The Daily Show ?
Everybody is a Brian Williams[!]
(FP!)
[... the anomaly/expiration of links/waffle parties ...
Reality
Comedy vs. Faux news.
Buy
Poll Are?
...[ The Last Word ?] ] TAO(~) : Tetrahedron Analog Operations
(~) scroll caution 3in1 T A O / HOPE Histrionics of Particple Exchange
Showing posts with label The Daily Show. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Daily Show. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Friday, April 11, 2014
Low4est
As opposed to Hi8us or A3?
a1. My roots are Scandinavian, French, 'n French-Canadian.
a2. I won't get into my branches or algorithms.
b4. I tan gent or share 'n angle, my primary school was Sherwood Forest.
c4. Presage of King County.
Sea 1st link.
The missing link?
[The spin* or ge oh me tricks of logos. {re-image} Politics, Economics, Hume...or us.]
* link added 4-13-14 (de-image) #- / -[!]
[4-14-14: ? Objective Good ? ! ]
[Hume or ... ?]
4-15-14 [Hume or?]
a1. My roots are Scandinavian, French, 'n French-Canadian.
a2. I won't get into my branches or algorithms.
b4. I tan gent or share 'n angle, my primary school was Sherwood Forest.
c4. Presage of King County.
Sea 1st link.
The missing link?
[The spin* or ge oh me tricks of logos. {re-image} Politics, Economics, Hume...or us.]
* link added 4-13-14 (de-image) #- / -[!]
[4-14-14: ? Objective Good ? ! ]
[Hume or ... ?]
4-15-14 [Hume or?]
Monday, April 23, 2012
The State of Economics
Owe what a web we weave.
Not to Try Angle Late.
Pun on Owe Late?
Let alone Hoover.
(I will try to round** this out later, but Ian Bremmer(2nd link) is no wacko. That is my short hand for his fair and balanced perspective. I "owe" the first link for this thread, while I have yet to finish it or the 3rd, Hoover* may be the perfect segue.)
*let alone Mani and Norquist
** not to mention "whine and geez"
[BTW: I had a less than swift boater weekend. i.e. dry dock work]
[4-24-12 Forgotten Segue,(Inconvenient Truth?) The Ed Show !***]
[***Fighting Ill Lie Nigh]
Not to Try Angle Late.
Pun on Owe Late?
Let alone Hoover.
(I will try to round** this out later, but Ian Bremmer(2nd link) is no wacko. That is my short hand for his fair and balanced perspective. I "owe" the first link for this thread, while I have yet to finish it or the 3rd, Hoover* may be the perfect segue.)
*let alone Mani and Norquist
** not to mention "whine and geez"
[BTW: I had a less than swift boater weekend. i.e. dry dock work]
[4-24-12 Forgotten Segue,(Inconvenient Truth?) The Ed Show !***]
[***Fighting Ill Lie Nigh]
Friday, February 03, 2012
Soul Dad?
It was after making this unfortunate lede* that the news of Don Cornelius's passing reached my screen. Speaking of R-E-S-P-E-C-T, no disrespect to Soledad O'Brien, but to say it is inconvenient timing, makes it sound like there could be any better. A loss of this kind is sad, but did it have to happen this month?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Brackets and the Debt Clock
[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nailed it[!]
Jon Stewart roasts Wolf Blitzer's Network.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Dream Blog
Just another one of those things, a dream or this time blog that was so vivid, I made no attempt to hold on to it. And sure enough within two steps from bed it was not so clear. Well, I will make no attempt to recapture it, instead recalling an earlier idea from the previous day. I told a buddy, there needs to be a new party. De Calf Party. But after a few minutes of his rant on current events, something stronger was called for. In related matters, we do need something that presents a stronger plan[***] to the American people and someone who bargains like Boehner.[**]
Meanwhile I think I will try this De Calf.
[The Next Big Thing: The Debt Ceiling, And Speaker Boehner says it will not be raised without something big attached. Polls show people against raising it, as well as against* raising taxes. The only thing left will be more cuts.]
