Patterico's Pontifications

2/14/2011

Obama’s Disastrous Budget

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:59 pm



You know who actually wrote well about this?

Andrew Sullivan:

Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America’s fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

The difference between Sullivan and me is that Sullivan appears to be surprised.

76 Responses to “Obama’s Disastrous Budget”

  1. Broken clock correct twice daily, etc.

    Let’s face it, Pres. Obama cares not one damn bit about the deficit. You know how liberals always accused Reagan and Bush of driving up the deficit so that we wouldn’t be able to afford progressive government programs? Obama-style liberalism is the flip-side of that coin. They figure that you drive up the deficit to such astronomical levels that government will have no choice but to confiscate the lion’s share of everyone’s income from now to the end of the world. At the same time, invoking a fiscal crisis, they can pretty much apply the equivalent of martial law on all economic activity. You think owning GM and Chrysler is sketchy? Wait until the government goes to the full Castro/Chavez model and owns the banks, the airlines, large manufacturing, and media, and heavily regulates the food and beverage industry, hotels, energy, and the rest.

    JVW (1a2602)

  2. Sullivan had a moment of clarity? It won’t last.

    kansas (1fc602)

  3. Did Obama just come out against gay marriage?

    steve (254463)

  4. Or as an alarming note – when the most jaded apologists and propagandists cannot excuse a annual deficit that may top TWO TRILLION DOLLARS IN A YEAR!

    And I had to listen ad naseum to these guys criticizing bush with 2 wars, 9/11. KAtrina, 4 hurricaines in one month in Florida and Rita (which was more damaging than KAtrina) and he ran up a deficit of 400 billion in 6 years of Republican control and after the dems in 4 years have DOUBLED the DEBT

    Its getting harder and harder to lie for the guy

    EricPWJohnson (427c1e)

  5. Obama is full of shit. SHOCKING! This Andrew Sullivan fellow is so dissappointed. Those of us with functioning grey matter knew this by January 2008. Even Hillary Clinton knew it. But Sullivan and most of the left and the press were in love; what a fine package Obama was, and he spoke in such wonderful sentences, albeit empty ones full of meandering happytalk bullshit. Grant you McCain was an awful candidate. But Obama is another street corner hustler in a better suit; Al Shaprton with a stairmaster and a great ad campaign.He had never done a damn thing nor held an actual job. But the joke’s on all of us.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  6. no, no, no… that can’t be sullivan. that like, is cogent and makes sense. and it dishes out hard truths that his audience might not like.

    I mean seriously, are we sure aliens had nothing to do with this?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  7. Frankly, I’m surprised myself. I thought that Obama’s budget was going to be a farce, but I did not expect such a transparent, amateurish farce.

    In all seriousness, this was a less competent job of political cover than I expected to see. You can already tell that the adults have left the White House. No one had the guts to say that this budget was not even a good enough whitewash of the budget to be released.

    I’m not saying that I expected him to put out a budget that actually addressed the deficit but I expected something that could be spun more successfully than this junior high school effort.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  8. Another rube wakes up.

    Kevin M (298030)

  9. I wondered what had gone wrong, since he went moonbat on the Patriot Act and Gitmo, some years
    back.

    narciso (c8ccf1)

  10. That was for Fein, but it applies as well to Sullivan,

    narciso (c8ccf1)

  11. Watch him try to portray himself as a deficit hawk. Watch it happen. And laugh.

    JD (aab31a)

  12. Everyone’s a deficit hawk when rome burns down

    EricPWJohnson (427c1e)

  13. Comment by JD — 2/14/2011 @ 7:53 pm
    Who does “him” refer to?
    Obama? I We all completely agree with you.
    Sullivan? I read the Daily Dish (mostly because it provides an interesting selection of links, and certainly not for anything written by Sullivan. In fact, it’s been a pleasure to read for the last two weeks, while he was not blogging because of health issues) and Sullivan’s statements over the last few months show that he understood Obama might be turn into an empty suit on the deficit, and he (meaning Sullivan) can be safely called a deficit hawk. So I don’t think you should call him surprised. The difference between you and Sullivan (besides the fact that you are not gay, not a British expatriate, and don’t blog for the Atlantic) is that you knew there was no chance Obama would do anything in the way of reducing the deficit; Sullivan thought there was a good chance he would. Naive might be the better word for him.

    kishnevi (d785be)

  14. I’m just going to give Andrew credit for telling the hard truth. We have nothing short of a crisis as far as Obama’s budget is concerned. Obama is, indeed, a selfish coward, like most of DC, for his approach to it.

