27 GOP Senators vote to disapprove of own vote to raise debt ceiling

The things you learn watching Stephen Colbert.  27 Republican Senators voted this week to condemn their own votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling and saving the country from default, and a worldwide economic catastrophe.

Apparently, as part of the deal to avert a default on the national debt a few weeks ago, Republicans demanded that the Senate hold a second vote, a few weeks later, in which Republican Senators could publicly disapprove of the deal they just voted for.

The intent, of course, is to trick GOP primary and general election voters into thinking that Republican Senators  voted against the debt ceiling deal, when in reality they voted for it.


Sadly, this is rather typical behavior for the Hill, and particularly among Republicans. Senators and House members are always looking for ways to negate their real position, permitting them to be everything to everyone.

When I worked in the Senate, it was common practice to tell constituents that you “cosponsored” legislation that you never intended to vote for. “Cosponsoring” is a symbolic way of voicing your support for legislation, short of actually voting for it, and with no requirement to actually support the bill when it comes up for a vote. Thus, members of Congress would “cosponsor” something, but not actually vote for it – enabling them to pick and choose their answers for various constituents. If you like the bill, they tell you they cosponsored it. If you don’t like the bill, they tell you they voted against it.

Trusting that most Americans don’t understand the arcane workings of the Congress, the 27 Republican Senators who voted for the debt ceiling increase are going to tell constituents, come the next election, that they voted against the budget deal. And they did.  In a non-binding resolution, sure – but they won’t tell you that.  They’ll simply say “what do you mean I supported the debt ceiling increase?  I’m on the record, on October 29, opposing the debt ceiling deal.”  And you the constituent will dutifully scratch your head all confused.

It’s not about the truth.  As I’ve written before, the Republicans have learned that they do far better in the polls when they lie.  If voters new the truth about Obamacare (that it actually does lower prices for a lot of people), the stimulus (that it saved millions of jobs and averted a depression), about climate change (it’s real, and we caused it), and about President Obama (neither commie nor Kenyan), they’d support the Republican position and party even less than the meager amount they do now.

So, Republicans lie.  Because GOP voters can’t handle the truth.

My favorite GOP hypocrisy story was the time in the early 1990s when I was riding up the elevator to the Senate office where I worked. The elevator door opens to let someone out, and I see a well-known moderate Republican northeastern Senator scamper by with aides in tow.  One aide earnestly tells the Senator, just as my elevator door is about to close: “Remember, Senator, today you’re pro-choice.”

And today they’re pro-shutdown, once again.

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

137 Responses to “27 GOP Senators vote to disapprove of own vote to raise debt ceiling”

  1. Amanda Caleb says:

    After hearing that 27 Republican senators voted to “disapprover” their own votes to raise the debt ceiling, Stephen Colbert is starting to think that the Grand Old Party “may not be bipartisan, but they may be bipolar.

    Personal Business Loans

  2. Milo_Bloom says:

    …and I hope when I leave you find another s**ker to feed, shelter and clothe you. :-)

  3. Jimmy R says:

    Happy for all of us. Here’s hoping you get to retire…and leave the country…very very soon.

  4. Milo_Bloom says:

    I’m glad you feel things are cleared but, however your interpretation of my answer appears to be, again, completely wrong.

    Keep trying! I have faith in you!

  5. KingCranky says:

    In other words, your own standards are too tough for you to abide.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  6. Milo_Bloom says:

    LOL, I agree wholeheartedly, but I have a soft spot for the woman I love, and she has only ever lived in the cesspool we call the Golden State. She doesn’t know any better. She’s slowly starting to see the light, and I hope to have us out of state in a few years.

    Interestingly enough, we have agreed on retirement away from this oppressive government. We have our retirement home already acquired in a nice country far from these shores. So, there is a happy ending, just waiting to see how patient I will have to be ;-)

  7. Whitewitch says:

    Wow – you should move.

  8. Milo_Bloom says:

    Actually let’s break those down. Fire is mediocre here, and I believe paid for by property taxes in our area. Police show up after the fact to write reports and ask you if you have insurance, so I also have to pay for alarms, firearms, etc. EMT’s are private. The schools are so bad that I have to send my children to private schools, which of course I pay for in addition to the taxes for the seat they fail to occupy in the government school. Recreational facilities (that you’d actually go to) charge for the service.

