Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97

Thread: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommittee’

  1. #61
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Yeah. People freely investing money into US treasuries.
    yup. because they are available thanks to the fact that we engage in profligate deficit spending.

    of course, if Treasuries weren't available, they would put it all in a giant tower and go swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.

    Or are you going to show me how the government is forcing people to buy debt at gun point?
    nope. are you going to show me the money silos in Canada from when that government started to reduce its' expenditures?

    Hint: It's time for you to flee.
    hint: you don't actually intimidate anyone. you have 'being an asshole' confused with 'being correct'.

    Want to explain to me how someone freely investing money is taking money out of the economy when that money wouldn't be used as evident by large cash amounts piling up collectively on corporate and individual balance sheets?
    and in the money silos!

    I've pointed this out before and you just run. And spending on things like bridges is hardly the same as a loan guarantee.
    that's a good point. the government is far more likely to waste the money in the construction process than the company is to go completely belly up - especially if the United States makes sure that the taxpayers get protected.... oh, wait, that last bit didn't happen, did it?

    I brought up Solyndra because you are always insisting that if we just took money, ran it through government,and then let politicians allocate massive sums trying to pick out the winners in the alternative energies market that somehow that would lead us onward and upward into massive growth.

    now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.

    Or do you not know what a loan guarantee is?
    don't worry OC. I'm sure you make way much more money than the guys who used to pick on you in High School. they're probably convenience-store attendants, still reliving their glory days. and lots of women say it doesn't even matter what size your penis is.

    I find it amusing all you can do now is just snipe. I guess that's the expected outcome when I stripped you of your only argument before you could even make it.


    Furthermore, that $5 in expenses (grossly overexaggerated btw)
    It's a simplification to be sure - but accounting for the entire collection, management, procurement, disbursement, and every single worker's paycheck, benefits, office supplies along the way? before we even start working on things like environmental impact studies? I wouldn't be surprised to find out I missed the mark low.

    should actually create more than $5 in eventual activity as the money gets spent over and over again.
    just like the Bush stimulus checks that saved us from an economic crash did. meanwhile, otherwise that money would have just sat in that ole money silo, being swam in.

    Really, I seriously doubt after all your posts you have any idea what a spending multiplier actually is.
    oh i get the theory. I just happen to know that due to the fact that it ignores that the money comes from somewhere, that it is bull.

    Btw: still cowardly ignoring that I see?
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059917348
    that's where it is! good deal.
    Last edited by cpwill; 11-01-11 at 07:43 AM.

  2. #62
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,704

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    This is what we do...we trumpet the notion that a 3 trillion dollar reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is somehow a triumph (as long as that 3 trillion is accompanied by tax increases) whole ignoring the fact that we are deficit spending 1,3 trillion a YEAR. 13 trillion over 10 years, minus the 3 trillion in proposed 'savings' still results in a net DEBT of 10 trillion and a TOTAL national debt of 25 TRILLION. These arent CUTS. I just cannot see how people cannot (or will not) understand this. Our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are going to ahve to pay this debt...but screw them...right? As long as we can continue to be irresponsible and shove off debt to future generations...

    Yay congress! Way to go! We should by all means continue to support those clowns.

  3. #63
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    This is what we do...we trumpet the notion that a 3 trillion dollar reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is somehow a triumph (as long as that 3 trillion is accompanied by tax increases) whole ignoring the fact that we are deficit spending 1,3 trillion a YEAR. 13 trillion over 10 years, minus the 3 trillion in proposed 'savings' still results in a net DEBT of 10 trillion and a TOTAL national debt of 25 TRILLION. These arent CUTS. I just cannot see how people cannot (or will not) understand this. Our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are going to ahve to pay this debt...but screw them...right? As long as we can continue to be irresponsible and shove off debt to future generations...

    Yay congress! Way to go! We should by all means continue to support those clowns.
    So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  4. #64
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yup. because they are available thanks to the fact that we engage in profligate deficit spending.
    While that is true, admitting that does not help your argument. You just admitted people freely do so. There goes your crackpot argument that the government is taking people's money away from them.