    Presidential politics should be about picking someone who isn’t a coward. I think that view is genetically ingrained in us. It’s why Palin’s attitude overcomes everything else for a lot of people, and it’s why I am worried about the many GOP candidates who don’t pop their heads out of the foxhole and tell the truth, Chris Christie or Paul Ryan style. The GOP has shown tremendous cowardice on this issue too.

    We need leadership, or we are doing nothing short of stealing from our kids, something that we should be genetically ingrained against. What we’re doing as a country is wrong. Good for Sullivan for saying so.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. He has not changed the levels of the oceans, nor noticably increased the percentage of the sick now healed. These facts, among a myriad of others, show he is not to be trusted.

    More than that, such as what is due to incompetence, delusionality, or purposeful manipulation to recreate the US in a way preferred by Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, is all up for debate.

    Anything that is not good news for the administration is the fault of:
    1. George Bush
    2. Sarah Palin
    3. Rush Limbaugh
    4. Glenn Beck
    5. “Conservatives”
    6. Sarah Palin
    6. “Republicans”
    7. Fox News
    8. “Radio talk show hosts”
    9. Glenn Beck
    10. “Right wing extremists”
    11. Anti-immigration xenophobe bigots
    12. Fox News
    13. “A TV network that always criticizes me”
    14. The FCC for allowing misinformation in the media
    15. Sarah Palin
    16. Speaker Boehner
    17. Rush Limbaugh
    18. “Radio talk show hosts”
    19. Right wing factions in the Supreme Court
    20. Fox News, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, “A TV network that always criticizes me”, “Radio talk show hosts”, Glenn Beck, Fox News, BP

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  16. Comment by SPQR — 2/14/2011 @ 7:41 pm

    You’re right if Obama intended to present a realistic budget.

    But he may instead have decided to provide a political gambit. I haven’t had a chance to see any detailed description of his budget proposal, but this morning on the TV it described the deficit cutting as being provided by 2/3s cuts, and 1/3 higher taxes.

    No matter how much of idiot Obama is, he must know that no budget that includes higher taxes is going to have a chance of coming out of a House committee, much less being passed by the House. Or the Senate for that matter.

    Which is why I think this is meant as political theater. What script Obama intends to use, I’m not sure, although I’d guess it would attempts to paint GOP budgets as cutting too much, or being unreasonable about not raising taxes, or similar.

    kishnevi (d785be)

  17. Another way of looking at it is that Obama is simply following the Clinton post-1994 model. As you recall, when the GOP took over Congress the Clinton Administration cynically presented a do-nothing budget that projected annual deficits of $250B (ah, for the good old days!) as far as the eye could see. That way, they could let the GOP take the lead in proposing real deficit reduction, while the Dems used those proposed cuts to rally their interest groups and position Clinton for reelection. I think Obama is trying for the same strategy.

    I can’t believe that the Obambi have the gall to trumpet $400B in spending cuts over a 10-year period, while at the same time the overall debt over that period would increase by something like $4 trillion, a factor of ten times the spending cuts. Only a horribly compliant media would let that go unchallenged.

    JVW (1a2602)

  18. kishnevi, but there was almost no deficit cutting even at that. And regardless of the political viability of tax increases, the increases themselves were individually ludicrous ideas like eliminating charitable deductions and mortgage interest deductions for high income brackets. Those are not even serious proposals for raising tax revenue, they are intentional zombie proposals.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. kishnevi, I started writing my comment before I saw yours, but I think you are pretty much right. I make a similar point just below you.

    JVW (1a2602)

  20. the increases themselves were individually ludicrous ideas like eliminating charitable deductions and mortgage interest deductions for high income brackets.

    Weren’t those some of the proposals from the Simpson Bowles commission?

    I think eliminating the mortgage interest deduction pops up whenever people talk about reforming the tax code and/or reducing the deficit; in fact I remember the talk about it the last time around envisaged the deduction being taken away from everyone, not just high income brackets.

    kishnevi (d785be)

  21. kishnevi, there are some logical arguments in favor of it. The mortgage deduction is a leftover from when all interest payments were deductions … it subsidizes mortgages and real estate bubbles … etc.

    But it isn’t a politically viable proposal when the housing market is still on the trashheap.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. he increases themselves were individually ludicrous ideas like eliminating charitable deductions and mortgage interest deductions for high income brackets.

    Which wouldn’t raise much more revenue, anyway, since Schedule A deductions are already diminished when the AGI tops a certain level, and disappear entirely at some point. (Don’t the numbers off the top of my head, and don’t care to look them up right now.)

