^^ Not the case at all.

^ He didn't--he took it from an article in the San Francisco Examiner that's related to the image link. I provided the original source from the American Thinker. I mean, what more do you want?

And I don't know and don't care what you think you're supposed to know or what you know--but it obviously ain't much. Furthermore, I don't think you're a female from "The Bern."

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : It's all lies.]

8/24/2010 6:25:26 PM

I'm just gonna say that the economy sucks.

it's sucked ever since the month right before GWB left office.

8/24/2010 6:33:00 PM

Realistically, it has sucked since shortly after Clinton left office, non-defense private sector jobs have been on the slide since 2001.



Unfortunately, that chart stops in 2005, but we all know what happened 2 years later. The truth is, the US economy (not just the US Government) has been funded by debt since 2000. This correction was inevitable.

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM. Reason : (I am in no way blaming Clinton for this, though Greenspan deserves his fair share)]

8/24/2010 7:00:41 PM

Quote :

" I provided the original source from the American Thinker. I mean, what more do you want? "

I think you simply don't comprehend what people are posting in response to what you post. Your mind probably goes into overdrive, your mouth gets frothy, and you jump to a conclusion before you even take a second to see what people have typed.

Quote :

" I didn't assume anything."

You abso fucking lutely did.
This

Quote :

"the point of your post is that the deficits under Obama would have gotten worse regardless of Iraq war spending?"

Without any comments by jcashfan as to the nature of why he posted it means that any conclusion you reached would be based on an assumption. This is so basic I can't believe I have to waste my time to point it out to you. That you get all up in arms about my questioning this just further proves my point that the thoughts that swirl in your head derive from some made up reality where you shut out information and posts that don't jive 100% with your world view.

Not knowing anything about that graph or where it was originally embedded, you could draw any number of conclusions...and here is the cool thing, they'd all be right, yet we'd never know what the intention of jcashfans post was, which was the entire point of my reply to you that sent you off your damn rocker. Again.

Quote :

"And I don't know and don't care what you think you're supposed to know or what you know--but it obviously ain't much."

Oooooo, sick burn.

Quote :

"Furthermore, I don't think you're a female from "The Bern." "

It doesn't matter if I'm your last boyfriend if you can't make rational arguments and comprehend what you read.

8/24/2010 7:15:23 PM

^ Sweet Jesus. Okay, since you're obviously having trouble, I'm going to walk you through this:

1. Since JCASHFAN didn't post a link to the source of the graph at issue, I simply clicked "edit post" and the following link magically appeared:

Quote :

"http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/How+much+did+the+Iraq+war+cost.gif"

2. This link clearly indicated that the graph was from the following San Francisco Examiner article:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/101308339.html

And please note well that the "Properties" link for the graph in the article matches that of JCASHFAN's post.

3. The Examiner article contains a link directly to the source article in the American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

As I indicated, I assumed nothing. QED.

And please don't bother me anymore, Chance.

8/25/2010 1:27:49 AM

Quote :

"Chance"

oh, gawd.

it is, isn't it?

8/25/2010 1:47:34 AM

^ All the signs are there.

Unnecessarily nasty attitude? Check.

Krugman obsession? Check.

"The Impressive U.S. Economy" thread obsession? Check.

hooksaw derangement syndrome? Check.

[Edited on August 25, 2010 at 1:53 AM. Reason : Oh, I forgot one: Ridiculous username? Check. ]

8/25/2010 1:52:24 AM

Quote :

"As I indicated, I assumed nothing. QED."

It's simply so, without jcashfan stating his intentions with the graph, you can ONLY assume what his intentions were. It could have came from a post saying

"the point of this graph is that the deficits under Obama would have gotten worse regardless of Iraq war spending?"

and he still could have been drawing a different conclusion. Odds don't favor it, but without his confirmation

YOU.

ARE.

ASSUMING.

PERIOD.

Again, the fact that you've made yet another post trying to prove a point that is unprovable is really telling. Do you have an inferiority complex? If the fact that you weren't assuming anything was so self evident, you wouldn't have taken the time to make that last post.

Quote :

"Unnecessarily nasty attitude? Check."

Huh? You seem to be the one with the most vitriol of anyone that posts here.

