Nope ...... even Obama is not that clueless and ignorant.

Harry knows that there's a new bill coming, First Readers.

It's the deal negotiated between President Obama and VP Biden...and Mitch McConnell.

I'm sure we'll all be on board...once the details become public.

Won't we?

Feisty?

Senior advisor to the President, David Plouffe, told David Gregory this morning:"There is no deal as yet". Meanwhile, Leader (R) McConnell keeps saying there is a deal. He floats the number $3Trillion, when it is actually $1Trillion.

Mr. Plouffe spoke this morning of extending the debt ceiling through 2012 so as not to further hurt our economy, and spending cuts in two stages. First an initial $1+Trillion first stage spending cuts. Followed by part two: a super-committee charged with bipartisan agreement on another set of balanced deficit reductions via tax reforms and revenues.

Now is the time for the American people to be given the concrete facts and not spin.

Thank you, Backhouse.

I see that you're already on board.

One down.

No...make that two.

You and me, Backhouse.

Whatever else one can say about this, one thing is clear. Spending cuts were coming.

From everything I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the President appears to be backpedaling himself right into the deal he probably wanted. He knows that the BBA is probably DOA, so it's an easy point to give up. Don't tell anyone, but I have a few tricks like that in my own arsenal that I use near the end of negotiations.

That's what they call "11th Hour" chess.

From what I understand so far, the President will get an extension on the debt ceiling until after the 2012 elections, no draconian cuts to the "Big Three," no specific targets for additional cuts beyond the number initially agreed to -- and the military will NOT be off the table-- a bi-partisan mechanism (the super-committee) to recommend the cuts -- which gives the President political cover -- and some hints about revenue enhancement, which, even if small, will play well to the President's base.

Maybe this is, in fact, the 3:1 plan, or some palatable variation on it.

Anyway, until the last i is dotted and t is crossed, don't be too sure about who pwns whom in this "deal." And whether there is lasting damage to President Obama's presidency is now entirely up to him.

With a deal in hand that secures our credit rating until after the next election, in which the President will now be seen as having been instrumental, he probably likes his chances.

So do I.

And if I understand the rules properly, the precise parliamentary reasons why Reid voted against tabling the bill are that (1) it would be much faster to amend an existing bill than to introduce a new bill, and (2) only someone who voted on the winning side can move for reconsideration.

That last part is fundamental parliamentary procedure, apparently un-mucked-up (at least so far) by Congress.

Anna Molly..

If this is a 3:1 deal then where is the revenue component?

If he cuts $1 trillion, you're saying that is comes primarily from defense?

Bet you that a chuck of that trillion comes from entitlements, cause there are no other significant sources of spending cuts that can be made. Three wars and all...

There is no tax reform as that would be a source of revenue.

If this is the deal he wanted, then he is far right of what he portrays himself as.

Maybe that's why he sold out on HCR and the extension of the Bush era tax cuts and now this.

Securing the credit rating is great, but at what cost? This is basically the Boehner bill with a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment to be held later. Big win for the TP and GOP.

AM: From everything I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the President appears to be backpedaling himself right into the deal he probably wanted.

Didn't Obama threatened a veto if the bill didn't inlcude new tax revenue, you know the center piece of any proposal Obama ever made?

the market's crash in the morning and no deal is done....obama will come on an say you have 24 hours to sent me a clean bill or we will default....i don't see how anyone can blame the dems or question them in this...they didn't start the fire and in my opinion after obama offered them 4.5 trillion the gop been scambling because they couldn't let obama have the answer an his offer was and is the best out there...this isn't about defc reduction folks this is about winning the next election don't forget that ........headlines gop house agrees to obama's plan for deep spending cuts and closing loopholes...tragedy adverted......ceiling raised......////come on don't lose focus this is about the election....obama plan approved by the teaparty and house....he won.....can't vote for anything obama does they've been doing it for two years....get with the program....you don't think obama knew that he could put a killer plan out there and they would balk...... liberals and dems have been panicing...he knew a black man doesn't get a elected in america unless he's wicked smart....not like in the gop the guy in line with the next number like the meat department....mccain. ha ha.... so my point is this honestly the g.o.p. was going to ACCEPT his plan...it would be the first thing and the first time in his term that they did.........come on alittle history obama bad we do the opposite never give him credit....osama bin ladia gop couldn't give him credit for that boys and girls....you think there're giving him the win in a crisis they created.........dont drink and type ....this is the gospel...according to the gop....WIN IN 2012 PARTY FIRST SCREW THE COUNTRY THE NEW GOP SLOGAN P.S. WE LIKE ONLY RICH PEOPLE..

