Thread: What has Obama Accomplished So Far?

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

It's not that I didn't like the links but just find it amazing that an additional accumulation of more than $5 trillion in deficits are seen as a cut. Are we also to believe that the national debt has gone down as well? I wonder what all those charts showing a huge increase in the national debt represent?

as you know, he cut the annual budget deficit from the levels which he inherited from Bush, and that in the depths of the worse economic crisis in 100 years.

With long-term bonds at an all-time low, the government should be borrowing even more money right now and spending it to put teachers, police, and firemen back to work in the States around the country. The government should be sending out money for immediate infrastructure projects and more assistance to the unemployed.

All of these actions would be a direct stimulus which the country's economy still desperately needs. And can be done with practically free money.

Instead the government is looking at more austerity because of the false debate over the fiscal cliff.

We're all idiots for letting that happen.

Obama has increased the debt during 1 term as much as Bush managed in 2 terms.

The Govt should be borrowing even MORE?????? Wow! And spend more on the unemployed? Stimulus? You do realise the rapidly diminishing marginal returns of so called Govt stimulus programs? How much extra tax/spend to realise increases in GDP at the moment?

Why do you thing bond rates at an all time low?

The fiscal cliff is a false debate? Can you explain please? How much extra borrowing and spending exactly should the Govt be doing? Is there no limit?

bond rates reflect the market's opinion of the US government's ability to pay its debts.

Evidently, the market thinks that the USA is a safe bet despite the doom and gloom spouted about the current debt.

Do you really take current bond yields at face value and believe that? Don't you think there is something else going on here?

So basically the 'market' thinks the US Govt is getting more and more creditworthy as it increases its debt ever more? I think you need to give this one a bit more thought.

I don't need to think more about it. That is the reality.

What do you think the interest on long term bonds represents?

It is the payback that is expected for lending the US money.

We have essentially free money at our government's disposal and an immense need to invest in our country.

Yes, I think we should do that.

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

as you know, he cut the annual budget deficit from the levels which he inherited from Bush, and that in the depths of the worse economic crisis in 100 years.

With long-term bonds at an all-time low, the government should be borrowing even more money right now and spending it to put teachers, police, and firemen back to work in the States around the country. The government should be sending out money for immediate infrastructure projects and more assistance to the unemployed.

All of these actions would be a direct stimulus which the country's economy still desperately needs. And can be done with practically free money.

Instead the government is looking at more austerity because of the false debate over the fiscal cliff.

We're all idiots for letting that happen.

Obama has increased the debt during 1 term as much as Bush managed in 2 terms.

The Govt should be borrowing even MORE?????? Wow! And spend more on the unemployed? Stimulus? You do realise the rapidly diminishing marginal returns of so called Govt stimulus programs? How much extra tax/spend to realise increases in GDP at the moment?

Why do you thing bond rates at an all time low?

The fiscal cliff is a false debate? Can you explain please? How much extra borrowing and spending exactly should the Govt be doing? Is there no limit?

bond rates reflect the market's opinion of the US government's ability to pay its debts.

Evidently, the market thinks that the USA is a safe bet despite the doom and gloom spouted about the current debt.

Do you really take current bond yields at face value and believe that? Don't you think there is something else going on here?

So basically the 'market' thinks the US Govt is getting more and more creditworthy as it increases its debt ever more? I think you need to give this one a bit more thought.

I don't need to think more about it. That is the reality.

What do you think the interest on long term bonds represents?

It is the payback that is expected for lending the US money.

We have essentially free money at our government's disposal and an immense need to invest in our country.

Yes, I think we should do that.

Don't you think long term rates are being manipulated down to their historic lows? Why do you think the Fed is buying the majority of newly issued Treasuries? What do you think long term rates would be if the Fed was absent from the Treasury market? Doesn't it strike you as odd the one arm of Govt is buying the debt issued by another arm of Govt. It's buying the debt issued from itself! It works until it doesn't anymore. It is not a market rate expected for lending the US money.

Essentially 'free' money? Nothing is free.

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Obama has increased the debt during 1 term as much as Bush managed in 2 terms.

