A MUCH bigger issue than wienerwanking is the trillions that continue to be given away

[Stinky The Clown]

Its been ten years.

Tax cuts.

Trillions in tax cuts paid for with money we don't have.

And they continue. Unabated. No end in sight. Fat cats getting fatter.

While we argue about weinerwanking.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Actually the arguement is that I am due beer and travel money and that has not been sent.

But there are many fronts to engage in topics about that issue.

[Duer 157099]

2. You know, we all seem to accept your word on this

that you are due beer and travel money, and that it has not been sent.

But where is the proof? What if it has been sent but was lost in the mail?

And did you submit receipts in the first place?

[Moe Joe]

4. Don't mess with the man's beer!

:grr:

[RandomThoughts]

6. Actually it is probable that it was sent by a few people.

by now, and someone tried to steal it.

Although I don't see how that would effect that I am due beer and travel money.

I don't have to prove it to you. Why would I?




Faith Hill - Breathe (Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCmsZUN4r_s



Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5JkHBC5lDs

Bonnie Raitt - I Can't Make You Love Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW9Cu6GYqxo

Bonnie Raitt - Nick Of Time
http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=407128

Dire Straits - Walk of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CknuCTRAW_I

:loveya:

[Duer 157099]

8. Maybe not to me, but to whoever is supposed to be sending it

I was just pointing out that maybe the reason it hadn't been sent was because no receipts were submitted.

I am due riches beyond my wildest imaginings, and a long happy healthy life for myself and my loved ones.

Is it like that?

[RandomThoughts]

11. No, it is an actual debt from a smear.

done outside of justice.

I have specifically explained why beer and travel money is due. I don't know what you are talking about by receipts.

[Duer 157099]

19. A debt from a smear done outside of justice?

And this was specifically explained? Where, I am very curious, if you don't mind.

[RandomThoughts]

22. In many of the posts over the years.

I have posted the topic many times, how have you not seen it is a better topic.

I was smeared for defending due process rights of a cripple in a bar, by buying him a soft drink instead of being mean to him when told to I had to be mean to him by some wannabees, I explained that in many posts, then they started smearing me.

Although I am a bit busy right now, I have posted that many times, how would you not know that, and why are you curious now and not over the last years of posting?

[PDJane]

3. And the debt ceiling, which has the ability to collapse the

entire damn economy,and no-one is paying any attention!!! What the HELL is going on???

Weiner and his hands-off sexual peccadilloes are boring. We need the guy where he is and many more like him.

The most egregious problem is the damned economy! The debt ceiling, the social safety net that isn't, the debt for a college education that is practically useless, the disappearing middle class, the money that keeps flowing to the top, the lawlessness and corruption of the bought and paid-for government, the lack of unions.......

:banghead:

[grasswire]

5. bread and CIRCUSES -- a continual parade of circuses

Capture the news cycle by the circuses, to obfuscate the real happenings of the days.

[Obamaforthewin]

7. What about the spending

of money we don't have? What do you think of that?

[Stinky The Clown]

9. If we didn't have the money given away, we'd be spending money we have.

What do YOU think of that?

[Obamaforthewin]

12. I think that...

spending needs to be decreased by a very large margin. Even if we went back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, it would barely make a dent in the deficit. And it's not money that is given away, it's money that is not being taken.

[PDJane]

10. I think spending money you don't have, right now,

is the only sane thing to do. Tax the ones with too much, encourage unions, repair the social safety net and go for a big infrastructure repair and upgrade project.

The only logical way out is to grow the economy and build a real jobs program in the USA. The moneyed class will continue to move their cash offshore otherwise, and that's not going to help you.

Cutting out what's left of the safety net and giving everything that's left to the rich is self-destructive and more stupid than I can tell you without giving in to either profanity or pedantry.

[Obamaforthewin]

13. And you honestly think that

More taxes on anyone is going to grow the economy? Especially taxing the very people that are creating the jobs?

[Stinky The Clown]

14. ". . . . the very people that are creating the jobs?"

Hahahaha

HAAAAAAAAAhahahahaha

:snort:

Hehehehe

Heh

omigawd

Hahahahaha

[Obamaforthewin]

15. Have you ever taken a college level economics class?

Why do you think that Obama extended the cuts? Since you don't seem to understand I'll tell you. Raising taxes on the people that have the means to start businesses and HIRE people (create jobs) would limit their ability to do so. He wants the economy to grow, so he did not raise taxes.

Who do you think creates well paying jobs? Really, who do you think?

Your response was brilliant and well thought out by the way, very deep and mature.

[PDJane]

16. I've taken too many college level courses,

including economics.

The fallacy is that the folks with the money will only create jobs offshore unless the taxation system forces them to do otherwise. They invest that money, but unless they are forced to do so, those jobs will not be in the USA.

The only way out of the Great Depression, the only one that worked, was the investment in infrastructure, and then war spending, which meant more spending after the republicans wanted the spending cut...because of the growing deficit.

One more time. The government is the only entity that can ensure the food supply, the energy supply, medical care for everyone or almost everyone, and a life for the disadvantaged.

And your response is about as well thought our as the previous poster's laughter. He, at least, understands that the rich do not contribute anything to the GDP.

[Obamaforthewin]

17. "the rich do not contribute anything to the GDP"

I was honestly with you up until this point. You can't be serious.

Do you really think that every person that has money received it from a trust and plays polo and sits by the pool all day long?

Who do you think provides the majority of the money to help the disadvantaged?

[PDJane]

18. Yes.

They do donate a portion of their wealth to help the disadvantaged.

That still does not necessarily contribute to the GDP. That is money that is spent for things like tax avoidance. It doesn't make things here, which is what the GDP is about.

That is not money that produces things HERE. It is money that produces things THERE for consumption here. That is money that supports slavery.

That is the fallacy of the whole economic system. When you strip away the regulations, the taxation, the labour laws, the child labour laws, the infrastructure, you are left with a system that won't work for anyone except the very, very, rich...and not very well for them.

Those who have money have, essentially, given up on the U.S. economy. The world, if these folks have their way, is heading for a divide between rich and poor that we haven't seen since feudal Britain. The only way to head that off and to give people something to work with and for besides rampant consumerism, is to head towards socialist democracies. Not just here, but everywhere.

[Obamaforthewin]

20. You misunderstand what I meant.

I did not say or mean that contributing to the disadvantaged
was a measure of contributing to the GDP or economic growth.

The people with means (money, rich, whatever you want to call
them) ARE the one's that start companies and make things and
hire people, therefore contributing to the GDP. To say that
"rich" people don't contribute to the economy is
simply not true.

Who said anything about stripping away the regulations, the
taxation, the labour laws, the child labour laws, the
infrastructure? Jeez, talk about a red herring....

And to say that people that have money have given up on the US
economy? Why would they kill the goose that lays the golden
egg if all they care about is money? The majority of their
wealth is tied to the performance of the economy, in the form
of investments. Rich people do not have their money sitting in
FDIC insured bank accounts, trust me.

[PDJane]

21. Yes, they would.

Because the short term bottom line means more to most.

That's the problem with the Washington Concensus, AKA freidmanite economics, the greed is good bunch.

The rich do not contribute their fair share to the economy unless they are forced to. Period. I don't care how philanthropic they are (hell, Bill Gates is advocating an approach to schools that is insane). They take more than they give, always, and even the jobs they make will not pay a decent wage until the unions or the government force them too. Take the Koch brothers...and the Big Branch mine.

And as far as the labour laws and so on? If you listen to the republicans, you will find they want all those looser laws back, and are working towards them. They have been bought and they will be dropped once the corporations have everything they can take from them.