    Until you can prove that people are forced at gun point to buy US debt, your "Taking" argument is bunk.

    of course, if Treasuries weren't available, they would put it all in a giant tower and go swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.
    It's sad that all you have now after I stripped you of your best argument is to make idiotic comments that are functionally irrelevant.

    nope. are you going to show me the money silos in Canada from when that government started to reduce its' expenditures?
    Considering I never argued that, I don't have to. I don't have to prove a fabricated argument you made. You however, have to prove that people are being forced to buy debt and therefore are having their monies taken from them.

    The fact that your arguments have devolved into worthless tripe is a sign you have nothing. It's amazing how quickly you fall to pieces when your sole weapon is rendered non-fuctional before you even have time to pull it out.

    hint: you don't actually intimidate anyone. you have 'being an asshole' confused with 'being correct'.
    Asshole and correct are not mutually exclusive. It must burn you up that I'm constantly right and constantly pointing out how you are wrong.

    that's a good point. the government is far more likely to waste the money in the construction process than the company is to go completely belly up - especially if the United States makes sure that the taxpayers get protected.... oh, wait, that last bit didn't happen, did it?
    Its amusing you still don't know what a loan guarantee is. But you think you can talk about the subject despite a painfully clear ignorance about it all.

    I brought up Solyndra because you are always insisting that if we just took money, ran it through government,and then let politicians allocate massive sums trying to pick out the winners in the alternative energies market that somehow that would lead us onward and upward into massive growth.
    Oh look. Cpwill deprived of his sole argument resorts to outright lying. I never said such thing at all. My point to which you are once again cowardly avoiding is that direct immediate large cuts to spending will cause another recession which will lead to a worse outcome. Your proposal, that cutting is the answer will make the situation worse. Please respond to what I actually said, not OBVIOUS fabrications you hope will stick because you have absolutely nothing left to throw at me.

    now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.
    No, I'm going to reiterate you are liar. Spain's problem is largely a housing issue. Their housing issue is arguably worse then ours on a per capita basis. That is severely dragging down its economy, and therefore tax revenues causing a growing deficit problem. You know, you wouldn't lose so many arguments if you just bothered to educate yourself about the topic. Trying to cast all of the PIGS as coming from the same problem is extremely ignorant. Ireland stemmed from a single phrase offered by a Fianna Fail finance minster (who recently died of a heart attack) offering a blanket guarantee to banks. (This is a sign I know more then you do). Spain from massive housing bubble. Greece from a variety of issues, stemming from a culture of wholesale tax evasion, failure to curtail spending and backing banks' lending to increase exports. You can't use the same argument against all of them because their situations and causes are all different. You of all people should know that one size fits all doesn't work when you bash Obamacare. But here you have no problem doing that. That makes you a hypocrite.

    don't worry OC. I'm sure you make way much more money than the guys who used to pick on you in High School. they're probably convenience-store attendants, still reliving their glory days. and lots of women say it doesn't even matter what size your penis is.
    So no, you don't. That's pretty sad Cpwill. You're down to sniping this early in the thread. I'm embarrassed for you.
    Thanks for proving my point. It's amusing to watch you fall to pieces so fast when I killed you only argument.

    It's a simplification to be sure - but accounting for the entire collection, management, procurement, disbursement, and every single worker's paycheck, benefits, office supplies along the way? before we even start working on things like environmental impact studies? I wouldn't be surprised to find out I missed the mark low.
    That's because you have shown a severe lack of understanding of what a spending multiplier is. The same reason you think that economic data isolated from each other are good ways to examining highly complex outcomes when you refuse to run linear regression. Essentially, you are less obnoxious Conservative. Can't read or understand data.

    just like the Bush stimulus checks that saved us from an economic crash did. meanwhile, otherwise that money would have just sat in that ole money silo, being swam in.
    TARP saved our butts. Unless you think that it's good for banks not to lend to each other for a mere 8 hours.

    oh i get the theory. I just happen to know that due to the fact that it ignores that the money comes from somewhere, that it is bull.
    So when are you going to prove that people buy debt because the government points guns at them?

