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.]

Facebook Town Hall (amended)

[originally tacked on to previous post]
[SEGUE: amendment written after a District Democratic meeting and get together(see footnote.)]

[...I note here an additional gripe from Sam Stein (for continuity sake, Sam Stein is writing about the Fiscal Speech not the Facebook Town Hall]:

Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing. Obama’s speech came after Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) unveiled his own budget plan, giving his own remarks the veneer of a presidential response rather than executive leadership.

Well, excuuuuuse me! But the President came out with his 2012 Budget proposal almost two months before the Ryan budget. But one hanging chad here is that the context of the debt is not just about the good economic times under lower taxes(which is shakey) but that there was excessive borrowing and spending that helped the economy. It was not so much tax and spend Liberals, but war and borrow and spend and bailout Conservatives. Which merits a further comparison from the Facebook Town Hall (transcript) :(President Obama)

Because this recession came at a time when we were already deeply in debt and it made the debt worse, if we don’t have a serious plan to tackle the debt and the deficit, that could actually end up being a bigger drag on the economy than anything else. If the markets start feeling that we’re not serious about the problem, and if you start seeing investors feel uncertain about the future, then they could pull back right at the time when the economy is taking off.

So you’re right that it’s tricky. Folks around here are used to the hills in San Francisco, and you’ve driven -- I don’t know if they still have clutch cars around here. Anybody every driven a clutch car? (Laughter.) I mean, you got to sort of tap and -- well, that’s sort of what we faced in terms of the economy, right? We got to hit the accelerator, but we’ve got to also make sure that we don’t gun it; we can’t let the car slip backwards. And so what we’re trying to do then is put together a debt and deficit plan that doesn’t slash spending so drastically that we can’t still make investments in education, that we can’t still make investments in infrastructure -- all of which would help the economy grow.

Then there is Speaker Boehner:

Boehner, R-Ohio, said the biggest accomplishment of the Republican House this year has been to change the debate on spending -- and the budget compromise sets the stage for even bigger cuts. "It's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse," Boehner said.

Which should complete the "who is in the driver's seat" metaphor.

[Footnote: In late night discussions, I brought up George Lakoff and in response, Systems Thinking was mentioned, and here is an article, which I may have already ran across in other form(Under Supported*). And yes it is similar to my Tetrahedron of Will, not that having dimentions alone denotes similarity.

[Speaking of parallels or tangents, I just missed a bit on Thom Hartmann reviewing Atlas Shrugged**.

* And apologies to my education and not yet having not fully reading the link, but I did study Systems Theory in Organizational Behavior.

** Ayn Rand

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

Obama Leaks

Some might say he reeks,
but I say that there is more to the issue than liquids or gases.
Pump out the rhyme. This is just a leed into two points which I cannot tell where they came from.
1. the debt does not matter
2. social security does not matter to the debt
3. GE I did not know I was going to stick with the meta4, but of course both matter. And the underlying points I want to make, which I cannot source particularly is that the President's plan when accepted will establish one and two. In other words, the kind of debt matters(tax cuts v. investments) and an opening of the "lock box" that makes congress accountable for social security regardless of debt. Neither are easy to say, leak of the leeds** or reek of the leads, but taxes do matter to everyone, but so do budget calculations and the big picture whether you are a person, corporation, state or fed/global.

[And please note that I have not really made much of the Wikileaks controversy, as I do not support the methods and reasons for its existence. While we do need to have better journalism and government, I am not sure it will help in the scheme of things. Rupert Murdock as a source of inspiration, now supports my feelings in this area, as well as the reference or links of reasoning to scientific journalism.* While my crack at GE hints at the $marminess of some journalism, I will cover that with this mud. The mud in this case is the subjective skills that are responsibly noted which makes raw leaks only facts not truth. Raw data(information) is not just objective but subjective itself.]

*12-9-10(comma added)Rupert Murdock does not support my feelings, him as an inspiration supports my feelings to the contrary, as well as an erroneous scientific take. And last link brackets (information is not just in the form of numbers, but even they are subject to context and formulas).

** [1-17-12 C-(sic): ledes is the intended spelling in this typo]

Alter Under Construction

not to* mention** Altar.
It's the change thing.

