If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Government Accountability Office counts up the number of federal jobs cut by the devastating evil budget sequester, and finds...one   (reason.com) divider line 255
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-08 03:34:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.

I always figured that Reason was "Libertarian" in the same sense that Rand Paul and Cato are libertarians.

Which is that they'll pay lip service to the libertarian wing of the GOP but for the most part just recite GOP talking points.


I don't vote for the Republicrats or the Democans.  I'm a Libertarian.  I'm my own man.  I'm a loner... a rebel.

So vote Republican.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:58 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


Congress is concerned about vacant jobs? So that means we'll have more judge confirmations this week, right?
 
2014-05-08 03:35:08 PM

DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)


Raising the minimum wage would have the same effect.
 
2014-05-08 03:35:26 PM

DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

www.thefrisky.com

Seriously what the fark is wrong with you?
 
2014-05-08 03:35:31 PM

SlothB77: Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

but, not so fast:

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013.

yep.  still just one federal employee.

good work there, farkers.


Yes, but ultimately as firings are insanely difficult to do on short notice most agencies choose furloughs and reductions in hirings over direct firings. The "projections" where long term projections in how many less federal jobs there would be over the long term if sequetor went into effect and stayed in effect. The chart on page 58 shows (im estimating here based on the first line being 3.8 million days rounding up to 4 million) 4 million days or 32 million man hours being reduces for just the 6 months that the sequester was in place. You couldn't realistically expect them to continue furloughing forever, they would eventually have to fire some people and significantly lower hiring. 32 million man hours over 6 months is equal to 30,769 full time positions. And most agencies took serious hits to operating budgets to achieve that.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:06 PM

nmrsnr: 19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.


That analysis is light on facts and heavy on speculation and hypotheticals.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:11 PM

Rapmaster2000: So vote Republican.


So vote Ronpaulagain
 
2014-05-08 03:36:13 PM

Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?


Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.
 
2014-05-08 03:36:48 PM

James!: abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.

Yeah, but the guy is technically correct.  So good for him.


He might have been technically correct, if he had made his argument about ONLY firings made specifically to hit sequestration limits, but that wasn't the argument made.  The article claims ""Devastating" Sequester Cuts Cost a Total of One (1) Federal Job!"
 
2014-05-08 03:37:05 PM

nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.


My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.
 
2014-05-08 03:37:21 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


So it's better to put them out of work and on welfare?

Because the notion that they'll just magically find work in the private sector without any issue is laughably absurd.
 
2014-05-08 03:38:27 PM

beakerxf: It's short sighted in so many ways.


I think that's the GOP's new slogan.
 
2014-05-08 03:39:21 PM

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?

Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?



Yeah, that's the spirit.  Who needs that pesky Department of Justice, or that worthless FDA?  Don't even get me started on the Department of Transportation or the EPA!
 
2014-05-08 03:39:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrtraveler01: 1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?

Oops...wrong thread.


This is never in the wrong thread.
 
2014-05-08 03:39:31 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


I talk to the engineers so the customers don't have to! I'M A PEOPLE PERSON!
 
2014-05-08 03:40:34 PM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


Generally when you furlough tens of thousands of people so they don't get paid for several weeks, it has bad side effects. Of course Congress excluded themselves on not getting their paycheck.
 
2014-05-08 03:40:56 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


jobs that provide people middle class incomes in an economy that relies on consumer spending are not parasitic, jobs like at walmart who pay their employees a non living wage who have to use food stamps to eat are though. If you want to force companies to pay a real wage then I guess it'd be a wash if you eliminated government jobs that actually pay well if they are truly not necessary.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

So it's better to put them out of work and on welfare?


No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:41 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark:

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


those gov't employees should just sit around and wait for the Job Creator'sTM to trickle them jobs!

you seem like a supply side economist.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:49 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

*ploink!*
 
2014-05-08 03:45:16 PM

Headso: jobs that provide people middle class incomes in an economy that relies on consumer spending are not parasitic, jobs like at walmart who pay their employees a non living wage who have to use food stamps to eat are though. If you want to force companies to pay a real wage then I guess it'd be a wash if you eliminated government jobs that actually pay well if they are truly not necessary.


Again:

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.

Really, this is freshman-level economics.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:35 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


That's easy to understand. It's just that it's made up bullshiat.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:47 PM

James!: That... He couldn't even read the chart he put up... I am astounded.


You stop being shocked when you automatically assume the worse of the Right.
 
2014-05-08 03:45:52 PM

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?

Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?


How many tri-corner hats do you own?
 
2014-05-08 03:45:58 PM

GoldSpider: nmrsnr: 19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

That analysis is light on facts and heavy on speculation and hypotheticals.


How so? How can an agency curtail hiring and not have net fewer jobs compared to if there hadn't been a sequester?

If there are net fewer jobs, how does that not translate to less availability of people to obtain those jobs that now do not exist?
 
2014-05-08 03:46:03 PM

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


So put them out of work, hope they find a job, or else they'll just starve and die?