The Govt should be borrowing even MORE?????? Wow! And spend more on the unemployed? Stimulus? You do realise the rapidly diminishing marginal returns of so called Govt stimulus programs? How much extra tax/spend to realise increases in GDP at the moment?

Why do you thing bond rates at an all time low?

The fiscal cliff is a false debate? Can you explain please? How much extra borrowing and spending exactly should the Govt be doing? Is there no limit?

bond rates reflect the market's opinion of the US government's ability to pay its debts.

Evidently, the market thinks that the USA is a safe bet despite the doom and gloom spouted about the current debt.

Do you really take current bond yields at face value and believe that? Don't you think there is something else going on here?

So basically the 'market' thinks the US Govt is getting more and more creditworthy as it increases its debt ever more? I think you need to give this one a bit more thought.

I don't need to think more about it. That is the reality.

What do you think the interest on long term bonds represents?

It is the payback that is expected for lending the US money.

We have essentially free money at our government's disposal and an immense need to invest in our country.

Yes, I think we should do that.

Don't you think long term rates are being manipulated down to their historic lows? Why do you think the Fed is buying the majority of newly issued Treasuries? What do you think long term rates would be if the Fed was absent from the Treasury market? Doesn't it strike you as odd the one arm of Govt is buying the debt issued by another arm of Govt. It's buying the debt issued from itself! It works until it doesn't anymore. It is not a market rate expected for lending the US money.

Essentially 'free' money? Nothing is free.

you are confusing Fed monetary policy, pumping liquidity into the market, with the government debt and spending.

Free? If the government can get long-term money at near 0% interest, pay it back in the future even after slight inflation of 2-3%, then yes it is essentially free.

Not to mention that the government brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing. So if the government does what is needed today (stimulus) to get the economy moving - generate demand, get people back to work, improve the economic environment for companies, then tax revenues will increase along with that.

It is not a zero-sum game, it is a win-win game.

People looking at austerity - right at this time - are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.

Originally Posted by TLansford

Don't you think long term rates are being manipulated down to their historic lows? Why do you think the Fed is buying the majority of newly issued Treasuries? What do you think long term rates would be if the Fed was absent from the Treasury market? Doesn't it strike you as odd the one arm of Govt is buying the debt issued by another arm of Govt. It's buying the debt issued from itself! It works until it doesn't anymore. It is not a market rate expected for lending the US money.

Essentially 'free' money? Nothing is free.

you are confusing Fed monetary policy, pumping liquidity into the market, with the government debt and spending.

Free? If the government can get long-term money at near 0% interest, pay it back in the future even after slight inflation of 2-3%, then yes it is essentially free.

Not to mention that the government brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing. So if the government does what is needed today (stimulus) to get the economy moving - generate demand, get people back to work, improve the economic environment for companies, then tax revenues will increase along with that.

It is not a zero-sum game, it is a win-win game.

People looking at austerity - right at this time - are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.[/quote][/quote]

[/quote]



There is no confusion at all, the two are inextricably linked, to think otherwise is.....

So the Fed's manipulation of the price of Govt debt has no link Govt debt and spending?

Well if you believe it is 'free' money perhaps you have discovered there is such a thing as a free lunch after all! I just wonder why such expansion of the monetary base have not worked in Argentina, or anywhere else in the past.

The Govt brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing? Is this why the US Govt has surpluses built up during the performing years that is now being used to offset the current deficits? Thought not. There have been 4 surplus years in the last 42 years.

If it actually turns out to be a zero-sum game that is probably a best case scenario, too often central planning results in demand destruction and a gross misallocation of resources. Not sure how Govt using scarce capital that otherwise companies could use is helping them.

Originally Posted by draco888

There have been 4 surplus years in the last 42 years.

Three of the four were under a Democrat President, Clinton, and the other one was the year Bush was elected and had not yet had time enough to throw US government finances back into a tailspin. If you are really so concerned about the national debt, why are you using that as a platform to advocate the GOP, and their 'Deficits don't matter' (actual quote from Dick Cheney) and Supply side economics approach- which has been thoroughly discredited in the real world? It's not as if Romney presented any policy either- his sums, such as they were, just plain didn't add up.

The real question is what this guy would be doing right now?