    Shall I go on?

    Being against the wars might be the only point on which we agree.

    Again, your government fails miserably, but continues to take from working Americans.

  9. Whitewitch says:

    Sorry you have that experience. Sorry you can see any services being provided to you by the government for your benefit. I guess in No California they no longer have Fire and EMT Service, no schools for the children to attend – guess they have closed all those parks and recreation facilities as well.

    So glad I am in So Cal where we have all those things and more – much much more….

    Plus I believe there are two wars (oh wait only one now supposedly) which the politicians are approving and paying for – which comes from our taxes as well (which I would rather not pay for – believe me).

    Nice try at the glass have full thing.

    P.S. I walk to work everyday! Maybe that is why I have a sunny disposition (grin).

  10. Milo_Bloom says:

    You’re starting to ramble a little, dear.

    Perhaps in Southern California the roads have dramatically improved in the two years since I last visited, but up here they are poor; not worth what we pay. That’s been my ongoing point.

    Actually I do walk to work when I can. I never considered it, but its certainly less wear and tear on my body and truck than taking the government roads (see? glass 1/2 full!) None the less, if they are going to just take our taxes without providing services, I’d just as soon keep the money.

  11. Whitewitch says:

    Not just talking about the roads in my neighborhood…talking about the roads in most of Southern California….I don’t think you know poor roads was my point in the previous post. Just like people complaint about how bad traffic is – compared to what walking to work? Weird, unhappy people are sad.

  12. Milo_Bloom says:

    Actually it doesn’t, though I can see where the desperate nature of your demands upon our children might make you feel better about your greed to think so.

  13. Milo_Bloom says:

    None of your numbers did match the CBO’s website (which is the link). You posting was incorrect. Again, I suggest you actually look up the figures.

  14. Milo_Bloom says:

    I use them only because driving through our neighbors yards would be rude. I also live in California; odd that we’d have such a disparity. Perhaps your councilman is a neighbor? ;-)

    The rest of us have pretty poor roads, but they do continue to take our money.

    As for 1/2 empty, 1/2 full, you might be right: Sure the oppression stinks, but how else would we be able to have revolution? That better?

  15. pappyvet says:

    The one that starves today is already starving.
    Well that pretty much sums up your tale. Most enlightening. Good bye

  16. FanOfTravel says:

    Well silo,I’m correct in the fact that a huge portion of the 2009 budget was bush number two and the fiscal year runs from Oct 1st thur Sept 30th,can you not read? Your link showed nothing of the sort

  17. Whitewitch says:

    So you do use “government” created, maintained and funded roads…ahhh I see….and you complain that they are not maintained or improved…so far I have not seen you say one nice thing about anything. I live in California and our roads are very nice and well maintained…I did live in DC for about 17 years and the roads there were quite awful…but then then have pretty harsh weather – lots of rain, snow and heat…so I am thinking although they probably spend as much for road maintenance as we do here that it is harder to “keep them up”. So I try to look at life as a glass half full kind of thing – rather than a glass half empty situation. You might try that – it makes life a little more bearable.

  18. Milo_Bloom says:

    It would appear the only thing you have correct in your little screed is that the fiscal year runs from Oct. to Sept. I took a look at the CBO’s website, none of their numbers bear any relation to the ones you’ve provided. Take a look: http://cbo.gov

  19. Milo_Bloom says:

    The roads are I pay quite a bit for and nothing is done to maintain or improve them.

  20. The_Fixer says:

    When talking about budgets, spending and taxation, perhaps it might be apropos to remember a few things.

    First, debt is a cumulative thing, and even though spending might go down, debt can still go up. Remember also how we got that debt.

    The bulk of debt came from the wars and the boom in the security apparatus since 9/11. It should be noted that the security apparatus we have in place now may have been able to catch bin Laden, but it really wasn’t necessary; we had advance warning of the plot – warning provided by our old security apparatus – that was ignored. This new Patriot Act resulted in the biggest real intrusion of government into our lives ever, without a corresponding increase in effectiveness, and at no small expense. Top that all off with the normal and wasteful cost of war, and we got a real hum-dinger of a debt.