Quote :

"Krugman obsession? Check."

It took me a second, but then I remember schooling you a few weeks ago in explaining what Krugman was saying because your econ comprehension is so lacking. As I established previously, I'm not surprised given the alternate reality of which you read posts that you'd somehow think this is evidence of an obsession. In case it wasn't clear before, I think the Keynes Queens are a detriment to our society.

Quote :

"hooksaw derangement syndrome? Check."

No idea what this is.

Quote :

"Ridiculous username? Check."

rofl, someone named hooksaw making this comment. Enjoy your alternate world dude, because I don't think you'll handle reality very well.

8/25/2010 7:19:25 AM

Quote :

"without jcashfan stating his intentions with the graph, you can ONLY assume what his intentions were"

8/26/2010 7:15:05 PM

i always found his intentions pretty transparent







[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 7:25:42 PM

touche . . .

8/26/2010 8:03:12 PM

I'll be more transparent on this one, which I'm glad to hear is finally making it into a major newspaper:

Quote :

"MY COLLEAGUE at Free Exchange notes this morning's post on income inequality and the financial crisis and helpfully points us to an article in which the University of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan makes the argument I was trying to make, only more articulately: [T]he political response to rising inequality—whether carefully planned or the path of least resistance—was to expand lending to households, especially low-income households. The benefits—growing consumption and more jobs—were immediate, whereas paying the inevitable bill could be postponed into the future. Cynical as it might seem, easy credit has been used throughout history as a palliative by governments that are unable to address the deeper anxieties of the middle class directly. Politicians, however, prefer to couch the objective in more uplifting and persuasive terms than that of crassly increasing consumption. In the US, the expansion of home ownership—a key element of the American dream—to low- and middle-income households was the defensible linchpin for the broader aims of expanding credit and consumption."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/inequality_and_crash_0

8/27/2010 6:52:08 AM

Quote :

"In the US, the expansion of home ownership—a key element of the American dream—to low- and middle-income households was the defensible linchpin for the broader aims of expanding credit and consumption.""

You know, I remember talking about the concept of the "American dream" in high school literature. It wasn't clear to anyone what, exactly, the American dream was then, and it still isn't. We seem to ascribe anything that we view as desireable as "a key element" of the American dream. It would have been great if we had ever actually increased home ownership. We really just increased the number of people going into debt, usually for an amount that far exceeded the real value of the asset they were receiving.

8/27/2010 11:38:53 AM

Well, I mean, in 5-10 years when I have my student loans paid off and I buy my first house for $80,000 in a decent neighborhood, I'll be happy.

8/28/2010 11:42:48 PM

9/2/2010 7:57:13 PM

Quote :

"when ... I buy my first house for $80,000 in a decent neighborhood"

you are stoned, aren't you?

9/2/2010 8:08:19 PM

^ maybe you can do that out in the woods?

^^captain obvious

9/2/2010 9:17:31 PM

Fucking Paul Krugman is on GMA saying the president should be bold with new stimulus plans and the first round wasn't big enough...his only justification seems to be that interest rates haven't gone up.

9/3/2010 7:19:11 AM

Paul Krugman is a partisan hack. He used to be a fairly good economist, I remember reading some of his work back in college, but he's really gone off the deep end in recent years.


I think Keynesianism is fundamentally flawed, but even if you assume it could work doesn't mean it is always going to work. The Economist has a good quick blog about this:

Quote :

"MEGAN MCARDLE does some back-of-the-envelope math on how much stimulus might have been required to get to full employment, and then asks a sort of comfortable-uncomfortable question for Keynesians: What if Keynesian stimulus works, but no one can ever actually afford to do it, short of something like World War II, where the government can tap into a patriotic outpouring of national savings by issuing bonds with negative real yields. It's comfortable-uncomfortable because, like finding out that your old flame really would have been happier if she'd married you instead of that rich jerk, it grants that your view of the universe could be correct but useless at the moment."

9/3/2010 10:18:15 AM

Quote :

"What if Keynesian stimulus works, but no one can ever actually afford to do it"

Then spend what you can.

9/3/2010 10:57:38 AM

^^^ That's nothing new. Krugman's been saying it for many months now--and he's been wrong for many months, too.

