patrick.net

Why worry? Obama's campaign manager just told everyone that his re-election will no longer hinge on job creation.

The President doesn't get it. Not that he can. He's got no experience for the office. Now he's so terrible we may end up with President Bachmann.

I like Bachmann, but no chance in hell can she be an effective President.

as long as this government keeps on bailing out bad businesses (at expense to good business) we'll be sitting ducks in this economy.

all that good capital is tied up in crap still, and will as long as the congress keeps on extending the life of this debt bubble.

I think the problems this country faces are greater than any president can solve alone.

FDR had immense majorities in 1936. The Republicans in the Senate lost 25% of their seats and were reduced to just a 1/6th presence in the chamber.

They lost 15% of their seats in the House and were down to a 20% minority.

I almost think things were better then than now, macro-wise, since we know how things turned around in the 1940s-1970s (global oil boom, electronics, data processing, jet air travel, telecommunication, satellites).

Maybe we won't see any deus-ex-machina technology improvements this century to save our bacon.

We're much richer now than then, but our economy is a lot more fragile I think -- a lot more useless people in the current economy.

shrekgrinch says

And it gets even BETTER!

Only an ignorant hyper right wing troll such as Shirkworm, would be so gleeful about the economy being bad, because it fits his one dimensional db ideological view. Democrats bad - Republicans good,...

I'm nearly convinced that it may indeed be true that we need a Republican President simply because we have huge problems to solve, and the democrats are adult enough to work with a republican president to solve them (note: I said nearly)

Sherk, speaking of denial, how would you rate the economic situation of late 2008 right before Obama started, and the economy since? Is this sort of just another standard recession that Obama botched up? Or is this one of those once a century deep lasting recessions triggered by a massive financial crisis? What do you think would have worked better, as economic policy to put us in a better situation now ?

One thing you might want to factor in, which I am quite sure the GOP takes in to account. Will the next president be able to put us in a better position? If not then they might want to wait until 2016. Then again, if current GOP policies destroy our economy terribly enough by 2012/2013 then I guess a republican President could maybe preside over an improvement before 2016.

It's all too Machiavellian for my taste, but fits quite well with the patterns we have observed in the GOP the last 40 years.

Or is this one of those once a century deep lasting recessions triggered by a massive financial crisis?

The crisis did not appear like an earthquake, it was engineered -- the damage was done 2002-2007:

YOY rise in consumer debt: (in billions)

2001-01-01 649.89
2002-01-01 751.12
2003-01-01 965.04
2004-01-01 1030.45
2005-01-01 1155.93
2006-01-01 1248.64
2007-01-01 950.67
2008-01-01 396.52
2009-01-01 -187.59
2010-01-01 -262.71

The Bush Boom featured Americans going into debt at over $1T/yr.

Now we are going out of debt at $250B+ per year, this is over a $100B/MONTH change.

The economy would be a lot nicer now if everyone had an extra $100B/month of free money to spend, like we did during the bubble years. (that works out to around $1000/mo/household)

Corporate borrowing is similar:

2001-01-01 1004.77
2002-01-01 1303.45
2003-01-01 1636.08
2004-01-01 1873.52
2005-01-01 2205.09
2006-01-01 2461.31
2007-01-01 2440.28
2008-01-01 2085.68
2009-01-01 1537.85
2010-01-01 1144.79

But the boom came a year later, 2005-2008. That was a $9T credit bubble, and current corporate debt draws are over $1T/yr less than the peak.

This is simply a deflationary economy. The cackling idiots here don't want Obama to tax, or spend, they apparently want the entire economy to crater like it did in the 1930s.

Well, they seem to be getting their wish now.

Or, now that my links to FRED are working again, here's the mountain of debt we made, 1970 - 2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=12I

Troy says

The crisis did not appear like an earthquake, it was engineered

I agree that it was engineered, although I don't actually attribute total malicious intentions to it. More like stupidity and hubris. They were mistakenly trying to navigate conditions after the millennium that were very ripe for a recession. We've discussed this before. The premillennial stock market enthusiasm (irrational exuberance), followed by the reality of of 2000 and 2001 (no jetsons). IT was a natural time for a pretty severe but normal recession. Instead the govt and the fed stimulated the hell out of things and we went to war. It looked like possibly a last ditch effort to stimulate inflation (at least a side motive) in the oil markets in 2005 was made by idiots who didn't know this isn't the seventies.

I think they probably hoped to pay that inflation would pay for it. Maybe it will eventually, but as others say, it costs us in terms of standard of living.

It would be a far more cynical view that what is happening now was understood and even planned.

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash. I wasn't buying as an "investment". I bought to live in for the long haul. I was able to negotiate 15% lower than median prices in the area with the cash offer. Part of my pitch was prices are DEFINITELY going to fall lower in 2011 and I could close quickly. From the offer to closing it was 3 weeks.

I'm not worried about prices falling lower (which I'm sure they will). For me it makes sense. I leased it back to the previous owners a few months for $6,000 a month while they look for something else. I am renting a house for several more months so it worked out perfectly for me and we'll really enjoy living in it

What they say about sometimes the first offer being the best offer holds true. Back in 2007 they had an offer for $1.38 million and they turned it down trying to get $1.5 million which was the asking price at the time. Needless to say they felt a bit sick selling for under $1 million.

unbelievable promises the ObambiCrats have made and keep on making

What promises? They did what they could in 2009-2010. It wasn't enough. The economy is your baby now that the Republicans are back in control.

Yeah, I'll admit it, I have this particular one of your identities off ignore again. You are sometimes amusing (although I'm no psychologist).

shrekgrinch says

this idiocy is not about me, despite all the attempts here to make it so

Oh, I see it's all of us who think that everything is about you.

shrekgrinch says

These people are effin' CLUELESS.

And yes people, I am quite happy that they are so damn stupid. So what?

You can't back pedal on this. It's not their stupidity that you enjoy. IT's just how bad the economy is, and that they haven't been more successful in bringing about growth and employment, and undoing the unwinding of debt, the overcapacity, and the deflationary forces. Whether a republican could have done better is irrelevant to you. Problem solving and analysis is irrelevant to you. It's just "yeah baby, the democrats aren't succeeding. wooowooo !!"

marcus says

It would be a far more cynical view that what is happening now was understood and even planned.

I tend to the opinion that 2002-2007 was a simple pump & dump; not by the politicians but by everyone else. If you can bank $50M+ overseas, what do you really care what happens afterwards.

Back in 2006, I, too, thought wage inflation would arrive to save the day, for housing at least. But NAFTA and MFN with the PRC changed the rules in the 1990s. It wasn't until late 2006 that I got an inkling as to how much fraud had been going on, thanks to the housing bubble blogs breaking the Casey Serin story.

^ ain't it the truth. Thing is, this kind of argumentation from the right is not hard to find on the internet. Dunno why that is, really. One would like to think folks like Shrek are getting paid to post their BS, cuz the alternative is rather . . . worse.

Troy says

One would like to think folks like Shrek are getting paid to post their BS

I have often suspected this. Or hoped rather, because yeah the alternative is worse.

marcus says

IT's just how bad the economy is, and that they haven't been more successful in bringing about growth and employment, and undoing the unwinding of debt, the overcapacity, and the deflationary forces. Whether a republican could have done better is irrelevant to you. Problem solving and analysis is irrelevant to you. It's just "yeah baby, the democrats aren't succeeding. wooowooo !!"

Yeah, what makes me shake my head more that the willful ignorance of facts, and lack of desire for any genuine truth; is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Right, wrong or what are the causes are is irrelevant, as long as a Democrat is in the White House they gleefully giggle and clap as the economy of the US flounders and crumbles.

leoj707 says

is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Well, if I were a rich retired bastard I'd probably be cheering on the Republicans too. "Got mine f- you" and all that. Probably 20% of the population breaks this way.

Troy says

leoj707 says

is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Well, if I were a rich retired bastard I'd probably be cheering on the Republicans too. "Got mine f- you" and all that. Probably 20% of the population breaks this way.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

The key word there being bastard.

bubblesburst says

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash.

Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?

Sybrib says

Ahem, investor, it's Realtor®, okay?

Oh, thank you for protecting all of us from legal suits! So how do you get the little circled thingie registration mark and are these people worth the extra trouble of learning additional Alt- key combos? Heh.

Tude says

bubblesburst says

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash.

Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?

Gee, thanks for the warm welcome. Contrary to your belief that millionaires or multimillionaires don't hang out on Patrick's site. You're dead wrong. The internet is for everyone. Your post comes across as very ignorant.

Guys like me sold before the crash...have been waiting a few years and buying excellent properties 30% to 35% less than a few years ago with cash. I'd call that intelligent.

Troy says

Nah, by 1972 we'd cleaned out the South pretty well.

Troy says

The territory PAVN controlled wasn't significant in population terms, but it was strategically useful in that they had "inside lines" of communication and the freedom to concentrate their forces anywhere they desired,

Which is it? ARVN's control or PAVN control of the country. Are you reading what you are writing? You said ARVN's controlled the country except area's down to Saigon. Saigon is almost on the coast. ARVN's also didn't control the central highlands or the A Shau valley. Pretty big deficit in control.

You obviously don't read the same history books as I do. The soldiers all knew it wasn't doable, the general public know it wasn't doable, even McNamara later admitted it wasn't doable. Without invading North Vietnam it just wasn't doable period.

The problem was not Westmoreland, the problem was Johnson and McNamara lied about the war. Both to congress and the public. As the truth came out most of the American population and congress heavily resented it and refused to believe anything further that Johnson and later Nixon said about the war. If Johnson had been honest and admitted starting with the Ia Drang valley in 1965 we were fighting the NV army, not local VC insurgents then it is possible the outcome might have been different. I don't think so, but it's possible. If you want some shocking insight into this whole process read McMasters book called "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.". It was published in 1997 based on a lot of documents recently declassified at the time.

Why don't I think so? Because the entire domino theory of the 1950's and 60's was simply wrong. The rise of communism at the time represented the fall of colonialism around the world. Compared to the exploitation of the colonialists communism seemed like a pretty good deal. History has proved otherwise, but at the time communism was only 30 years old in Russia, 10 years old in China and looked like a successful system. Yes I know that China and Russia meddled mercilessly around the world, but the grass roots appeal of communism to people who had been in poverty and exploited for generations is easy to see. If the colonial powers had done a better job of transitioning their former colonies to self governing countries instead of taking the money and running or fighting the inevitable like the French in Vietnam it would have been different in many places.

A lot of banks have taken hold of the commercial real estate through foreclosures. They should be forced to liquidate those properties. The government is keeping them solvent while simultaneously allowing them to hold on to these properties and let them sit empty. A lot of people would consider opening up shop if they would simply let the inventory open up and stop trying to keep asset prices proped up. In doing so, they make it too expensive to buy, and too expensive to rent.

bob2356 says

Which is it? ARVN's control or PAVN control of the country.

Both! ARVN controlled the populated areas and PAVN had free range over the unpopulated hinterland where all the major border battles happened 1965-1972 (Khe Sanh, A Shau, Dak To, Ia Drang, War Zone C & D, An Loc, Iron Triangle).

The central failure of our effort was the failure to block PAVN from infiltrating south and supply their forces in SVN. This was Col Summers' thesis in:

http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Critical-Analysis-Vietnam-War/dp/0891415637

and also Lewis Sorley's:

http://www.amazon.com/Better-War-Unexamined-Victories-Americas/dp/0156013096

I think Sorley is overly revisionist but the facts on the ground in 1973 were not so bad for GVN, other than the loss of US military support and the fact that PAVN had free rein to truck as much stuff south as they wanted -- they even built a bypass road here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kon+Tum,+Vietnam&hl=en&ll=14.382807,107.983246&spn=0.915202,1.230469&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&geocode=FeV42wAd5bFvBg&z=10

("Highway 675" to the west of Kontum) to run supply further south.

This was strategically fatal for ARVN. They had to be strong in the North (Hue), Center (Kontum, Pleiku, Banmethuot), and Saigon area simultaneously, while PAVN had the strategic initiative and ability to concentrate on any area of their choosing. In 1974 they whittled away at the border areas, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phuoc_Long

~100 road miles N of Saigon. Then in 1975 they moved on Banmethuot, another city in the middle of nowhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ban_Me_Thuot

and ARVN could not deploy enough strength to save that city, or Pleiku for that matter, and they didn't have the USAF or any US ground forces to help them out any more.

All these main-force battles would not have happened if the US had a blocking force across Laos after the cease-fire.

But Southern Laos is some of the worse military ground on the planet, and holding this line against PAVN infiltration would have been difficult and costly. The Army and USMC didn't want anything to do with this when it was first proposed in the 1960s, which is why it was left to the USAF to try to interdict PAVN movement through Laos.

The soldiers all knew it wasn't doable, the general public know it wasn't doable, even McNamara later admitted it wasn't doable. Without invading North Vietnam it just wasn't doable period.

Most soldiers would say "we were winning when I left" and they'd be right. The general public couldn't find VN on a map so I don't hold any value in their opinion. McNamara has a more nuanced view than that:

"the problem was we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics"

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/07/robert_mcnamara_vietnam_war_wr.html

Why don't I think so? Because the entire domino theory of the 1950's and 60's was simply wrong.

I don't give a shit about the domino theory, either defending the people of S Vietnam from being taken into the Hanoi regime's rule was worth it or not.

In 1974 if you'd have given me a choice between living under Thieu or whoever was running the communist regime, I'd certainly choose life in the South.

Things had in fact gotten a lot better there, at least until their economy collapsed after the US pullout. Far from perfect, but a lot better than life dealing with all the communist BS.

bubblesburst says

Gee, thanks for the warm welcome. Contrary to your belief that millionaires or multimillionaires don't hang out on Patrick's site. You're dead wrong. The internet is for everyone. Your post comes across as very ignorant.

Guys like me sold before the crash...have been waiting a few years and buying excellent properties 30% to 35% less than a few years ago with cash. I'd call that intelligent.

There's nothing ignorant about my post, and I never questioned your intelligence. I just think you're sad. If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all, I'd be out living. I wouldn't have time to even bother buying a house any one place, or have time to look at a computer. I'd be so busy traveling, volunteering, and finding ways to spend my money that actually made the world a better place I couldn't sit still. The only reason I am on the computer is because I am on it nearly every day for work..

Your post just reminded me of why the world is such a shitty place in so many ways.

Tude says

I'd be out living

Me too. Why would I lock my million $ cash in a declining value overpriced wooden box?(Sorry no offense to bubbleburst,just my opinion) :)

Tude says

If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all

That is you.

Passing judgement on others, eh?

Tude says

There's nothing ignorant about my post, and I never questioned your intelligence. I just think you're sad. If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all, I'd be out living. I wouldn't have time to even bother buying a house any one place, or have time to look at a computer. I'd be so busy traveling, volunteering, and finding ways to spend my money that actually made the world a better place I couldn't sit still. The only reason I am on the computer is because I am on it nearly every day for work..

Your post just reminded me of why the world is such a shitty place in so many ways.

No one is bragging about anything. This board is about posting facts which is what I did. Actually I don't think in this day and age $1 million is NOT much to brag about.

Your post is still ignorant to suggest that millionaires don't spend time on the internet. Yes, I do travel quite often around the world and yes I do own many properties around the world (all paid for with no mortgages), volunteer with several great charities and stay active. But I still enjoy spending time on the internet, including Patrick's great site. It's funny that you'd think that just because someone had money they wouldn't use the internet. That's really funny!

You sound like a really envious person that is bitter at the world and especially at those that worked hard, built up savings and built up net worth. Good luck to you.

and it's test comment
http://pogus.com/

bubblesburst says

in this day and age $1 million is much to brag about

No kidding.

Wasn't that long ago someone could retire on a million with regular US Treasury interest payments.

Nowadays, it'll get you a couple or so of basis points, not even enough to make a truck payment with.

Sybrib says

bubblesburst says

in this day and age $1 million is much to brag about

No kidding.

Wasn't that long ago someone could retire on a million with regular US Treasury interest payments.

Nowadays, it'll get you a couple or so of basis points, not even enough to make a truck payment with.

Now just wait until $ gets severely devalued against major world currencies. Yep,I am a millionaire but it does not mean anything in or outside USA. Happy ending. ;)

bubblesburst says

No one is bragging about anything. This board is about posting facts which is what I did. Actually I don't think in this day and age $1 million is NOT much to brag about.

You sound like a really envious person that is bitter at the world and especially at those that worked hard, built up savings and built up net worth. Good luck to you.

I rest my case.

I'm so wealthy 1 million dollars is "nothing" to me. Anyone who who says a negative or critical word is "jealous" "envious" or "bitter".

You are sad.

Are you actually reading what you are writing.

SVN controlled the urban area's. My point exactly, that's pretty much the coastal area's around Da Nang/Hue, Saigon, and Cam Ranh Bay/Nah Trang. The so called hinterlands is the other 90% of the country.

You keep saying all we had to do was set up a blocking force in Laos then keep pointing out that it would be almost impossible to do. It would actually be totally impossible and if tried would be bypassed one way or another.

You keep saying the ARVN had things under control, but without the US troops they couldn't hold. That's not under control.

Did you actually read Mcnamara's interview:

"We were fighting -- and we didn't realize it -- a civil war. Now, true, obviously there were Soviet and Chinese influence and support and no question that the communists were trying to control South Vietnam, but it was basically a civil war.
And one of the things we should learn is you can't fight and win a civil war with outside troops, and particularly not when the political structure in a country is dissolved. So it wasn't the press that was the problem. The problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics.''

I don't see any nuance at all to the phrase "you can't fight and win a civil war with outside troops", at least the way I understand the meaning of the word can't.

If you believe the war could have been "won" then good for you, lots of people disagree, Especially since no one was able to define what "won" was. Just curious, what would be your definition of "won"? At what point and under what circumstances could the south stand on it's own without billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Us military involvement every year?

bob2356 says

SVN controlled the urban area's. My point exactly, that's pretty much the coastal area's around Da Nang/Hue, Saigon, and Cam Ranh Bay/Nah Trang. The so called hinterlands is the other 90% of the country.

No, GVN also had the delta secure. The splits were more like 50-50 in the N half of the country, GVN controlled closer to 80% of MR 3 and nearly all of MR 4. Basically PAVN strength diminished by distance to the DMZ.

You keep saying all we had to do was set up a blocking force in Laos then keep pointing out that it would be almost impossible to do. I

Yes, that is the common criticism against Summers and Sorley. It would not have been impossible, but it would have required a commitment about half of what we threw into the South by 1967-68. Westmoreland didn't want to divert half his strength into Laos, he wanted to secure the S.

I don't see any nuance at all to the phrase "you can't fight and win a civil war with outside troops", at least the way I understand the meaning of the word can't.

Yes, Westmorelands tactics were wrong. We pushed aside ARVN and started fighting the war for them. The Marines had a better approach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Action_Program

with an emphasis on permanent hamlet security presence rather than WW2 in the jungle.

Especially since no one was able to define what "won" was. Just curious, what would be your definition of "won"?

Anything resembling the situation in ROK. "Better Korea" still wants to take over the S, but they are incapable of doing so and the South has buried them economically.

The same thing could have happened in SVN, but it was harder because a) the VC had tons more legitimacy than the Kims, and b) VN is not a peninsula.

But if you ask any southern VC now I don't think many are that happy at how their revolution turned out.

At what point and under what circumstances could the south stand on it's own without billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Us military involvement every year?

Hopefully the S and ARVN would redevelop into self-sufficient power, just like ROK and ROC did. In 1970 both of them were basket cases too, but they had more open ocean protecting them than GVN.

Tude,

There is a difference between posting a simple opinion and posting something that borders on the moronic. Re-read your post and I think you will see how it comes across saying those that have money shouldn't be on the Internet.

Here are a few of your gems:

"Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?"

Abraham Lincoln - "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".

Good luck.

bubblesburst says

"Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?"

Sure I re-read it. I missed a word, I meant "posting on the internet", as in sitting around on a computer talking about how rich and smart you are. Sorry, I think you are sad. I think people like you are what is wrong in the world. Self righteous, condescending. I've read your posts. "I knew there was a problem when my housekeeper could buy a 300k house" lol.

No shit, "investors" aren't buying 1 million dollar homes with cash! What a f'ing revelation, thanks for adding your insight to the conversation...

No, they are too busy buying up the affordable housing in the working class neighborhoods so they can rent it out or sell it for more money to those who have to finance it. Want to brag about how you are doing that too?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".

Good one. I know you are a bit logically deficient, but someone saying proof exists is different than actually providing said proof.

Yeah, let's just keep blaming parties.

This is a good ramble I heard before.

There's a reason education sucks and it is the same reason that it will never ever be fixed. It is never gonna get any better; don't look to be happy with what you got, because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy real owners. The big wealthy business interest that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they are irrelevant. Politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice; you don't. You have no choice. You have owners, they own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they control the corporations; have long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state, the city, they have the judges in their back pocket and they own all the big media companies. They control just about all the news and information you get. They have you by the balls and they spend billions of dollars every year lobbying the circuit. Do you know what they want? Well we know what they want, they want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but i'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed well educated citizens. It would be political upheaval. A lot of people aren't smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they getting fucked by a system for thirty fucking years or more. They want obedient workers. Obedient workers are people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, longer hours with reduced benefits. The end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect, and now their coming for your social security money. They want to fuck your retirement money, they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on wall street. And, you know something their going to get it from you soon cuz they own this fucking place. It's a big fucking club and you ain't in it. Honest, hard-working people continue... the people of modest means continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don't give a fuck about you.

Not completely word for word, but a great rant that has a lot of truths.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

Good one. I know you are a bit logically deficient, but someone saying proof exists is different than actually providing said proof.

You just admitted that you are full of shit, then.

Way to go, tat!

lol--Again. I know logic isn't your forte, but you're really screwing the pooch on this one.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence.

(here's a clue for you: someone saying evidence exists isn't actually evidence)

shrekgrinch says

Google them yourself. I have long given up wasting my time to provide proof that you will absolutely refuse to acknowledge or will throw out useless (and inaccurate) red herrings or flat out ignore my response.

Ah, yes. The last resort of a troll. When asked to back up any of their claims with actual facts, they pull the "I don't have time", or "I'm not your google bitch" excuse. Shrek clearly has time enough to post 1891 comments here and has no trouble coming up with links when he wants to...

75 minute Debt ceiling meetings.

Bang up job guys, no don't put your self out, on a Sunday. I'm sure the ride to the meeting took longer than the meeting its self.

Now Obama promises meeting every day, between now and August 2 that's like a whopping 12 hours of talk.

"Obama reiterated his warning against either party taking a "maximalist position" in the ongoing negotiations, and insisted he is willing to take "significant heat" from his own party in order to get a deal done.

Republican leaders should as well, he said, referencing GOP opposition to any tax hikes."

In udder woids

Obama is willing to make the poor even poorer, if we could just tax the slippery rich.

Uh I don't want to be the voice of reason here(why start now) but, if Obama is willing to cut the valid social services the poor, elderly and infirmed, then why do we need to raise taxes.

To fund his Libya sorties?

Are you sure you guys aren't Republicans? It sure smells like it.