6 weeks back in office. The shit slinging has begun, which beckons the demise of the Republican party. Either expand your base as the wise GOP members advocate, or risk losing the party the Lincoln made famous. Not an issues guy, its just I never liked the thread from the beginning.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by draco888

There have been 4 surplus years in the last 42 years.

Three of the four were under a Democrat President, Clinton, and the other one was the year Bush was elected and had not yet had time enough to throw US government finances back into a tailspin. If you are really so concerned about the national debt, why are you using that as a platform to advocate the GOP, and their 'Deficits don't matter' (actual quote from Dick Cheney) and Supply side economics approach- which has been thoroughly discredited in the real world? It's not as if Romney presented any policy either- his sums, such as they were, just plain didn't add up.

WTF are you on about? What platform to advocate GOP? No idea what you are referring to? Can you give me an example of when I advocated GOP? I was talking about monetary policies not party politics as such.

The fact that there have only been 4 surplus years in the last 42 should show you that it makes not one bit of difference which party is in power, there are deficits because politicians make promises they cannot keep to bribe their way into power.

Since you choose to differentiate between political parties who held power during the surplus years what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? Is it not more likely that it was a historical accident who happened to be in power during the technology bubble of 2000. To try and infer one party is superior to the other having managed a sum total of 3 surplus years during all those decades is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by draco888

Is it not more likely that it was a historical accident who happened to be in power during the technology bubble of 2000.

I must have missed that. What happened then? What would this event have to do with a US president either democrat or republican? Sounds like private endeavour to me.

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Don't you think long term rates are being manipulated down to their historic lows? Why do you think the Fed is buying the majority of newly issued Treasuries? What do you think long term rates would be if the Fed was absent from the Treasury market? Doesn't it strike you as odd the one arm of Govt is buying the debt issued by another arm of Govt. It's buying the debt issued from itself! It works until it doesn't anymore. It is not a market rate expected for lending the US money.

Essentially 'free' money? Nothing is free.

you are confusing Fed monetary policy, pumping liquidity into the market, with the government debt and spending.

Free? If the government can get long-term money at near 0% interest, pay it back in the future even after slight inflation of 2-3%, then yes it is essentially free.

Not to mention that the government brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing. So if the government does what is needed today (stimulus) to get the economy moving - generate demand, get people back to work, improve the economic environment for companies, then tax revenues will increase along with that.

It is not a zero-sum game, it is a win-win game.

People looking at austerity - right at this time - are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.

[/quote]

[/quote]



There is no confusion at all, the two are inextricably linked, to think otherwise is.....

So the Fed's manipulation of the price of Govt debt has no link Govt debt and spending?

Well if you believe it is 'free' money perhaps you have discovered there is such a thing as a free lunch after all! I just wonder why such expansion of the monetary base have not worked in Argentina, or anywhere else in the past.

The Govt brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing? Is this why the US Govt has surpluses built up during the performing years that is now being used to offset the current deficits? Thought not. There have been 4 surplus years in the last 42 years.

If it actually turns out to be a zero-sum game that is probably a best case scenario, too often central planning results in demand destruction and a gross misallocation of resources. Not sure how Govt using scarce capital that otherwise companies could use is helping them.[/QUOTE]

so the US government tells the market what the long term rates are on US government debt

You are in lala land, sir. As you should well know, that is not how the market works.

Yes, the money borrowed now is essentially free and it would be a helluva good investment for the US to do some investing in itself right now for the long-term benefit of the country.

Not that the current political/media environment is conducive to that. I hardly expect the politicians to be focused on investing when they are all worried about driving off an imaginary fiscal "cliff".

ps: you should note that the tax revenues brought in by the US government are higher when the economy is doing well and lower when it is doing poorly rather than try to pretend that this is somehow about government debts and surpluses. You are IMO being obtuse or disingenuous.

Originally Posted by TLansford

so the US government tells the market what the long term rates are on US government debt

You are in lala land, sir. As you should well know, that is not how the market works.

ps: you should note that the tax revenues brought in by the US government are higher when the economy is doing well and lower when it is doing poorly rather than try to pretend that this is somehow about government debts and surpluses. You are IMO being obtuse or disingenuous.