Oh, and it appears that Bernanke is floating a bit of mea culpa:

Bernanke Says He Failed to See Financial Flaws
September 3, 2010

Quote :

"Ben S. Bernanke, who told Congress in 2007 that the subprime mortgage crisis was 'likely to be contained,' said Thursday that he had failed to recognize flaws in the financial system that amplified the housing downturn and led to an economic disaster, Sewell Chan reports in The New York Times."

http://tinyurl.com/2ddzrdw

As I've indicated before, I'm no big fan of Bernanke. But I think there's plenty of blame to go around for the troubles we find ourselves in today.

9/3/2010 3:42:20 PM

^Weren't you just saying the same thing a few weeks ago, not that the bailout should be bigger, but that low interest rates indicate oncoming deflation, thats basically the same thing Krugman says, he just puts 2 and 2 toether

9/3/2010 4:09:57 PM

[Edited on September 3, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2010 4:22:27 PM

Quote :

"Then spend what you can."

That is the equivalent of needing a minimum $100,000 worth of structural work done to save your house, but only having $50,000 so spending it even though it won't come close to fixing the problem.

Now you're out $50,000 and your house is still fucked.

9/3/2010 4:44:21 PM

they're not the same

you can't just make up a metaphor and force it to be correct

if Keynesianism is correct, as the premise states, then some amount is better than no amount.

9/3/2010 5:39:20 PM

Or, if Keynesianism is incorrect, then spending any amount will only make things worse by further depressing productivity.

9/3/2010 5:42:40 PM

true, but that wasn't the premise.

9/3/2010 6:05:47 PM

Damnit, I just noticed that I didn't actually post the link from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/keynesianism


and the original article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/how-big-a-stimulus-did-we-need/62228/

from which I'll reiterate the premise:

Quote :

"what if Keynesian stimulus works, but no one can ever actually afford to do it, short of something like World War II, where the government can tap into a patriotic outpouring of national savings by issuing bonds with negative real yields. "

In other words, the premise is that there must be some critical mass at which it kicks in. Short of that the effect is negligible or possibly counter-productive. What then? So while my metaphor was imperfect, the point still stands that absent the ability to truly push the economy over the hump, so to speak, implementation of half-assed Keynesian economic policies becomes a Sisyphean task.

9/3/2010 6:32:02 PM

Conveniently, if any stimulus (no matter how big) fails to achieve the desired effects, Keynesians can just say that it wasn't big enough. I don't know if we're going with a The Price Is Right rule set here, but wouldn't it be better to overshoot the mark? Why not just print 100 trillion dollars and chuck it from helicopters? If 1 trillion wasn't good enough, but 2 is, why wouldn't 4 be even better? Is there any point during a recession where borrowing money to "stimulate" is no longer a good idea?

9/3/2010 7:26:48 PM

Quote :

"In other words, the premise is that there must be some critical mass at which it kicks in."

Why? There's nothing in Keynesian theory would suggest that, although you two seem to be giving your best analogies to make it so.

Quote :

"Conveniently, if any stimulus (no matter how big) fails to achieve the desired effects, Keynesians can just say that it wasn't big enough."

And conveniently if it does succeed you can always say it was in spite of it, or if it doesn't you can easily blame it.

Quote :

"Is there any point during a recession where borrowing money to "stimulate" is no longer a good idea?"

Sure, it's called inflation

9/3/2010 8:07:02 PM

To Kris: Actually, I've been very clear about what I've been saying.

Quote :

"If the price level of goods and services falls far enough, businesses could begin laying off even more workers--this is one major concern."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=38

If you focus more on the content of my posts and less on riding my nuts, maybe you'd get it. But the point was that Bernanke is at least taking some of the blame for things--that's more than most have done.

9/4/2010 1:45:54 AM

how do you raise the price of goods genius?

9/4/2010 2:20:42 AM

^ Do you mean the price level of goods and services, genius?

[Edited on September 4, 2010 at 2:53 AM. Reason : Because if you want only to raise the price of goods or services, you just change the price. ]

9/4/2010 2:51:21 AM

stop being a faggot and answer the question

9/4/2010 10:15:17 AM

Print money and drop it from a helicopter. If you must, you can burn it later by having the Federal Reserve stop turning over its profits to the federal treasury, burning them instead.

