Parallel...

tangents and leverage ?

Not to mention un-M~bed labels.

1. Darwin's God
2. wikipedia
3. The fourth dimension.
4. MockOp-
a., b., c.

[M H-P]
1b. Phone Home [!]

vOO due: vCR



It's math. In progress.



I have input this date from Think Progess chart.


I won't deWonk, reWonk or futher Wonk, but it might need review.
Translation/legend:  vOO versus Original Obama(budget)
vCR versus Continuing Resolution

[My MSExcel is a rework of Think Progess chart, for thinking sake, as if a visual scan is not enough.]
[I will reviey my cell formulaes but one can alway redo that math.]

So if I may risk putting this into words:

The Senate CR is 18.04% below the Original Obama (budget) that is a compromise. The CR is 1.93% over Ryan's Budget. Is that enough to tell the story of compromise? 

But the (original)Senate Budget was a already 12.05% below OO, which is .(point)66% below the CR. Owe the irony of math and read lines (or shifting bottom lines).  The so-called compromise(CR) is $8 billion over the Senate Budget, $72 billion below the Obama Budget, and $29 billion below the Original Ryan Budget, keeping in mind the general direction of intent.  But grand math wise the Senate CR is $19 billion over Ryan's Budget which I think was compromised(reduced) $128 billion from his original, while the the Senate CR is $217 billion below Obama's Original and $199 billion below actual 2010.  Now that is leverage ... or math. 

Compromise whining aside, CALL FOR A VOTE!

Leveling the World Stage?

And restoring some floors @ the U.N. 
Ultimately it is not about [No Bama O Drama.] (*) 
[David Gregory "he wants the debate".]

(*) NBOD coined 8-30-13 as QCON(re-links)
[Quick Comment on News, or might be QuipCON?]
[Foibles of punctuation and excuse m-beds.]
(Spoiler alert: Try Lemmings, Kidding Goats, and  Votes)

9-2-13 
Proposed resolution to congress.

9-3-13
Congress World Reaction(ABC)

It is not just about Obama's "Red Line", it is about the world having Red Lines or not.  It is truly about the use of WMD, as well as a nation that is falling apart (Syrian civil war) needing to have an urgency of the negotiating table. 

Alternatively or simultaneously, Syria's partners on the U.N. Security council as well as other opposition partners (Arab League, Pakistan, Iran,)should have a stake in getting things to the table or world court.

[Pre-Post-Or-US ?  The Leverage of NOW**?]

** anachronism of opinion (by Ghosh)
(*)segue[be-date?/timing]
[9-4-13 inserted NOW link]

9-27-13 M-bedded in the FP (freak n' pounding) i.e. capitol ization of font. Note situation of September's FP and their headings. And the 5th of sorts. / A. Inconvenient , B. , C. The Real B. S. of the F. C. , D. Nail Meet F--C---[!] , E. Irony versus Hypocrisy [!]

Red Acted Month

That's not the ticket [!]

The point of the seqester was to force a grand bargain.  Now that Republicans are using it as leverage, the Democrats may use it as leverage.  That would be to not go piecemeal.  Democrats can vote on their conscience and their constituency.  The House can field a budget, the Senate may filibuster and the President may veto.  Witch plays perfectly into the DNC* of getting her done.

* gnot [!][fp ? ! ? ] Bazinga Alter Bashir!

FOOTNOTES(March 2013) Page 3

3-14-13 {?} oar? A.Conservative Foray (4A) (sc),  B. Rocket Man?[!] C. FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012 (Sp?), D. HiTetra! , E. Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , F. Primary Boogeyman , G. A Shot in the Arm? , H. 4A (sc), I. The Lost Obama (sc), J. Oh, what a web... , K.Vy Not? I'll Tell You Vy! (sc),  L. Allegory (4A) (sc)

3-20-13 Pardon My Hume or Ism.  Economics is about balancing the rock, paper, scissors 4moolahs (a,b) and wack-a-mole of charts.

3-22-13 (FP2) *Ctrl F(leverage)&(b.s.): A, b, C(c), d, E, F, G(g), H(h), I(i), J(j), K.