    This debt did not come from the education department, nor social programs and it did not come the normal government services that keep American society more-or-less humming along. I read a plea to slash government spending across the board by 50%. This meat-cleaver approach toward solving the problem is illogical. It ignores waste and the most inefficient parts of government – Defense. It may make sense to reduce defense spending by 50% – I’m not settled on that being a viable figure, it’s used for example. If it makes sense to do it in the Defense Department, it’s not justification for doing it in, say, the Commerce department, the FDA and other agencies. The FDA does food inspection; do we really want an already underfunded agency to make do with a sharp reduction in food safety inspectors? How about the EPA, do we want factories and vehicles poisoning our air? Do we want the National Weather Service that we all depend on to slash the number of staff? I think not – we need to eat good food, breathe clean air and we have farmers who depend on weather forecasters. But we sure can do with a lot less of the Armed Forces losing track of pallets full of cash. Like it or not, the government provides services that we need in daily life. Not all government activity is wasteful, let alone the cause of our debt. Just some of it.

    It is a fact that there is a correlation between higher taxation on the wealthy and positive economic growth. One may not be causative of the other, but the relationship is there. I keep hearing the plea for tax equality across-the-board. It’s been said that it’s fair if everyone pays the same tax rate, it’s tax equality. But let’s turn that around and talk burden. I get the same governmental benefits as a wealthy person does from my tax dollar – government services like the FAA, FDA, Commerce and yes, the Education Department, among other agencies. However, as I make less than a wealthy person, my burden is higher. That is the reasoning behind the Progressive Tax System, an attempt to equalize burden.

    It is part of a social compact that we have in America. You pay according to your means. A wealthy person has the means to pay more to help support the government because it’s less of a burden for that person. We all throw this money in a kitty and spend it on governmental services. Sometimes, we even have to do things like support those who have various problems like poverty and mental illness. It’s part of the American ethic to care for those less fortunate than us. And it makes good sense as people with problems will make them your problems if you aren’t proactive. Being proactive means the government is spending money – which, by the way, makes its way back out into circulation.

    Charity is all fine and good, and in most cases very helpful. However, even the biggest charity does not have the means to help everyone. Additionally, they can’t truly fix the problems that cause them to exist, The government very often does. That doesn’t mean government should do everything. But to not make an effort to alleviate the suffering of others when one is able can only be described as turdish. I might add, it also goes against the presumed traditions that those who wish to inject religion into government, claiming that this is a “Christian Nation.”

    It’s been proven before that strategic government investment in the economy does pay dividends in the form of greater economic activity, thus, greater tax revenue. Clinton proved that, although there were problems with his approach. But the basic principle stands: the increase in economic activity bringing in more tax revenue (provided that we actually meaningfully tax corporations) at one time gave us a budget surplus that allowed us to pay down the debt. Until Bush II kinda shot that all to hell. In addition to crazy spending, he reduced the upper tax rates. We found ourself not only in deficit spending territory because spending was up and revenues down, but in greater debt because the wars were kept out of the formal budget, but still resulted in debt.

    The only sensible way of doing paying down the debt is through increased tax revenue in addition to sensible cost reduction. As both a fair-burden point and from the point of practicality, additional revenue has come from wealthy individuals and corporations. After all, poor people can’t pay more.

    Social programs have to continue, not only from a standpoint of then being what humans of conscience do, but from a practical standpoint; it puts money in the economy.

    I hear a lot of complaining about the government printing money at will from the Libertarians. They have been forced to; wealthy individuals and corporations are hoarding all of the money, they aren’t spending it. Corporate profits and cash reserves are the highest in history; we have the highest percentage of wealth held by the fewest proportion of individuals in history. Any time you effectively pull money out of circulation, you have to print more. It’s really quite simple. Of course that doesn’t make it desirable, it’s just the way it happened. the only way to stop that is to reverse the mechanism that made it happen.

    I think that one of the “dirty little secrets” of government is that, in addition to providing services, it by nature is a wealth redistribution mechanism. Why that isn’t accepted as a matter of course is beyond me. That may not be its motivation to start with; however, it’s an unavoidable result of it doing these other things. The government spends money which goes back Into the hands of citizens and companies in the course of providing services. Lately, it’s been distributing wealth – cash, capital, whatever you want to call money – upward.