    Some chump (e84e27)

  23. This is something of a jiu-jitsu move for BO. Watch him let the R’s do all the heavy work on the budget: where to cut, how much, etc., and then take any heat that comes along and then use that against them in the run up to the election. “Hey I tried to talk sense into these people, I presented a reasonable budget with cuts.” will be BO’s theme. Mr. Tingles, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Nina Totenberg, et al. will gladly pick up that theme and paint the R’s as the bad guys.

    1) Because they truly believe that no government program once instituted can be cut (except the military) and

    2) They will be working overtime trying to get BO re-elected.

    BT (74cbec)

  24. As for Sullivan, I second what a commenter up thread said about his blog the last two weeks, it has been a pleasure to read. Sullivan has some good under-bloggers which is why I go to the site (that and to see the train wreck that Sullivan has become). To his credit Sullivan has been tough on spending and has called out both D’s and R’s.I give him credit for that. Now about Trig actually being Lady Gaga’s baby……(:

    BT (74cbec)

  25. BT-

    Readily admit that McCain was an awful candidate. But most of us on the right KNEW for Day 1 Obama was completely and totally full of shit. Sullivan and others were sp in love with the idea of a well-spoken polite African-American candidate that they overlooked he was a classic Chicago machine hack who had done literally NOTHING. Sullivan and others should get zero credit for ignoring their common sense in the face of an appealing package for 3+ years.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  26. Dana Perino just had a great tweet: “Torrent of negative reaction to the president’s budget proposal – and he’s having a press conf today. Nothing like leading with your chin.”

    Scott Jacobs (041d9e)

  27. It’s like he wants to be known as Terrorist in Chief.

    Worries about needing a ‘Big Tent’ this time are histrionic, hyperbolic.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  28. BT:

    Everyone knows that Lady Gaga is really a man…

    Newtons.Bit (922da8)

  29. The part that is going unnoticed in President Obama’s budget is that he is projecting, through FY2016 (as far out as he projects) that total federal spending will be between 22.3% and 23.6% of GDP throughout that time. During our prosperous years under Presidents Clinton and Bush, total outlays were in the 18 to 19% of GDP range. Chart here.

    The Dana who can do the math (3e4784)

  30. Exactly, Dana, Obama is not cutting anything and he certainly is not “freezing” anything. Discretionary spending increases in his silly budget once you remove the reductions in spending for the FY 2009 disasterous “stimulus” bill.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Our esteemed host wrote:

    The difference between Sullivan and me is that Sullivan appears to be surprised.

    What, that President Obama is doing to him exactly what he wants other guys to do to him?

    The unsurprised Dana (3e4784)

  32. Like they say, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.

    Sounds like Sully’s man-crush on The Won is going the way of his man-crush on W. Break out the popcorn. Should be fun.

    Mark L (1385c7)

  33. 17. And others, on chimera accounting.

    His budget forecasts assume revenues will essentially double. As the boomers retire? As small business goes off the books? As no one over the age of 50 dies with an estate intact. As real GDP continues to ebb?

    Revenues are above 20% of GDP, any increases to rates, fees, or obliged investment will further depress GDP and thereby revenues.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  34. But it isn’t a politically viable proposal when the housing market is still on the trashheap.

    I agree that it’s not politically viable.

    But surely when the market is in the trashheap is the best time to do it – because it minimizes the harm to people who bought on the expectation that they could deduct the interest, and who now either can’t deduct or would have to resell at a lower value.

    Which is to say: it’s going to hammer the housing market whenever it’s done, and I think it may be easier to do that when everyone already knows the market is hammered, rather than deliberately triggering a hammering.

    Here’s a question for you: probably any system would have to repeal deduction viz. new mortages but not touch deductions for existing mortgages. But this would mean that rationally economic actors would pay less for houses, because the implicit subsidy of the deduction has been withdrawn. This will result in a fall of housing values.

    Is that fall of housing values the result of a taking of private property for public use?

    aphrael (9802d6)

  35. aphrael, I think grandfathering mortgage deductions is even less viable than elimination, myself. But that’s an off-the-hip reaction.

    The regulatory-taking Fifth Amendment stuff is all fouled up IMO.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. I think you have to grandfather them or everyone with a mortgage lobbies their representative to vote against any such proposal. It’s a less fiscally ideal solution than simple elimination, but … absent grandfathering, everyone with a mortgage loses their deduction *and* experiences a drop in home value, potentially putting them underwater (depending on the size of the drop) while, if they were even close to the edge, causing them to no longer be able to support the mortgage financially. So: either they default or the bank forecloses. With grandfathering, they still get the drop in home value, but the immediate consequences of not being able to pay are less severe.