* NWRoots
** Follow ups
[7-18-11 Bleep 'n Compromise posted and up dates
[7-19-11 America under De-construction: Not exactly Triangulation or is it ?]
[Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? Or the revisit the ditch metaphor?]
[7-20-11 - New Metaphor - Voodoo Or Stock Car: Not exactly new, but the analogy for the complaints from both sides of the political spectrum is that they want the roof on before the walls are built. But then there is the D-Ri've punned or they've punned, which I have Re-vised, where the economy is in the ditch and some have the solution of running it into a ditch again to fix it. Not to get too sunk in metaphors, rising tide or not, there are D-R i've O(a)rs of the economy no matter the vehicle or passengers.]
[From the desktop: Thom Hartmann and Ravi Batra 'n WME]
[On the other hand, in context:

Redistribution has a "from" side (taxation) and a "to" side (spending). On the "from" side, the notion that government should use taxation to increase rather than decrease equality is hardly Marxist. In "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith begins his section on taxation with the following maxim: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities." To ask otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.]

[Loose thought- Cut, Cap and Balance- vs. The Badger 14 Re: fleeing their jobs. Pappa mmm Mow Mow, speaking of olds mobile oar 'n balance.]
[Quick Sand of Sorts: Rove, Ailes, Nordquist, Eyman- see Four Horsemen of the Trick-L Down.]
[The Change Thing? - Sanders on Ratigan? Debt Restructuring - Pour Analogy: If the US were a household and the GDP were its income, its overall debt would be close to but still less than one year's income. Note: this is a poor analogy, but fair in the light of the alter. SEGUE: A caller to AM1090 pointed out a better analogy. The debt does not take into account the true assets of our country. Mt. Rushmore / The Grand Canyon / The shiny seas.]

[7-21-11 Fair and Balanced, and Leaning Back: "Cry me a river" Michael Steele leans back at Joan Walsh's Obama/Reagan comparison(Fair link - 3:20) on MSNBC's Hardball, but the reality is that Obama as a Senator and as a President fits the bill of the history. As a Senator his vote against the debt ceiling raise, was an attempt to address the deficit, just as what forced the compromise Reagan made to get his. Meanwhile the people are with President Obama as well as Cenk Uygur.]
[7-22-11 Obama 2012]

The Jig is Up?

Metaphors aside the Debt Ceiling "negotiations" may require a short-term vote.

[Cut, Cap and Balance: Cutting Jobs, Capping Responsibility, and Balancing on Disaster. That is a not only a non-starter it is a nation ender. Spending is not the problem, Congressional responsibility is, and we know which party. The House sets the budget, with the approval of the Senate and with only a veto threat by the President. A balanced budget amendment with a cap on percentage of GDP is a form of capping the mechanisms of government to get anything done.]

[The President addresses the nation.]

[7-26-11 Misledership: Cut Cap and Balance - The Whine and Teas
for the American P-ease-
Hook, line and sinker.]

[7-27-11: Reel Time*? Blank Check? Bounced check for previous Republican administrations(See Chart).]

[Respected Sources: Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnell. Ezra Klein. Norman Goldman (7-28). ]


[Disrespected Sources: Whiner of the House.]
[Debt Picture 101: or cut, cap and balance.]

* Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Fineman, polls and results.

[7-28-11: Down Riggers and Reel Leders set the bait. There are apparently three options: something that will pass the senate without the presidents veto, a clean bill or no bill. And no bill (to mix metaphors) is a punch to the tackle box. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment(see bait) not only is the right solution, as the debt ceiling is probably not constitutional. It makes no sense to pass budgets that are not paid for, let alone put the present administration on the hook for earlier non-sense.]
[7-29 Thom Hartmann , Rerun O'Donnell- Nancy Pelosi and Grand Bargain: Leg 101.
Stephanie Miller: Leg 102., Debt 201. NG 7-29. N.G. Prophesied: Two weeks for John Boehner as Speaker, since he cannot control his people. I don't think they want to control their people, so he may remain. It leaves a bit of denial to the party, or would be a total association with them if they replaced him with someone who could.]
[7-30 I'm conflicted or caught in a net, is it deal or bounced check? If you can expect a deal why not a clean bill? How about a no bumber stickers or banners and slogans, pledge? But get a deal done or the president will have the biggest line item veto any Republican could wish for. Or invoke the 14th Amendment, impeach and MoveOn. Clean deal or no deal?]