    A reconfiguring of government has to take place. This can’t go on forever, and no amount of reduced spending is going to fix this. We’re still gonna have debt even if we stop government spending altogether. And choking government is just plain stupid and counterproductive.

    A lot of these economic problems are going to make repeat appearances as long as we have an economic system centered on constant growth (which I might add, is not sustainable). We have a burgeoning world-wide population demanding resources to live. Add to that, discoveries and inventions from the medical science field are prolonging the lives of the world’s citizens. This is the real train wreck of catastrophic proportions, not the budget or the debt. Those trends can often be reversed with proper spending and proper revenues, and can often be done by one president in two terms.

    The real problems of population, environmental quality and resource scarcity are far longer-ranging and will take a 100-year plan to fix. As long as you have people F’n up the works like you have had with a series of right-wing elected officials, we’re not gonna be able to pull it off. That’s the coming catastrophe. It’ll take a while to get here, and it won’t be pretty when it comes.

  21. FanOfTravel says:

    Quit listening to fox & fools!! The 2009 budget was mostly bush number two’s,the 2009 fiscal year runs ran from Oct 1 2008 thur Sept 30 2009 and was for 1.413 trillion. The 2010 and 2011 were 1.3 trillion each year,the 2012 declined a little to 1.1 trillion and 2013 is estimated by the CBO to be 642 billion. Which is less then half of his 2010 budget. Quit parroting fox,rush,glen,hannidioty…….. Talking points

  22. Whitewitch says:

    Sorry had to get back to work….what roads are you driving on now…all privately owed roads…and it is great that you volunteer and give to charity but many don’t. So take care and have a good one.

  23. karmanot says:


  24. Milo_Bloom says:

    I seem to have struck a nerve at the idea that one’s opinion of the gravity of the situation can be tied to their level of government dependence. However, it appears we will have to agree to disagree. A good evening to you, too.

  25. Peter Bode says:

    You picked one part of the argument on which to relaunch your fact deprived diatribe. I note that you have no taste for the rest of it…nor (after several invitations to do so) have you any idea how to sustain your argument with historical evidence. Wishing you a good evening.

  26. Milo_Bloom says:

    Not really; at one point, they were speaking of raising taxes on the rich. I assumed only that they are not rich.

    I guess you could ask them if you’d like. Perhaps they will supply you a 1040 with which to protest.

  27. Milo_Bloom says:

    You are struggling soo hard to make the simple complicated. You cannot borrow forever.

    You know, it occurs to me that a person like me, who is provided very little from the government, has very little emotional need to concoct scenarios that everything is alright. On the other hand…

  28. KingCranky says:

    Perhaps best not to whine about “cite where I said otherwise” when you played the “You can talk about raising taxes (on people other than yourself, of course)” blather yourself.

    Or does “cite where I said otherwise” only apply to others, not yourself?

  29. Milo_Bloom says:

    “Finally, are you really arguing that a government debt of $16,736 would be unsustainable given the size of the current economy?”

    $16,736? No, that would be fine. Heck, I can pay that off today. The problem is that the debt is $16,736 billion.

    Far bigger number. ;-)

    I would argue that being that the entire GDP of the country would not pay it off at this point, and it has historically risen just about every year, that no, we can’t pay it off. Or at the very least won’t. Paying off the debt doesn’t win you votes, after all.

    The real question will be which aspect does us in. When we finally can’t borrow any more? When we have to choose between debt and the few functions the government actually needs to perform? Or will it be when all the free loaders are informed that the pantry is bare? Then the real excitement starts!

    You know, it occurs to me that a person like me, who is provided very little from the government, has very little emotional need to concoct scenarios that everything is alright. On the other hand…

  30. Peter Bode says:

    Alternatively, you can show me an example of a country which has ceased to exist as a political entity due to debt levels alone. I’d be keen to see that. I’m eyeing up opportunities to send in the bailliffs you understand :)

  31. Peter Bode says:

    Ok then, given that you understand (or claim to) that there is a difference between managing a kitchen table economyy and managing a national economy…what “commen sense principles” are you referring to? I’ll make it easy for you: at what percentage of GDP doed debt become unsustainable to the point where it constrains economic growth? Please show your work.

