Fuck its silent in here.......

[Chuck to Chuck]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.

It's on a British politics gossip blog.  It must be true.

[CT III]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.

It's on a British politics gossip blog.  It must be true.

TEC's just asshurt that some "conservative" broke omerta.

[thehawk]

What killed communism?

Jackson Pollock

http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

[J. Walter Weatherman]

What killed communism?

Jackson Pollock

http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

Try telling that to Rep. George A. Dondero...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,854994,00.html
http://www.augustana.ualberta.ca/files/group/612/18-Congressman%20Dondero-16Aug1949.pdf

Legér and Duchamp are now in the United States to aid in the destruction of our standards and traditions.  The former has been a contributor to the Communist cause in America; the latter is now fancied by the neurotics as a surrealist.

A regular sleeper cell right there.

The question is, what have we, the plain American people, done to deserve this sore affliction that has been visited upon us so direly; who has brought down this curse upon us; who has let into our homeland this horde of germ-carrying art vermin?

Beware the brainstorms.

[morpheus]

The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

[color=green]I mean there's so many savings we can get from something that is like 1/4th of the overall budget picture.

We should shut down the whole government, sans military, and then we'd really save money[/color] (while still running a deficit).

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Therefore, it shouldn't be done.  Got it.

On the other hand, I will agree with you about Medicare.

No, something should be done about it, but the debate doesn't begin and end with nondefense discretionary spending.

Also, did you catch how the bill advocates for a public option for the health care bill?  They threw a ton of red meat to conservatives, but included that.  Fascinating.

As for the public option... that makes me queasy.  Ugh.  Talk about a way to increase government spending.

[Internet Apex]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Heh.

[CBStew]

Are you serious, W?

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Heh.

Right.  It is a misspelling.  However, it is well known that there was great antipathy between Bush and Hee Sop Choi.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Medicare, Medicare, Medicare...

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

Here's what the chart means:

   * Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

   * Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

   * Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

[morpheus]

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Medicare, Medicare, Medicare...

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

Here's what the chart means:

   * Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

   * Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

   * Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

Heritage agrees, although they put a little more weight on SS than Drum... from http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/unfunded-liabilities-entitlements

The nation cannot afford the Medicare and Social Security  benefits that have been promised to future retirees. These long-term unfunded obligations dwarf spending on other expensive government programs, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2009 economic stimulus bill, and vastly outweigh the entire national debt.

[Chuck to Chuck]

The nation cannot afford the Medicare and Social Security  benefits that have been promised to future retirees. These long-term unfunded obligations dwarf spending on other expensive government programs, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2009 economic stimulus bill, and vastly outweigh the entire national debt.

Tarp doesn't even belong in this equation as the real cost will be far less that $700 billion.  Last numbers I saw were on the order of $10bn to $12bn.  And it's even possible (tho, don't ask me to attach a probability) that the result will be a profit for the taxpayers.

[Gilgamesh]

Interesting take on the debt report here: http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/253058/real-deficit-reduction-vs-theoretical-deficit-reduction#

[R-V]

Regarding the tax changes proposed by Gil's beloved deficit commission:

Many on the left are focusing on the across-the-board rate reductions, and they are furious that they'd benefit high-earners as well as everyone else. But they are ignoring both the provisions that would tax capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates and, most importantly, the proposal's overall impact: $750 billion in income tax hikes and additional increases and in the Social Security payroll tax for high-earners and ni the gas tax.

I'd like to see an analysis of how effective rates would change for different income levels. I have a feeling the po' folks don't make out as well as the rich folks in this proposal, but let's see how it plays out.

[morpheus]

Looks like poor Paul Krugman hates the Deficit Commission more than he hates the troops and America, which is saying something something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1

We've known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.