This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Giant Banks Lobby to Raise the Debt Ceiling and Slash Public Benefits ... So They Can Keep Sucking at the Public Teat
Economist Dean Banker notes:
Wall Street will suffer more than anyone from a default and it will not let it happen. The public should know this, certainly Wall Street does.
No wonder the fatcats running the giant banks which received tens of trillions in bailouts, loans and guarantees from the American public are screaming loudly that the debt ceiling must be raised.
Robert Reich points out:
Why has Standard & Poor's decided now's the time to crack down on the federal budget -- when it gave free passes to Wall Street's risky securities and George W. Bush's giant tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby contributing to the very crisis its now demanding be addressed?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Street pays Standard & Poor's bills?
Remember, the big 3 government-sponsored rating agencies routinely took bribes as their normal business model, committed massive fraud which greatly contributed to the financial crisis, covered up improper ratings after the fact, and otherwise sold their soul (in their own words). And see this and this.
Some complain about the poor sucking on the government teat.
But the fact that Wall Street controls the rating agencies, and the rating agencies are now creating an artificial emergency sounds like the powers-that-be - the giant banks which run this country - are trying to protect their government teat of perpetual bailouts from the public coffers.
And of course, they are the ones calling for slashing of spending which helps the public. Even though - as conservative writer Michael Rivero points out:
Social Security is not "unfunded" nor is it an "entitlement." That is YOUR money in that trust fund. You worked for it, and it was taken out of all your paychecks your entire working life.
The Social Security Trust fund invested your money by loaning it to the US Government, which is the largest single holder of US Government debt. But the US Government is already in default in fact, as the actual tax revenues have not even come close to the projections on which the budgets were drawn up.
So the US Government has looked at all the entities they owe money to and decided that stiffing the American people is the least likely to cause them harm. They will pay the bankers and they will pay foreign nations and they will continue to bail out Wall Street for the mortgage-backed securities fraud by embezzling your retirement money you gave them in trust. The US Government is robbing you to save the private central bank! [i.e. the big banks. See this and this.]
The debt crisis might be real ... I've been warning about it for years (and see this and this).
The potential downgrade to America's credit is real ... I've been warning about that for years, as well.
But the way that the rating agencies and Wall Street are approaching the debt ceiling debate is a scam. See this, this and this.
After all, they aren't even discussing the spending cuts which must be enacted to reduce our debt:
(1) Ending the imperial wars, which reduce - rather than strengthen - national security (and see this and this);
(2) Ending the never-ending bailouts for Wall Street;
(3) Prosecuting fraud and clawing back the ill-gotten gains;
(4) Ending the Bush tax cuts, which are hurting the economy; and
(5) Slashing pensions for public employees, at least when they are pegged to an artificially "spiked" final year's salary.
- advertisements -
Banks produce one thing: DEBT
raising debt ceiling = raising credit limit on Uncle Sam's credit card after maxing it out = banks have sold more "product"
I like your articles George and especialyy some of the remedies proposed in this one. But down the road, what do you think of this?
Honest and Sound Criticism of Zarlenga’s American Monetary ActJune 22, 2010 by Keith Gardner
Warning: This article is not recommended for those who consume William Volker Fund and Rockefeller Foundation propaganda on a daily basis from the Ludwig von Mises Insitute. It is recommended you see a doctor for a prescription of anti-psychotics and at minimum a 90-day detox from the propaganda you consume on a daily basis. After that is done, you should look up the definition of the word “fiat” and consider staying away from Ludwig von Mises Institute and related propaganda for a minimum of 2 years. I spent 5 years to detox from the Ludwig von Mises Institute and all political propaganda.
A response from Stephen Zarlenga and GnosticMedia: “#067 – A Response to the Austrian School – An Interview with Stephen Zarlenga, Part 3“
See also “Money’s Dirty Little Secret“
Critique of an Austrian Critique
The Ludwig von Mises Institute published a rather funny attack on Zarlenga’s American Monetary Act, titled innocently “Dangers of Monetary Reform” and written by Kaj Grussner, a tax adviser in Finland. I must admit that it is rather good sign considering the banker foundations, such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute, are now attacking honest monetary policy rather than ignoring them.
