Karee

No the job is to introduce laws and pass or don't pass them through majority vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Yeah well if they don't work, you pay.

Exactly. That's part of the problem.

Yeah, so? I have not said anything about anyone being guaranteed a job. Getting late?

An hour earlier than it is there.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed

http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/

First one ###***les.

Second one ###***les.

Third one [it sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22] Sounds like????

Fourth one same as #3.

Come on, Marv. You know better.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, that's not a serious and reasonable position to take looking at the job market in the US. The service sector makes up a significant portion of the workforce that many people will thus not be able to escape. Other industries do not have the demand for the number of workers that the service industries employ. These people deserve to be able to provide for themselves and their families in return for an honest day's work same as people that work in other industries. Simple as that.

No one is guaranteed a job in this country. That's not how it works.

He said these ******* always get away, even though TM had done nothing wrong. FACT

bull$hit. NBC said that. GZ didn't say that.

That would be Ford, Reagan, Clinton and George W that you'd be castrating. Three Republicans, one Democrat. Who would have thought, eh? It's the wrong focus, though. I'm much more concerned with millionaires deducting the mortgage interest for their mansions than I am with the Walmart worker catching a break to put food on the family table. You know, if not so fortunate people could still earn a living doing an honest day's work, there would be no need for EITC. EITC is really a subsidy to corporations and their shareholders. It's structured so that the nation would hate on the little guy rather than the fat cat. And judging from your comment, it seems to be working as intended.

Always remember, our tax code was bought and paid for by those that can afford to buy and pay for it. It was not designed by - or for - the little man.

No one is forcing anyone to work at Walmart. They don't like it, don't work there.

The govt. shouldn't be paying people to sit on their a$$ and generate future welfare recipients. Abortion and birth control should be free for low income people

not the first time i've heard that, but let's not make readers wonder.

Why don't women protest without panties?

While walking on their hands.

You need a total understanding of the situation and we need more info. Please keep in mind we all want to help you not be critical of what you have or will do.

My first question is about her " marriage ". In Thailand it is common to describe a relationship such as she says she has with this Thai man as being married when many people are not really legally married. I would tell her you need a copy of her Thai marriage certificate. You will later need a copy of her divorce cert if she is in fact married. Thais do not marry because doing so gives the man access to the families assets. Thai law doesn't protect women as the laws here do.

Do not attempt to start the K 1 process until you are certain she is divorced. Do not send money or pay for anything from this point forward. Please follow this advise until you have a better understanding of these affairs. Pun intended Karee.

I hope Karee and some other members experienced with Thailand will add some insight today as well.

I will send you a P M later today.

I'm not touching this one.

Just for the record I think it's about the dumbest thing I've ever seen that there's more than 1 gun for every man woman and child in this country. Unfortunately, I'm only one person. I find it a little creepy at times people's obsession with guns. But it is the law and it's not changing anytime soon. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Well,

I mean, gun control has been on the table for a while, but when Clinton signed the anti-assault bill into law, there was no uprising.

It has to be because he's black of course.

No uprising? Are you kidding?

The 1994 U.S. House of Representatives election (also known as the Gingrich Revolution) was held on November 8, 1994, in the middle of President Bill Clinton's first term. As a result of a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives for the first time since 1952 and a majority of votes for the first time since 1946.

She's toast.

I agree. And next time we have a budget surplus, we should not cut taxes to make sure that the surplus is turned into huge deficts.

Next time we have a surplus (yeah right), they should send everyone a check.

They need to do away with that Earned Income Tax Credit B.S. as well. Whoever came up with that should have their balls cut off.

Call it an intellectual-property-fees reclamation,

True though.

You mean pay-go? Well, Republicans abandoned that in the earlier 2000's. They'll abandon it each and every time they run the show for deficits only matter when they're not in charge. You should know that.

Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Wiccans, I don't care. It should be that way.

Well, that's my vote then, remove the fictional debt ceiling and let's get on.

Or better yet make sure they can't spend more than they take in.

They're worried about their investment.

I would be interested to see that too.

Are you familiar with the multiplication effect? This is the idea that money changing hands is worth more than the sum of its parts. So if the gov spends a dollar to pay a worker, then that worker buys food, the restaurant pays their worker, and also their supplier, then the worker who got paid does this all again, then the supplier pays their distributor, who pays the farmer, who pays the tractor maker, who pays the steel company, who pay their workers, who buy food, etc.