    My premise on some level is that mortgage-holders have more political clout than the mortgage-less.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  37. Also, agreed that regulatory takings is a mess. My question was less about the current state of the law and more about asking what people who prefer a strong rule against regulatory takings think of this case. Eliminating the mortgage deduction will result in a drop in the market value of basically all residential property, because people won’t be willing to pay as much without the subsidy of the interest deduction. Is that reduction in value a taking?

    aphrael (9802d6)

  38. Senatus Populusque Romanus wrote:

    The mortgage deduction is a leftover from when all interest payments were deductions … it subsidizes mortgages and real estate bubbles … etc.

    But it isn’t a politically viable proposal when the housing market is still on the trashheap.

    Maybe not, but the housing market isn’t on the trash heap because of anything having to do with the deductibility of mortgage interest.

    This is an absolutely great time to buy a house: interest rates are low, and it’s a buyers’ market. But houses aren’t moving because the people who are able to buy houses — those with decent credit and believe their jobs to be secure — aren’t first-time homebuyers, and they are afraid to buy a better house when they are unsure they will be able to sell the one they already have. And first-time homebuyers (for whom there is already a federal giveaway program) are less likely to have good credit of feel secure in their jobs.

    Aphrael got it wrong when he wrote:

    But surely when the market is in the trashheap is the best time to do it – because it minimizes the harm to people who bought on the expectation that they could deduct the interest, and who now either can’t deduct or would have to resell at a lower value.

    Which is to say: it’s going to hammer the housing market whenever it’s done, and I think it may be easier to do that when everyone already knows the market is hammered, rather than deliberately triggering a hammering.

    If someone is counting on mortgage interest deductibility to be able to buy a home, he’s way too close to the edge to be buying a house in the first place. You realize the value of the mortgage interest deduction once a year, when you file your taxes, but you have to pay your mortgage twelve times a year. Someone could try to figure it close to the edge, and reduce his per-paycheck withholding (although he’d probably have to break the law to do that) so as to amortize his mortgage interest deduction but, then again, if he has to do that, he’s too close to the edge to be buying a house in the first place.

    The Dana who has a mortgage and deducts the interest (3e4784)

  39. Dana: agreed, but given the other wildly financially irresponsible behaviors the recent crisis has revealed that people engage in, why would you think that people aren’t depending on the mortgage interest deduction?

    aphrael (9802d6)

  40. aphrael, I advocate a stronger regulatory takings interpretation but I don’t think that reduction of a tax deduction related to the financing of a real property asset would fit even my interpretation.

    Dana, unfortunately that isn’t how our residential housing market is structured today.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  41. As an aside Dana, I have good credit and a secure job, but I’m not buying, because (a) I’m planning to change careers soon,reducing my job security; (b) I have no idea where I’ll be living in seven months; and (c) property rates here are still high enough that I can’t manage to amass a reasonable down payment. (A 20% down payment on the average home in my county would still be $130,000).

    aphrael (9802d6)

  42. Someone could try to figure it close to the edge, and reduce his per-paycheck withholding (although he’d probably have to break the law to do that)

    I’m not sure how you’d be breaking the law to change your W-4 withholding when you take out a mortgage.

    I agree that you shouldn’t count on the deduction to make your monthly payments, but if you take out a mortgage you now have legitimate dedcutions and should change your W-4 accordingly. Otherwise, you’ll end up giving Uncle Sam an interest-free loan.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  43. @Bugg

    I agree with regards to Sullivan and Obama, etc. Sullivan is a complete dope on most things. What I was trying to say was that while he was out sick, his blog was actually worth reading due to some of his under bloggers.

    And just for the record I, like Sullivan, am waiting for proof that Trig is not John Kerry’s son. 🙂

    BT (74cbec)

  44. If someone is counting on mortgage interest deductibility to be able to buy a home, he’s way too close to the edge to be buying a house in the first place.

    Indeed.

    In fact, as you pay off the mortgage, you lose the deduction, because you’re paying less interest.