The good news of course is that we now know that the Senate can actually vote on something important. They still can't pass anything, but at least they remember how to vote.

Now that that's all over, Senator Schumer can get back to complaining about the House Republicans. It's what he does best.

Mixed Bag,

"Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to" L.O'Donnell

Anna's reading of the exisitng tea leaves might just be right.

Or should I say her trial skills?

I am still waitng... put me in the other column for now

Looks like Harry and Barry are getting ready to serve up a heaping helping of Feisty's Favorite Republican Dirt Pie to lefty liberal Dems.

MMMM... MMMM.... good!!!!!!

Ira:

If he cuts $1 trillion, you're saying that is comes primarily from defense?

I don't know the answer to that, but defense is definitely on the table for later cutting, as I understand it. What I heard they might do about SS would be to change the method of COLA indexing, which reduces COLA, but not actual benefits. Don't know about Medicare or Medicaid, except that there's some sort of trigger for later if no agreement is reached otherwise (same as defense).

Obama knows it would be political suicide to give too far on those. If he does, then he's lost me, too.

Tax reform would be one part of the revenue enhancement, coupled with the threat that he could veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts. That might make reform look a lot more palatable to the Republicans, as it would give them a chance to have input before they get hammered.

I agree he sold out on HCR, and I believe he also sold out here, but to think he isn't thinking about what he does is probably wrong. If he sold out, he did it for a reason. To believe otherwise would be to dismiss everything we know about him.

As I said above, I believe the BBA is essentially DOA, if not in Congress, then in the states. The House knows this, too, so it was essentially a throw-away for Obama and a symbolic measure for them.

As for the rest, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

JoAnna:

Didn't Obama threatened a veto if the bill didn't inlcude new tax revenue, you know the center piece of any proposal Obama ever made?

Perhaps, but he knows that increased revenue happens at the end of 2012, even if he does nothing, and if it is necessary, he can make it happen by veto even if Congress votes to extend the Bush cuts. By then, of course, he'll know whether he has a job in 2013 or not, and essentially, for political purposes, it makes absolutely no difference to him.

Congress knows this, too. Hence, we have a deal. He's been holding a trump card all along.

At least, that's my hope.

Agreed, Ira.

Big win for the TP and the GOP.

It might be too late, but maybe the President could at last, and FINALLY...endorse the Plan of his own debt commission!

If he did, the "Gang Of Six" would likely fold their tents in deference...there's simply too many debt commission Plan signatories serving on the "Gang Of Six" for them to resist.

The President would also undermine supporters of a balanced budget amendment, Ira.

Someone here said that this President is a terrible negotiator...that's the ultimate understatement.

He hasn't demonstrated any bipartisan negotiating skills since he extended the Bush tax cuts last December...

Unfortunately, that was also the FIRST time he demonstrated any bipartisan negotiating skills whatsoever.

AM-

How can the allowing of a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, favored by more than 70% of the American public (in most polling on the subject), be considered a "throw-away" by President Obama and Congressional Democrats?

How is such an attitude even possible?

A "throw-away"?

Really?

Do you have even the slightest idea of how arrogant and condescending that sounds to those of us (perhaps even the MAJORITY in this democratic republic?) who have the temerity to disagree?

No wonder Democrats are in trouble...the 2010 midterm results make perfect sense to me in this context, AM.

Amazing.

You can't be serious.

He has not endorsed it yet, Mixed Bag, so I don't think he is going to do so. Not in our lifetime.

I read AM's spin to a house full of people. You should have been here, AM- bet you did not know you were a comedian. Those two spin jobs were so outrageous they were hilarious.

You weren't serious, were you?

@Bag Boy (and not meant as snark):

If that's true, then why am I hearing that there is some level of resistance among Tea-Partiers to what we're hearing is on the table right now?

no joe:

You should have been here, AM- bet you did not know you were a comedian. Those two spin jobs were so outrageous they were hilarious.

