Florida State Seminoles

[DooKSucks]

The zzl at ic has a thread on it. Apparently, it was a drag queen fashion show.

[eCat]

sequestration is kicking our ASS!

our numbers are bad.

Automotive is the only industry that has met its forecast

[sardis]

Sequestration will be every business' excuse this year. I wonder how many times the word, sequestration, will be used in reports to shareholders...

[Jungle Rat]

This is a joke.

[Bklyn]

The S&P has been very good to me, but Americans are making less...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ow/273719/

[aTm]

But did you call the bottom?

[eCat]

meanwhile...

As the politicians look for a way forward, conservative lawmakers say that new budget projections make their case for them. Federal tax revenue is forecast to hit a record $2.7 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

“Spending is the problem, which means cutting spending is the solution. It’s that simple,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State on Saturday, as she gave congressional Republicans’ weekly address to the nation. She cited the CBO forecast of record revenues.

Case closed?

Not so fast. The budget numbers tell a more complicated story – one that makes fiscal politics difficult for both parties.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

Yes, if $2.7 trillion in revenue materializes this year, that would set a record. It would surpass the prior peak of $2.6 trillion, set back in fiscal year 2007 before the recession began.

But that doesn’t mean federal tax receipts are fully back to normal.

Economists generally compare taxes and spending to the size of overall economy. That’s because demands on government often increase as the economy grows and population rises. And the value of tax receipts needs to be adjusted for inflation, to give a real sense of purchasing power.

[hedge]

The government is such a large part of the overall economy right now that massive spending cuts would be disastrous. Cut the military in half? Now you've got millions of unemployed ex-military people looking for work and massive layoffs at all the suppliers. Hell, if somebody somehow figured out a way to get free energy (breaking all laws of physics and thermodynamics), it would be disastrous to the economy. Every fossil fuel related industry would immediately be worthless, everybody that worked for any company that directly supplied or was related in any way to the gas/oil/coal/etc industries would immediately be unemployed. Hell, it would lead to an immediate and massive depression. You can't just say that cutting spending is automatically a great thing...

[Bklyn]

But did you call the bottom?

I went to more fixed income shortly after the quant funds blew up in 2007. I was late back into equities when QE1 came online, because the umemployment rate scared me. Then, I realized that unemployment rate be damned when the government is injecting cash into the market and forcing treasury yields so low that money will have no choice but to flow to equities.

I've never called a bottom, or a peak. I was about 3 years early on calling for a the housing collapse (with much help from my WX brother Westdawg) because I didn't understand how the structured products market was feeding things, at that time. The beauty of it is that you don't have to call bottoms or peaks. You just have to not ride any wave too long.

[Bklyn]

The government is such a large part of the overall economy right now that massive spending cuts would be disastrous. Cut the military in half? Now you've got millions of unemployed ex-military people looking for work and massive layoffs at all the suppliers. Hell, if somebody somehow figured out a way to get free energy (breaking all laws of physics and thermodynamics), it would be disastrous to the economy. Every fossil fuel related industry would immediately be worthless, everybody that worked for any company that directly supplied or was related in any way to the gas/oil/coal/etc industries would immediately be unemployed. Hell, it would lead to an immediate and massive depression. You can't just say that cutting spending is automatically a great thing...

Considering how we're positioning ourselves with regard to natgas and fracking, a removal of fossil fuel needs would hurt the US, big time, over the next decade.

However, a total elimination of fossil fuel needs is not really feasible, anyway. A significant drop in its usage by the US would help ease, a bit, the overall costs of gasoline...which would be a help to the spending power to Americans.

[Bklyn]

At Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.

Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”

Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.

A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:

I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….

This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.

The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z2Mhddc23j

[hedge]

I was thinking something along the lines of controllable nuclear fission for free. Or just make up something, some kind of small turbine that could magically turn air into unlimited energy. Everybody thinks that would be so great, but it would lead to a massive economic depression. Unless everybody just all of a sudden decided to chill out and not work so much, you know, peace, love and happiness. But you know damn well that would never happen, even under the best of conditions...

[Bklyn]

Well, maybe that's why the internal combustible engine has not made any truly significant leap in technology since its inception. Whoever would have thought up a cheaper, more efficient alternative would be taken out by drone strike for national security purposes.

[sardis]

At Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.

Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”

Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.

A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:

I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….

This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.

The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z2Mhddc23j

To be fair to the reporter, she did not suggest that Obama wasn't doing enough, she was just challenging his accusation that it is solely a Republican problem. And since the article says that the branches are co-equal then the logic of the article agrees with the reporter.

[Bklyn]

I sorta see your point and basically agree. I think the article took more issue with those screaming that Obama isn't showing leadership, as if this could all get done by sheer force of will.

Either way, I think the biggest thing I got from that article is the clearer picture it paints on why Obama is selling access to the White House. He's trying to build up a war chest large enough to take the House in 2014. I hate the concept of what they're doing, but I guess I can't legitimately fault them for it. It's the nature of our politics the last few years. If the Sheldon Adelsons, Koch Brothers and Foster Friesses ofthe world are going to collectively give over $100M to the GOP, then the DEMs are going to have to try to match that capital.

If the NFL allows the forward pass, it would be silly to stick solely to running the football...even if you feel that passing ruins the purity of the sport.

[eCat]

Obama's big mistake was thinking the republican would balk at forced spending cuts - jesus h. christo, the whole reason the GOP can't get anything done is because the Tea Party guys are demanding drastic cuts.

Boehner is like - you mean I don't do anything, Obama gets the blame and we get spending cuts that I have no control over stopping? OK, time for a vacation!

[Bklyn]

Basically.

Although, Boehner will not leave this unscathed. The President's approval rating is still above 50% and the Hill is languishing in the 20s (and the GOP's may be lower, I can't remember).

[eCat]

Basically.

Although, Boehner will not leave this unscathed. The President's approval rating is still above 50% and the Hill is languishing in the 20s (and the GOP's may be lower, I can't remember).

Obama's won't be for long.

[eCat]

[hedge]

Damn, I need to pull out my coin collection...