Caging Godzillas

Sustainability Requires Caging Godzillas- Andrew Sheng (INET)
Finance reforms, to meet the challenges of trade cycles and the debt bubble require Financial, Social and Resource Stability and Sustainability.
Finance is ungovernable, because of creation of credit.(paraphrased and contexted 4:58 in video through 10 minutes and more on global game-local blame.) The bubble containment dilemma*: leveraged capital flow, ability to get around** boundaries and rules. My aside: Bailouts are not stimulus, and stimulus are not bailouts. The problem and the solution are at the vertex of the three in politics and governance. Finance reform recognizes the role of governments in creating a system(market rules) that balances consumption and "creative destruction". The Godzillas are the metaphor for the responsibility that is avioded by not taking on the responsibility and blaming the market. Rollover of debt to public debt, crisis of reserve currency and international monetary system. Segue: BO-OB Barack Obama -Optimism Bias Extra Credit: Debt is not just about borrowing, it is about not paying for it. All bailouts and stimulus, not being equal, let alone at all similar, they are not all bad. Something somewhere has got to give. It is not all about free markets and free trade, but providing a system that does not just take, whether it is freedom, labor or resources.

[Laffer Cry or D ' Ribble]

[Hint: to Obama: Wrong Try Pod? More Cow Bell.]
[Huntsman Aside, Ring Obama]
[AND Congress- as amended: cutting loopholes are on the spending cuts not the tax hikes side of the equation.]

* my model/metaphor related to Platonic Tetrahedron
[** not an endorsement of shape of the curve, but another Godzilla factor]
[Breaking News: Presidential Press Conference]
[See Comments below Re:]
[Update: 7-1-11 He has a long way to go to be a Boehner or a Whiner, let alone "Tricky D." ]

The Alter of Tax Cuts

Excuse me, Altar.
Now the Alter.

[7-13-11 Above may be parsed later,
previous to be parsed later*.
Breaking and Fixed News.]

* secondary to be parsed later

[If the US were a household and the GDP were its income, its overall debt would be close to but still less than one year's income. Note: this is a poor analogy, but fair in the light of the alter.]

[Cynical is as cynical does. Or fighting cynical with cynical. ]

[7-14-11 Follow-up: "Nelson's proposal was designed to ensure that Social Security recipients receive their checks in the event of a default, mandating that the program's obligations no longer count against the overall debt limit." That seems like a big and smart step, that could affect the clock if not relieve the Debt Ceiling problem if also applied to the unfunded "emergency spending" for the wars.]

[A new alternative(hybrid plan) is being crafted that seems to combine congressional creativity with giving it to the President to get 'er done. A Trumanesque reference to giving him the Hot Potato, while they get out of the kitchen.]

[7-15-11 Economics and History. Not exactly.]
[Foot Note: I try to put myself in the other's shoes, but sometimes it is in the other mouth.]

** tangent later
[Hi 8 US ot WME]

[7-16-11 Bleep & Compromise ]
[7-18-11 Bleep 'n Compromise
[7-22-11 Obama 2012]

Speaking of Timing

All posts are posted at the time indicated unless otherwise noted*, not always clearly, as updated or inserted**.

* saved-in-draft maintain original time with date posted indicated
** sometimes indicated by links

Sometimes bracketed material is a preface, and
now to the matters that triggered this tangent.
It was a surprise to me and others that the Debt Panel released its(or rather the co-chair's) plan, an interesting update to my comments in the update regarding the chart and debt. It is probable that the chart, may not include social security, and regarding medicare, off the chart going forward. But given the shotgun approach, not really a good metaphor(as aim is not the point), but as a matter of breadth and coverage, it is all over the map and "harpooned every whale"***. While the origin of the Debt Panel(link hopefully to be inserted)is in question, (was it Obama's or a Republican idea) it does seem to fit my theory of Obama. The solutions to our economy are very broad, and inter-related, and hinge on the balance of what government does, more particularly does it create jobs or the environment for the economy. The answer is usally, if not always, both to some degree. In this regard, any wholesale dismissal of the plan is in as much error as even calling it a plan. It seems a well crafted way to put everything on the table, not that it will all be called for or passed.

