Cheap Suitcase Watch

We have a debt ceiling deal (OK, waddya mean "we", you country club Republican?) and the Times headlines provide a hint as to winners and losers.

From the Times editors:

To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal

From Prof. Krugman:

The President Surrenders

From Ross Douthat:

The Diminished President

And for balance, from Jeff Zeleney of the news desk:

After Protracted Fight, Both Sides Emerge Bruised

Both sides were bruised!  Of course,that could be said after every Super Bowl, despite the clear presence of a winner and a loser.

But let's be fair - Obama 2012 got the one thing they really wanted, which was a deadline extension past the election. Don't call his bluff!

WHO'S LAFFERING NOW?  Prof. Krigman wold never tolerate the suggeston that a short term tax cut could stimulate long term changes in spending or investment.  But on the spending side, he hints that more spending can be self-financing:

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

Well, if cutting spending is going to increase future deficits, doesn't it follow that raising spending would reduce future deficits?  Who is Laffering now?  Or is the professor prepared to insist that deficits are doomed to rise no matter whether government spending rises or falls?

My answer is that this is a trick question - placing the focus on the budget deficit itself, rather than the health of the economy, is a misdirection.  Higher spending should, in a Keynsian world, produce both higher deficits and a more robust economy.  Or, as a bonus answer, if the government spending had high social value (a cure for AIDS, or an end to obesity), then of course it could eventually pay for itself.

SEVEN-EIGHTHS OF A LOAF: Marc Thiessen congratulates the Tea Party and has some advice:

Now comes that hard part: accepting an incomplete victory. Some Tea Party Republicans will be unhappy with the deal because it does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The fight for a balanced budget amendment must go on. But Tea Partyers should recognize just how much Obama and the Democrats caved: $2 trillion in spending cuts. No tax increases. A new precedent that debt-limit hikes must be accompanied by equal or greater cuts in spending. And the potential for a balanced budget in 10 years.  That the Tea Party accomplished all this in just six months — at a time when the GOP controls one-half of one-third of the federal government — is remarkable. 

The “hobbits” won.

Let's see if they think so. I am sort of resigned to a House rebellion today.

Comments

[Ralph L]

Krugman wants to spend even more? Does he think it's done any good the last 3 years?

I still think the Republicans should have given Obama all the tax increases he wanted, but set to expire 12/2012.

This ten year budgetting business is a joke. The next Congress will change everything anyway, hopefully downward.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Isn't this a debate about whether or not government spending has any economic value, as opposed to social?

[Jane]

Well I certainly love how the moron media is proclaiming this a tea party victory. And it is gratifying to see them so depressed. It's not much of a victory if you live in the official world of reality. However, we are just getting started.

[Extraneus]

spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs

Even if interest rates go up?

[centralcal]

And it is gratifying to see them so depressed.

Yes, it is very gratifying, Jane.

I am hoping for all out writhing agony come 2012 election time. But, for now, those are just hopes and wishes.

[rse]

OT but LUN is a great Melanie Phillips essay on the Norway atrocity and why the Left wants to emphasize and distort it.

And I have ordered Landes' book she mentions. Will give an overview after it comes.

And on topic, I deeply mind being told that preserving these ridiculous, ruinous spending levels does not constitute "giving something up". Tax increases would just be additional ruin.

[peter]

everyone is depressed in the Obama era

[Captain Hate]

Well I certainly love how the moron media is proclaiming this a tea party victory. And it is gratifying to see them so depressed. It's not much of a victory if you live in the official world of reality. However, we are just getting started.

Exactly; this is just a holding action until the reinforcements arrive in 2012 when we make the big push to bring the feral government under control. Thanks to the Tea Party, the conversation has been changed hopefully forever.

I love waking up to the scent of scorched donkey; it smells like victory.

[Texas Mom 2010]

None of the supposed cuts will take place until after the next election... Still no budget and no cuts that can be enforced because a new congress cannot be bound by this one, duh! I feel quite ill!

[jimmyk]

To the left, the slightest concession to to the right (or to reality, really) is a catastrophe. This is hardly a great victory for conservatives, much less the tea party--as I understand it, little will be cut immediately--but to people like Krugman, even the notion that there could be a downside to expanding government is a huge threat.

[boris]

Ann Althouse wonders if all the big victory lamentations from MSM are mostly hype to sell the deal to Tea Party Intransigents.

[Captain Hate]

LOL @ Althouse; as if the salad tossing idiots are capable of hiding their infatuation with El JEFe to get over on us rubes.

[Porchlight]

I dunno Cap'n, I thought of that too when it leaked that El JEFe had a hissy fit yesterday. Sounded like an easy way to make the deal look good to the opposition.

[Captain Hate]

I don't think they're that smart, Porch; although I honestly believe that the only thing on El JEFe's almost empty mind is going to his birfday party. The meltdown at Kos certainly wasn't fake. No this isn't a victory in terms of driving a stake into the heart of the undead monster but it's a good start.

[Danube of Thought]

As far as I'm concerned the deal isn't done until the votes are counted.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 19 at Raz today.

[centralcal]

The hissy fit Porch references was this post on Facebook by conservative talk radio host broadcast from Fresno, CA:

Ray Appleton Have it on solid authority that Obama threw a major shit-fit late this afternoon, eastern time, on whatever this is he agreed to as his back was against the wall because the speaker would not back down and apparently Reid and the Veep told the Prez it was over and to get over it. Developing. I should be able to confirm with sources in a few hours or by tomorrow's show.

As one of the largest conservative radio stations in the state, Ray has many inside sources - all of the major players in DC call in or appear in person frequently. My guess is the above came from Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, though it is just a guess. If so, it is probably very accurate as to Obama's behavior.

I listen to his morning show as I drive to work and am looking forward to any additional info he may have.

[Captain Hate]

Btw, I'm listening to Laura Ingraham on an online feed from KOAN out of Eagle River, Alaska, which I'm wondering if daddy listens to when he spends the token 10% of his time at home. Laura, a true professional, is doing her show rather than being on vacation because of the importance of yesterday's vote so it won't be until later in the week that Tammy Bruce guest hosts to administer a major throatslash to the airwaves.

[Ranger]

Well, from what I can see, some on the left are trying to spin this as "we got our revenue increases because the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire at the end of 2012 and this deal didn't extend them." This they argue will generate around $3.5 trillion in new revenue over 10 years.

The problem with that of course is that to get that level of new taxes, you have to let all the tax rates reset. That means a 50% increase on the lowest tax bracket, and a 40% increase on the middle tax bracket.

All this leads Althouse to ask: Why do Democrats want high taxation as their brand?

[Captain Hate]

This, I believe, effectively lays out the reasons to feel good about yesterday: I do not agree with your point about Republicans fighting with each other. There is some grousing, sure, there would have been with ANY deal that actually increased the debt limit because there are people on the Right who thought we should have done nothing and let it all go to hell tomorrow.

But what the White House wanted more than anything was a cave on taxes that would have REALLY split the GOP and pretty much ensured Obama's reelection. This was not a feint by Obama, as some extreme cynics are painting it. This was the entire game for Obama, and it was planned out last December with Reid and Pelosi, when they declined to raise the debt limit or allow the Bush tax cuts to expire before the Republicans took over the House. They wanted this fight because they thought they could use it to force the GOP into swallowing an IMMEDIATE tax increase, which would (a) cause an open rupture in the GOP ranks, calls for Boehner and McConnell to resign, etc. and (b) allow the media to paint Obama as being the "responsible" figure that was ensuring that good old "shared sacrifice" to solve the nation's debt problems.

The Republicans beat back this coordinated and well-planned effort to get an immediate tax increase. Whatever else you think about this deal, this part of it is an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats. Their entire game plan was shredded. And, the exercise may have ended up ruining Barack Obama for good. His approval ratings have tanked, we have spent a solid three weeks talking about nothing but the national debt and how much the Democrats have exploded it, and Obama is exposed as a non-leader in a time when the people are craving leadership to get us out of this mess.

Posted by: rockmom at August 01, 2011 09:45 AM (lSyyU)

[Jack is Back!]

Don't forget the subtitle of The Hobbit was "There and Back Again". 2012 will be the "back again" part.

Also, The Hobbit was set in time, "between the dawn of faerie and the Dominion of Men". And that is what we have seemed to get - unicorn driven Idealism meets manly reality.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Cap'n-

I'm going to spread some of Rockmom's love around.

[Thomas Collins]

Cheer up Jane. MSM is going to have a harder time keeping up the "Tea Party is extremist" meme if MSM is at the same time saying that Obama caved to the Tea Party (unless MSM wants to argue that Obama has become a right wing extremist).

My biggest concern about this deal is the possible defense expenditure reductions. NATO's Libya shenanigans shows that there is no replacement for the US as the keeper of the free trade international system.

[Ranger]

Yes, this really does set up the 2012 election cycle as a debate about higher taxes or less spending. Obama knows he's on the losing end of that.

The first question for Obama is: "Where are the jobs?"

The second question should be: "Where are the net spending cuts?"

[OldTimer]

datechguy blog read the bill posted at LI, and summarizes thus:

"..After reading the bill, if it was up to me, I’d be a yes vote, This bill is not an example of steaming in the right direction, it is an example of completing the turn of the ship so it is facing in the right direction but you have to turn the ship before you change directions, this is the turn..."

Read the rest here:

http://datechguyblog.com/2011/08/01/my-reading-of-the-budget-bill-some-quick-comments/

[squaredance]

Don't believe it. The Democrats will get what they want. Defense will be gutted, there will be a reduction in medicare which will be blamed on the GOP.

The GOP has been had again.

[Appalled]

I am puzzled why anyone would choose "Hobbit" as an insult. In Tolkein, almost all the Hobbits are decent common folks who rise to the occasion when it is thrust upon them.

Maybe McCain meant it as a compliment?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The GOP has been had again.

Dude, one word: Prozac.

[Captain Hate]

Appalled, McStain probably heard his fatassed ignorant daughter use the term while talking to one of her deadbeat friends and thought it sounded "kewel".

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Isn't this a debate about whether or not government spending has any economic value, as opposed to social?

Mel, wouldn't the answer to that have to be a firm and conclusive "sometimes"?

[Threadkiller]

--"Maybe McCain meant it as a compliment?"--

See for yourself:
McCain naming names

[Threadkiller]

I don't know how to fit "Her voice sounded like a wind chime" into that one CH, but I am sure you left it out.

[Ranger]

In Tolkein, almost all the Hobbits are decent common folks who rise to the occasion when it is thrust upon them.

It is, in fact, this very decency that makes them so effective as enemies of the Dark Lord. It gives them a much greater ability to resist the corrupting power of the ring. An apt analogy to the Tea Party members in congress and their ability to resist the temptations of pork to buy their votes.

Maybe McCain meant it as a compliment?

I am sure it simply means he has never read the books or seen the movies. One of McCain's greatest failings is that he believes what every "people in the know" tell him, without investigating it himself. That's how he got convinced that campaign finance reform was something the general public cared about. The Pew Center and the NYT told him that, so he believed it.

[Jane]

I doubt McCain had a clue what a Hobbit is. He was reading the WSJ I believe. It wasn't even his own material.

My favorite event of the last 3 days was Marco Rubio handing John Kerry his hat, in the nicest possible way.

Your Yacht is calling John.

[Porchlight]

McCain is dumb. First off, he looks more like a Hobbit than your average GOP congresscritter. NTTAWWT

Second, the Hobbits win in the end and are heroes to all of Middle Earth. Duh.

[Frau Liebhaben]

Ich "Herz" ChaCo
(or Herzen?)

[Porchlight]

Good post Ranger. One of the reasons the Obama campaign was able to portray McCain as "out of touch" is because it's largely true.

[Frau Liebhaben]

Right now on the JOM sidebar: "Durbin: Debt Deal Will Be The Death Of Keynesian Economics"

Now, how kewel is that?

[Melinda Romanoff]

I prefer a definitive, "maybe". Caught by own hyperbole, again.

[Extraneus]

Rasmussen:

30% Say Obama Too Confrontational, Highest Since Health Care Debate

[Jane]

90% should say he is too stupid and too arrogant and too inexperienced and too evil and too dumb and and and

[PD]

"Durbin: Debt Deal Will Be The Death Of Keynesian Economics"

Good, perhaps he'll decide to retire in defeat and despair.

[Melinda Romanoff]

PD-

He'll do that when the Cubs disband.

[Rick Ballard]

It won't be really kewel until the festering corpse is burnt and the ashes scattered in a swamp, Frau. The smoke from the debt skirmish obscured the truly miserable GDP numbers Friday but the ISM miss highlights the idiocy of current economic modeling which is underpinned by reliance upon the efficacy of pseudo-Keynesian spending as a growth generator.

The failure of the economic models based upon the Keynesian fallacy is (IMO) a story of much greater import than the debt skirmish. In order for the CBO "projections" to have any value at all they would have to be printed on toilet paper.

[Tom Maguire]

Isn't this a debate about whether or not government spending has any economic value, as opposed to social?

I'm not sure what you mean. Stimulus in the form of road-building, for example, is supposed to make sense because (a) it puts money in people's pockets, and (b) the end product is worth having (in terms of enhanced productivity, cheaper transportation, and increased efficiency.)

Stimulus in the form of hiring people to dig and re-fill holes achieves (a) but not (b). Most economists (and I believe even Krugman) think that is no more helpful than a straight hand-out to the sort of people likely to be hired as hole-diggers, and is probably comparable to a tax cut targeting the working class (such as a payroll tax holiday)

I suppose increased funding for the NEA so that performance artists could do their creative thing would satisfy (a) and be highly ambiguous as to (b). But didn't Roosevelt build Rushmore as a depression project? [NO! Per Wikipeda, construction began in 1927. Who knew?]

Well. An absence of shovel-ready projects makes economically sensible stimulus spending difficult.

[Dave (in MA)]

Jane, was it his magic hat?

[Melinda Romanoff]

"Jackass" Graham to vote "no".

6.1 quake hits Japan. No Tsunami warning.

[Captain Hate]

Michele Bachmann is on Laura Ingraham doing her best to stick her foot in her mouth and negate the gains of this past week. I'm rapidly wishing she would just STFU and go away.

[Dave (in MA)]

Cleaver went off on a rant about the debt deal being a "Satan sandwich", as I'm sure most people have read already. What you might have missed was him spitting at a Tea Partier, but I saw it. Plus, he called him a cracker 15 times. Prove that it didn't happen.

[SWarren]

“BUDGET CONTROL ACT of 2011”
PDF at LUN

Looks like BUDGET "OUT OF CONTROL" ACT of 2011 (and many years to come)

[Melinda Romanoff]

TM-
Which is more to my point. It starts to be important when unemployment crosses 20-25%, IMO. The most recent two forms did no such thing (TARP & Porkulus). The WPA, on the other hand, actually did., then the war stepped in and filled that need. The fact that Porkulus repealed the '96 Welfare Reform Act is completely overlooked as a contributor to spending.

The social aspect of "stimulus" was merely a way of pre-seeding reliable donors for the '10 and '12 battles. The road projects of '09 & '10, in selected states only, proved to be more important for the blue states that received them, than any sort of trickle down. It just stole future road projects and protracted the depressive effect.

But then again, being economically stimulative was not their goal, besides spawning the Tea Party with their unintended consequences, they really started to get paid for it in '10. We'll see what 2012 wreaks on the Dems whom are remaining.

[Chubby]

Remember during McCain's campaign, his saying he wanted to "shake up" D.C.? So now it's being shaken up and he's whinging about it to no end. Imo, even worse than his hobbit nonsense, was his remark that it was "cracked" to think of O'Donnell and Angle as candidates for the senate.

[PD]

Well, that +140 pop the market opened with has disappeared, huh?

-123 currently.

[PD]

He'll do that when the Cubs disband win the pennant.

[Melinda Romanoff]

PD-

EU fear trade kicked in.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Unexpectedly low ISM numbers didn't help either.

[jimmyk]

Speaking of budget out of control, free birth control for everyone!

The sad thing is that from everything I've read and observed, the cost and availability of BC has little to nothing to do with illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, and unwanted children. But let's throw money at it anyway.

[MayBee]

jimmyk- don't you wonder why men can't get free condoms?

[PD]

don't you wonder why men can't get free condoms?

They were all sent to Afghanistan.

[MayBee]

CNN was absolutely fawning over Nancy Pelosi last night. Would she vote for this? She is her own woman. She is one tough lady. She will have to make her own decision.

[PD]

Unexpectedly

Shocking.

[MayBee]

I want Boehner to call the vote and then march outside to the Capitol carrying a big gavel.

[PD]

Plus she won't determine how to vote until she sees the details.

[MayBee]

Oh yes, the details, PD. Then she will make her considered decision. Only then.

[Threadkiller]

Maybee, while somethings in life may come easy, nothing in life comes for free.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Maybee-

A smaller gavel please.

[in_awe]

Let's all recall that cuts in Washington-speak are really reductions in rates of increase - not actual cuts. Where we have seen actual cuts already is in the US military:

1990 Today
Army brigades 76 45
Navy ships 546 288 (smallest US navy since 1916)
USAF fighter squadrons 82 39
Strategic bombers 360 154

Average age of air tankers is 42 years old.
Source: Congressman Buck McKeon, Chairman House Armed Services Committee, July 26, 2011

The military has already absorbed > $400B in cuts, and now this deal proposes deep, deep cuts in military spending across the board. Using US security as a bargaining chip is reprehensible.

[Janet]

Conservatives have GOT to get more television channels. One cable station is not enough. We need at least one Spanish language TV station too.
The Dems strongest weapon is the MFM.
How can people know the truth if they never hear the truth?

[jimmyk]

don't you wonder why men can't get free condoms?

The thought did occur to me. But I presume it's because NOW and Planned Parenthood didn't ask for it.

[MayBee]

There is no way I would hold this vote before Obama's big birthday party.

I would listen to what he says to his birthday revelers and throw it back in his face on the floor while debating the bill.

The man wants higher revenues, and wants to close off deductions as he asks for tax-free $38,500/person donations from rich friends so he can make people like Axelrod and Plouffe into millionaires?

He wants to reduce the home mortgage interest deduction, when he himself had to borrow money from a Federal felon to buy his own house?

He wants to increase tax rates on the top earners, which is the very thing he ran on in 2008.

He wants to pretend Guantanamo Bay doesn't exist, even though he ran on it in 2008.

He has not only NOT stopped our wars, but he has involved us in an expensive war in Libya, completely unconstitutionally.

He has not created a budget with net spending cuts.

He has not developed a plan for entitlement reforms.

His government is so screwed up, he is paying federal workers to move to screwed up cities to help them work through federal red tape so they can get more federal dollars. One of these cities is Detroit. Another city is Fresno, CA where a federally funded team is going to help them get the federally funded high speed railroad go from one Godforsaken town to the next.

Let him go celebrate without this deal being formalized. Make him own his birthday party.

[Threadkiller]

They could change "The Five" to "El Cinco", broadcast it in Spanish, and it will still make about as much sense.

[Rick Ballard]

"An absence of shovel-ready projects makes economically sensible stimulus spending difficult."

Yeah. It's not like there's any utility to constructing an Alaskan gas pipeline. Or taking off the shelf plans for a few reactors and beginning construction. Or firing up all available drilling rigs on the Gulf Coast. Or allowing the expansion of the Canadian oil pipeline in order to cut reliance on OPEC oil. Or actually authorizing release of funding to bring all 17,000 deficient bridges up to standard. Or expand exploration in the shale gas fields through a bit of time limited tax relief for accelerated production.

I know! Let's build supersonic choo-choos instead! Nobody wants them (except prog green slavers), they'll provide no economic benefit, the operating and maintenance crews will be as heavily unionized as they are subsidized and they will be a burden to taxpayers forever! Wow, that's an even better idea than subsidizing bird blenders and sun worship centers.

Who's for it?

[Captain Hate]

Whoa Maybee; I love it when you talk that way.

[Jane]

Given all the rhetoric about the tea party, and the really poor deal that we got, I wonder if we should refuse to vote for it.

Sure we won. But it was only a political win -we didn't win what we want. So since all of the media have declared us "in charge" maybe we should show them we mean business.

I do reserve the right to change my opinion on this 104 more times.

[macphisto]

"don't you wonder why men can't get free condoms?"

because that would give men control of the means of production.

[Extraneus]

I love it when MayBee gets mad.

[Extraneus]

Whoops, didn't see you there, CH.

[Captain Hate]

Sure we won. But it was only a political win -we didn't win what we want. So since all of the media have declared us "in charge" maybe we should show them we mean business.

No; the fact that we're still hungry for **real** change will drive us from now until next November and hopefully beyond that. To vote this down would be taking Bammy off the hot seat and positioning ourselves there. We have to be satisfied with a political win now. Because, believe me, nobody hates that we haven't made more significant and immediate cuts than me.

As if I needed more justification for my opinion, Romney has come out against the deal (at least for now). He must see deficits as high as his corn sombrero.

[rse]

I read an interview with Hayek over the weekend(from 1975 I think) where he said Keynes would not have supported the type of spending set out in his name. That it was very much a position about the unprecedented conditions internationally in the 30s.