If they were people like you, then why am I not surprised? I also heard a pundit on CNN -- after I wrote my post -- who sees it essentially the same way I do.

So, I may not impress you and your friends, no joe, but at least I'm not totally alone in my foolishness.

Mixed Bag..

The only thing left for him to do now is to endorse of the 2 Plans...Simpson-Bowles or the 6 Plan.

The BBA is NOT an option...ever...it's just not workable on the Fereal level.

On Friday and many times before I said the President was a terrible negotiator and got killed for saying it...sad truth...he is. He never seizes the momentum and his willingness to compromise rather than holding his ground is astounding.

We got the Boehner Bill...in 2 pieces...it is just that simple.

Bag Boy:

Do you have even the slightest idea of how arrogant and condescending that sounds to those of us (perhaps even the MAJORITY in this democratic republic?) who have the temerity to disagree?

I do now. See you later.

Mixbag,

A balanced budget amendment is the silliest thing I have heard of from this Congress!!

I am philosophically opposed to any amendment about budgets or revenue streams being part of any constitution, state or federal.

1. It is a complete abdication of the legislators duty. It becomes a crutch for elected officials who can't do their jobs. As Feisty always say: Man up and do your job, legislate!

2. The Federal budget is not like a state budget in one very important way: Defense, wars, pestilence and other natural disasters. Deficits are needed in many circumstances to make government work. During WW2, the debt was over 100% of GDP.

3." But states have to have a balanced budget is the argument." True. But how states balanced budgets are most of the time smoke, mirrors, accounting gimmicks etc. I know this for a fact. Our state has been using these methods for the last three budget cycles.

I would never vote for any state legislator who would ratify this federal amendment, if it ever saw the light of day, in my State.

NorthstarDFL:

Posted this earlier...

The Balanced Budget Amendment. This proposed amendment to the Constitution has been talked about for a long time. This incarnation of the amendment has been attached to virtually every GOP piece of legislation related to the debt debate. I think it’s a non-starter. Some people, Constitutional experts, have called it the “stupidest Amendment ever proposed” and, I should add, that includes Prohibition which was ultimately repealed. Some reasons why:

First, the amendment’s requirement that the federal government annually spend no more than it collects is, quite simply, insane. Debt in itself is not harmful, neither for governments nor for households. Excessive debt, that is debt so large that it can’t easily or realistically be financed, is a different story.

The amendment’s additional requirement of a supermajority vote, two-thirds of both the House and Senate, to increase taxes gives the game away: If you’re serious about balancing the budget, why would you make it much harder for Congress to balance the budget?

If substantial spending cuts are what the GOP truly seeks, and I sympathize with them, then they should say so. Dressing up this desire in neutral-sounding rhetoric about a balanced budget is, if not dishonest, then an admission of political weakness.

Consider, too, what amending the Constitution implies: an exhaustion of the political and/or democratic process to solve our fiscal problems. By kicking the problem upstairs, so to speak, conservatives all but invite judges into this increasingly incendiary mix.

A Constitutional Amendment is an engraved invitation to taxpayers to file lawsuits objecting to measures that they claim increase their taxes or to any expenditure said to unbalance the budget. Taxpayers normally do not have standing to come into court to complain about how the government is run except when a specific constitutional provision specifically limits congressional power to tax and spend. The proposed fiscal amendments could give whole new meaning to that exception, drawing unelected judges deeply into matters of economic policy.

The entire argument for a Balanced Budget Amendment is to get Washington to have the same fiscal disciple as the 49 states that have Balanced Budget Amendments. Take it to the people and we can find out what people want. And of course if so many states have it, it must be what the people want. This all sounds nice except if you think about it.

States differentiate, in their budgets, between expenditures and capital investments, much like a business does. There are the normal operating costs that go along with where you’ve committed you’re money, and if you are a business, capital investments, where normally you borrow money to build your business. States quite sensibly make this distinction. That’s why they can have a balanced budget for their operating costs, and deficits for investments.

It’s important to remember that for business, deficits are important very often. Even in personal finance, it’s better to have some money saved or invested than to get rid of all your debt at one moment. Over the long run, those investments will be more helpful.

But the Federal government doesn’t distinguish between capital investments and operating costs. They’re all the same. So to say that the Federal government needs to have a balanced budget either means that we will have extraordinarily high taxes so that it can invest in the things that it does invest in: health, military, social security, education, etc., or it means that we will invest in hardly anything.