Seems like a good plan to me.

And you do know that highway projects pretty much fit what you defined in bold right?
 
2014-05-08 03:46:11 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Yup, the only non-parasites are farmers and factory workers. Let's start stringing up CEOs and priests from lampposts since they are just parasites.
 
2014-05-08 03:46:34 PM

DrPainMD: Really, this is freshman-level economics.


Serious question - do you believe charity is an economically worthless activity, and should only be engaged in for purely moral reasons?
 
2014-05-08 03:47:08 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy.


Your argument is that all (or most) government jobs are useless make-work jobs?  Does that magically change when those jobs are done by contractors?
 
2014-05-08 03:47:41 PM

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.
 
2014-05-08 03:47:41 PM

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.
 
2014-05-08 03:47:51 PM
DrPainMD:

No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.


Hey there, NASA engineer! What's your dirt doing in my ditch?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-08 03:48:13 PM

Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.


Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.
 
2014-05-08 03:48:27 PM

DrPainMD: Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.


You sound like a commie.
 
2014-05-08 03:48:57 PM
It worked so well, let's do it again.  Is what I'm hearing.
 
2014-05-08 03:49:25 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


So then you think the federal government is doing perfectly in how fast they operate? They don't need anymore people to make things go through government faster?
 
2014-05-08 03:50:37 PM
It most certainly cost me a job last year. A sweet gig traveling across Europe doing server installs for NATO.

Hestonbeachbiatching.mp4
 
2014-05-08 03:51:11 PM

DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.


I remember my college professors emphasizing that basic econ isn't meant to be applied to complex real world solutions and really is just an overly simplified view of how it works.

Trying to apply basic econ to the real world just reminds me of how delusional and misguided people on the right are when it comes to the economy.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:21 PM

Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.


Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:35 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


None.

The sequester meant government-payroll people took it in the shorts*, but since contractors had contracts, they were fine unless they had to rebid or recompete.

*My boss was telling us that there are some rules about pension/vacation time accrual when working for the Feds - basically, if you drop below a certain threshhold of hours worked, you aren't eligible for vacation time or pension contributions. So they stuck it to those workers when they collected their paychecks (furlough), and again whenever they collect retirement or want to take a sick day. But again, they couldn't do that to the contractors, who had "inviolable" contracts.

// worked for a contractor at the time - the government people, who could make official decisions after communication with DoD, VA, HHS and the thousand offices within each we had to deal with, were gone one day a week; but the workers, whose job it was to implement decisions that could no longer be made one day a week, had to keep working
// and that's called "efficiency", apparently
 
2014-05-08 03:51:51 PM

nmrsnr: How so? How can an agency curtail hiring and not have net fewer jobs compared to if there hadn't been a sequester?

If there are net fewer jobs, how does that not translate to less availability of people to obtain those jobs that now do not exist?


It's meaningless unless you can guarantee a certain level of hiring without the sequester.  The most accurate you can claim is that hiring was likely reduced by the sequester.  Even then it sounds like when politicians disingenuously spin a reduction in the rate of increase in program spending into a "spending cut".
 
2014-05-08 03:52:03 PM
DrPainMD becomes Emperor.

Day 1:
DrPainMD: "There are no longer any government jobs."
Day 2:
DrPainMD: "Hey, were did all my money in my bank account go! You can't do that!
Banks: "We took it and bought a boat."
DrPainMD: "You can't do that!"
DrPainMD: *calls the authorities*
DrPainMD: "Why isn't anyone picking up?"
 
2014-05-08 03:52:38 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


None! In fact, contractors had so much more private work during the shutdown, they don't even need to go back to federal contracting!
 
2014-05-08 03:53:00 PM

beakerxf: nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.

My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.


And yet to some extent, it still seems to be working.  I drove through California's Central Valley this past weekend, and if the political billboards are any indication, a fair number of people think the state's water shortage (which should be a completely nonpartisan issue) is some kind of diabolical conspiracy involving state senators, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.
 
2014-05-08 03:53:20 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


Food sales in the immediate vicinity skyrocket and the agents go spend $3,000 at Wal Mart, which combined creates a massive economic boost?
 
2014-05-08 03:53:44 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?
 
2014-05-08 03:54:53 PM

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


I knew I had you favorited for a reason.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:03 PM

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


And what's the effect on the economy from the government spending millions of dollars to steal tens of millions of dollars worth of slaves from the South, and not even bothering to sell them to recoup the expenses?
 
2014-05-08 03:55:22 PM

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:33 PM

anfrind: beakerxf: nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.

My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.

And yet to some extent, it still seems to be working.  I drove through California's Central Valley this past weekend, and if the political billboards are any indication, a fair number of people think the state's water shortage (which should be a completely nonpartisan issue) is some kind of diabolical conspiracy involving state senators, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.


Which is ironic because the Federal Government was the main reason they're able to farm in the Central Valley.

Such rugged individualists they are.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report