So are you saying the US Govts purchases of their own debt has no impact on the market rates? Why are they doing it then? How is this lala land? So perhaps you could explain?

Of course tax revenues are higher when the economy is doing well and of course this also has an effect on Govt debts and surpluses, how could it not?

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

so the US government tells the market what the long term rates are on US government debt

You are in lala land, sir. As you should well know, that is not how the market works.

ps: you should note that the tax revenues brought in by the US government are higher when the economy is doing well and lower when it is doing poorly rather than try to pretend that this is somehow about government debts and surpluses. You are IMO being obtuse or disingenuous.

So are you saying the US Govts purchases of their own debt has no impact on the market rates? Why are they doing it then? How is this lala land? So perhaps you could explain?

Of course tax revenues are higher when the economy is doing well and of course this also has an effect on Govt debts and surpluses, how could it not?

regarding your comments earlier on tax revenues during good economies, you stated,

The Govt brings in a ton of money when the economy is performing? Is this why the US Govt has surpluses built up during the performing years that is now being used to offset the current deficits? Thought not.

excuse me if that sounded like you did not agree.

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Originally Posted by draco888

So are you saying the US Govts purchases of their own debt has no impact on the market rates?

the US Government doesn't purchase its own debt, not sure where you get that misinformation from. The Fed does. You do realize that the Fed and the government are two different entities, the Fed doesn't take orders from the government. Maybe you didn't know.

Actually the repo market for US treasuries has more impact on the yield,

US treasuries are often used as collateral for a number of derivatives and that can distort seriously certain yield maturities

In short, the private sector (the market) has more impact on yield on a daily basis than any "government" and Fed actions

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by draco888

So are you saying the US Govts purchases of their own debt has no impact on the market rates?

the US Government doesn't purchase its own debt, not sure where you get that misinformation from. The Fed does. You do realize that the Fed and the government are two different entities, the Fed doesn't take orders from the government. Maybe you didn't know.

Naivety In the extreme, you really believe in the 'independence' of Fed? I thought the governor was a political appointment? Funny that the Fed rebates all it's earning from treasuries back to the Govt is it not if they are such different entities.....

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

you are completely confused, and believe that the government sets the interest rates for treasury bonds.

adios

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

you are completely confused, and believe that the government sets the interest rates for treasury bonds.

adios

I am confused????? And this from someone who does not understand the most basic relationship in the bond market???

TLansford-"if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?"

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

you are completely confused, and believe that the government sets the interest rates for treasury bonds.

adios

Can you show me where I stated the govt 'sets' the interest rates?

T Bonds are considered a safe haven, and that is what current yields are telling you. There is considered near zero risk of default, a credit rating I am not sure the US government deserves, but enjoys by default.

If you think the US is at imminent risk of default, and you think this is because of BHO, that is your opinion (and feel welcome to back it up with something)- but the financial markets are telling you the opposite.

Originally Posted by sabang

T Bonds are considered a safe haven, and that is what current yields are telling you. There is considered near zero risk of default, a credit rating I am not sure the US government deserves, but enjoys by default.

If you think the US is at imminent risk of default, and you think this is because of BHO, that is your opinion (and feel welcome to back it up with something)- but the financial markets are telling you the opposite.

Are current yields telling you that or are yields telling you that the Fed is injecting many billions of dollars into the bond markets every month?

Of course there is zero risk of a conventional default, there is an unlimited quantity of dollars which can be printed to avoid default. You think the markets are telling us that things are getting safer and safer as the US Govt debt continues to add trillion after trillion to the debt burden?

Originally Posted by draco888

the Fed is injecting many billions of dollars into the bond markets every month?

Technically speaking, the opposite- it is buying Bonds- thus taking them out of the market, and injecting Cash or liquidity into the system. This sort of market activity is routine for the Fed actually, and is carried out by the FOMC (google is your friend). What is unprecedented is the scale. Clearly, the Fed is pursuing a 'lose' monetary policy, by injecting liquidity into the system. If the international financial markets were nervous about this you would see massive selling of T Bonds, thus driving Yields up. This quite obviously has not been happening.