Both of those options mean we would just be plain stupid.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2010/08/10/A-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-Is-Still-a-Stupid-Idea

http://theovertonsalon.com/2011/07/28/the-balance-budget-amendment-is-stupid/

This vote was symbolic. The Reid bill will then be replaced with the bi-partisan "deal" which is in process in order to eliminate some of the Senate rules time constraints because midnight Aug 2 approaches.

As for the revenue side of the equation, that will be fought in the budget negotiations and the spending cut battles to come--which is where everything should have been in the first place. This should not have been tied to the required debt ceiling increase. Thanks GOPTP for making an unnecessary crisis; thanks for placing America in jeopardy; thanks for wasting 3 months fighting about the debt ceiling when it is money and interest rates on the money already spent and a huge chunk spent by Reagan/Bush & Bush and the GOP without a peep.

Jody...

Symbolic...So where are the $1 trillion in cuts coming from? Until there is agreement on the debt question and that is far more complicated than this, we are going to cut $1 trillion from our spending.

Do I hear the words entitlements...Social Security and Medicare?

This is far from symbolic...it's a disaster and as I said earlier, a huge win for the GOP and the TP.

Northstar-

U.S. government debt is currently somewhere north of $14.5 trillion.

Even if the hated Ryan Plan to reduce federal spending over the next 10 years by more than $6 trillion is adopted, the level of of U.S. debt still increases by trillions of dollars.

As it does under the bipartisan plan from President Obama's own debt commission or the "Gang Of Six" proposal.

It STILL increases, Northstar!

Are you really so surprised at the suggestion of a balanced budget amendment...and, that a substantial majority of Americans support the idea?

They're desperate, Northstar...

And totally wrong, by your reckoning.

Still, they know what successive U.S. Congresses have always done, and always will do...increase spending.

It's a fact, and it'll continue.

Unless there's an intervention.

Mixed Bag and Northstar and Anna Molly....

...and if we did nothing and let the Bush Era tax cuts expire, that would be $400 billion a year or $4 trillion in 10 years...the targeted amount.

Imagine adding the Bowles-Simpson plan to that.

That Anna Molly is the ace in the hole...the expiration of the tax cuts...if the President and BOTH Houses of Congress agree to it.

Later...

Ira, thank you for your very detalied post about balance budget amendment. i was basing my conviction on a very small part of the explanation you provided.

Love FR, I always learn something new.

Now I can say that this proposal is not just "silly" but insane.

NorthstarDFL..

Way passed insane and stupid and just because people like the sensible sound it makes to their ears doesn't make it right. Sounds benign but it is anything but.

A balanced budget amendment is the silliest thing I have heard of from this Congress!!

I am philosophically opposed to any amendment about budgets or revenue streams being part of any constitution, state or federal.

____________________________________________

Spoken like a true "Damn the financial markets torpedoes, full speed ahead spending money we don't have!!!!" lefty liberal. As far as I know, EVERY state is required by their constitution to balance their budget. And every family, small business, large corporation must do the same or face bankruptcy court. What possible reason could there be that the federal govt is somehow exempt from the financial facts of life the rest of the world lives with every day?? I understand that there may be times when the budget must be exceeded, like war, extraordinary natural disasters and extraordinary economic times, but, the concept that in ordinary times we should only spend the money we have should not be "the silliest thing I have heard of from this Congress!!" Unless you are a diehard lefty liberal addicted to deficit spending.

Mix Bag, After reading Ira's detailed explantion I would add that it would never work and bring more problems than it solves.

And that would not only be silly but insane.

Ira second post to you and me, does help all of the public who are desperate to find an answer. End the Bush era tax cuts and pass a Bowles-Simpson type plan.

Ira-

Eliminating the Bush Era tax cuts would take more than $450 billion/year out of the pockets of American consumers...in an economy that's growing at a rate somewhere between .4% (1st qtr) and 1.3% (2nd qtr).

Ira...please.

Why do you think President Obama wouldn't do it last December...?

At a time when the economy was growing at more than a 3% rate (4th qtr, 2010)...?

Do it NOW?

Unthinkable, Ira.

Joe in Albany..

Fact not fiction Joe....

There is a HUGE difference...