    Also, a person of average income buying a low priced home probably will not see a major tax advantage over the basic standard deduction.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  45. Losing the mortgage interest deduction would be painful, but only for home owners of which there are fewer currently than in a long time. The taxpaying renters of America have been getting screwed by this deduction for decades. This is a “change in the tax code” that makes sense on both a fairness and a philosophical level. It is a subsidy (which R’s claim to abhor). It would seem to affect both R’s and D’s equally –unlike most subsidies, which reward some party’s special interest group. It will be politically unsavory and lobbyists would go berserk, just like for every other type of cut to entitlements that must be considered if our nation is to survive. But where will we start? And when? What will be acceptable “pain”? To whom?

    I am a homeowner, BTW.

    elissa (abff1b)

  46. Aphrael amuses me:

    As an aside Dana, I have good credit and a secure job, but I’m not buying, because (a) I’m planning to change careers soon,reducing my job security; (b) I have no idea where I’ll be living in seven months; and (c) property rates here are still high enough that I can’t manage to amass a reasonable down payment. (A 20% down payment on the average home in my county would still be $130,000).

    A, $130,000 is 48.6% more than I paid for my house, and I bought in 2002! And I don’t live in a dump or a handyman’s special.

    If the average home in your county costs $650,000, then you are living in the wrong county; y’all are clearly just plain nuts!

    The cheapskate Dana (3e4784)

  47. Also, a person of average income buying a low priced home probably will not see a major tax advantage over the basic standard deduction.

    Depends on where you are. In CA, for example, state income tax is high enough that the break even point is around 75K -> anyone making more than 75K is better off itemizing deductions even if they have nothing else to deduct. If you have more to deduct, the break even point is lower.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  48. Dana – all our friends and family are here; my current career has a huge number of job opportunities in the area; and for the last four years, being in school has made moving not viable as an option.

    Unfortunately, the places we might move to are either as expensive or more expensive than where we live now. My husband is applying to a doctoral program in education, and the good schools are in expensive cities.

    So: unless he flat out doesn’t get in anywhere, which would be unpleasant, we don’t even have the option to buy for another 3-4 years.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  49. Also, that number should do a lot to explain why the housing crisis has hit California so hard. Sure, my county has an unusually high average, but in California as a whole, the median home price in 2008 was 339,000.

    An awful lot of people were borrowing more than they could afford and stretching to meet it.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  50. Dustin wrote:

    a person of average income buying a low priced home probably will not see a major tax advantage over the basic standard deduction.

    Not quite. While the mortgage interest deduction alone won’t do it, by being able to itemize that you will probably also be able to itemize other deductions, such as state and local taxes.

    The Dana who does his own taxes (using TurboTax®) (3e4784)

  51. Aphrael: You are in law school, right? Well, come to Pennsylvania! Jared (?) can probably get into Penn State or some other fine school around here, and I guarantee that I can find you an excellent house for well under $200,000, in a community where if you forget to lock your door at night, it doesn’t matter.

    The Dana in Pennsylvania (3e4784)

  52. Buyer’s market right now, we were fortunate enough to lock in before the recent spike in interest rates. Great deals and investments available. The paperwork for the mortgage company is like a proctology exam without the lube.

    JD (b98cae)

  53. Here you go: 120 year old Victorian, original woodwork, pocket doors, four bedrooms, full attic and basement, corner lot, garage, one owner for the last sixty years, well kept, one block from the high school, for $205,000. I’m not a Realtor®, but I can get you into that house in a week.

    The Dana in the Poconos (3e4784)

  54. Not quite. While the mortgage interest deduction alone won’t do it, by being able to itemize that you will probably also be able to itemize other deductions, such as state and local taxes.

    Comment by The Dana who does his own taxes (using TurboTax®) — 2/15/2011 @ 12:39 pm

    Of course. But like I said, this won’t result in a major advantage for a lot of people. It’s a regional issue, but here in Texas, the interest on an average home ($160,000) is about $9000. Add in the deductions for property tax, and you’re beating the standard deduction, but not by much. The tax advantages of owning a home are minor for a lot of people, especially when you consider the added expenses.

    I just think the lifestyle of owning a home beats the hell out of renting. I tend to agree with Elissa that we shouldn’t subsidize it at all, even though home building is good for the economy. Let the market handle it on its own.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  55. And that interest is for the first year. Every subsequent year, the tax benefit is weaker.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  56. My husband is applying to a doctoral program in education, and the good schools are in expensive cities

    I would like to point out that Illinois State University has a VERY well-regarded education program…

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  57. There were many disappointments in Obama’s budget and his press conference today, but I had to laugh when he said this:

    “I expect that all sides will have to do a little posturing on television and speak to their constituencies and rally their troops,” he said. “But ultimately what we need is a reasonable, responsible and initially probably somewhat quiet and toned-down conversation about, `all right, where can we compromise and get something done.’

