The 411 on that meeting with Donnie, Chuck, and Nancy

September 11th, 2017 at 9:16 am

Based on various reports, Nancy Pelosi said that the surprise debt ceiling deal she and Senate minority leader Schumer cut with President Trump was partly a function of Schumer being able to “speak New York” to Trump.

Here’s how it came down:

Scene: White House, Oval Office

Dramatis personae: Trump, Mnuchin, Pelosi, Schumer, a couple of Republicans

Mnuchin: (droning on…): And so, based on market expectations, and the recent rise in the risk premiums of bonds with short-term maturities, we estimate the prudent path forward…

Trump: Stifle for a New York minute, will ya, Stevie. Lemme ax you one, simple question. What the %&(* you talkin’ about?!!?

Schumer: Word to that. Donnie, fuggetaboutit, right? I mean, these mooks got nothin.’ Whaddya say we cut a deal–boom!–right here, right now?

Trump: You got it, Chuck. Let’s do this and go get a slice.

Schumer: No, let’s do this and go get some Chinese!

Trump: You freakin’ kiddin’ me; those guys are eatin’ our lunch.

Schumer: Exactly, so let’s go eat their lunch!

Trump: That’s beautiful, Chuck. You da man. Nancy, you in??

[end of scene]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments in reply to "The 411 on that meeting with Donnie, Chuck, and Nancy"

  1. Dude says:

    I wonder if Oliver Stone is preparing his sequel to ‘W’ already.

  2. Smith says:

    Another reason not to think 2020 will be easy.

    PS Data and reporting to support my “wages sensitive to high income labor surplus” theory. See today’s Wall Street Journal front page story “Seeking: Part-Time Workers In Bad Jobs” by Jennifer Levitz, Sep 11.
    The story shows employers grasp the situation that for some reason professional economists (including this blog) are not giving enough importance. The extent of underemployment is a bigger factor in the labor market than in the past. That past includes the last decade that featured an underwhelming recovery from 2001 recession, also affected by the same phenomena. But this time deeper recession, greater effect.
    The article shows evidence of a recovery leading to a reduction of this extra and somewhat hidden effect, underemployment at middle to high incomes. But it cites the 3.2% part time who want full time as above the 2.8% avg of last decade. That’s just one of many metrics which reflect the surplus of high wage workers.
    Again, the bigger mystery is not why wages are stagnant with unemployment so low, it is why economists ignore the obvious answer. There is a surplus of higher wage workers, this is hidden as they displace lower wage workers, and moreover, wages are more sensitive to labor supply of higher wage workers. This is common sense, but a paper on the subject would require a model, research, and data. Someone with a PhD who could get published. Is there a doctor in the house?

    • Smith says:

      See also:
      Issued in March 2013

      This could not be linked to stagnant wages but low unemployment because unemployment was still 7% at the time, in 2013

      EPI also has loads of graphs on underemployment including and especially of college graduates. but again mostly before unemployment dipped below 5%