The entire argument for a Balanced Budget Amendment is to get Washington to have the same fiscal disciple as the 49 states that have Balanced Budget Amendments. Take it to the people and we can find out what people want. And of course if so many states have it, it must be what the people want. This all sounds nice except if you think about it.

States differentiate, in their budgets, between expenditures and capital investments, much like a business does. There are the normal operating costs that go along with where you’ve committed you’re money, and if you are a business, capital investments, where normally you borrow money to build your business. States quite sensibly make this distinction. That’s why they can have a balanced budget for their operating costs, and deficits for investments.

But the Federal government doesn’t distinguish between capital investments and operating costs. They’re all the same. So to say that the Federal government needs to have a balanced budget either means that we will have extraordinarily high taxes so that it can invest in the things that it does invest in: health, military, social security, education, etc., or it means that we will invest in hardly anything.

Both of those options mean we would just be plain stupid.

Hope that didn't lull you to sleep.

Have a good night.

Check out time...enjoy what's left of your Sunday!

Mixed Bag..

It's not IN the economy now Mixed...it's not being invested by the top 2% wealthiest American ...the job creators... who have benefited from the cuts. No new jobs, no investment, no demand created and NO growth.

Put it back in the Treasury to pay bills...remember that's what this is all about?

BTW...taking a trillion dollars out of the economy now...with a 1.3% growth rate is not unthinkable?

For real...a trillion....now....not in 2012.

That really is funny.

Joe in Albany, Please reread my posts, Ira's and Mix bag posts for the full discussion.

I find using a family or small business analogy to be very limiting and simplistic in this discussion about the Federal Government of the USA.

I assume you are from Albany NY? How did your state balance their budget?( please read the fine print.)

Here in MN we balanced the budget not with new revenue, but delaying state aid to school districts for the second time in a row, and floating bonds against future tobacco settlement due to our state. That is what Pawlenty did and our current state legislature did with the signature of our new governor. balanced budgets on the state level are more than they first appear.

Finally, Your description of my post as a typical "lefty liberal" is funny. What is your distinction between the two adjectives? I am certainly liberal, but I am right handed.:)

But being a "diehard and addicted" to defict spending, I guess I am guilty. I have both a mortgage, and a credit card balance. But I am working on it Joe. Just need my house to increase in value and if my car does not need fixing next month, I will be just fine.

But the Federal government doesn’t distinguish between capital investments and operating costs. They’re all the same. So to say that the Federal government needs to have a balanced budget either means that we will have extraordinarily high taxes so that it can invest in the things that it does invest in: health, military, social security, education, etc., or it means that we will invest in hardly anything.

_______________________________________________

Why not? Where in the Constitution does it require that "the Federal government doesn’t distinguish between capital investments and operating costs." (And BTW, it's a lefty liberal talking point fallacy that "spending" for your favored programs is really "investing") Borrowing for capital investment is an acceptable use of debt as long as you pay it off over the useful life of the asset you have acquired. Like a 30 year mortgage to purchase your home that you live in. What the lefty liberal govt is now doing is to take out a home equity loan on top of the purchase money mortgage to spend on nonsense like a new Corvette or a Carribean cruise or Hawaiian vacation. That has to stop.

Of course it's IN the economy right now, Ira...the $450 trillion/year figure is for ALL of the Bush tax cuts...those are what you'd like to eliminate, correct?

The Bush Era tax cuts for the top 2% amount to about $80 billion/year.

The rest is most definitely IN the economy, Ira...isn't it?

Sorry, Ira...the 1st qtr gdp number was initially 1.8%...then, 1.9%...now .4%.

The 2nd qtr 1.3% growth rate is also likely headed for a downward revision.

President Obama isn't going to raise taxes in the face of this.

Stop making your case with me, Ira...I agree with the President on tax increases.

Talk to him...send him an e-mail.

And, don't forget...

Always watch what President Obama does...not what he says.

Keep that in mind as the details of the debt ceiling agreement emerge.

Joe in Albany,

Is our conversation done? Just checking....

Okay, Brunch crowd gone, (thank, AM, for the laughs)-

Quarter four was not three percent growth; oops, they added in some nasty numbers, so it was lower than that, ( pssst- the president gets them before anybody else, and decides when they are announced).. . .

Quarter one? Now 0.4%. Going lower, folks- probably negative. Likewise, quarter two. That means double dip, for those paying attention.