    Compare his current let’s-compromise-and-work-things-out approach to his first meeting with Congressional Republicans in January 2009. When Republicans expressed concerns about the size of the stimulus and wanted to discuss changes, the new President wasn’t interested in reasonable, responsible, quiet compromise. His response then? “I won.”

    DRJ (fdd243)

  58. DRJ– Don’t you wonder how many times over the last two years in private he’s palmed his forehead over that “I won” retort? Even he must know by now what a supersized and especially arrogant sounding gaffe that was.

    elissa (abff1b)

  59. elissa,

    You are more generous than I am in giving President Obama credit for wanting to compromise. I think he has a clear agenda and if he is frustrated about anything, it’s that he hates having to pretend to be conciliatory now.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  60. Don’t you wonder how many times over the last two years in private he’s palmed his forehead over that “I won” retort?

    Nope. I don’t believe the man has a humble bone in his body.

    Even returning that borrowed tie to Gibbs was a massive display of ego.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  61. Oh DRJ, you misunderstand me. (Perhaps my comment was not clear). I am not giving him “credit” for anything. I just think he may regret allowing the transparent look into his soul which the “I won” comment offered to America so early into his presidency, and which has been reinforced by his narcissistic words and actions many times since.

    elissa (abff1b)

  62. Even returning that borrowed tie to Gibbs was a massive display of ego.

    Congratulations. I wore your clothes. You should be thanking me.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. Congratulations. I wore your clothes. You should be thanking me.

    Dude. Obama had the thing framed and behind glass.

    Congratulations. I wore your clothes. You should be thanking me.

    Again, I don’t believe him capable of shame, or even considering the possibility that he may have been wrong.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  64. I did misunderstand your point, elissa, but I still don’t think he would regret that statement anymore than he regrets his repeated insulting gestures. He wants people to know he thinks he’s superior.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  65. As an unemployed person in a now 1 income household, losing our mortgage interest tax deduction would raise our taxes >$3000/year when our household income is down 75% from what it was a few years ago. I doubt we are alone in that position. Talk about beating the guys who are already down! Hey Obama, where’s my job?

    in_awe (44fed5)

  66. I am sure, DRJ, that when the Left is out there demagoguing the draconian punative budget cuts, Barcky will be right out in front calling for serious reasoned discussion.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  67. Comment by The Dana in the Poconos — 2/15/2011 @ 12:51 pm

    Okay, what’s a pocket door?

    And I hope that “one owner for the last sixty years” does not translate into “handyman special” 🙂

    Around here, $205,000 would get you into a decent small house or condo, but probably in need of some renovations if it’s in one of the better areas.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  68. In my area, a pocket door is a sliding door that retracts into a recess in the wall. They can be single doors that retract on one side, or double doors that retract on each side. I frequently see pocket doors in older, 1950’s-era homes but occasionally in newer homes where they don’t want doors to be noticeable or in limited areas. I like them but like all sliding doors, the doors may not slide well as the house starts to settle.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  69. A pocket door is a door that slides into a pocket in the wall, instead of swinging out. It saves a lot of space in small rooms.

    That Pocono house sounds nice. Except the not-in-Texas part, of course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. Thanks to both of you. The name suggested some sort of Alice in Wonderland entry that people needed to squeeze through.

    My grandparents’s house in Boston had those kind of doors–at a guess it was built in the 1930s or 1940s. Here in Florida they’re used a lot as doors for the “convertible” room in condos–that is, the room that can be used as a den, office, or a second bedroom, and without a pocket door would open directly on the main living room

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  71. They get used a lot these days for bathroom doors, when the bathroom isn’t very wide, or as a “second” door like between a bathroom and a laundry room/ There are a couple in mom’s house.

    The Departed (d027b8)

  72. DAMN SYSTEM CACHE!!!!

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  73. I just think he may regret allowing the transparent look into his soul which the “I won” comment offered to America so early into his presidency, and which has been reinforced by his narcissistic words and actions many times since.

    elissa, I think his only regret is that so many Americans are dull witted and so lacking in intelligence that they don’t understand that it is he who knows best. He just doesn’t appear to have enough self- awareness…or shame, to ever experience regrets about himself.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  74. Doug Ross understands that a picture is worth a thousand words dollars… and then some.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  75. Great link, Dana.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  76. Yeah, that’s an excellent way to put the numbers in perspective, Dana.

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2968 secs.