get spent on domestic programs like education, health care, RandD in medicine and technology, etc. As long as the majority of the taxes collected go to financial institutions and the DOD they’re happy. But, you can’t eat HumVees and you can’t educate people with unmanned drone aircraft. Take your pick. It’s guns or butter and you can’t have both. NO
Please name one human on the planet that is Gung-Ho for War?
“With enactment of the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009, Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).”
The total cost = $118 Billion per year
How is this expense somehow less important than the average $1 trillion dollar yearly deficts we are looking at in the next 8 years? I don’t have any problem paying my fair share if it is needed, but don’t you think it is a little silly to be asking me for more money when this government is bleeding money at a rate we have never seen?
Obama could have announced a war tax during his speach.
Slugs – I don’t have any problem with supplementals per se. Things will always change over the year. But they should NOT be the primary source for funding the war. Small supplementals durin the war are fine. HEck even a BIG supplemental in 2001 after 9/11 shouldn’t raise eyebrows. But by 2004 or NLT 2005 it should have been in the budget process.
CoRev does bring up a good point that the supplementals actually publically announced war costs on top of ensuring yearly votes in support of the war.
Islam will change
One thing that makes me laugh is if the Obama Administration and their supporters do not want to fight, then they should have called for a full pull-out. But NO, they told this was the proper war to fight, they chose to stick with Bush’s plan back in January, they chose to add 30,000 more troops and then they turn around and whine about it, becuase they understand they are caught in a Political Meat Grinder.
When you have to B.S. your way through a campaign just to win, you should expect your gonna have to pay lots of political capital if you don’t do what you said you were gonna do. I thought this was going to be the first Post Partisan, Post Racial President…What Happend?…..Oh I get it “just one little white lie won’t hurt anybody, cause life is like a box of chocolates.”
The one thing the Dems do into want is to be able to be blamed when they are pulling people off the embassy roof in helicopters. That is the #1 priority and why Pelosi didn’t end the war in 2007. Afghanistan is even worse since choppers can’t make it to Kabul and back from the Indian Ocean….
Plus they have overwelmingly supported the war since its inception. Without fail and overwelmingly. Obama even campaigned on escalation of the Afghanistan campaign. Does anyonoe on the left actually pay attention?
BTW, when is the march on the mall to protest the Obama war-escalation? Or do the anti-war protestors only protest R Presidents and not D Presidents??
Islam will change
Quite the opposite of stupid, the war tax would be an excellent way to tell the reactionary warmongers to pay or shut up. Of course the war was stupid from the get go and is stupid now, 8 years later, but since it has been financed with debt thanks in great part to the Chinese, the warmongers haven’t had to make any sacrifices for their stupidity. Only the poor suckers who went into the military because they needed the money are making the sacrifices. And a draft would be wonderful too, but since Vietnam even the warmongers won’t go there again.
Put the war tax on the super rich. Put a levy on their wealth, on their palaces and mansions, on their 40 million dollar yearly incomes, etc., etc. That would make a LOT of sense. Darling in the UK is putting a 50% tax on bonuses for bankers and bully for him. They whine that they will go somewhere else as if they were needed by anybody. Good riddance it would be instead.
It’s a general principal that if you tax something you tend to get less of it. If a war tax weakens the power of the warmongers all the better for it. I’d love to see Cheyney and his ilk pay a hefty war tax. Rumsfeld too. The list is long.
1.) They knew they could not win the election unless they B.S.’d about being hawks on foreign policy, even going as far as to claim that the Bush Administration had no idea what it was doing and that they could fight it better. I guess if rolling over and playing dead, and apoligizong for doing good in the world means your a foreign policy hawk then they may be on to something.
2.) If I remember correctly, alot of the Bush spending Supplementals were riddled with Pork for Democrats, in other words they used the war like an ATM, and look, now they turn around and you get a statement like this, “Funny–the spending that has happened was necessitated by the economic mess left by the Bush Administration, that fought wars and INCREASED SPENDING while cutting taxes. Was it spending out of control? or was it spending while going on a multi-year tax cut binge that was out of control? I’d say the latter.”
I’m not going to defend the spending allowed under Republican control, but you can’t justify bad economic behavior by pointing to other bad economic behavior.
Hey the “little people” fight the wars and lose their limbs and lives; the leaders just start them. Obama has made a grave error in pursuing the Bush war policy in Afghanistan, but the fact is once you are in a war it is almost impossible to get out without the stupidos screaming and yelling that you are a “quitter” or “unpatriotic” and so on and so forth. The US Empire is so sacred it has to be fed an endless amount of money and of young men, etc., to keep it going. The total costs of the Iraq war are reliably estimated to total between 2-3 trillion when the bills are all in. Afghanistan will be a lot more. Smart people can see the stupidity of all this now, and did see it earlier too, but the general realization of how costly in all respects these wars will be is something that will come down the road.