All Obama has done is inflate the debt, with absolutely no positive influence on the economy. Add it to his list of failures.

We need a deal that cuts spending. A balanced budget amendment? Not a good plan. A better plan would be one that capped government spending- in all areas- to a percentage of GDP, limited by a percentage cap of the prior year. So, 14% of GDP- and if (we get rid of Obama) GDP explodes to 7% growth, that overage is limited to a half percentage of the prior year. All extra inflows go to debt reduction.

Put that on paper, and I'm pretty sure the country will be behind it.

Sorry..correction.

Total Bush tax cuts are about $450 BILLION/year...not $450 TRILLION/year.

My apologies.

I'm humbled by these numbers...overwhelmed, really.

wrong ,,,,,,4.5 trillion is what most of the people remember the outside world thought this was a done deal a president with a big plan big cuts and a slant toward the gop house 83 cut and 17 revenue....they also remember that 100 times this bill has passed without problem or in this case without a extremist party the meparty.....obama screwed them by making the best offer his first and it still is the only thing out there that actually does what it's suppose too. gop didn't expect obama to be serious about it or smart enough to know that the repbs were buffing and not wanting a settlement...the teaparty doesn't ....it in the parlance of the godfather movie,,,make em an offer they can't refuse and they did....meaning this wasn't about defci reduction.....nice play 547 drop in the dow for this gop stunt people will remember....

Actually, Mark from Lake Tahoe is basing his rant on not understanding what is going on.

1) The bill that was voted on was Reid's first bill . . . and Reid voted against it. It was the 'tabled bill' that needed to be voted down to be able to bring the agreed to bill to the floor.

2) The next step is to amend the Boehner bill to the agreed upon deal, and then pass that.

3) The step after that is to send the bill back to the House for a concurrence vote on the changed bill.

I know it's hard for you, Mark, but do try to keep up.

The only people 'damaged' by this was the Republican/TP Inc. party. The only people who are oblivious to this fact are the non-thinking, extreme right wing of the Republican/TP Inc. party, the TEA Party congress people and their followers.

I'm so confused.

IF the country can survive a year and half more of the obstructionists who WILL do anything, including hurt the country and middle class America, to see that nothing Democratic will happen in Washington until at least 2012. Possibly well beyond no matter the outcome of that race.

At the heart of this suicidal bent is the racist, myopic and sheer hate filled-rancor toward the black man in the white house. They have this only as their guiding "value". They certainly have no other these days. Many America loving fiscal conservatives will hopfully see the current divisiveness is not good for business either and join our cause but do not hold your breath. It is greed that runs their enhgine and they are revved for cheap labor and low to no taxes...America be damned.

Words cannot express the sadness in the air in America these day and for the forseeable future. The much ballyhooed uncertainty in last Fall's election has taken root in the hearts of average America this week. THAT is much more dangerous for our country than uncertainty in the business community because it means Americans are loosing hope AND jobs. BTW where are the jobs Mr Boehner?

They will never own anything. They never have. As classic control freaks it is always someone else's fault and someone ele's job to fix. (See W) Even the logical side has had moments of something less than bravery this last week. Who stands for the average Joe anymore.

NO One. That is what America is realizing and we ain't so happy with anyone right now All while Washington still is grappling with BS and dodging the truth.

The only great strides I see that the republican party has made is letting the whole country know just who is the party of the rich,by the rich, for the rich and the suckers who believe them.

A depression is preferable to raising taxes on the richest in American?

The republicans will be all against getting rid of social security now, even though they voted for bills (Ryan's Bill & cut, cap and balance) that did exactly that, get rid of social security in steps.

Why all the voter suppression if republicans are so sure of their plans for the people?

Hug a rich person, they're paying 70% of the bills J.A.

who made em rich. the workers. who made the nfl the owners ....or the players...i'm not watching jerry jones.....the rich people didn't made the money by themselves and buying company s al la romeny dismantling them layingoff people selling the pieces putting workers on unemployment shipping jobs overseas,,,shelthering his money off shore and buying legisltators..is not what i call making money....and it's counter productive to the health and well being of this country...the 25 biggest hedgefund managers made 22 billion last year and paid 15 % their sec/assistant making 35,000 not a billion paid 35% ,,,,fair if youre pathological.