  32. Peter Bode says:

    That is a most articulate way of avoiding the argument. So there is not a crisis of debt? Why all the hysteria then? Why devote your life to stalking posts on news blogs? So, can I take it it that you don’t believe that the number in itself is a problem?
    It comes down to this. The number is historically large…as is GDP…as is the stock market indicator. The economy (despite the crash) is larger than it was during Reagan’s presidency, than during Clinton’s and during Bush Junior’s. So I ask again….what is it about this number which you believe calls for a complete reset of fiscal policy?
    Finally, are you really arguing that a government debt of $16,736 would be unsustainable given the size of the current economy?

  33. Milo_Bloom says:

    No, you’ve still got it wrong. You see, I have no problem helping people: as my distain for the government’s abuse of the people has grown, I’ve also increased my charity and volunteering. With you it’s “someone else, or something else” with me it’s personal.

    Roads? You’re kidding, right? The government stopped suppling roads about the time they figured out they could just give my taxes away to their chorines (and themselves) without providing roads. Giving them more money just makes the chorines richer… it doesn’t provide roads or services. Better to do without, or help ones’ self.

    As for a natural disaster, check out the last few and see who fared better: communities that helped themselves, or those that waited for the government.

  34. Milo_Bloom says:

    Common sense.

  35. Milo_Bloom says:

    First of all, I have a pet peeve about people putting words in my mouth: Where did I say, “Crisis?” You, on the other hand, have used it twice. Just keeping you honest!

    “Dark art.” What an excuse for ignoring common sense! The number $16,738 billion is critical because it is huge. Frankly, it could be $16,736 or $16,740 and we’d be in the same situation: in debt to our eyeballs. It goes up every day of every year and we have no plan to pay that money back. You can call it whatever you like, jazz it up with “Dark Art” (is he Darth Vader’s cousin?) but it’s still a preposterous number.

    You are most likely correct about precedence, since I doubt any country has hit that level of debt in history and survived without a revolution. However, I don’t think you would have too much trouble finding examples of the consequences of reckless spending and borrowing without the ability to pay for such expenditures.

  36. Whitewitch says:

    It is too, it is too, it is too, it is too…okay it isn’t.

  37. Whitewitch says:

    I think that is exactly what I implied about your philosphy…so let me be clearer…you are a no government person – super. You believe we should not have the government helping its people – super. You believe “someone else, or something else” will help people – super.

    Now when you need help, or need a new road, or recovery from a natural disaster – let me know how that works for you. Until then – you are on your own eh – Great!!!

  38. Peter Bode says:

    Specifically which principles are you applying in making your argument?

  39. Peter Bode says:

    That does not necessarily follow where strong growth follows a short period of such deficit spending. You say there is a crisis. All I ask is that you show some historical precedent (from anywhere in the world at any time) to support your hypothesis that this is a critical number.. Economics of the macro variety is a dark art and there is no way in the world that any credible economist of the right wing and/or libertarian variety would make this argumenty without reference to either historical precedent or numercial ranges as per GDP.

  40. Milo_Bloom says:

    I’m aware, fascinating book. But that line goes a long way toward defining his views, does it not?

    So, to proceed, Your “progressive” tax in conjunction with social programs, is the essence of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” correct?

  41. trinu says:

    You apparently do not know that Marx wrote an entire manifesto, not just one sentence. Taxing the rich at the same rate as the middle class is not communism. In fact a graduated income tax formed the backbone of USA fiscal policy at the height of the Cold War.

  42. Milo_Bloom says:

    Actually it would appear you are the one who doesn’t understand the word. Let’s see: Your “progressive” tax in conjunction with social programs, is the essence of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” correct?

  43. trinu says:

    That’s not Marxism. Implementing the Buffett rule, making the superrich pay the same tax rate as the middle class would still leave the superrich with more money. Heck, even taxing the superrich at Eisenhower levels would leave them with more money than the middle class. Also your use of the word, “Marxist,” shows you don’t know what it means.

  44. Milo_Bloom says:

    No, because you can prevent a person from starving tomorrow. The one that starves today is already starving. Huge difference.