Kaj Grussner opens with a couple paragraphs stating that most Libertarian want either a gold standard or free market currencies, which are both rather ignorant wants. In the case of goldbugs and bankers, they’re actually betting on a gold or silver standard when they propose a free market in currency. States wouldn’t even be allowed to use anything but gold and silver as always limited by Article 1.10. More importantly, the bankers would push for a gold standard or something equally destructive, such as debt money, to be an accepted form of payment for taxes and debt, making gold and debt money effectively fiat, which is exactly what they did throughout American history. We’re also assuming the Congress can further delegate their duty in Article 1.8 to issue and regulate the currency completely to the free market without a Constitutional amendment.
However, Kaj does seem to admit the wants of most Libertarians are perhaps “too extreme” for the general public when presented a reasonable argument by Stephen Zarlenga. That is too funny. While most Libertarians may feel they’re a repressed minority, Ron Paul does get a lot of coverage in the mainstream media while honest and sound economists like Zarlenga who rely on historic fact get no mainstream media coverage.
I remember reading an article on the Cato Institute in attempt to find out what the Austrians actually want for a monetary policy. The author listed six options. The first five of them were gold standards of different sorts, inherently deflationary and full of theft and destruction of wealth. However, the final one was the favored option since it gave the bankers the most freedom to destroy wealth and manipulate the currency through a free market of unregulated inflationary and deflationary currencies, where the bankers and government choose which currency will be accepted for payment of taxes, which are the same ones the bankers find to be the most profitable for themselves, or the ones filled with the most usury for those who understand the various of theft through monetary policy.
The large banking interests constantly orchestrate bank panics, generate propaganda, and lobby government to favor their idea of an ideal monetary system. You’ll even find that bankers and their puppets, like Grover Cleveland, used the same words and propaganda that the Austrian economists use today, that gold is “sound” and “honest” money, in order to demonetize silver and the Greenback in favor of debt and gold. The silver was common enough that common people had access to it. The Greenback was beyond the control of the bankers since it was debt-free and commodity-free. The last time such currency was tried by the Americans was incidentally during the America Revolution and helped give us a nation for Lincoln to save during the Civil War. When it was tried during the American Revolution, it was such a threat to the European monarchs and bankers, the British engaged in economic warfare against it by counterfeiting it. If you understand the history of the United States, you’d understand this. If your economic school was based on scientific empirical evidence, rather than praxeology, you’d understand this.
“If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — London Times
Ironically, the financial adviser goes on to claim that “Neither Zarlenga nor Irwin are economists, but both have strong opinions about economics and economists.” Perhaps the financial adviser confuses political economy and radio talk show host with investment banking. Perhaps, he should realize that praxeology is a scientific term for non-scientific rhetorical arguments, commonly associated with a laymen term. I’ll refrain from the laymen term and just say it is fitting considering it involves droppings from a famous statue on Wall Street. He should realize that not only is the Austrian School of Economics not based on scientific principle which tests observations against theory, but rather a rhetorical practice of trying to argue to the faithful that the invisible hand of greed will have sound and honest fruits. Such practice is best described as a cult or religious study than a scientific study.
Being paid by banker foundations to propagandize a subject for political special interests doesn’t make a person an economist. It makes them charlatans. If a person faces historical facts, analyzes them without bias, and proposes practical solutions, they’re an economist. You don’t need foundation funding nor a finance degree. You do need to look at history, face reality, and analyze honestly. A scientific degree is helpful. One might even become America’s best-selling, self-published, and most-suppressed economist, like Henry George, praised by men like Einstein for his “beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice.”
Then, the article takes an interesting turn. Kaj claims Austrians do not define money as a commodity but rather as a means of exchange. I’m not sure if the Austrian School of Economics has finally recognized that reducing the definition of money to that of a commodity to justify commodity-based currency is the laymen term for praxeology, if one Austrian economists didn’t get the memo, or if this is just more evidence of the Austrian School of Economics switching their definition of words for the purpose of making a rhetorical attack.
I will disagree with the former and more common argument by Austrian economists that money is a commodity. Money has unique properties which differ from commodities. The goal of money is to have the supply managed to maintain constant valuation according to demand, or the prevention of inflation and deflation, both forms of theft. It is further proposed that the monetary expansion necessary to prevent deflation should benefit the public rather than bankers since it is a form of found wealth rather than earned wealth. Austrians strangely recognize this property of money in their desire for gold to be used as money since they argue the rarity of gold prevents the government inflating the supply, while ignoring the more harmful theft of deflation and debt associated with the need to borrow gold from those with the gold in order to engage in a means of exchange. Inflation actually even encourages the use of a currency for exchange, whereas deflation encourages the use of a currency as a store of wealth. Understanding the latter of this equation makes one realize the goldbugs and anarcho-capitalists are actually thieves in that they want to promote a return to gold currency so they can steal wealth through deflation and monetary expansion.
However, I’m glad at the minimum that one Austrian economist recognizes that money is not a commodity but a means of exchange. I suppose one actually observed how commodity-backed money doesn’t always exchange for the value of the commodity but for the face value of the currency. We can examine history back to the Roman empire and even the present to realize that copper and other less precious coins used as money actually exchange for significantly more or less than the commodity itself in melted form. The desire for copper coinage by the Roman empire is perhaps not because of this property but because replacing worn, clipped, and shaved gold coins tend to become more expensive for bankers and governments. However, for a government which wishes to promote economic growth rather than theft by bankers, the choice is probably more suitable since the quantity can be managed and thus the value regulated or managed to be free of inflation or deflation.
I should clarify that currency is a more broad term for anything used as a means of exchange. Money, legal tender, and fiat is anything declared currency for the payment of taxes and commonly debts if the government regulates banking or sets standards and practices for banking. Since Austrian economists are brainwashed into believing fiat is defined as paper money rather than any currency declared by the government as legal tender or payment for taxes or debt is fiat, I have refrained from the use of fiat to describe money or legal tender.
I will agree that currency existed before legal tender. However, for all practical purposes, we’re not concerned with that matter. We are concerned with replacing free market currency, which is prone to outrageous usury, inflation, deflation, banking panics, government lobbying to standardize acceptance of certain currency such as gold and debt and destroy the acceptance of other currency, exchange issues between currencies, and other forms of theft and fraud. It is this nature of privatized currency which are economically destructive to the point that farmers will not till soil for hungry people because of it.
We are concerned with promoting public currency that is well-regulated, stable, and free of theft in the interests of the people as a whole so people can engage in the free and complex exchange of commodities, savings, loans, capital goods, and labor — without the exchange being distorted by government influence in the markets in savings, loans, and certain commodities anointed by the bankers and government as money. In this, supporters of free market economics would definitely have an interest in supporting debt-free and commodity-free legal tender if they understood the unique issues concerning money.
Kaj continues to critique the Kucinich slogan that the Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express. While his statements might be true that the Federal Reserve isn’t Federal Express, he misses the point. Private banks control the supply of the currency and profit on the expansion of monetary supply and the Federal Reserve operates in even more secret than Federal Express and for profit like Federal Express.
Next, Kaj criticizes Zarlenga for wanting to get rid of the government’s competition in currency creation by ending fractional reserve lending. This is a bit telling since Kaj seems to missed the point, that the government’s involvement with free market institutions is the problem. While he seems to argue against fractional reserve lending, I’m sure there is another Austrian ready to argue if fractional reserve lending exists in the free market, it must be good.
Then, he misses the point again. He doesn’t seem to believe the quantity of monetary units in circulation matters or at best seems to believe that private banks controlling the issuance of the currency will be slower than the government’s issuance of currency. He also seems at best to believe that private banks creating new money as loans is more productive than the government spending money into circulation and making available for loan by private banks. At worse, he is engaging in asinine obfuscation of economics 101 with philosophy; and I apologize for the use of big words to make my point.
The private banks and the government are both producing currency for people to exchange and both are producing currency to be made available for loans. The government spending public debt-free and commodity-free money into circulation does something else. It funds government expenditure without taxation. Surely, Kaj isn’t trying to say taxation is productive? I’ll have to just assume he is either ignorant or thinks the current taxation on labor and capital is better than banks losing profit on monetary expansion and losing control of monetary expansion.
Perhaps Kaj believes the national debt is productive too, that it doesn’t divert monetary units away from investment in the private sector. Or perhaps, Kaj just understands the system and how he better serves his investment bank clients by promoting low risk extraction of wealth from the tax payer. Zarlenga’s plan solves the national debt problem. The Austrian “solutions” don’t even begin to address the national debt other than to bankrupt on the pensions.
Continuation of the propaganda to enslave the population to the bankers and government is no longer acceptable. People are not only becoming politically awakened due to the massive fraud, racketeering, theft, murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity of our current oligarchy, they’re becoming awakened to the truths of political economy. There is nothing wrong with the promotion of gold for the store of wealth. However, those who engage in the promotion of gold as currency for usurious gain should be ostracized as morally bankrupt in social markets.
Other gems of the article, or should I say precious metals, include the “Gold Standard Collection” ad for the Ludwig von Mises Institute store, which is really what they promote, commodity markets distorted by the government in the declaration of gold as fiat to result in massive theft from those who produce with capital investment to those who hold gold. You also have to appreciate the irony of the the reduced price on the “End the Fed Collection” ad. Funny how prices deflate under a “fiat” currency, even one which is designed to be inflationary with a pyramid scheme of debt. Perhaps the irony of these two ads are symbolic that the foundation for bankers want to promote a return to the original scam of the Federal Reserve and the preceding scam of banking, the gold standard, more than they want to promote an end to the Federal Reserve.
I’m not an anarchist nor egoist. I’m a true Libertarian who is able to separate principle from the propaganda sold as praxeology and philosophy without sufficient supporting historical evidence and with numerous anomalies from historical evidence. I believe in Libertarian principle as well as the practical and Natural Law principle of the Founding Fathers that government should be instituted to secure certain inalienable rights. It concerns me greatly that our freedoms are being eroded daily and that the fruits of our labor are being confiscated daily by governments working with wealthy and powerful interests, including bankers, to pay for wasteful if not destructive ends. I intend to strike the root and solve the problems which plague the American Republic. As such, I will honestly critique Zarlenga’s American Monetary Act since I intend to improve it rather than propagandize against it.
Critique of Zarlenga’s American Monetary Act
My first concern with the American Monetary Act is that I’m weary that building 100% fractional reserves should be done with loans from the U.S. Treasury. I would hope the loans are made in accordance with fractional debt paid. Meaning, for every 10 dollars of debt paid, a loan of 9 dollars is made. However, I don’t think “loaning” the reserves would be the proper course since you’re wanting to “spend” the new dollars into circulation.
The U.S. Treasury should not be in the business of making loans to banks. This could result in conflicting money supply issues where the primary goal of paying off national debt would be dependent upon banks paying back obligations. The U.S. Treasury should instead regulate the process by making sure fractional reserve tallies are kept and reserve requirements are met. For every 10 dollars of private debt paid, the U.S. Treasury can add 9 dollars to the budget to pay interest on national debt, pay off national debt as bonds mature, and for other expenditure. This would work it’s way back into the reserves of banks as Zarlenga indicates.
However, it is likely the new money wouldn’t be placed into the same reserves of the bank which made the debt-free reserve available. I wouldn’t argue the fractional reserves are property of the bank which made it available since such reserves are fictional in the first place. This changing of reserves is associated with the movement of reserves between banks. And thus, each bank will need a record of real reserves available for loan and fractional reserves paid. If 10 dollars of private debt is paid towards a fractionalized loan, 9 dollars are deleted, and 1 dollar plus interest is placed into real reserves. For every new deposit, the bank would add to their real reserves. For every 100% reserve loan payment made, the full payment and interest would be added back to their real reserves. For every new withdrawal, the bank would subtract from their real reserves. If a bank does not have real reserves available, they will not be able to make a new loan until real reserves are available. If the bank wishes, they can borrow real reserves in free markets from other banks.
This may be what Zarlenga intended. However, using the term of “loaning” the real reserves to banks should be avoided since that implies a completely different process associated with the current and former banking systems of the United States and ultimately a free market function of savings and loans, which Zarlenga in other statements already supports.