    You keep harping back to that, but you freely admit that people invest. Therefore that money is freely given. Meaning that it is NOT forcibly taken from better opportunities. Stop your parrot arguments and come up with something decent for a change.

    that's
    where it is! good deal.
    So. Going to be a coward as usual. Got it.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #65
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    hey, where's my pictures of the money silos?



    look ya'll - this is what rich people do with their money whenever treasuries aren't available.

  6. #66
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    While that is true, admitting that does not help your argument. You just admitted people freely do so. There goes your crackpot argument that the government is taking people's money away from them.
    not really - selling treasuries still accomplishes that. it just doesn't do it through coercion.

    the POINT, which is that selling treasuries is removing money from the private market and turning it into public expenditures remains.

    Until you can prove that people are forced at gun point to buy US debt, your "Taking" argument is bunk.
    until you can prove that treasuries don't get sold and therefore the government is using magic money that would have had no alternate uses, your "broken window = riches" argument is bunk.

    It's sad that all you have now after I stripped you of your best argument is to make idiotic comments that are functionally irrelevant.
    i can't decide whether it's sadder that you think this is my only argument, or that you think your pathetic strawman has somehow stripped it.

    Considering I never argued that, I don't have to. I don't have to prove a fabricated argument you made. You however, have to prove that people are being forced to buy debt and therefore are having their monies taken from them.
    not at all; I am merely arguing that if they had not bought debt, they would have done something else with the money; whether savings, investment, or direct consumption. your argument is dependent upon the assumption that had they not bought treasuries that wealth would have not have been used for any other purpose. it assumes no cost-benefit for letting the government allocate those funds v letting the market allocate those funds - which requires that the market must not be able to allocate them. if you want to argue that the wealthy would have instead shoved it into mattresses, or set it on fire... however it is that you think that it would have been completely pulled out, I am willing to hear it.

    Asshole and correct are not mutually exclusive
    nor are they synonymous, though often the first is indication that the second is not present. people tend to most aggressively defend the positions they feel are least supported.

    It must burn you up that I'm constantly right and constantly pointing out how you are wrong.


    1. it couldn't because I am not trying to compensate for RW weakness by being a cyber-jackoff
    2. it doesn't because the more you argue the more I realize how deeply flawed your analysis is. you aren't even particularly good at defending your positions - you're just needy.

    Its amusing you still don't know what a loan guarantee is.


    a loan guarantee is just that. we basically give another entity our credit rating by agreeing to meet the remainder of the debt should they go belly up - and it costs us nothing... until they do. but i think it's funny how you have to insist that no one is capable of knowing this but you.

    Oh look. Cpwill deprived of his sole argument resorts to outright lying
    not at all - you have on many occasions called for massive public investment in alternative energies.

    My point to which you are once again cowardly avoiding is that direct immediate large cuts to spending will cause another recession which will lead to a worse outcome.
    i haven't avoided it at all, i've pointed out the false assumptions in the claim you are making. namely:

    1. if the government isn't spending the money, then that money will not exist.
    2. massive government expenditure will not distort incentives and will not lead to less efficient allocation of resources

    hence the flaw in your "reduction in government spending = reduction in demand" theory. there are plenty of reasons (and multiple historical examples) that indicate that in fact reducing the share of the economy that is taken up by the government will increase productivity and demand.


    but, if you like, we could put this to a simple enough test. let us take a list of OECD nations broken down by the size of their government relative to GDP. and then let us list the same nations, but now in order of growth - and let's average for the last 10, 15, and 20 years or so so as to not have outlier years spoil the test. what do you want to bet that the developed nations with higher portions of government spending will grow faster?

