 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 27, 2006
By: SOCIAL SECURITY DRECK....I don't really have the heart to wade back into the Social Security debate at the moment click here for the short version of how I feel about the whole thing but this paragraph from Sebastian Mallaby today really can't go without rebuttal:
Just in case anyone is interested, I don't think there's a Democrat on the planet who worries about income inequality among the ranks of Social Security retirees. And Mallaby's "less quickly than now scheduled" is just a cute way of saying that under the Pozen plan middle class retirees of the future would receive a smaller percentage of their average earnings than they do now. I don't think I'd have to take off my shoes to count the number of progressives who think that's a good idea. —Kevin Drum 2:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)Comments
If Social Security reform was DOA after the 2004 elections, when Bush was reelected and still had two houses of Congress, why does anyone think that change is going to happen now? This is silly. Even if you can find a few Dems to say some stupid things about the need for compromise, I can't imagine that reform is anywhere on Pelosi and Reid's radar screen. Posted by: JJF on November 27, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKAnd Mallaby's "less quickly than now scheduled" is just a cute way of saying that under the Pozen plan middle class retirees of the future would receive a smaller percentage of their average earnings than they do now. I don't think I'd have to take off my shoes to count the number of progressives who think that's a good idea. This just goes to show you aren't serious about fixing Social Security. The problem with Social Security is that it's going to run out of money. "According to experts, in the year 2018 Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. In 2042, it will be able to cover only about 73% of benefits owed, unless changes are made." Since Social Security is goint to be bankrupt unless we fix the problem, we have to cut Social Security in order to fix it. Conservatives like Pozen and Bush believe we should means-test the program so that the poor don't get cut while the rich and well-off get less benefits. What's the problem with that? Means-testing is a good solution because it keeps a safety-net for the poor while not giving benefits to the rich and powerful who don't need it. Posted by: Al on November 27, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKMallaby, himself a back number from The Economist, still believes this is the century of Thatcher and Reagan. Rude awakening ahead . . . Posted by: penalcolony on November 27, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKKevin writes: Just in case anyone is interested, I don't think there's a Democrat on the planet who worries about income inequality among the ranks of Social Security retirees. Huh? This makes no sense, Kevin. If SS benefits for wealthier people are cut but payroll taxes remain the same, the net effect is the same as increasing taxes on these same wealthier people. In other words, under the Pozen plan, the tax code becomes more progressive. I thought that's one of the main suggestions being made by liberals concerned with the question of growing inequality. Posted by: Jasper on November 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKFake and\or not fake Al, The federal government routinely takes in less money than it spends. Does that mean it is bankrupt? You need to stop conflating SS with the General Fund. Once you have told us whether or not SS should be evaluated alone or as part of the overall budget, then we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you have all the relevance of an abandoned barnacle, and we can and will ignore you. Posted by: kaptain kapital on November 27, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. doesn't know much, but he recognizes the value of maximizing distraction and irritation while he attends to the real family business. Win or lose, while we re-argue social security, health care, and how to escape Iraq, George's family and friends will continue to get richer and richer. Posted by: UhOh on November 27, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKYeah, Sebastian Mallaby has his "redneck gene pool" ideas, and so someone, once again has to wade in and turn on the light, so thanks, Kevin. And this from TPM Muckraker: Last week ABC reported that Barbara had her purse stolen. Even worse, their shenanigans are creating headlines in the country. One tabloid featured a story about the two running naked, Borat-style, down the hallway of their hotel, according to ABC. And this: Amid a growing barrage of front-page headlines, U.S. embassy officials "strongly suggested" President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, cut short their trip to Buenos Aires because of security issues, U.S. diplomatic and security sources tell ABC News. Posted by: Cheryl on November 27, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK"According to experts, in the year 2018 Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. In 2042, it will be able to cover only about 73% of benefits owed, unless changes are made." That's why we need to make SS a progressive tool, and raise the limit on SS taxation to about $ 200,000. All them fatcats like Moron Al the Mental Midget can return some of the Repukeliscum windfall from the last 6 years. Posted by: POed Lib on November 27, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINKLook, either Mallaby turns in a column like this each and every week, or he has to keep bumping his head on the underside of his editor's desk, and swallow. Consider this op-ed a small victory for the hetero family values that God intended. Posted by: sglover on November 27, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINKunder the Pozen plan middle class retirees of the future would receive a smaller percentage of their average earnings than they do now. Didn't you favor a combination of tax increases and benefit cuts? This is the benefit cut. Anyhow, nothing will be done to fix Social Security.The Democrats oppose benefit cuts and the Republican oppose tax increases, and neither side has a majority in support of anything. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINKBrad DeLong has more to say about this pathetic piece of writing. Posted by: pgl on November 27, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINKFor his new book The Great Risk Shift Jacob Hacker interviewed Stuart Butler, one of the grand architects at the Heritage Foundation. Butler described what could be the essence of the conservative movement: In general, an element of all these (conservative policy approaches) is to create a parallel system based on more legitimate principles. In the process, you change peoples view of risk- you get people to think differently...You could just say, Accept risk, walk it off. But what we say is Lets essentially privatize the risk management for health or retirement. You give people other vehicles to manage the risk of living too long or being sick. You wean people gradually off or social insurance risk management into private risk management without making them fearful about it. You have got to do it in steps and have some government protection, at least at the beginning Any conversation conservatives what to have about Social Security or any other program is about taking one of the steps in the great risk shift. It is a goal in itself to have the language and perception of risk change in the public debate. This is why they are so keen to have the Democrats offer proposals of any kind.
I don't think I'd have to take off my shoes to count the number of progressives who think that's a good idea. You sound like some kinda mutant to me. How many digits to you have at the end of each limb, anyway? Posted by: marcel on November 27, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKkaptain kapital: The problem is that the Social Security surplus is used to cashflow the deficit, so you have to conflate it with the general fund. People who claim Social Security is solvent for the next 40 years can do so only by assuming that the government stops relying on this cash windfall to spend in other areas. In other words, it's technically correct but utterly unrealistic. Kevin wrote, "And Mallaby's "less quickly than now scheduled" is just a cute way of saying that under the Pozen plan middle class retirees of the future would receive a smaller percentage of their average earnings than they do now." But that's not true. Under this plan, middle class retirees of the future would receive a higher percentage of their average earnings than they do now. They would not, however, receive as a high a percentage as they would under current (non-affordable) plans. Posted by: Hacksaw on November 27, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINKMallaby is nothing less than a thinking man's Robert Samuelson. No concept of how the other half lives. Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on November 27, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINKThe problem is that the Social Security surplus is used to cashflow the deficit, so you have to conflate it with the general fund. People who claim Social Security is solvent for the next 40 years can do so only by assuming that the government stops relying on this cash windfall to spend in other areas. Exactly -- Socual Security doesn't have a problem, but we have a problem with fiscally irresponsible Republican policies. You have to give Republicans credit -- well, no, you don't, really -- for their attempt to push their rejected and unpopular agenda yet again, but it's crucial to remember that their proposals are not only unnecessary, they're merely a smokescreen to distract attention from their own fiscall irresponsibility. Once the GOP's reckless deficit spending is solved, Social Security natually follows. Posted by: Gregory on November 27, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKMallaby is a tool. Prior to the midterm election he did a concern troll piece citing particular democrats' support for the steel 201 proceedings in 2001 and 2002 as evidence of the democratic party's weakness on economic issues. Of course it was George Bush who initiated the steel 201 proceedings, a fact which remained unmentioned in the article. Not supprising, it kind of hurt his point. In the rest of the article he pissed all over the process of antidumping tariff determinations. But it was obvious he really didn't understand them and furthermore didn't know very much about the specific cases he was talking about. What it sounds like is that some pro-trade group sent him a fact sheet which he worked up into a column without bothering to draw from any other sources. I wouldn't be supprised if he has done it again. Posted by: Adam on November 27, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINKI animated the Pozen plan near the end of the flow chart video "Social Security" at: Solvency is the ability to meet obligations as they come due. Social Security is solvent so long as the general fund is able to first redeem the notes in the trust and then, later, when the tax collections are less than benefits due, make up the difference. Over the forecast horizon used by the Trustees SS, at its peak, costs around 6.6% of GDP with collections never less than 4.4%. So, whether you believe the fund to be solvent or not is somewhat the red herring. If there is a policy question of whether the government of the people, having agreed to a scheme of retirement benefits for the people, believes a maximum of 2.2% of GDP should be spent by the people on such benefits, then now is an appropriate time to have that discussion. What does need to be discussed, and soon, is Medicare. Over the same forecast horizon, the Trustees report shows Medicare expenses growing to more than 18% of GDP. I don't know if you keep track, Kevin, but the government currently collects about 16.7% of GDP in total revenue. Historically, those collections have been less than 20%. So, if there is no fix of Medicare, the policy question above regarding SS is irrelevant since the governement, and the people, will be insolvent. Gregory: Social Security doesn't have a problem, but we have a problem with fiscally irresponsible Republican policies. Al Gore, 2000 Campaign, "lockbox". Oh, he claimed he invented the Internet (except that he didn't). And the opponent's brother and his campaign manager in a key state conspired to remove over 100k people from the voter rolls, using race as a key identifying factor. Whatever. Kevin Drum Why are you Democratic pundits still reacting to every Republican who puts forth a proposal. Don't Democratic pundits have a sufficient number positive ideas to create a Democratic program? Just in case you didn't notice, we won. We get to set the agenda. Don't let conservatives like Mallaby set if for us. Please. You have the audience. Start talking about center left Democratic topics. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 27, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINKOh, and alex is also a red herring, as well as a gullible dupe of the sort right wing radio has relied on for 15 years. No independent thought required; just listen every day, regurgitate and repeat. Pretty soon, you think you thought of it yourself. Al Gore said he invented the internet....where do these people come from? Posted by: TJM on November 27, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking from the left: The Pozen Plan doesn't seem like a bad idea. Why not combine it with raising the cap and call it a day? I know there are other priorities at the moment, but why not put forth a compromise plan now, while Democrats have the majority, and make it politically impossible to come back to privitization down the road? Then Democrats can pivot to the impending Medicare crisis with some credibility as problem solvers in tow... Posted by: PhillyJeff on November 27, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKThe right wing apparently freeze dried their cant and lies from the last time we discussed Social Security. Now, bozos like Al are just adding water to it. Guys, reality didn't change. You're not saying anything new. Been there, refuted you. Go away.
Win or lose, while we re-argue social security, health care, and how to escape Iraq, George's family and friends will continue to get richer and richer. UhOh is right. This is the essence of it. All the other words are just a smokescreen. Bush wants to give all the money to Wall Street, where they can redistribute it to suit their needs. We'll be told later that our own poor investing cost us our pensions. So sorry. Posted by: merciless on November 27, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKJust in case you didn't notice, we won. We get to set the agenda. Don't let conservatives like Mallaby set if for us. Please. ...You have the audience. Start talking about center left Democratic topics. Word. That's my point -- Social Security privatization is a dead letter, period. The Democrats sinply need to move forward with fiscal responsibility -- again, simply by not allowing Bush's tax cuts on the agenda at all. Republicans may howl, but any "tax increase" caused by tax cuts sunsetting would be one Bush himself signed. How about them apples? Posted by: Gregory on November 27, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKOne reason for the coming Social Security shortfall is the imbalance between workers paying into the system and retirees drawing benefits. This is driven by the fact that the trustees project that our life expectancies will continue to increase, but our work careers will NOT get any longer. To keep the ratio of workers to benefiaries in balance, we have to increase the retirement age. Posted by: Will on November 27, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKAdam: Mallaby is a tool. Prior to the midterm election he did a concern troll piece citing particular democrats' support for the steel 201 proceedings ... Mallaby ain't the worst of 'em, but he's certainly an idiot when it comes to trade. Instead of ignoring the elephant in the living room, he dismisses it with hand waving. From his "Why Globalization Has Stalled" column: Now consider the International Monetary Fund. Critics from Tim Adams, the top international man at the Bush Treasury, to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, declare that the IMF needs to justify its existence by shaming currency manipulators, foremost among them China. This is tantamount to saying that the IMF should close down, since there's no chance whatsoever that the Chinese are going to change their currency policy just because the IMF tells them to. So let's just forget the elephant. With currency manipulation there can't be anything approaching "free" trade. Get a clue, Sebastian. Even Robert J. Samuelson (the economist, not the columnist), one of the great gurus of "free" trade, is saying that desperate problems call for desperate measures. See his A Trade Tightrope With China column in Newsweek. Posted by: alex on November 27, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKPhillyJeff: The Pozen Plan doesn't seem like a bad idea. Why not combine it with raising the cap and call it a day? Because the whole non-existent Social Security crisis is a distraction, analogous to mowing your lawn when your house is on fire. There's only so much Congress can do in a session, so don't play the other team's game. Posted by: alex on November 27, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINKWe need to start using what we've learned to connect the dots. Yes, there is a coming problem with Medicare- because we don't have socialized medicine, and we pay way too much for healthcare. Will the government be solvent and able to honor the SS bonds? Only if we cut the wasteful spending on weapons and the drug war. It's time to make SS a real third rail- bring up the topic and not only is the rightwing B-S rebutted, but the real roots of the problems are discussed. Because Republicans like Bush would be happy to take this country south of Mexico when it comes to our standard of living, and some of his knuckle-walking supporters would be happy to go there. People who have twelve children, think MacDonalds is a gourmet treat, and don't mind working in a job where you don't need no fancy booklearning- to these people death holds no fear. They're not going to help us get the country back in the realm of advanced societies. So the next time someone tells you SS is going broke, tell them "No, SS loaned money to a government that might go broke. SS is just fine if we can stop the wasteful spending that's bankrupting the government." Then, if you don't have your own favorite example, talk about the money we waste on war- a trillion here, a trillion there, and before you know it, we're talking about real money. Posted by: serial catowner on November 27, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINKMalaby can't even get the simple stuff straight. The 2006 cap on the payroll tax is not $90,000 as he says, it's $94,200. It would have taken him about 30 seconds to check this. Posted by: Ralph on November 27, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKan item on curbing pork-barrel spending, by denying the earmarks or exposing them to sunlight: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009304 Previously presented as a case of Republican irresponsibility, the notion has bipartisan support. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 28, 2006 at 5:07 AM | PERMALINKserial catowner wrote: "So the next time someone tells you SS is going broke, tell them "No, SS loaned money to a government that might go broke. SS is just fine if we can stop the wasteful spending that's bankrupting the government." Then, if you don't have your own favorite example, talk about the money we waste on war- a trillion here, a trillion there, and before you know it, we're talking about real money." That's undoubtedly true, sc. But who among us is confident that future lawmakers and Administrations will stop spending? Once the the SS fund starts running a deficit and needs to be paid back from the general funds, whoever is in charge will be faced with less money for discretionary spending. Provided Congress doesn't decide to reduce SS benefits, the choices then will be even more deficit spending or somehow raising revenue. If our plan is to wait until forced to do something, we're not likely to enjoy the results. Without some action fairly soon, prudent parents should advise their children to lay in some alternative retirement plans. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINKmaybe that action (whatever form it takes) should come from military and government retirees. Do you think they noticed that when GWB called the SS notes worthless, he was telling them their retirement obligations are funded with the same "worthless notes"? If you look at the Monthly Treasury Statement the obligations are carried exactly as are the SS notes. "Just in case anyone is interested, I don't think there's a Democrat on the planet who worries about income inequality among the ranks of Social Security retirees. And Mallaby's "less quickly than now scheduled" is just a cute way of saying that under the Pozen plan middle class retirees of the future would receive a smaller percentage of their average earnings than they do now. I don't think I'd have to take off my shoes to count the number of progressives who think that's a good idea." They ought to worry about it. First of all, the Pozen formula doesn't change benefits for current retirees, it changes them for future retirees. And under current law, Social Security is becoming far less progressive, by household income, because it is increasingly disconnected from the way that American households are organized. The fact that Social Security pays far lower returns to low-income single heads of household and low-income two-earner couples than it does to high-income one-earner couples could possibly be dismissed as an unimportant quirk of the system in bygone days. But in the future, it means that most of the benefit growth above inflation will go to higher-income households unless the system's structure is changed. This is because the percentage of low-income individuals who get benefits based on their own earnings, instead of being bumped up by spousal benefits, is rising dramatically. The Pozen formulation is designed to address this. The alternative, under the current system, is to impose higher taxes on everyone in order to fund benefit growth above inflation to higher-income households. People need to stop sloganeering and take a serious look at how to address Social Security's fiscal and distributional issues, and progressives have at least as great a motivation to do that as anyone else. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 30, 2006 at 3:33 AM | PERMALINK 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