    Your government has one heck of a problem, that’s for sure. Step one is to stop continuing to spend money we don’t have. Until we do that, no other course of action toward paying it will make even a tiny dent.

  45. Milo_Bloom says:

    Of course not. However, there are principles that apply to both.

  46. Milo_Bloom says:

    You are suggesting the application of an “intellectual construct” where none is necessary. It’s common sense. If you are borrowing 100% of the GDP you’ve setup a situation that would be impossible to pay back. Unless your plan is never to pay our debts.

  47. pappyvet says:

    Like I said,a starving person today is just as bad as a starving person tomorrow.
    So what’s your solution? Who gets to pay? The drunken sailors lef their tab on the bar floor. And do not presume to tell me what I am willing to pay for or how much.Tnat is simply spreading an accepted mythology.

  48. Peter Bode says:

    Question: Does macro economics work on the same principle as micro economics?

  49. Peter Bode says:

    Ok, seeing as you are so bothered by this number, perhaps you can tell us what specific intellectual construct tells you that this is out of control. Show us some evidence in terms of percentage of GDP or any other historical instance you care to quote from that indicates that this debt represents a crisis which will tip the economy over the edge. Then we can have a discussion about that.

  50. Milo_Bloom says:

    Fine. Who pays the higher dollar amount?

    I know you are trying to use idea that the redistribution of wealth is appropriate, but it isn’t. If you earn the money, it should belong to you. If we choose to support the government, it should be even, not a Marxist tool. That simple.

    Even Mr. Obama tells us that “everyone should have skin in the game.”

  51. trinu says:

    The superrich pay 15% of their income (before tax breaks/deductions) in taxes, thanks to the capital gains tax. The middle class pay 28-35% of their income in taxes.

  52. Milo_Bloom says:

    I accept your surrender.

  53. Milo_Bloom says:

    Ahh… the intellectual argument of the left. When your lack of an argument becomes apparent…

  54. Milo_Bloom says:

    It seems with your name calling and wild accusations, you are starting to realize your lack of an argument.

  55. karmanot says:

    Wrong. You are too incompetent at trolling to bother with anymore. Bye

  56. Milo_Bloom says:

    Actually I believe he called me a “Tea Bagger.” The thread is getting quite long.

    It always entertains me how quickly you folks turn to name calling as your arguments fall apart.

  57. karmanot says:

    Keep polishing that point on your head and one day you will realize it is a turd.

  58. Milo_Bloom says:

    Actually it isn’t. The rich do pay the vast majority of tax dollars. You can try to argue “From each according to their means…” but the fact that the rich pay the vast majority of taxes remains true.

  59. karmanot says:

    Getting a little inchoate Milo Petite. Are you drinking?

  60. Milo_Bloom says:

    Sorry to disappoint. Considering the poor attempts I’ve seen so far on this forum, I shall consider the source from which the critique comes. ;-)

  61. karmanot says:

    “Repetition is not confirmation of fact” is name calling? Nah, sorry. This is name calling: assh*ole

  62. karmanot says:

    Iz 1 for the books. :-)

  63. Milo_Bloom says:

    Nope. I am one of the people you depend on, having far more taken from me than the government provides. I’m ok with them not providing, frankly the quality is poor on the best day, but the taking is getting irritating.

  64. karmanot says:

    I suspect you are not that older. Your conversation is quite immature and repetitious—-not really up to serious troll level.

  65. BeccaM says:

    That’s a mis-characterization of the situation, and disingenuous as well.

    Here’s some light reading for you:

  66. karmanot says:

    You are too. We need a good laugh here.

  67. karmanot says:

    I wouldn’t know, are you.

  68. Milo_Bloom says:

    I’m absolutely sympathetic to the plight of fellow humans. My donations and volunteering have increased exponentially as I’ve gotten older and realized that people need real help, not government dependence.

    I don’t feel sorry for you, you’ve made your bed. Lie in it.

  69. Milo_Bloom says:

    …and yet you persist! ;-)

    I assume by “disqualifies you from serious conversation” you mean “doesn’t want us to take his paycheck and doesn’t agree with our government-dependent lifestyle?”

    You guys are fun!

  70. karmanot says: