Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was a positive gesture and it doesn't preclude deeper cuts in the future.
What's not to like, Frank?
Its like a gnat, and a gnat with a small dick even by gnat standards trying to fuck an elephant.
If he really wants to put Federal employees on par with the rest of American, fire 10% of them today.
It was a positive gesture and it doesn't preclude deeper cuts in the future.
What's not to like, Frank?
Its like a gnat, and a gnat with a small dick even by gnat standards trying to fuck an elephant.
If he really wants to put Federal employees on par with the rest of American, fire 10% of them today.
Why do I get the feeling that no matter what Obama did you would whine about it, Frank?
Shouldn't you be holding your fire till you find out what the goptards and the teatards actually do to reduce the deficit?
Because really aren't they all about superficial gestures toward deficit reduction, not substantive cuts?
extending the tax cuts as a start is counter productive. So they begin by batting for the other team.
I was traveling yesterday and caught parts of the proposal.
His proposal to freeze federal wages that will save $60B over 5 years in an era of Trillion annual deficits can mean one of only 2 things: either he was joking and that makes him a clown or he was serious and that makes him a moron.
Nothing else fits
He is just following up on what your pal Ronnie started. Guess you could use a strong union in the Air Traffic control racket now...eh Frankie? No raises for you gubmint workers..suckas!!!
Its like a gnat, and a gnat with a small dick even by gnat standards trying to fuck an elephant.
If he really wants to put Federal employees on par with the rest of American, fire 10% of them today.
Why do I get the feeling that no matter what Obama did you would whine about it, Frank?
Shouldn't you be holding your fire till you find out what the goptards and the teatards actually do to reduce the deficit?
Because really aren't they all about superficial gestures toward deficit reduction, not substantive cuts?
extending the tax cuts as a start is counter productive. So they begin by batting for the other team.
too, true. for the partisan hack tax-cut conservative, i strongly doubt there's anything any democrat could do to constitute fiscal conservatism while GOP budgets soar without reprisal.
so long as there are folks as simple as frank, mic stand conservatives can go about their business with as little as a hand mirror and a cigarette.
It was a positive gesture and it doesn't preclude deeper cuts in the future.
What's not to like, Frank?
Its like a gnat, and a gnat with a small dick even by gnat standards trying to fuck an elephant.
If he really wants to put Federal employees on par with the rest of American, fire 10% of them today.
You folks on the right have such contempt for working Americans. Fire 10% of them? So they can go on the public dole Frank? Do we start with nurses at the VA taking care of our wounded veterans making $28,000 a year, or border patrol agents raking in $35,000?
A gnat, oh, you must mean the earmarks Republicans spent weeks debating a moratorium on?
If he freezes them, people complain. If he gives them a raise/bonus/anything, people complain. If he did nothing, people would complain about that. These are the same people that also blame him for the Titanic sinking. (check it out in "conspiracy theories")
That would make two of you.
But unlike you Obama has at least a scant interest in reducing the deficit.
to put my point even more simpler for the avoidance of any doubt on your part:Why do I get the feeling that no matter what Obama did you would whine about it, Frank?
Shouldn't you be holding your fire till you find out what the goptards and the teatards actually do to reduce the deficit?
Because really aren't they all about superficial gestures toward deficit reduction, not substantive cuts?
extending the tax cuts as a start is counter productive. So they begin by batting for the other team.
too, true. for the partisan hack tax-cut conservative, i strongly doubt there's anything any democrat could do to constitute fiscal conservatism while GOP budgets soar without reprisal.
so long as there are folks as simple as frank, mic stand conservatives can go about their business with as little as a hand mirror and a cigarette.
Now Obama's a "true fiscal Conservative"? Gunny should rent you out as a stand up act.
Its like a gnat, and a gnat with a small dick even by gnat standards trying to fuck an elephant.
If he really wants to put Federal employees on par with the rest of American, fire 10% of them today.
You folks on the right have such contempt for working Americans. Fire 10% of them? So they can go on the public dole Frank? Do we start with nurses at the VA taking care of our wounded veterans making $28,000 a year, or border patrol agents raking in $35,000?
A gnat, oh, you must mean the earmarks Republicans spent weeks debating a moratorium on?
I'm on record that we can and should close entire Federal Departments including Education, energy, Farmers Home, Tennessee Valley and Rural Electrification and that's just for starters.
Are you saying that there is one magic thing to reduce the deficit? Are you saying incremental reductions in spending have no effect?I was traveling yesterday and caught parts of the proposal.
His proposal to freeze federal wages that will save $60B over 5 years in an era of Trillion annual deficits can mean one of only 2 things: either he was joking and that makes him a clown or he was serious and that makes him a moron.
Nothing else fits
2011-4 is when TARP, TARF, PPIP and the rest of the bail out measures have to be refinanced. Obama has no control over this.
Actually most of the money has not been shown to have been repaid and returned to the Treasury, repaid and relent seems to be the course of action most often taken. Between the nationalized GSEs, the Fed, the Treasury, the FDIC and for all I know other agencies and departments have taken on toxic assets believed to be well north of 5 T (the more or less admitted figure). Since it is highly unlikely that even all 2006 subprime loans will default these debts are not carried on our national debt as debt but rather as leveraged income producing assets. I would suspect that such notes are worth $0.4-0.6/$. If these off the books assets and probable off the books future toxic asset purchases (AIG, CDO putbacks, misc. bailout funds and sovereign defaults) it is likely that net off the books realized losses north of 10T will be accumulated in the coming decade.2011-4 is when TARP, TARF, PPIP and the rest of the bail out measures have to be refinanced. Obama has no control over this.
Do they need to be refinanced or did the Federal Reserve us e their own assets to finance these programs? TARP was backed directly by the general fund and was largely repaid so most of that money won't have to be refied. AIG, Fannie and Freddie still probably owe a bundle.
TARF was financed with the same legislation right?
PPIP was also funded via the general fund via TARP right? And as far as I know the Fed exchanged it's own bonds for toxic assets. But of course I could be wrong.
What does have to be refied is the massive ocean of low interest money the Fed lent to banks at uber discounts (the Term Auction Facility), but that's just business as usual. The Fed won't make or lose much on that trove of cash. Margins are too thin. Inflation low, defaults probably few. Unless of course defaults precipitate from EU banks, which is possible.
I was traveling yesterday and caught parts of the proposal.
His proposal to freeze federal wages that will save $60B over 5 years in an era of Trillion annual deficits can mean one of only 2 things: either he was joking and that makes him a clown or he was serious and that makes him a moron.
Nothing else fits
I was traveling yesterday and caught parts of the proposal.
His proposal to freeze federal wages that will save $60B over 5 years in an era of Trillion annual deficits can mean one of only 2 things: either he was joking and that makes him a clown or he was serious and that makes him a moron.
Nothing else fits
Actually most of the money has not been shown to have been repaid and returned to the Treasury, repaid and relent seems to be the course of action most often taken. Between the nationalized GSEs, the Fed, the Treasury, the FDIC and for all I know other agencies and departments have taken on toxic assets believed to be well north of 5 T (the more or less admitted figure). Since it is highly unlikely that even all 2006 subprime loans will default these debts are not carried on our national debt as debt but rather as leveraged income producing assets. I would suspect that such notes are worth $0.4-0.6/$. If these off the books assets and probable off the books future toxic asset purchases (AIG, CDO putbacks, misc. bailout funds and sovereign defaults) it is likely that net off the books realized losses north of 10T will be accumulated in the coming decade.2011-4 is when TARP, TARF, PPIP and the rest of the bail out measures have to be refinanced. Obama has no control over this.
Do they need to be refinanced or did the Federal Reserve us e their own assets to finance these programs? TARP was backed directly by the general fund and was largely repaid so most of that money won't have to be refied. AIG, Fannie and Freddie still probably owe a bundle.
TARF was financed with the same legislation right?
PPIP was also funded via the general fund via TARP right? And as far as I know the Fed exchanged it's own bonds for toxic assets. But of course I could be wrong.
What does have to be refied is the massive ocean of low interest money the Fed lent to banks at uber discounts (the Term Auction Facility), but that's just business as usual. The Fed won't make or lose much on that trove of cash. Margins are too thin. Inflation low, defaults probably few. Unless of course defaults precipitate from EU banks, which is possible.
That is a conservative estimate because so far as I can tell no one has ever done an inventory of the cumulative losses from other bailouts and agency debt is not normally accounted for in the national debt. I suspect everyone is in for some extremely unpleasant surprises.