So far, to date, the United States has lost 600 dead in Afghanistan to actual Combat. That is 75 per year. I find that hardly a number that suggests Warmongering.
What do the smart people intend to do about Iran, Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al-Quaeda once we have left Afghanistan? Because make no mistake, we aren’t going to leave till there is some idea of what to do about these issues, unless the Democrats feel so strongly about it that they will sacrafice their poltical carreers just to get us out.
They knew they could not win the election unless they B.S.’d about being hawks on foreign policy, even going as far as to claim that the Bush Administration had no idea what it was doing and that they could fight it better.
The Bush Administration proved its incompetence in managing the war when Team Bush allowed OBL and Mullah Omar to escape from Tora Bora. Yes, the Democrats could have managed that war better. Any teenager randomly picked from the playground could have done better than Team Bush.
You’re wrong again on this. Same reason. If we started to send troops they would have left earlier. The strategy of the war was to avoid the Soviet’s mistake and fight the war using Afghanistan troops. The goal was to dipose the Taliban & drive Al Quida out of the country. We did both so the war was a success.
I’m still waiting for Obama to waltz into Pakistan and round up Al Quida. Obama with his Surge/Peace Prize/Withdrawl is an international joke.
that certainly sounds like another way to accomplish the same thing.
but i guess my point is that war spending is spending. that IS “consumption” and people have to pay for it. arguing that you can’t raise taxes in a recession… or any other time… is just a good way to be sure the war ruins the country economically and socially as well as morally.
we are very rich as a people (not all of us) and we don’t need no steenkin’ growth for a while. we need a way to distribute what we do have, while we pay for the war we want.
except that no one can vote against the supplementals “depriving the troops in the field of what they need to fight”
also, i think the supplementals are an agreement to pay for the war, not an agreement to get (tax) the money to pay for it. huge difference.
a draft would not be wonderful. we had a draft in vietnam and 50,000 american kids got killed.
another one of those general principles that doesn’t mean a damn thing in the real world.
i believe the question was “so we have a war, are we going to pay for it. or put it on the tab and blame Social Security for the deficit?”
we are asking you for money BECAUSE the country is bleeding money. do you really not understand the issue is NOT PAYING FOR WHAT WE ARE SPENDING?
Easy enough to answer. Boy-George gave away the gains from war time production to the 1% of the taxpayers with the highest income with his tax breaks.
How many times did the crusaders get their butts kicked by the Muslims? Seems like the supply lines were to long for the Crusaders the same as Afghanistan supplies coming the truck route out of Pakistan . . . the base is open to attak as well as the route. Yes, we have the air power; but, we have it at what expense? This Khe san redux. It is too bad Boy-George Bush decided to starve an economy and wage two wars at the same time on deficit spending.
Sacrifice your children then if the loss in Afghanistan is so small. Hold your friends as they bleed out. One life sacrificed for a president such as Boy-George is one too many. Why should we repeat the same mistakes as we did in Vietnam over your, McNamara, and Wetmoreland’s vanity? You go and come back and tell us about 600 is so small of a loss. Take a box lunch with you . . .
Well it would be wonderful simply since it would stop the war pronto. In itself it is not good. The people know that and that is why we don’t have one. Don’t be so silly as to think that the warmongers would not have used a draft if they thought they could wage their war with one. You obviously didn’t get my point.
Au contraire, IF a war tax could be enacted, it would bring the war to a halt very quickly. General principle or not. One of the main reasons Bush got away with his stupid wars is that they didn’t seem (I emphasize seem) to cost the public in general anything.
Sorry for making an obtuse reference. I was refering to the Army’s crusader artillery program. Rumsfeld cancelled it. Its not really relevant but then neither was the comment made by ex-spook analyst spencer.
In Iraq we have over 4000 killed (I don’t recall the exact number) and many thousands crippled for life. More than we lost in 9/11. In effect Bush sent young men to where the “terrorists” could get at them and kill them and was proud to do so. 9/11 sent the nation into hysterics. One would think that more people, young people, killed and crippled in Iraq would have done the same, but it didn’t, since they were duped into thinking it was “necessary.” As for Afghanistan it has done nothing at all for us (if it has tell me what it is) and for that losing any young men is stupid. Not to mention the costs of the war on top of all the other expenditures the government has to make to try to get the economy to recover. To minimize the cost of Afghanistan is wicked and stupid.
Too bad you’re guy does not care that we’re “bleeding money”. He’s over there in Europe collecting the Nobel Anti-Bush Prize in Oslo and double dipping on Global warming in Copenhagen while his men are fixing to redirect paid back tarp money to their political cronies. Chicago is not Camelot you know.
MM, as Dale said a draft just provides more cannon fodder. Want to stop the war? Have your friends on the Hill vote to stop it! Simple! Short! Sure!
CoRev is correct. Since the Dems retook Congress in 2006 the DEMS have had the oppurtunity to end the war. PERIOD. Full stop. But they haven’t. And the DEMS have voted overwelmingly in support of the war everytime it came up for a vote. EVERYTIME. Instead of ending the war they voted Obama into office who campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan.
Bottom line: There has be overwelmingly bi-partisan support for the War on terror since the start and its not lessoned at all. The anti-war left has failed and been told to pound sand by our elected leaders.
I’ll beleive the anti-war left is serious when I see huge demonstrations protesting the war now that we have a Democratic War President in office. I won’t be holding my breath…they lost the argument.
Islam will change
Listen to what your saying…”Could Have?“
You guys should just concentrate on saddleing up your UniCorns, and leave the “War” to the adults.
No it wouldn’t! At a cost of $118 Billion per year a seperate dedicated tax would be $390 a person. That is laughable!
The reason Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn’t escalate Afghanistan is because it is land locked. It is not a good fighting position. The smartest military move we could have possibly made was to create a battlefield that had easy ocean access.
Militarly speaking, the decision to fight in Iraq instead of Afghanistan was brilliant, and now that we have a huge victory there, the Untied States is reaping benifits from that desicion that will pay for decades to come.
You obvisously have no understanding of that, and are living in a complete fantasy!
I thought Afghanistan was the “Just War?” That is what the smart people told us all the way thru the election.
We are paying for what we are spending as far as the war goes. The problem you have is that it is not much money compared to the Social Engineering Spending, and your trying to use this spending a wedge to find hypocracy. The problem with that is most American want to confront the War on Terror and bring it to a head, and the minority of people like you are concentrating on playing Robin Hood.
Actually I did not belive it, but then there were some small opportuinites where some withdrawal seemed feasible, Alas, what I said some time ago is that politicians like spending war or otherwise, and this war is creating jobs in many congressional districts,
Your figure for the costs is ridiculous. You seem to think we get our wars cheap. VERY wrong. Iraq will cost 2-3 trillion. Don’t be so silly.
Tell me Jimi if Iraq was so brilliant what good has come to us from it. Go ahead, tell me. Hugh victory for what? You are the simpleton, The warmongeing nincompoop.
The total cost of both Iraq, Afgahanistan and other related conflicts since 2001 equals 944 Billion.
How much is the budget deficit over the next 8 years?
1.) We now have a footprint in the middle of the Lions Den with easy ocean access.
2.) We eliminated a threat and free’d 50 Million people who now view us as an ally.
3.) The United States did what it said it would do and completed it’s stated mission and gained a tremendous amount of respect amongst our allies. Behind the scenes our Allies begged GW to do this, because it had to done according to the world community and was mandated and they are a bunch of Friggin Pussies!
4.) We created a battlefield, so that the price we did have to pay, was much less than if the battle was to be fought in Afghanistan. The United States has been secretly fighting a proxy War with the Government of Iran……Which will be the next stage….Unless the Democrats can defeat America before we can confront them.
And the list goes on and on
Obama is not “my guy.” You need to learn to make finer distinctions.
you need to learn to make finer discriminations, too. all i have suggested in this thread is that if we are going to have a war we should pay for it. i have also been known to say that if we are going to spend money we need to collect a tax to pay for it. i have also pointed out that Social Security is money the people pay for what they get… very different from what a “tax” usually means. No more Social Engineering than your insurance policy. Fact is “welfare as we know it” was ended by Clinton… and the results are not good, but you won’t read about it in the newspaper.
I lost track, but I think up thread you were the one arguing that it’s very smart of us to put our leg in the lions den, and then go off to beat up some kids on the playground where the odds are on our side.
which is why you are not worth talking to.
I am sure this young man believes he saved the USA from destruction by terrorists. And that it was all so necessary and worthwhile. Or does he? Perhaps he’s just a screwed “little person” who was used as a tool by warmongers who had no good reason for a war except that they thought it might be “fun”. I am sure this guy’s life is full of “fun” too.
I really admire this, I mean it really looks interesting!
To best extend, I think male enhancement is free devices to enlarge surgery reviews. The natural penis exercises work to growth larger patch pills, average sizes and to grow a bigger strecher for penis extender enlargement especially pump jelq techniques.