9/4/2010 10:29:26 AM

So in a more general sense, have the government spend money.

9/4/2010 10:48:36 AM

Quote :

"Why? There's nothing in Keynesian theory would suggest that, although you two seem to be giving your best analogies to make it so."

I don't know if there's anything about it in the actual "theory" (and I use the term loosely, Keynes is more of a cult leader than anything else), but when stimulus fails to resurrect a dying economy, the Keynesians always come out and demand more (and bigger) stimulus. We saw it in Japan. We're seeing it now. The expectation is that we just need to keep stimulating, and eventually we'll be out of the hole.

Quote :

"And conveniently if it does succeed you can always say it was in spite of it, or if it doesn't you can easily blame it."

Problem is, Keynesian stimulus has never had a lasting positive impact in the history of human civilization.

Quote :

"Sure, it's called inflation"

Interesting. So, we've done quite a bit of borrowing and stimulating, yet most people observe that we've only had moderate inflation. You'd think that we would have had a spike in inflation of some sort, but I hear people crowing about deflation. Could it be that there's a lag when it comes to rising prices? After all, none of the debt has been monetized and allowed to make it into circulation; only the monetary base has exploded. When (not if) inflation hits, there won't be time to implement policy changes. We're going to be looking at double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, high interest rates, and lack of credit. Cool, that sounds like something I want to live through.

9/4/2010 10:54:13 AM

Quote :

"I use the term loosely, Keynes is more of a cult leader than anything else"

You only think that because you follow the other side in a cult-like fashion.

Quote :

"the Keynesians always come out and demand more (and bigger) stimulus. We saw it in Japan. We're seeing it now. The expectation is that we just need to keep stimulating, and eventually we'll be out of the hole."

We saw it in America a while back too. We've discussed the differences in the Japanese economy and our own before. But not all Keynesians want a bigger stimulus, I for example want another one, but one more focused on public works and employment.

Quote :

"Problem is, Keynesian stimulus has never had a lasting positive impact in the history of human civilization."

That probably explains why pretty much every government in the world uses it to some degree.

Quote :

"Could it be that there's a lag when it comes to rising prices?"

No.

Quote :

"When (not if) inflation hits, there won't be time to implement policy changes. We're going to be looking at double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, high interest rates, and lack of credit. Cool, that sounds like something I want to live through."

Do you have a timeframe? If you're so sure it's going to happen, please, give me a date, that way I can bring this back up when nothing happens. It's really only fair, if, by a one in a million chance, it somehow did, you would, without a doubt, bring this up. Let's make it fair, give me a date this financial apocalypse is going to happen.

9/4/2010 11:13:23 AM

Quote :

"That probably explains why pretty much every government in the world uses it to some degree."

That's because pretty much every government in the world is run by politicians, and politicians will take short term solutions over harder long term solutions any day of the week, as long as it keeps them in power. Usually, they run the schools too, so they can keep people dumb. The average person knows nothing about economics, so when a powerful politician comes out and promises free money with no strings attached, they'll get votes.

Quote :

"No."

How is that possible? If the Federal Reserve creates a hundred trillion dollars, but doesn't distribute it, we don't see rising prices. It would only be if they started loaning it out to banks, and banks started loaning it out to people, that we would see price inflation. Or, if foreign investors lost confidence in bonds (I've got very bad news for you, they're losing confidence fast), and the Fed were forced to purchase treasuries, we'd see accelerated price inflation.

Quote :

"Do you have a timeframe? If you're so sure it's going to happen, please, give me a date, that way I can bring this back up when nothing happens. It's really only fair, if, by a one in a million chance, it somehow did, you would, without a doubt, bring this up. Let's make it fair, give me a date this financial apocalypse is going to happen."

How could I possibly know that? There's a lot the government can do to step in and prolong it. Price controls, more and more stimulus, corporate welfare...there's a lot of variables. In the long term, we can only have massive inflation. Interest rates can't stay at zero. Our debt cannot be paid, period. The IMF knows this. The administration knows this. Anyone that can do basic math knows this. We're headed towards a cliff, and I don't know exactly it will play out, but it won't be pretty.

9/4/2010 11:28:23 AM

Quote :

"So in a more general sense, have the government spend money."

Could not be more contrary to what I said. the government spending money does not put a single extra dollar into circulation, as every dollar the government spends must first be borrowed.

9/4/2010 11:32:12 AM

Quote :

"stop being a faggot and answer the question"

Kris

I'm not going to cooperate in any way until you stop being so shitty. And I've grown tired of your little tests.

Don't get mad at me because your question was about as poorly worded as it could be. There is a big difference between price and price level and leaving out services ignores a significant sector of our economy--if you don't even have a grasp of these basics, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion with you.

9/4/2010 6:34:56 PM

Quote :

"That's because pretty much every government in the world is run by politicians, and politicians will take short term solutions over harder long term solutions any day of the week, as long as it keeps them in power. Usually, they run the schools too, so they can keep people dumb. The average person knows nothing about economics, so when a powerful politician comes out and promises free money with no strings attached, they'll get votes."

Sure, it's all a conspiracy, does that tin foil hat mess up your hair?

Quote :

"I've got very bad news for you, they're losing confidence fast"

The 10YR is up about 10% over the past couple months. That's simply not true.

Quote :

"Our debt cannot be paid, period. "

Shit yes it can, we could print out the money to pay it TODAY if we wanted.

Quote :

"Could not be more contrary to what I said. the government spending money does not put a single extra dollar into circulation, as every dollar the government spends must first be borrowed."

Borrowing creates money. And what you described, the oh-so clichéd "drop money from helicopters" bit, is spending money.

Quote :

"I'm not going to cooperate in any way until you stop being so shitty."

Imagine how I feel when some faggot nitpicks my spellings or starts bringing up irrelevant terms instead of being involved in the discussion. I'll save you the little test because you're such a little bitch and just explain. If there is deflation, the easiest way to fight it is for the government to borrow and spend or print and spend. Either will tip the scale. The fact that you are worried about deflation yet upset at any government spending is just proof of how stupid you are.

9/4/2010 8:09:06 PM

Quote :

"Borrowing creates money. And what you described, the oh-so clichéd "drop money from helicopters" bit, is spending money."

"Borrowing" does not create money. The Federal Reserve printing money and putting it in circulation, creates money. What they do with it after they have printed it, is irrelevant. The Federal Government could cut spending enough to run a surplus, and the Federal Reserve would be just as free to print and distribute all the money it feels like.

9/5/2010 11:09:52 AM

Quote :

""Borrowing" does not create money. The Federal Reserve printing money and putting it in circulation, creates money."

How are you not aware of how borrowing and fractional reserve banking creates money? Far more money is created than just what is printed.

9/5/2010 12:45:04 PM

Quote :

"Sure, it's all a conspiracy, does that tin foil hat mess up your hair?"

It's a conspiracy that people will act in their own self-interest? Are you going to sit there and tell me that the politicians of the world are selfless benefactors, and they have no desire to maintain or increase their power base? Austerity is not popular when there are millions of people sucking off the government tit. Keynesian economics is an easy sell to the lay people, because on the surface, there is no downside.

Quote :

"The 10YR is up about 10% over the past couple months. That's simply not true."

10 year bonds? Look at short term bonds. I hope no one seriously believes they're going to make money off of a 10 or 30 year bond. The major speculation is happening in the 3 month to 2 year bonds.

Quote :

"Shit yes it can, we could print out the money to pay it TODAY if we wanted."

It's scary that you would even bring this up as a solution, but you're exactly right. How do you think that move would go over with China and the American people?

Quote :

"How are you not aware of how borrowing and fractional reserve banking creates money? Far more money is created than just what is printed."

When the government borrows money, it's done through bonds. A bond does not represent money that currently exists, it represents money that will have to be paid out when the bond matures. I feel like you should know this.

[Edited on September 5, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2010 12:56:38 PM

Quote :

"Imagine how I feel when some faggot nitpicks my spellings or starts bringing up irrelevant terms instead of being involved in the discussion. I'll save you the little test because you're such a little bitch and just explain."

Kris

So, shitty it is then. Setting aside the fact that you ignored the services sector, which is a significant part of our economy, as I indicated, there's a big difference between price and price level--it appears that you don't understand what's actually relevant or even the language of basic economics.