The government collects tax on all of this too.

I think economists calculate this.

I didn't realize there was a name for it, but I understand the principle that when a dollar is spent on something, that dollar has more than just the effect of making they guy that got the dollar, a dollar richer. Of course that guy has to sepnd that dollar and not stick it in his mattress or bury it in his back yard. I guess my problem is that it's not good to rely on government spending to prop up the economy. I understand the government needs to spend money, but to have govt. spending account for almost 40% of GDP is ridiculous.

We need to tackle non-discretionary spending and / or bring the revenues in line with the anticipated spending. There is no debate that there are long term issues that require resolution. That resolution will likely mean a combination of reduced expenditures and increased revenues. A simpler tax code that doesn't give away more than a trillion dollars in the way of exemptions and credits each year might be helpful. And there are certainly items we spend money on that we shouldn't spend money on. We don't need to subsidize oil and sugar, for example. But we do. Gotta put away with that. There are probably benefits paid out to millions of people that do not need them - we gotta take a look at that. Then there's the outrageous military budget that needs to be pared back to more reasonable levels.

But all that needs to happen in a give-and-take kind of way and it needs to happen in an orderly fashion. What is happening here at current from the Republican side is beyond ridiculous. They have abandoned any sense of reason and reality and continue to throw a temper tantrum over issues that they can't win at the ballot box and that they can't win in the courts. That's not a reasonable approach and that is not going to make anything better nor is it going to solve a single issue. It's irresponsible and outright dangerous. It's domestic terrorism, really.

I agree with 100% of everything you said above except the part about blaming the Republicans for everything. I think they all share the blame. Congress, Obama, Reagan, Grover Cleveland, whatever. The issue as I see it is that none of those dimwits are going to do anything to resolves this issue unless they are forced to. This "shutdown" seems like a good way to force them to do it. They should have a balanced budget ammendment that can only be overridden in times of war or some other major calamity. They should not be able to spend one more dime than they take in. I'm not buying this B.S. about having to increase the deficit to grow the economy. I could see that if the debt was at a manageable level, but it's not. That debt has to be paid back at some point, and it is ultra irresponsible to keep it growing. We don't need all this frivolous bullsh!t with parks and monuments, and sugar subsidies and corn subsidies. All thois things are nice to have if you have the money to pay for them. We don't

If the government helps keep the economy going, people make more money, and pay more taxes.

I'd be curious if there's some non-partisan numbers out there that show for every $1 the govt. spends, how much does that actually contribute to the economy? Keep in mind they would have to take into account the interest they would have to pay on those funds when calculating the return, since they have to borrow any money they spend.

No, that is incorrect. There are no rims, stereos or paint jobs on the docket. Discretionary spending is at the lowest level in decades. Our infrastructure is being neglected to a point where it is almost criminal. What you are and have been advocating for is not getting that transmission fixed becasue we don't have that $500.00. That's short-sighted nonsense that will cause this country to be in deeper #######, owing more money rather than less and having a smaller economy to tackle that larger debt with.

So should we raise taxes? I mean something has to give.

Subliminal message received.

Now Obama gives out free rims with each vote.

Fascinating insight into the mind of the right wing voter.

It's obvious you can't carry on a conversation at the adult table since you have no contributions to the discussion, besides what you think are funny one liners Go play:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/457007-postcount-game-take-2/

Well, you could even use that checkbook analogy. Say you have an issue with the transmission in your car that requires a repair worth $500.00 that you do not have. You need your car because you'll lose your job if you can't make there and you can't make it there without your car. If you don't get the repair done, your transmission will blow and you'll be looking at a $2,500.00 repair.

The sound decision is to get that $500.00 repair done and finance the $500.00. That would mean that you're probably be spending maybe $550.00 or even $600.00 for that repair. Still better than either of the alternatives which is a $2,500.00 repiar or the loss of your income. The latter - both of the latter - is what the tea party freaks and someone here on VJ are rooting for.

That's a display of utter ignorance of the issues at hand even if one was to use the checkbook analogy. So, while they bring it up all the time, they don't really grasp it at that level either.

THe probelm is that not only are they getting the transmission repaired, they're getting 20 inch rims, a brand new sound system, a new paint job, and other un-needed things.

But the government shutdown doesn't solve that issue either. We are losing money every day, not gaining money. See, there is one difference between macroeconomics and household budgeting.

How are we losing money? By paying workers that aren't working?