TPS

Yes, a brilliant piece. A graph that shows a roughly horizontal line at 19.5% because the vertical coordinates are such to make it look like there's virtually no movement. However, when one actually looks at the numbers from the CBO web site, those "little movements" from a $10 trillion base really mean something. For example, revenues as a % of gdp were 20.9% in 2000 and 16.3% in 2004. That change means a drop in revenues by a few hundred billion dollars. One doesn't quite see anything so significant from that graph. Or, the other period when marginal rates were reduced, in 1982 revenues were 19.2% and in 1986 they were 17.5%. Those almost imperceptible dips in the "hoser" graph, mean significant changes in revenues. That's why in both periods we saw the most significant increases in the government budget deficits. Yes GG, spending was NOT held in check, but revenues also dropped. The other big problem with the piece is that he shows the marginal tax rate changes and "total" revenues, which includes corp taxes, social security taxes, and a few other sources. If someone wants to make an argument about the effect marginal personal rates have on revenues, then focus on the individual income tax revenues, not total revenues. For example, while Reagan cut the marginal personal rate in the 1980s, the Greenspan Commission recommended an increase in SS taxes, which also happened under Reagan. There are a few more issues, but it's late...

The best public course for the $$ in the region, IMHO, is the former Hunter's Pointe, now Lochness Links, in Welland (unless you don't like links-style golf). It's about 30 minutes from the Peace Bridge. Of course, it also depends on your skill level. Ivy Ridge was developed by a couple of guys who essentially were copying the HP course. Ivy is a lot easier, but fun, and you don't have to go over the bridge. Harvest Hills is another links-style course. Both (Ivy and HH)are fun, but Lochness still reigns. http://www.hpgolf.ca/

Feingold I don't care who is in the White House, this BS should stop.

I think the Bills had a perfect scenario for their first two picks. CB and WR were the two most glaring needs. They end up getting the #1 CB, then have their pick of the three tallest possible WR R1 picks. They got another need position with the 3rd--they'd be lying if they said they went "bpa" here. The other major area of need was STs, and that's what I expected to see in the remainder of the draft, and it looks like they did that, for the most part. Certainly we can all disagree over various "needs" the Bills had, but I think they did a very good job of addressing most of the holes they had. Now let's see if we can find the next "jason peters" among the udfas! Thanks to all the knuckleheads for posting doom and gloom. Always entertaining!

Meant as sarcasm...

What's wrong with using creative ways to generate revenues in supporting the growth of local government?

This is a nice little summary of things: Money editorial although I disagree with how he tries to tie the Fed's bailout to taxpayers paying for it. In a world of fiat currencies, we'll pay for this via the inflating currency.

no doubt he did a pretty stupid thing, especially since he pissed both wall street and the bush admin off. <just came across this piece he wrote in the post about how the admin blocked states from preventing subprime lending. enemies

Since I'm in agreement with you on the Fed's actions, I'll refrain....

Geez, I go on my annual golf weekend and miss the best discussion in years! Good stuff guys. I can't even find a post where I disagree with GG. I would add that the creation of the Fed was instigated by Mr JPMorgan himself because he didn't want to have to put up his own (bank's) money to stave off the next crisis as he did in 1907. A few other things to add: - The Fed has really only two goals/functions: trying to maintain price stability; and maintaining trust/confidence (via ensuring adequate liquidity) in the system. In times of crisis, price stability goes out the window. - A friend of mine's wife has been emailing me articles relating to the moral hazard issue, asking why shouldn't people have to "pay for their mistakes" (buying houses beyond their means)? My friend owns the best restaurant in my home town of Riverside (county), CA--the capital of mortgage defaults. I asked her, what would you rather have happen: make these people pay for their mistakes, or keep the restaurant in business? The FED is not trying to prevent a recession--we're in one; rather, it's trying to prevent a depression. - My favorite economist, the late H. Minsky, has a book titled "Can IT Happen Again?" IT being a depression. He argued IT could NOT happen again because of a large government sector which stabilizes aggregate demand, and the Fed's "lender of last resort" function which ensures liquidity in times of crisis. This current environment is the most severe test of this view. While I joked in a response to GG that we're in a depression, I do believe that adequate monetary and fiscal policies can prevent IT from happening again. However, I also have to believe that there are some serious deals being made with those countries (China, Japan, OPEC countries) that hold significant $ assets, getting them to refrain from selling off these assets until things have "settled down." ??? Pure speculation on my part. - Love "The Drane's" posts. However, I have to ask if you believe we really had a "capitalist system" before this crisis? - Last point, this crisis reminds me a bit of the South American debt crisis of the 1980s. The solution then (The "Baker Plan") was to let banks carry "dead assets" for several years, slowly writing them off. It was manageable because banks' assets were more diversified. - Great time to be teaching economics.