National debt is a primary issue since it is associated and tied to the current monetary policy and certainly desired to retire the national debt so the tax payer will not have to fund the lifestyles of the wealthy and powerful who choose to buy government bonds rather than invest in the private economy. To simply pay off the national debt doesn’t solve the problem of governments being lobbied by powerful and wealthy interests to engage in wasteful or even destructive spending so that bonds can be issued and interest extracted from the tax payer, using the full force of the government to secure the interest to be paid on the bonds in a low-risk investment. Such a system works as a giant tax loophole, where the working class pay a higher tax rate on labor while the wealthy and powerful interests not only pay a lower tax rate on the most usurious of interest on expenditure they lobbied to spend, usually at the protest of the working class, but they also pay such taxes to themselves in the form of interest payment.
The most critical expenditure component of the bill should require the retirement of national debt and to also set policy for a balanced budget short of a Constitutional amendment. The first critical component of such policy would be to discontinue the policy of using bonds to finance deficit spending. Inflationary policy should be used to finance deficit spending. One should remove the special interest of national debt by using inflationary monetary policy rather than issuance of bonds. Inflationary monetary policy is a more uniform form of deficit spending which are of disadvantage of wealthy and powerful interests and to the advantage of the working class or those born without valuable land and capital. Thus, such a system would promote a check and balance in policy.
It should be proposed as an Amendment to the Constitution that deficit spending should only be done through inflationary monetary policy and with approval by super majority vote by the Congress on a yearly basis at minimum to further strengthen this policy to help prevents bankers from trying to orchestrate economic decline and lobby government to change policy as the solution to the manufactured economic decline, as they so often do.
From there, the issues of expenditure are best left as a topic for separate and further debate since the issues are less clear and less related to monetary policy.
I believe the repeal of the national income tax should be a top priority to rid ourselves of this destructive form of taxation, which could be repealed with the national debt paid off through ending fractional reserve lending with debt-free and commodity-free public currency and since addressing the special interest of national debt would help limit wasteful spending. Repeal of the national income tax would be an ideal way to distribute the monetary expansion through spending it on usual government expenditure first and allowing people to keep the earnings on their labor to spend as they choose.
A citizen dividend would be an ideal method to distribute monetary expansion rather than have government spend the people’s money for them. It would provide monetary justice. It would also indirectly address Thomas Paine’s agrarian justice or address a more broad range of economic injustices, like MLK’s guaranteed minimum income.
I would also agree that land-based infrastructure would be wise because of the unique properties of land argued universally by a diverse range of people, including the Georgists, the Founding Fathers, the original American Indians, and even the Bible.
However, I believe the other suggested expenditure policies are less related to monetary policy and should be debated as a separated issue. The other suggested expenditure policies to be less clear in principle and should be further debated since we’re debating even more vague topics of promoting the general welfare and the usual state vs. federal debate.
Separating these topics could help generate more broad-based non-partisan support for the monetary reform. Surely, even the Austrian praxeologists would like to join in the debate to use debt-free and commodity-free currency to end the national debt, end wasteful and harmful spending, replace state social monopolies with a citizen dividend, and end income taxation. I am a Libertarian and have respect for the legitimate concerns of other Libertarians, including those brainwashed by banker propaganda.
Zarlenga's 'The Lost Science of Money' is a great read on the history of money, and his monetary reform proposal has the most sound reasoning and footing put forth yet. Keith Gardner brings up some great points, but forefront should be the wholesale removal of private money in politics. I don't really see that happening as our Supreme Court is stacked with corportists who continually rule against the public, and have opened the door for complete corporate-financed elections from here on out.
Anyone know how teats became tits?
Anyone know how teats became tits?
Same dogs... same tricks....
Mother fo's....
old people dont pay taxes
Exactly right GW.
It’s all about defaulting on SocSec in order to maintain the upward cash flow to the racketeers. It’s all about robbing the bottom 99.9% (of the world, not just the USA) by taxes, handed-off debts, and inflation.
It’s never been about saving the “world’s economy”.
Not with TARP. And not with the ‘debt ceiling’.
It’s always been about keeping the money flowing upward,
no matter how poor the banksters’ investments,
nor how much they lost in derivatives gambling.
Federal Reserve handed out $16 TRILLION to banksters (i.e. themselves)
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29506.html
Mideast wars cost $7 trillion
http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2008/290208Iraq.htm
Through 2035, Social Security completely pays for itself out of payroll taxes and previous loans to the US Government. Solvent,, that is, unless the US Government defaults on its loan from SocSec.
Why would the US default? Why, to be able to reimburse financial racketeers for their derivatives gambling losses and other bad investments. And to pay for global militarism.
In 2035, the Heritage Foundation estimates SocSec would need an annual infusion of about $350 billion “inflation adjusted“, about 20% of what the US annually now spends on militarism “inflation adjusted”. That is the Social Security ‘debt crisis’
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/Social-Security-2011-Trustees-Report-Shows-Permanent-Deficits
When I heard last week about the 16.1 trillion that was "loaned" (probably hasn't been paid back yet) out to companies and banks in and outside the US, I was in shock. They always say we have no money we have no money for a 10 billion dollar request for support of people in any manner, but at the drop of a hat will give out and/or loan trillions. Did you know that if we took just 1 trillion of that 16 trillion, that could have funded universal healthcare and continue to fund it. And what about he 15 trillion left, hell they could have used it all to restart the American economy and manufacturing. By saying that this money will go to rebuilding our infrastructure for the 21st century. They could have pushed for a Manhattan project for fusion to make it happen. They could have pushed for orbital industrial processes so that we can manufacture in orbit materials not possible on the earth, and much more. When you throw enough money and minds at something, it can be done. When I see this money go to waste in order to protect rich bankers and business people from going to prison, it makes me sick. Because I think that may have been our last chance to turn things around for the good, now we get to follow the worn path that all empires travel.
We will not maybe but will be a shadow of what we used to be, pure and simple.
Not to say the US shouldn't get its house in order (no pun intended) but raising the debt ceiling was a non event before. Banksters are not loaning due to bad credit prospects so they need another source of revenue. Howz about some volatility to boost trading profits?
Spending Cuts do not equal RE-Election, therefor we will never see them, ever.
Thats why you need to become your own "Central Bank"
On the five bullet points....that need to happen...........will not happen.
Resort back to first sentence.
These are not the lying motherfuckers you are looking for. Move along now, move along. To your FEMA camp, Fluoride poisoned water, medecation, and hormone pumped sewer waste masquerading as food. Cattle you are, and cattle you shall remain, until you are turned into little green crackers to make something useful out of your lifespan.
The sad part is, the rhetoric works - I can not tell you the number of conversations I have had the last 4-5 days. People are truly scared "we might default"...the oh my, the sky is falling type of conversations. Then I hear the parroting "we have to cut entitlements", "Social Security is making us broke"....then republican so and so or Democrat so and so...yada yada.
The lay people that are my friends, family and acquaintances do not even know what an entitlement is or is not. Nor do they have any idea how the fed budget is comprised. All they know is they are supposed to be scared. They are not sure why-but the talking heads, news media, and politicians are acting scared-so they think they should be too.
All i can say, is they do it because it works-Hollywood, Bollywood, Cannes, and Capital Hill....all will be giving away awards for 2011 performances on screen.
bank and think-tank backed politicians = 1
American disengaged public ................= 0
It's good that they do it.
Maybe now people will start to react when they are really attacked where it hurts. In their wallet.
Not by just a bit but with A SLASHHAMMER!
Like predicted, the poor will feel it first. What did they expect? That Obama was going to pay their bills? That Obama was going to take care of them? HA!! HAHA!! WHOEHAHAHAHA!
BTW I think I figured out why politicians often use the phrase "The American People": It's because those motherfuckers are clearly 'non-american' and are addressing a separate group from themselves.
Nothing new here.
I can't wait to see how much of an ass fucking 'we the people' will take before we reach our breaking point. No one wants to go to jail so things will have to escalate a hell of a lot more than they are now. Of course if the US prioritizes bondholders and starts skipping on say......foodstamps.....the last time I checked it's a scientific fact that survival mode will kick in when one is starving and some politicians could end up being the guest of honor at dinner, lmao.
Load the Boat. Surely a boat full of that much shit would never make it more than a couple miles off shore.
Headline writers,
The word is 'teat'
fwiw (not much, I know), it’s spelled “teat” - strictly the nipple, but tit works okay too
Pardon me I have to go vomit.
Follow the money Luke...
Stay strong... do not raise the debt ceiling... do not bail out any more banks... responsible social spending will be restored once we kill the parasites.
I am The Chief
These fuckers have no shame....Talk about pigs at the trough!!