FOOTNOTES (March 2013) Page Two

3-14-13 {?} A. Trivium B. Case Study (sc) C. Use of Labels , D. NO JOKE {really?}

3-20-13 Curve Balls? : Pythagorean: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51197599 (Mitt at C-Pac)  or  Platonic  http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51043481 (Jeb Bush on Nightly News)
*** (David) http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#50780562 

3-22-13: [Follow-up of sorts (FP2.]
(b.s.)Ge+Oh+Me+Try: In the begining... , b, C, D, E, F(f), G(g), H(h), I(i), J, K, L*(l), M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p).
(b.s.)Tetrahedron: The Tetrahedron Ramble* (sc), B, C, D, E, f-F, G, H, I, j, k, L, m, n.
*Ctrl F(leverage)&(b.s.) (FP3)

Joke of the Year!

"In turn, Republicans say Obama is acting like a stubborn partisan who will put the economy in peril in order to get his way."*

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey

THAT WAS THE PUNCHLINE, HERE IS THE SETUP.

"Seeking to cement those impressions, the White House is casting Republicans as willing to forgo tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect lower rates for wealthier Americans. Rates for all income earners will go up at the end of the year if both sides can't reach a deal."

Read more: Ibid.

OR WAS IT A STRAIGHT LINE to the people and UPPER CUT from the Republicans?

"Obama has made that case to Republicans before only to back down in the final stages of negotiations. But this time around, the president and his team believe they hold the political leverage**."

Read more: Ibid.

*NOTE: These Seatlle PI quotes included no hyperlinks, those are my sorts.
** It is only funny if you enjoy political hypocrisy, cynicism, screaming and pulling your hair out.  The political leverage and political capital is completely on the President's side. 
(Ctrl F: political capital) ALSO Re:"time" will expire.

(fn)

[Full Crumb ? Or Fiscal Crypt ? ]
[Foundation Culture ! v.c. tetrahedron !]
12-6-12  [Somewhat correlated ?]

Fiddle Sticks^

by George ...

Lede or Ship Politcal** Gaming*.

(fn)
 Boehner tells Geithner, ‘You can’t be serious 
White House to GOP: It’s your move
“The Hobbit” is not a hipster!

(b.s.) "Lede+or+Ship"
Swift craft
Swift satire
M-bed ***

* by Jenga (enough! )
** un-M-bed
*** not to charm but what the?



[Anacronism of asterisks is a real problem between ** & ***, 
but it was through Slate*** under Osmosis** that I found the Doonesbury.]

[[That's the ticket! But this is a preemptive read. Support for raising taxes on the rich even runs over the barrier Republicans have constructed with their new minority of obstruction(4f), except for their "arithmetic" and Twain. Actually the link at TED did not cover the error that is made when comparing percentiles with shares, or per capita with any tiles and individuals with dollars.  Where4, there is more money in the top 1% therefore the top 1% are going to be paying a greater share of the taxes. Not to be competing with TED, but that means a progressive tax will look more unfair the more unfair income distribution is, unless you have a regressive tax.]]

(4f)= a, b, c, d ?   Crtl F and (b.s). for more moderate yet political approach.

^ last insert ? (See "^" there)  It is called leverage and political capital !
[Follow-up].

DECEMBER 2012 FOOTNOTES (fn) PAGE

[Begun 12-3-12.]

12-28-12 [ = (b.s.)pondering :
State of Politics
A Revolution? (scroll click)
Un-Exceptionalism (SC)
Punderous Ponderings (ibid) ] = /knot/ ( Try-unism ? ! ? )  ?
& (this is a test of sorts under the classification of filters/sources and progress)

12-22-12 Speaking of Will to Footnotes:(I will note the sequence of my link inserts{such})
Speaking of ge oh metric(or me trick) projects. (fn)GIGO(or MoJoe)
{ge oh metrics}
me
trick
projects
{speaking}(to be continued or Kantinued)

12-21-12 ^^ "paradox placement" anachronistically where the *ouch* was where the "pas" link is Treason of Imagery, with the "pax" link inserted retroactively, and lastly the "ouch" link inserted  All to pun(or parse) on pause, stiob and SignField)

12-20-12 By golly of sorts ^ (i.e. by google, by stiob)
Under the IS(^) is 5A, and here they Be ! (or R )

12-19-12 : Presidential Press Conference.
Links from bottom up.

"text"= (b.s. slippery=slope) a. Try Angle b. The Nature of Things^
 e.^ Flow of Conscience (a. thru s.)

"conn"(b.s. P+B+M+P) a. #1 Discipline - Philosophy ^^ b. The Tetrahedron Ramble* c. Looking Back, and Moving On. d.  Proof of Process? e. Geometry of Purpose f. Use of Labels g. Rachell Maddow Wants You! [talking points]  h. The Mess Age is the Message!

(1st)link: Presidential Press Conference
[pun on conn text: we have the conn!]

^ scroll over in-directly effective
^^ technically only a.^^^ works in scroll over
(i.e. rest link previous post)
^^^ except d. and f. for some reason


12-18-12 Perspectivism : a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l ?

12-18-12 "buying a stairway"  (POSTED 12-17-12) [under consideration]

12-5-12 Joke of the Year!
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey
political = Contempt for Courage
leverage = Fiddle Sticks^
Ctrl F = Nail Meet F--C---[!] (Full Crumb?)
time = (b.s.) "will+expire" (FN)  ALSO Re:"time" will expire.

12-4-12 Pre-Pan FRY :
Original links pre-comment.
Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor.
asterisks.
[ read. ]
***  (kitchen)
[Post-comment]

12-4-12
The Place for Politics link that triggered my comment is not yet found.

12-2-12: as amended:
 ... Re:sources - not too pan or FRY.]
[...prE-links and post ponds.]
BTW: Is it better to fry two fish with one pan than kill or flip any birds or count bushes?
[Pre-C Hawks ?! ]

12-1-12 Links inserted. * Not too Die-jesting [!]
Washington Week
Facts...
algorithms
leverage
(rough issues/links)

12-3-12 Fiddle Sticks (hyperlinks included in pst as follows)
Boehner tells Geithner, ‘You can’t be
White House to GOP: It’s your move
“The Hobbit” is not a hipster!

Speaking of Timing

Timing Search.*

Not exactly an anachronism***, but I here is the chronology:
12-2-11
And BINGO was his dog...
12-4-11
X & Y Chromo Somes FB spin-offs
12-5-11
Image of Original In Tent (DSM[?])
It Must Mean...
12-6-11
Fair and Balanced (Childish Cycles)
Hammer Time!
No Teddy[!](Leverage applied)

Not exactly great expectations.**

* a thru s(technical glitch)
** (a,b,c)
*** but the asterisks are aligned (11-30-11)

No Teddy[!]

BULL!



* LANDMARK SPEECH!

* Martin Bashir
unrelated?
No pun.
FIXED NEWS... meaning not here yet.
But this** is what I have been talking about.

** to be up dated (oops) HERE!

[BULLY PULPIT!!!!]

[Follow-up: Ratigan, Matthews, Sharpton]
The president talks the talk, congress must walk the walk. Propose/Dispose
MC Hammer: Middle Class Schtick is the Leverage.
Channeling Warren and Pokemon
(Boot straps anyone?).

[I rest my case. Bridge anyone?]
[Ed Schultz,(Defining moment) Rachel Maddow]

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)]

Speaking of Ge Oh Me Try

or plane (and not so plane) English...
here is a base of hope, a try angle of diplomacy(Robert Naiman)[UPDATE]:

The New York Times reported yesterday that the US says it does not want to call for Mubarak to step down because 1) it fears losing all leverage with Mubarak 2) it fears creating a power vacuum in Egypt 3) it wants to avoid the perception that the US was "once again" engineering the ouster of a Middle East leader.
Regardless of whether one believes that these stated reasons are the full story, or whether they are also a cover for other US motivations - the Times acknowledges that the administration's "restraint" is also driven by lack of enthusiasm for "dealing with an Egypt without Mubarak" - these are the stated reasons of the US for not responding to the protesters' call.
But publicly and privately backing the opposition parties' call for negotiations would not, on the face of it, trigger any of the stated US objections. It is a very modest demand, totally consistent with previous US statements, which would not plausibly lead to "losing all leverage" with Mubarak; it would not create a "power vacuum"; it would not reasonably lead to a perception that the US was
"engineering" Mubarak's ouster. On the contrary: the US would be raising the profile of a particular proposal for negotiations as a way out of the crisis, and increasing pressure on the Egyptian government to respond to it.

