Is that actually irony?

may as well call it the white people's protest

CalvinBall wrote:Is that actually irony?

Like rain on your wedding day. So maybe, but probably not.

Something we can all enjoy:

Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) reported raising just $845 during the first quarter of the year and had $111,032 in debts from defending himself in ongoing ethics and perjury probes, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Not sure he could get more than SEN chiseled onto the ol' crypt for that kinda dough.

It seems to me any comparison can be found to minimize or maximize the crowd size to suit your preference, thus making any comparison pointless.

jerseyhoya wrote:The following is from Marc Ambinder, which certainly gives the impression that Obama's numbers going forward include Social Security and Medicare. It's just that surpluses are disappearing due to demographic shifts, so it starts to hurt the overall budget pictures.

President Obama's FY 2010 budget outline includes ten years' worth of deficit projections. As Obama noted two nights ago, he intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his first term.

But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit -- $570b. For 2015? $583b. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636b again; by 2019, it's up to about $712b.

The budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.

So why does the deficit go up? Largely, it's because the baby boom generation is retiring and taking Social Security checks. Social Security spending rises fairly dramatically over the next ten years.

Some folks have been on this for years--David Walker, the former Comptroller, most prominently. (I've personally gotten decent career leverage out of another aspect of Boomer retirements: what happens in a local labor market when they all leave the workforce. The problem from a policy standpoint is that foundation types and other researchers seem to find this far more compelling than government officials.)

I've never heard explicitly that the looming demographic reality of Boomer retirements informed the "starve the beast" strategy, but I can't imagine that it wasn't in Norquist's mind somewhere: "we just hold the line until about 2015, and then they'll never be able to enlarge government again." Obama's obviously going right into the teeth of that; he's got basically the balance of this term, maybe a year or two into a second if he gets one, to convince the country to accept a deal of more personal security--basically a safety net for working Americans--in exchange for higher taxes.

The out-year projections scare me too--I'm enough of a deficit worrier that I'm not even sure some variant of a balanced-budget amendment is a terrible idea. Entitlement and/or tax reform has to follow the big expansions of services now proposed.

dajafi wrote:
The out-year projections scare me too--I'm enough of a deficit worrier that I'm not even sure some variant of a balanced-budget amendment is a terrible idea. Entitlement and/or tax reform has to follow the big expansions of services now proposed.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but that last downswing beginning in '14 or so is where we can all turn to the immigration paranoids & say "told you so"

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:
The out-year projections scare me too--I'm enough of a deficit worrier that I'm not even sure some variant of a balanced-budget amendment is a terrible idea. Entitlement and/or tax reform has to follow the big expansions of services now proposed.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but that last downswing beginning in '14 or so is where we can all turn to the immigration paranoids & say "told you so"

True that. What's going to be interesting in the immigration debate is when we decide we want to start competing for them--the ones who add economic value anyway. IIRC Canada and western Europe are already doing this; if you've got a college degree or better, you're basically in.

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:
The out-year projections scare me too--I'm enough of a deficit worrier that I'm not even sure some variant of a balanced-budget amendment is a terrible idea. Entitlement and/or tax reform has to follow the big expansions of services now proposed.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but that last downswing beginning in '14 or so is where we can all turn to the immigration paranoids & say "told you so"

True that. What's going to be interesting in the immigration debate is when we decide we want to start competing for them--the ones who add economic value anyway. IIRC Canada and western Europe are already doing this; if you've got a college degree or better, you're basically in.

Look, my Jamaican nanny and my Salvadoran gardener add a lot of value.

dajafi wrote:True that. What's going to be interesting in the immigration debate is when we decide we want to start competing for them--the ones who add economic value anyway. IIRC Canada and western Europe are already doing this; if you've got a college degree or better, you're basically in.

I believe it's in the American temperament to be good at this. Just think what a great job we did exporting the idea that jeans are hip.

For teh budget nerds among us: I give you:

http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Dodd raised $1 mil this quarter, which is impressive. Of that total, he raised $4,250 from Connecticut residents.



I've never seen a number like that in my life.

jerseyhoya wrote:Dodd raised $1 mil this quarter, which is impressive. Of that total, he raised $4,250 from Connecticut residents.



I've never seen a number like that in my life.

His biggest donors are Republicans. (not really, but the Republican party has more to gain with his successful fund-raising than Democratic party)

Werthless wrote:For teh budget nerds among us: I give you:

http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

The guy certainly has range:

Visualizing Beer

re: the terror memos.

I'm trying to decide if I can live with just "Never Again".

I think I can, but I may change my mind.

jeff2sf wrote:re: the terror memos.

I'm trying to decide if I can live with just "Never Again".

I think I can, but I may change my mind.

You might not have to live with that. Supposedly the phrase "good faith" is key. If it's determined that Bybee, Yoo and the rest of the torture lawyers were trying to fit the finding to the desired result rather than honestly searching for the legally correct interpretation, they could be liable.

Foreign Policy's blog takes a speculative look at "the nation of Texas".

Sean Hannity, anarchist:

"It's time to bring it down. Time to bring anarchy to the streets of DC."

Maybe we'll get to see Hannity sport a lapel pin (or better yet, headband or armband) with this...




BTW, wonder if the C's know the "other" (er, more "common") definition of "teabagging". Apparently, MSNBC does...


"It's going to be teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it"
- Spiegelman


"They don't want to teabag alone"
- Maddow


"We wanted to see whether teabagging also had the news programs on Fox News going off halfcocked"
- Olbermann

Posting from the Republic of Texas.

I don't see the tanks rolling or anything. Had some pretty good Thai food though.

And NPR is still broadcasting.

TenuredVulture wrote:Posting from the Republic of Texas.

I don't see the tanks rolling or anything. Had some pretty good Thai food though.

And NPR is still broadcasting.

Where the hell are you, Vichy , TX?