Peace.

9/5/2010 6:43:10 PM

Quote :

"It's a conspiracy that people will act in their own self-interest?"

No, the conspiracy part is the whole "we have a hidden malicious force at work to destroy us and only I know about it". Lack of corroboration is an integral part of the normal conspiracy theory.

Quote :

"10 year bonds? Look at short term bonds. I hope no one seriously believes they're going to make money off of a 10 or 30 year bond. The major speculation is happening in the 3 month to 2 year bonds."

1-3 year bonds are up as well, but that's kind of irrelevant considering if people were "losing faith in US Bonds" long term bond rates would be hurt the most.

Quote :

"How do you think that move would go over with China and the American people?"

It would depend on the level of inflation and the drop in trading power of the USD, which niether I, nor you, would be able to predict.

Quote :

"When the government borrows money, it's done through bonds. A bond does not represent money that currently exists, it represents money that will have to be paid out when the bond matures. I feel like you should know this."

God damn you're stupid. When a person buys the bond, he has the bond, which is worth money, the government has the money, which IS money. As long as that bond remains worth money, we have created money right out of thin air. Somehow I didn't expect you to understand something as simple as fractional reserve.

Quote :

"Setting aside the fact that you ignored the services sector"

I didn't ignore it, it was clearly implied, and anyone who is not a complete faggot wouldn't have had a problem seeing that.

Quote :

"there's a big difference between price and price level"

What I was saying was obvious, you just didn't want to reply to it so you decided to use your bitchy little copout there.

I used to think there was hope for you, but I've definitely lost it. You embrace ignorance and go around TSB with the delusion that because you can point out stupid little spelling grammatic and semantic shit that you're the smartest person here. When in fact I've never seen you make a decent argument, the one time I watched you try, it was almost laughable.

9/5/2010 8:17:47 PM

Quote :

"No, the conspiracy part is the whole "we have a hidden malicious force at work to destroy us and only I know about it"."

Which no one here is asserting. All d357r0y3r is saying is that Keynesianism provides cover for politicians to hand out patronage in order to get re-elected. It isn't particularly hidden, it isn't intentionally malicious, it is simply people acting in their own self-interest . . . which is what people do. I think someone had an economic theory based on that premise.

Quote :

"Why? There's nothing in Keynesian theory would suggest that"

Good thing we're discussing real life and not theory.

9/6/2010 11:33:31 AM

Quote :

"Which no one here is asserting."

Go back and read, that's exactly what he is asserting. It may seem less extreme to you, but that's exactly what he was saying.

Quote :

"All d357r0y3r is saying is that Keynesianism provides cover for politicians to hand out patronage in order to get re-elected."

I don't really think it does that, only one who didn't understand it would describe it as that.

Quote :

"Good thing we're discussing real life and not theory."

Theory is the only thing we can really discuss because it's the only thing that we can model.

9/6/2010 11:42:48 AM

Another Democrat Says Extend ALL Bush Tax Cuts
September 09, 2010

Quote :

"Sen Ben Nelson, D-Neb, on Thursday joined a growing list of Democrats that support an extension of all of the Bush-era tax cuts which are set to expire at the end of this year, including for the wealthy, a move that puts the moderate Democrat in a familiar place - against the majority of his party, including President Obama who a day earlier strongly supported an expiration of cuts for top earners. 'I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery,' Nelson said in a statement from his office. 'Continuing all of the tax cuts could provide certainty for families and businesses in Nebraska and nationwide. Today, many businesses are sitting on cash because of uncertainty, which is holding back economic development across America.'"

Quote :

"Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who is retiring this year, echoed that sentiment, as did two Democratic Senate candidates who would like to take a seat in the chamber next year, Missouri's Robin Carnahn and Kentucky's Jack Conway, both in tough races back home against fiscally conservative candidates."

Quote :

"Reed predicted that a stalemate on taxes is likely before the midterms, ruling out a temporary extension of the top rates, something economist Mark Zandi and former Obama OMB Director Peter Orszag recently advocated."

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/09/another-democrat-says-extend-all-bush-tax-cuts

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

9/9/2010 6:21:47 PM