*** Simpson quote from Bloomberg link.
[Speaking of timing and updates and tangents, Fair Game is a movie noted in C-word post, but Decision Points(book) is the center of the Circumference. Somewhere there is a link that closes the circle.]
[Speaking of Spokes: Axel Rod?]

Work is a four letter word.

Thank God for profits.
Herd this Mourning.
Note, spelling is intentional, and pardon my sarcasm or speaking in vein. Technically I have knot.

OK, back on track. Thanks to Stephanie Miller's replacement mooks or rather the callers.
A. recalling the Eisenhower tax rates regarding prosperity
B. (hold that thought)[*]
C. poll is a four letter word, darn, so is word.

B2.0 the thought...maybe that the argument that the debt is bad, can be addressed by slight adjustments in taxes, if tax breaks have been proven to not be sustainable and increase debt more than jobs...
See C? Politico is right! But is TPM left or wrong?

Speaking of the word, dove or hawk?

P.S. just because something works, does not mean it is good or bad, but you do the math. Speaking of Clean Ex! [Oh & the herd link was my last crack.]

[*] it may have been a different thought but much of this did not exactly flow directly. But basically, debt is bad, yet you can't make a four letter word** out of taxes. And war did not exactly get us out of anything, without paying for it.
**The word is anecdotal as a tissue** of prosperity & tax rates.
*** nor g**gle

Give an inch...

Take a footnote:
VOTE NO ON DEAL.If the original intent was a clean bill, this should fit the bill. If harming the economy for political purposes is the intent, then the Debt Deal is the proper balance. While I can understand the political purposes in light of the burden of accountability and compromise, it is a tough call to say, hold tough, but it is your call. My call is that it is not only the 14th Amendment but the Debt Ceiling law itself, which gives the President and Congress their respective powers, which only a no vote would enforce. So while I can understand that Sum Would Cheer: I must on principle urge a No Vote on kicking the can down the road for political purposes. UNLESS it has already been calculated that the obligations that the Treasury holds(f.n. 2) are already not a part of the debt ceiling picture.
Footnote 1
and 2 (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury.)

[8-3-11 Obama/Simpson/Bowles follow-up: and interesting Tangent. NFRY files or fries.]

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

I'm not even

gonna read this yet, or MoveOn to this. But is this the deal?
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war

[Image use and source; original.]

[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

Being a Blank "is Hard Work".

Meaning found in file folder:
Being a Heretic is Hard Work.
Or maybe it is the difference between being and getting 'er done.

[OWS verse the 1%?]
[Getting 'er* done?]


*apologies to*** whom[!]?

[Speaking** of Labels...U.N? Not to mention fair and balanced.]

** a, b, c, d (thin blue line ?) Or Re:U.N.

*** LOL: Laughter Occupy Lawyers (not to make light, but...)

[Note Labels U.N.(Unhate, Nuance), G'Ribble(or D'Ribble?)]
[Bottom line? See commenT and lede, and found'ers: Being a Blank "is Hard Work".]
[Super Stick: Debt Deal or Leverage: One thing about the Debt Ceiling deal and the Super Committee is that its failure is a not really that crucial. If it gets something done, the next congress can undo it. If it doesn't get anything done, the next congress will handle the cuts. Heck, I am not even certain it would be binding. Either way the next election will be telling. But anything balanced from the committee will not only be unlikely, but will not balance the history of Republican obstructionism since Obama game into office, nor balance the Republican debt.(See saw)]

True Ledership

No, that is not Leadership, it is the pinnacle of the process.

[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]

A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?

We the people...

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

* Oh the humanity
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]

** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]

*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.

[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]

Delta Dawn


Whose your Daddy?

Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])

[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]

[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]

The Nightmare Act

I didn't plan this.

The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.

[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]

The Other Debates

Substance over*** Style? 
Here I go again,
preemptive over* reading**. 

* preceding two links are top embeds in prior two links
** links all inserted before reading ** or any others(including last insert ***)
*** retro GPS of sorts(C-lede/heading)

[Ouch! Mid^ -PI solar^^ flare... ***]

^ scroll over(not exactly^^^)
^^ having read ***...
Inslee is no Biden or Obama, McKenna is no Romney or Ryan. ^^(Re...)
But on the issue of conflict of interest, the conflict is ironic.



