Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. I think printing money in the basement is their business model.
  2. First urban sprawl.
  3. Urban sprawl many many many years later.
  4. One of these things … not like the others.
  5. A prize and for what explained.
  6. While its unseasonably warm in Chicago, other areas not so much.
  7. Panama.
  8. Lawyers talk mandates … more here.
  9. Looking at the soak the rich strategy and its effects. Perhaps now the tax the rich don’t cut spending knuckleheads will change their tune.
  10. Coming to your computer … in a few years?
  11. Math and blogging.

7 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. 9.Looking at the soak the rich strategy and its effects. Perhaps now the tax the rich don’t cut spending knuckleheads will change their tune.

    Interestingly during the debt ceiling debate Obama also offered to raise the Medicare age by two years with a nearly instant phase in (Reagan did a similiar deal with Social Security but put something like a 15 yr phase in for it!). No one thing will close the deficit and in the short run the deficit most certainly should not be closed until unemployment comes down dramatically, but when it does something like the Buffett Rule should be on the table.

  2. Boonton,

    but when it does something like the Buffett Rule should be on the table.

    … yah, look at those enormous savings.

  3. Well actually an alternative calculation shows $50 per year, that would $0.5T over ten years which would be a non-trivial portion of a projected $3.5T deficit.

    http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/01/ctj_calculates_buffett_rule_wo.php

  4. Boonton,
    And experience shows you optimism regarding “more revenue” vs less is warranted?

  5. Non partisan analysis says $37B per year. If the right wing analysis is correct one would have to wonder why the opposition to such a trivially small increase in taxes.

  6. Boonton,
    If 37 is trivial why is 50 a significant amount?

    (added) and for that matter since when is the CBO “right wing analysis?”

  7. Your link claims $31B over 11 years, which would indeed be a trivial amount. The other sources are saying per $30-$50B per year which over ten years does make a dent in the size of the deficit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>