    Your proposal, that cutting is the answer will make the situation worse.
    no, it will not, because it will reudce the percentage of resources currently being allocated for reasons of politics and increase the percentage of resources being allocated for reasons of efficiency and return.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill
    now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Obvious Child
    Spain's problem is largely a housing issue. Their housing issue is arguably worse then ours on a per capita basis. That is severely dragging down its economy, and therefore tax revenues causing a growing deficit problem.
    YAY! I Win my bet! you...just...can't....help....it, can you?


    Sorry, but Spain's Problems precede the Housing Bubble popping

    ...Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created....
    You know, you wouldn't lose so many arguments if you just bothered to educate yourself about the topic. Trying to cast all of the PIGS as coming from the same problem is extremely ignorant. Ireland stemmed from a single phrase offered by a Fianna Fail finance minster (who recently died of a heart attack) offering a blanket guarantee to banks. (This is a sign I know more then you do). Spain from massive housing bubble. Greece from a variety of issues, stemming from a culture of wholesale tax evasion, failure to curtail spending and backing banks' lending to increase exports. You can't use the same argument against all of them because their situations and causes are all different. You of all people should know that one size fits all doesn't work when you bash Obamacare. But here you have no problem doing that. That makes you a hypocrite.
    huh. and what does it make you for depending so desperately on strawmen? you haven't merely claimed that keynesian theory stands even though it has failed with regards to the recent fiscal crises, your argument is that it stands even though it's public spending proscription has failed consistently whenever it's been tried for the last 20 years.

    So no, you don't. That's pretty sad Cpwill. You're down to sniping this early in the thread
    HAH! youare accusing others of being insulting and dismissive? project much?

    Thanks for proving my point. It's amusing to watch you fall to pieces so fast when I killed you only argument.
    you do realize that constructing and then smashing a strawman doesn't actually count as defeating an argument?

    That's because you have shown a severe lack of understanding of what a spending multiplier is.
    no, i know how the theory works. I just also know that the theory is bunk because (again) it assumes that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis on having government v the market allocate those resources - that you can just pretend that those resources had no other possible use.

    The same reason you think that economic data isolated from each other are good ways to examining highly complex outcomes
    which is funny coming from the guy who insists that you can track the benefits of government spending independent of the alternate uses available to those funds.

    TARP saved our butts.
    fail again - I wasn't referencing Tarp but rather Bush's stupid keynesian "prime the pump by sending everyone a check/tax credit" idea.

    So when are you going to prove that people buy debt because the government points guns at them?
    I have never claimed so. your theory, however, depends upon the assumption that had they not purchased that debt, that the money would have been used in no other economic activity. and so that is what I am waiting for you to prove.

    show me the money........... silos.

    You keep harping back to that, but you freely admit that people invest. Therefore that money is freely given. Meaning that it is NOT forcibly taken from better opportunities
    yes. i freely admit it because i have never argued otherwise. in fact, my argument is dependent upon the notion that people wish to buy treasuries, and will do so given the opportunity.

    So. Going to be a coward as usual. Got it.
    I'll admit, you are a dead horse i can only get so much amusement from beating.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I'm starting to question your capacity to read.
    For the record. I read nothing you wrote after this. It tells me you have nothing to say.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That's hardly a sentiment shared by the slash and burn crowd. I do agree that tax cuts alone will not get us out of the hole. We'd have to basically eviscerate the budget to basically nothing to pay off the debt. Cutting even just the entire discretionary won't erase the deficit. We have to raise taxes and cut services. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional, incapable of doing math or exceptionally dishonest. What I don't get is how people think how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will increase spending when you take into account spending multipliers.
    I can provide links that show these "multipliers" are anything but. You'll just dismiss it as no one wanting to provide evidence against what you write.