Here are two options; one risky, one not. Minimal risk: follow JSP's recommendation and pay off the 6.8% fixed rate loan with your "own" money. It's always better to pay off a higher interest loan with funds making less. That would leave you with a payment of $630/mo. Throw the remainder of the cash into a mutual fund and add to it on a montly basis. Risky option: Throw the $32k into a mutual fund. If it earns the historical average of about 12%, then in about 4.3 years you'll have an amount equal to what you owe. Pay it off, then put the majority of your $920 loan payment into the MF. Current problem with this strategy is we're near the peak of a cycle. If there's a significant market correction after you've thrown the $32K in, you're screwed.

I was on the west coast when they went on sale, and I was told they went on sale at 10 am est. I got up at 6:50 am, a little hung over mind you, and got two pretty decent tickets. Well, I get an email about 3 weeks ago telling me my tickets are being printed and there's a facsimile of the tickets on the email. Lo and behold, I bought tickets for the night before at Turning Stone CAsino!! Damn beer!! Oh well, i can always go early and play some golf. Who knows, maybe Don and Walt will need a 4th...

F'n great post! I'm going to find something to go to this weekend just to honor its sentiments.

I'd always like PJ but never saw them until then. That definitely was one of the best shows I'd ever seen and got me officially addicted...

Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS Win Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers Loss Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots Win Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS Win Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS Win Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS Win Oct. 28 @ New York Jets Loss Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS Win Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins Win Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS Loss Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars Loss Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins Win Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS Win Dec. 16 @ Cleveland BrownsWin Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS Win Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles Loss

As you know, the somewhat original band stopped touring after Pretzel Logic. Fagen toured with different folks after they broke up (after Goucho). Then the reunion tour began in the 1990s. But Steely Dan (Becker and Fagen), with originals like Denny Dias and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, stopped touring in 1975.

First concert was Steely Dan at Santa Monica Civic Aud 1973. Saw them twice again in 1974, the last real tour year. Favorite(s): Loggins & Messina's very last concert at Honolulu convention center--front row seats, dead center. 1976 or 77, can't remember now. Eagles at Aloha Stadium--I think it was 1979/80? Jimmy Buffet opened, but I missed him because I passed out from the pakalolo and beer. I woke up as the Eagles started their first song--Hotel California. Ahhh...memories.... Pearl Jam at HSBC a few years ago. Current favorite concert band.

You're getting more agreeable all the time...

Philadelphia won't make the playoffs this year; the Bills will. TKO is a great player, but he's got bad karma man. O-fer in Cincinatti; he leaves; they go to playoffs. Goes to Buffalo; O-fer here. Good luck Philly, yer gonna need it. Playoffs here we come!

I guess it's a semantic issue. I interpret the quote as essentially what you said. "The air force is regarded as being more willing" isn't much different than saying "they simply have fewer things to worry about." That's how I read it. They are regarded to be more willing because they CAN bomb the sh-- out of Iran without much damage to themselves. On the other hand, the Army doesn't have the capability to engage Iran, and more than likely Iran will respond by going after our troops in Iraq. I interpret this as one of many attempts by the lifers in the military to put the brakes on the insane policies that Cheney and the neocons are pursuing. There are top brass who disagree with what these idiots want to do, and they are using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it. Which, for military people, is unprecedented. But, hey, I'm only an economist...

The quote: "The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month."

You'll note the dissenters are believed to be army/navy; it said the air force was in favor.

Generals threaten to quit over Iran? The continuing saga between Cheney's neocons and the lifers.