^^^ F'n notes:  Show me the money, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road ? !

^^(Re...) Don't call me..(Re...cycling^^)
...except for the Congressional connection(Biden/Inslee/Ryan and party differences).  Note that it is quite different to be a Republican governor in a Democratic controlled state(Romney), than a bipartisan Democratic president in a more evenly controlled but partisanly divided congress.  Republicans have been against what they might have been for if they had been in control(less so maybe locally given this context).  The debt being the Toll Keen under the bridge.   C-Mythmatic. Not to mention the road we hoe or Rove. The irony is even more dimentional in the local situation in that, Inslee as governor (re:legislative branch) would be more Obama(re:leg.br.) than McKenna as governor would be either Romney as executive.(re:either state or national leg.br.)  See Romney touting his term in Massachusettes with an 86% Democratic legislature. (It doesn't take much to sit down and cooperate.)  This is no excuse for thinking that divided government means more partisanship rather than cooperation and compromising as Democratic principles. (Further editing if NOT *,^'s may be needed[!]#$%)

[Re: Cycling notations (*,^,#'s) F'n Apologies Tour, not there yet. (quid pre**quo?) Stop that ? Ouch. ]

[ WeGotEd: Sherrod Brown / Uncle Joe/ Uncle Sam/ G.I. Joe / Gastro-Intestinal Joe! Roger Out! ]
[ Alter Net ... Substance/Style, Objective/Subjective, Reality/Matters(slash)dimentionalism what the heck is the point? ]

[Editors Note:(me that is)...the entirety of this post was finished before this. Bolded above from "The debt"...to..."Rove". They can't handle the Biden.  The key crack @little troll friends.  So...(I will have to review to see reference to Rove, but here is a rant or ramble(NOT) his nickname is "Turd Blossom"!]
[Randi Rhodes] 
[Paul Ryan Told 24 Myths in 40 Minutes]

10-16-12 Biden/Ryan Debate added.

Failure of Modesty...

works on so many levels
except the Right[*].

[(cont.) 8-16-10 Needless explanation?
It is the modesty of the administration which has failed us, and the immodesty of the Republicans or Market Capitalists that brought collapse.]

[*True: "You don’t want government to try to restore confidence." Yet the problem was in the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the following three rules makes sense:

1. Low debt
2. Eliminate derivatives, complex derivatives, keep the products that don’t require formulas...
3. Eliminate moral hazards...make sure they have no externalities

It would seem that this argues for a less modest role for society as "venture capitalists." And the hazard is not planning to change enough.]
[Note: low debt is no more linked to low taxes than GDP is to values. The formulas for derivatives are the problem not the formulas for economics.]

Back Log

[Update 11-10-10]
The Punchline
StandUp: This is a wisecrack. .
Bottom Line: Timing is everything, and sometimes accounting, but space matters.
Yet sometimes only a chart will do.
My point is that debt is not the primary problem, although maybe growth is. Debt to GDP is not really a problem either...yet, note the peak in the 1940's proceeded by the growth in the middle class(cni)* and continued growth in GDP(cni). What also occured in the subsequent years, increase in wages, increase in consumption, and increases in taxes.(cni) Correlary: taxes are not the primary or secondary problem either, they are a fraction of the solution.

*(cni)chart not included
[Speaking of timing, just as I post the above. Who knew?]
[ABOVE: Updated 11-10-10.]

The C Word
Olbermann to Return Flash Back*
Focus Parsing

Parsing Combat - Obama Plan
* editing in progress

[Just in:Let me Finish,Chris Matthews Just getting started, Ed Schultz. Ribble: Childish Patronizing, Clumsy Parsing]

Happy President's Day

by George or state or other.

Washington's Birthday by Fed.



Belly Up to the Bill Boys or Girls.

Somewhere[**] I must locate certain economic links.* The point? Debt is a mis-management issue, indicating that business types have no business running government as a business.(see "certain" six). Two particulars: Wisconsin is not even one of the top 25 states likely to go bankrupt. "Benefits" are not "entitlements", they are owed by contract and negotiated so as bargained away wages. Debt is a red herring that is very fishy.

* this paragraph may suffice but it is "hard work"
[**] just found, and had seen this, but more may follow