    What happens when millions of people lose their jobs from those cuts? They spend less. Who suffers? Everyone dependent on their spending. So the second round of cuts start. Who suffers from the first level of indirect? People who rely on their spending. So on and so forth. People who think that massive cuts to demand won't cause domino effects are stupid. We see this right now with government cuts. DOD firms are cutting back as they see the coming defense cuts. Who suffers? Their suppliers. They cut back. Who suffers? Their employees and everyone who depends on their spending. Only idiots think the economy is simple and that changes don't flow through huge networks.
    Unfortunately this will happen to a point because people do not want to address fraud and waste. That fraud and waste is going to campaign supporters in part. I believe we can make budget changing cuts by addressing fraud and waste. That is where I would start. The head of a program would be instructed to cut X amount without cutting employee's or services. If they are unable, they would be the one replaced. Nobody is argueing that the deficit will be eliminated overnight.

    Now if we just want to cut people, people are going to get even madder than they are now and sooner or later the deficit will have to be addressed. I'm not sure how you think we will get the economy going by taking more money from people.

    And did you get flak from that from the so called "right?"
    No I didn't. Maybe Obama should try it and see what happens. He'll never do it.

    Fiscally, it is conservative in light of our debt that we have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending. There is no other way to do it mathematically. Generally, those who have real critical thinking problems here, who have problems reading and doing math are those who are pushing the cuts only policy. I'd name names but I'd get warned.
    Well, when someone proposes that let me know.

    Actually I always argued it failed in its original stated purpose of adding jobs. What I take offense to is the morons who said it did nothing.
    I think it's far more likely that they simply dismiss you because you call them morons. It most certainly did something. It got us further into debt.

    Not because of their ideological views, but because of their sheer inability to critically think. Apparently they think that in the absence of the stimulus which kept demand relatively stable, demand would have stayed stable despite all indicators to the contrary. It's like they have no concept of how demand plays a central role in a modern economy.
    The stimulus curbed demand. This is what you can not seem to understand and you want to call others a moron because you refuse to see the complete picture. People realized that the government borrowed $800 billion and frittered it away and that the bill is going to come due so we better get our finances in order for that day. The more the government spends, the less the tax providers are going to spend.

    Not all stimulus is the same. Spending on infrastructure which pays proverbial dividends over decades is hardly the same as a one time tax rebate. Furthermore, remember that a third of the stimulus wasn't actual spending per se. It was tax cuts. They were probably too small in the same light as Bush's. On top of that, much of the real spending happened well after it was needed. The stimulus failed partially because it was not targeted and it was not timely. It is not valid to argue all stimuluses are the same. We probably don't even need another stimulus at this rate (politics aside). But we do not need real dramatic immediate cuts. I have yet to see a reputable economist who thinks that dramatic immediate cuts will increase employment quickly.
    Your requirement is dismissable. "dramatic" "immediate" "quickly". All dismissable arguements. Sorry, Obama had his shot at "stimulus". As you note he blew it. He's not getting another shot at it. With things like Solyndra and all the other examples of Obama enriching those who contribute to him, nobody is willingly going to entrust him with another penny.

    Considering that both Bush's stimulus and Obama's were entirely debt financed, your argument only works if people were forced to buy debt at gun point. You cannot back that up. So stop using that argument.
    You are the one who said people used the money for "necessities". I simply said that allowing people to keep their money to buy "necessities" can not be completely deemed a failure.

    I also have no doubt in a short amount of time you'll once again argue that nobody will address any of your points.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
    As I said, when someone actually proposes that, let me know.

  10. #70
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,704

    Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
    The obvious thing to do is become a little more honest and realistic. We cant sustain debt at this rate. We certainly SHOULDNT pass our irresponsibility off on our grandchildren. Reasoned and rational people would look at the entire system, top to bottom and revise everything. If we insist on 'reducing spending we can' we allow partisan politicians to defend their special projects as mandatory and never make cuts. Until there is a firm commitment to less than deficit spending with a plan to pay down the debt, taxes shouldnt be raised a dime...thats like throwing 15 fully loaded syringes at a heroin addict and then acting hurt and surprised that the heroin addict used them. We cannot sustain what the fed has become. Departments and programs MUST be cut. Once you have reached that as a realistic perspective, THEN target tax increases specifically designed to pay down the debt.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •