"When did Jim DeMint become important?"

I don't know, whenever people with rational economics became relevant.

Jeez. fat-ass (Elie), why don't you just link to Democratic Underground for your non-sequiturs? How long were you at Debevoise again?

Don't drive angry.

Why can't we comment in the Weil article? I want to hear why they are being stingy when their strongest practice group is booming.

-3L / Weiler to be

If Corporate Income Taxes were cut to 0% then maybe companies like Exxon and all the other Democratic punching bags might actually employ Americans in America. Payroll taxes for both employees and employers at 0% would also encourage job creation.

Also it is incredibly backwards to say that permanent tax cuts "cost" money. Since when do we count money ten years from now that Americans haven't even paid yet (or earned). All those numbers are based on projected earnings assuming about 100 variables, including employment and other economic averages. Assuming Obamanomics are in place for the next 8 years, I project a cost of about 15 trillion dollars in tax revenues.

6:09 - It looks like comments on the Weil post are open again.

elie you are worthless. did you really just link to that.

When Chekhov saw the long winter, he saw a winter bleak and dark and bereft of hope. Yet we know that winter is just another step in the cycle of life. But standing here among the people of Punxsutawney and basking in the warmth of their hearths and hearts, I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter.

7 - Link to what?

If we are going to compare ourselves to the third world to feel not-so-bad about ourselves, how about the economy in Zimbabwe?

See http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/19/zimbabwe.inflation/index.html

"Zimbabwe inflation hits 11,200,000 percent"

Of course, we are not Brazil, "Argentina," or Zimbabwe, and we would prefer that we get our own economic house in order, which is dire.

Zimbabwe, Argentine, and the rest of the thrid world do not lead my economic concerns right now......

I've been to Legal Grind before. It's a wonderful little place

Linking to a study by a left-wing group criticizing Jim DeMint. Way to be objective.

I have a serious question and hoping to get a serious answer. I got a full ride for an MBA at Carnegie Mellon and a full ride at UC Irvine law school (it's the inaugural class - everyone gets a free ride).

So my question is, for all associates out there, are you happy with your choice? Would you recommend law school, especially at a place like UC Irvine (I want to settle in California and, despite it being new, it is founded by the former Dean of Duke law school)? Would you go into law if you had to do it all over again?

lifelesslived...fuck what you heard about irvine...you won't ever be an associate

anyone who refers to Chemerinsky as the former dean of duke law school should probably go to business school.

Eh, a couple hundred thousand practicing lawyers in CA. What's a few dozen more per year? Besides, a law school is all that Irvine needs to be in the big leagues.

B-school OF COURSE!!!

Hey MysTTTal, the DNC is looking for web editors. Please do us all a favor and take the job.

Murray said that the groundhog bit him when they were filming that scene.

13: I don't regret going to law school. I didn't go to a top school and I have some debt, but it was still worth it. I'm in a practice area I really like, am making decent (not BIGLAW) money and feel that I'm learning how to do something and that I have a future. Don't get caught up in the "Oh, my God - you might not get a BIGLAW job!" hype. I was in BIGLAW for two years, hated it, and moved on. I really didn't learn how to do anything until I went to a smaller, specialized firm. If you want to be in CA eventually, it sounds like Irvine is an excellent situation for you.

That being said, I'd sooner die than get an M.B.A. because I have no interest in business, so take my advice with a grain of salt.