There is an attitude among political and social radicals that the government should be funding their living expenses while they work to transform the system. Since there is not much political support for that position, it gets presented to the public as Keynesian spending.

Rick- You asked me last week about Von Mises and Hayek's lower profile than the calibre of their insights merits. I think their prescience, Mises in particular, became a template for the Left. They identified weaknesses and the Left then sought to use the monopoly and police powers of government to try to plug those identified weaknesses.

[Captain Hate]

The idea of a flatlining dolt like Durbin purporting to understand a brilliant mind like Keynes' produces a facepalm with a giant squid image.

[Jane]

Capn'

Yours is the reason I reserved the right to change my mind 103 more times.

I just got a call from Mr. Left. He blames both sides. Isn't it odd that when leftys screw up it is always both side's problem, but when the right screws up, they own it all alone.

[MayBee]

I am trying to envision anything- anything!- more vulgar than the president celebrating his birthday by asking people to pay $38,500 to listen to him complain about Republicans catering to the wealthy and well-connected.

[Jane]

I think you should go Maybee. WE can take up a collection.

[jimmyk]

Keynes would not have supported the type of spending set out in his name. That it was very much a position about the unprecedented conditions internationally in the 30s.

I think that's true of the 1936 Keynes. I've read something of his from the 1940s that suggested he's started to drift further into the view that market economies could suffer from chronic excess supply and would therefore need chronic stimulus. Well, even Isaac Newton got a bit daffy in his later years.

[Danube of Thought]

I think Pelosi should vote to pass the bill so she can find out what's in it.

This thing is going to pass; between now and when it does there'll be a lot of head-counting so as to figure out who can go on record as a "no" without actually killing the thing.

[Jim Miller]

MayBee - How about $50,000, or even $39,000?

Or would you consider those equally vulgar?

Personally, I would have liked it if he had gone for some nice round number like $100,000 per couple, just because that would be even more clarifying for many people.

[lyle]

MayBee 2012

I'll volunteer as a bundler.

[Chubby]

((Romney has come out against the deal (at least for now). ))

He said he's against it, but he didn't articulate why. Nothing on his web site either. I'd like to know why he is against it.

[Chubby]

Jane did you read the Mark Meckler interview in der Spiegel linked to by Drudge? LUN

[Ignatz]

--But it was only a political win -we didn't win what we want.--

Usually it requires a critical mass of political wins beforehand to amass the power to win what you want.

[Threadkiller]

Mitt Romney Issues Statement on Debt Ceiling Deal
August 1, 2011
Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today issued the following statement on the deal to raise the debt ceiling:

“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.”

[Melinda Romanoff]

MayBee-

Would you please consider moving to New Bedford, MA? There's someone there I'd like you to run against in Congress.

[MayBee]

Ha! You guys.

Jim Miller- while $100,000 is suitably vulgar, I believe it is illegal. The only way for an individual to donate that much is to buy a bunch of pre-paid Visa cards and have an SEIU "volunteer" to sit at a terminal typing up "DooDad Pro" and "Qwerty"'s donations.

[cathyf]

Obama 2012 got the one thing they really wanted, which was a deadline extension past the election.

I still keep asking this question, which someone more familiar with the actual numbers might be able to answer -- Did he really get a debt extension past Nov 2012? Or is it only past 2012 if their laughably delusional economic forecasts come true? And what's way more likely is that we will run out of money again, but right in the middle of the campaign this time?

(For those of you familiar with the term "implied volatility", can't we solve for the gdp projection that the "past 2012" folks are using by starting with the projected date that we next run out of revenue? Mel? Don't you have the numbers already lined up in your spreadsheet?)

[Jane]

I think Pelosi should vote to pass the bill so she can find out what's in it.

That's so funny. Sheila Jackson Lee was just on Fox saying she had to read the bill and my thoughts were exactly that.

Chubby,

I agree with Meckler. I just don't know if I know the best way to get to where we want to end up.

[Extraneus]

Good news for hit...

Raw-Food Movement Pushes Deeper Into New York City

[Army of Davids]

Obama = most divisive president in my lifetime.

And I can remember back to Johnson.

[Melinda Romanoff]

They won't run out of "revenue, but will run out of cash.

Gotta think about that theta.

[Jane]

Chubby,

I still support Boehner tho.

[Melinda Romanoff]

CH-

Moss retires after 13 seasons, which in his playing time, means really only 4.42 years (1/3 of 13).