* but it depends on the poll
[** 4-12-11 link and previous asterisk's links added]
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
[Opinions Excused. No Comment.]
[***]On the other hand .
MSNBCTV Test Pattern [B... ] or Truth Out [...ingo: Bernie Sanders is not De Calf I meant but Harry Reid could be. And my hunch is that there will be a lot on the table.]
Meanwhile I think I will try this De Calf.
[The Next Big Thing: The Debt Ceiling, And Speaker Boehner says it will not be raised without something big attached. Polls show people against raising it, as well as against* raising taxes. The only thing left will be more cuts.]
* but it depends on the poll
[** 4-12-11 link and previous asterisk's links added]
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
[Opinions Excused. No Comment.]
[***]On the other hand .
MSNBCTV Test Pattern [B... ] or Truth Out [...ingo: Bernie Sanders is not De Calf I meant but Harry Reid could be. And my hunch is that there will be a lot on the table.]
Friday, March 25, 2011
Follow Up
3-25-11
[A] Trick Question of the Day? Whose Libya Policy is worse?*
[B] here is to the brave...journalist link added: It is important to ask the hard questions, but it is important not to negotiate or spill strategy to the enemy.]
[C] bonus feature links added
* Blunt Bolton 2012! OR Trump Bolton 2012
Odyssey Dawn 2012(No Princess Cruise)
[Top link and asterisk added 3-25-11]
[2012 Dream Race/Debate: Sanders Fiengold, Biden Obama, Trump Paul. I'm just saying that by attrition or distribution, there may be a shift in the political spectrum of the so-called middle. This would at least make for an interesting debate not that the organizational structure would cooperate. Fiengold might not be a player or choose this field of endeavor in rocking the party boat, Kucinich may be an alternate, and Trump and Rand Paul would have their own problems with the Republicans. Heck, there may as well be Pawlenty Bush 2012.]
[D.] Speaking of Brackets
[E.] Speaking of Spills, someone is getting a run for their money. Bored of the Day: Is it funny how 1996 was the year?
[See C. Supplemental/Flops]
[Final Crack: One of the premises for preemption was meaning what you say or following through. Well just how is Gingrich cracked up?]
[Bonus Crack: In all fairness it is not!
[A] Trick Question of the Day? Whose Libya Policy is worse?*
[B] here is to the brave...journalist link added: It is important to ask the hard questions, but it is important not to negotiate or spill strategy to the enemy.]
[C] bonus feature links added
* Blunt Bolton 2012! OR Trump Bolton 2012
Odyssey Dawn 2012(No Princess Cruise)
[Top link and asterisk added 3-25-11]
[2012 Dream Race/Debate: Sanders Fiengold, Biden Obama, Trump Paul. I'm just saying that by attrition or distribution, there may be a shift in the political spectrum of the so-called middle. This would at least make for an interesting debate not that the organizational structure would cooperate. Fiengold might not be a player or choose this field of endeavor in rocking the party boat, Kucinich may be an alternate, and Trump and Rand Paul would have their own problems with the Republicans. Heck, there may as well be Pawlenty Bush 2012.]
[D.] Speaking of Brackets
[E.] Speaking of Spills, someone is getting a run for their money. Bored of the Day: Is it funny how 1996 was the year?
[See C. Supplemental/Flops]
[Final Crack: One of the premises for preemption was meaning what you say or following through. Well just how is Gingrich cracked up?]
[Bonus Crack: In all fairness it is not!
From the President, Monday -- quoting: "It is U-S Policy that Qaddafi needs to go."There is no inconsistency here: U.S. Policy is one thing. The Mission is another. Pure and complicated (and balanced.)]
From the Chairman, Sunday -- quoting. "It’s not about seeing him go," unquote. He added that the mission might be accomplished even if Qaddafi stays in power.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Obama v. The Economy Stupid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)