Hope may not be too strong a word for what is not really a base, but a path. The point is that diplomacy must recognize the points and the angles to be effective.

Speaking of angles:

YES! Do not pick on Social Security as part of the debt picture, shore it up. In fact, lowering the retirement age, increasing the cap for contributions, catching it up with inflation would actually improve the debt picture, by impacting federal receipts. (not from Social Security but in income tax on the improved income.) Thank Senator Reid

I may need to take another angle on my comment: Big picture, poor segue, right note. My social security tangent is less than clear in economic or accounting terms, but the issue of State budgets, and the impact of unfunded retirement and health plans is a similar complex of factors that angle back to the nature of our frackin' troubles.

[Footnote * on embedded nature.]

* not (...embedded that is.)

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

Between the charges

and between the lines:

In their defense, A.I.G. said that they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses in question. Not paying these bonuses, the company said, would cause their executives to leave the company and could trigger a collapse at A.I.G., which could set off a collapse around the world.

I am not sure if it was from this article: A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by Matt Renner TruthOut.org but it occurred to me that these bonuses were hush money. That is probably what is referred to above. But in my mind, trade secrets were not only a threat to the economy but also to the bubble blowing which was their job at AIG. And now "hush money" is more than just in my mind, but on Hardball in the AIG bonus backlash Rep. Gary Ackerman used the term. But that does nothing to topple my Humpty Dumpty allegory. Clarifying on 1600 Pennslvania Avenue Ed Schultz points out these are not performance bonuses but retention bonuses. That does not really buttress any charge as hush money, but it might be a good market indicator when such heavy bonuses are built in preemptively, and a preemptive indicator of market failure. And yet we have another controversy where charges are under defined, or interchanged as to what kind of bonuses are being talked about and the involvement of TARP.

[3-19-09 TARP updated and links added: AIG was prior to TARP and a look back.]
[Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.]
I may not be as confused as I think. Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory.(for 1,2,3 see continued.)

Edwards Endorsement!

Suspension?

John Edwards: "we will take back the White House."

Will you stand up for John Edwards?

Still voting Edwards on Feb. 5th! And Feb. 9th.

No Edwards Endorsement! But will he?

On the timing thing, and the media.

The Dream is Justice! Ever moot?
Hillary makes moot point.
Obama, a liberal cause?
Belated Calls and Commemoration?

"I have a dream"
We have a nightmare! Let us work for change by continuing support, and vote your conscience, if not for Edwards, how about Uncommitteds for Commiting?

Commiting for change, if not committing Bush. OK, so I have wrapped up here a bit harsh. Maybe that is what Edwards needed, a bit of an edge to cut through the media. It may be a double-edge sword, but we still need to wield it. Wield what you will, but it still needs to cut through some where.

[A counter point or flip-flop: the above may have its own timetable, in that after Super Tuesday, the Republicans may know their candidate and what would happen if the Democrats are still fighting for theirs? Well... Just because the candidate is still up in the air, does not mean that we have to follow the lead of Republicans and uniting for unity sake. Will they really unite? Will they really be able to focus on a Democratic candidate? Well our focus may shift, but that does not mean we not fight. In fact, it could be managed to get more media, and it (the media) could be a focus as well. If it is McCain, the focus should be on whether he is running as a Bush Republican or running from or for the Bush legacy? This update was inspired by a comment by Thom Hartmann, almost to the point of flip-flop, but then I put my usual spin on it, for what it is worth.]
{Maybe this is just my own problem with commitment or needing to have a commitment from our candidates, but having just reread Edwards' speech in New Orleans, I am inspired to encourage that commitment and have some leverage as a group. And part of that is having something to say, and getting it out.]