The looming 'Fiscal Cliff' is basically a media and GOP invention. I actually consider the Democrat Deficit reduction measures to be lukewarm, because I am a fiscal conservative. But they are far better than anything Romney proposed while refusing to back his preposterous assumptions up with figures, because he didn't have any. The GOP do not care about the Deficit, although many of it's constituents might, they just care about preserving the ridiculously low (and temporary) tax regime for the 1%, and Corporations.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by draco888

the Fed is injecting many billions of dollars into the bond markets every month?

Technically speaking, the opposite- it is buying Bonds- thus taking them out of the market, and injecting Cash or liquidity into the system. This sort of market activity is routine for the Fed actually, and is carried out by the FOMC (google is your friend). What is unprecedented is the scale. Clearly, the Fed is pursuing a 'lose' monetary policy, by injecting liquidity into the system. If the international financial markets were nervous about this you would see massive selling of T Bonds, thus driving Yields up. This quite obviously has not been happening.

The looming 'Fiscal Cliff' is basically a media and GOP invention. I actually consider the Democrat Deficit reduction measures to be lukewarm, because I am a fiscal conservative. But they are far better than anything Romney proposed while refusing to back his preposterous assumptions up with figures, because he didn't have any. The GOP do not care about the Deficit, although many of it's constituents might, they just care about preserving the ridiculously low (and temporary) tax regime for the 1%, and Corporations.

Yes that is what i said, injecting billions of dollars into the bond market, not the opposite at all. Exchanging dollars for bonds. Current OMO debasing the dollar has not resulted in massive selling of T bonds yet but it has certainly resulted in a marked slowdown in their accumulation in the international markets. But there will always be a bid internationally as long as other countries wish to manage their exchange rates. Plenty of domestic buyers and holders for fiduciary reasons as well. These things work until they dont.

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

you are completely confused, and believe that the government sets the interest rates for treasury bonds.

adios

Can you show me where I stated the govt 'sets' the interest rates?

well, congratulations. You've taken my point that the USA needs stimulus & not austerity down a rabbit hole to the point that you ask me where you said that the US sets the interest rates for tbills. Truly an interesting discussion. And for your information, it was some time ago when you tried to claim that the interest rates were not a reflection of what the market will pay, but that they were artificially low, instead, due to the fed's manipulation. Can you recall that long ago?

interest rates on tbills are not set by the fed, they are not manipulated by the government, and they are a reflection of the risk incurred. Rates are extremely low which means that additional debt incurred by the US government is dirt cheap. And yes, I believe that the government needs to be investing in the country and providing a stimulus to create demand in a weak market and get people back to work. Borrow today at rates that are - as far as I recall - BELOW the current inflation rate, and yes, you have essentially free money. Really really cheap money. This is in the short term.

In the mid-term, there needs to be a credible process for a balanced budget. That point is not now, but when the economy is functioning well on its own again.

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by TLansford

long term bond rates are set by the market. explain to me how the government is so clever as to manipulate the price customers are willing to pay for long term US treasuries rather than simply stating it as a fact, which it is not.

And you can consider that if the US government is actively buying in this market as the Fed does as part of the Fed's monetary policy, then why would this additional demand for treasuries drive the rate down and not up?

Rather simple for the price of treasuries to be manipulated. the Fed buys them. Or do you not think purchases of treasuries affects their price?

Additional demand for treasuries of course drives the rate down, how could it be otherwise? If you do not understand the basic inverse relationship between price and yield how can you even write one sentence about any of this, it's fundamental to comprehending the market.

you are completely confused, and believe that the government sets the interest rates for treasury bonds.

adios

Can you show me where I stated the govt 'sets' the interest rates?

And for your information, it was some time ago when you tried to claim that the interest rates were not a reflection of what the market will pay, but that they were artificially low, instead, due to the fed's manipulation. Can you recall that long ago?

yes I can, your point being?

Are you really trying to claim some understanding of any of this when you do not even understand the way prices and yields relate to each other? Don't suppose you will address this point or do you truly believe Fed buying of Treasuries pushes UP the yield?

An accomplishment that Obama did achieve was no new wars in November 2012, lets hope he can extend it another month or two.

Take a time out boys, here's something which might put the issue into perspective.