home

Sunday Night Open Thread

Here's a BBC recap of today's events in Libya. In Yemen, security forces are battling al Qaeda.

In Colorado Springs, Bruce J. Nozolino, a former Lockheed Martin executive facing a 31 count indictment on "charges that he killed his ex-wife’s lover, shot and wounded her divorce attorney and tried to kill the judge who presided over the divorce" in four separate shootings over an 8 year period, has been denied a public defender because he has $221,000 in assets (a condo and a pension.) Who will represent him? $221,000 is far below what a competent defense costs in a murder case. In addition to legal fees, there will be significant expenses for forensic experts and a private investigator. And what happens if he can't find a private lawyer? Does he get released on speedy trial grounds at some point?

The judge needs to rethink this decision. Indigency is not just a matter of how much money one has, but whether one can afford a defense. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee the right to a fair trial and to present a defense, as well as the right to effective assistance of counsel. Even Rod Blagojevich now has court-appointed lawyers.

On a lighter note, the season finale of Shameless airs tonight on Showtime. It's easily the best new series of the season.

< Precedent: Lieberman Would Favor Action Against Syria | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Shelly Silver lays down his sword (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 10:05:55 PM EST
    and concedes to a NY state budget without a millionaire's tax. The Republicans supposedly, maybe, give up some of their upstate prisons. Cuomo is operating as a Republican Governor.

    Only giving up... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    37 hundo prison cots per today's Daily News...surely Cuomo coulda won a better kickback for liberty for giving away the store to the country club set than a measley 37 hundo...not to mention less beds doesn't necessarily mean less prisoners, could just mean over-crowding and worsening conditions.

    Jimmy Mac wouldn't stand for this...the voters blew it, so in a sense we deserve it.

    Parent

    Job Fair Cancelled (Due to Lack of Jobs)! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 10:47:09 PM EST
    Didn't see this posted here.  But, even if it has been, it's worth a repost:

    A Massachusetts employment organization has canceled its annual job fair because not enough companies have come forward to offer jobs.

    Richard Shafer, chairman of the Taunton Employment Task Force, says 20 to 25 employers are needed for the fair scheduled for April 6, but just 10 tables had been reserved. One table was reserved by a nonprofit that offers human services to job seekers, and three by temporary employment agencies.

    You can read the rest of the article here.

    Our government has not driven (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:12:12 AM EST
    wages down far enough. GOP plan for employment which IMO many Dems have also adopted.

    For example, the paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But "lowering labor costs" is economist-speak for lowering wages -- does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector? link

    More..

    America is just too big to adjust primarily through the currency channel. So one possible route is nominal deflation. You cut nominal public sector salaries, lay off public sector workers, and reduce nominal transfer payments (Security Security, SNAP, etc.). This ought to drive down wages in the private sector, too, and eventually everyone is making sufficiently little money that it makes sense to start hiring more people. link


    Parent
    Pardon me while (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    I pound my head on the keyboard a few times.  {{Ouch!}}  Does it ever occur to the GOP that, if wages are driven lower, people will have less money to spend on goods and services?  And if less money is spent on goods and services, the companies providing them will make less money?  (Leading them to cut the wages of their employees even further and/or lay off employees.)  This is not a plan for long-term growth.  Very short-term profits, maybe, but not long-term growth.

    Parent
    I think Americans are irrelevant now (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    Companies have much bigger markets overseas today, and, simply stated, if you're an American they just don't need you anymore.  So they don't care about you.  We're disposable.  Only useful if we can be pauperized enough.  

    Parent
    Not quite irrelevant yet (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    It is our tax dollars that are being used to shore up their companies through bail outs and subsidizes and provide them with tax free opportunities to make record profits.

    Other than our tax dollars, I agree that corporations feel we are disposable and only useful if we can be pauperized enough.  

     

    Parent

    agreed n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    And in related news...the Dems have (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    apparently gone back to the table with an offer to make an additional $20 billion in budget cuts!  I think we can once and for all forget about the Dems calling anyone's bluff on a government shutdown, so between now and April 8th, which is when they need to have something done, it won't surprise me one bit if that $20 billion grows a little more.

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    The White House and Democratic lawmakers, with less than two weeks left to avoid a government shutdown, are assembling a proposal for roughly $20 billion in additional spending cuts that could soon be offered to Republicans, according to people close to the budget talks.

    That would come on top of $10 billion in cuts that Congress has already enacted and would represent a deeper reduction than the Obama administration and Senate Democrats had offered previously in negotiations. But it isn't clear that would be enough to satisfy Republicans, who initially sought $61 billion in spending cuts and face pressure from tea-party activists not to compromise.

    David Dayen:

    Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden take note of what this means. Democrats are now ready to cut $30 billion below 2010 levels for the 2011 budget. That was the Republican leadership's initial offer, basically a pro-rated version of their $100 billion in cuts from the Obama 2011 budget request. They went further to the right after losing the tea party conservatives and then sought $100 billion overall from that budget request, or in real dollars a $61 billion reduction. So here come the Democrats, offering the $30 billion in cuts that the Republican leadership wanted in the first place.

    There's no question that Republicans played the "Bad Cop, Insane Cop" game very expertly. But it was apparent from the moment that Democrats allowed the 2011 budget to be decided on the watch of the new Republican House that there would be a massive reduction like this. They failed to finish a 2011 budget resolution as part of the deal for extending the Bush tax cuts for two years. They failed to incorporate an increase in the debt limit into that as well. As a result, they forced themselves to negotiate with a bad hand. And they're not the best negotiators in the first place.

    The only thing I would take issue with is the Dems-as-bad-negotiators meme, since there are too many of them who are firmly on the austerity bandwagon - including the president; they are not negotiating against cuts, but for them.  

    Democrats: Doing their Very Best to Be Republicans.


    Parent

    Certainly, the very large companies (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    are global.  But there are plenty of smaller companies that must depend upon Americans purchasing what they have to offer.  Of course, these are not the companies that our politicians worry about (despite their prattling on about the importance of "small businesses"), so I suppose they won't care much if they all go under.  We will wind up sliding into second-world status.    

    Parent
    I was listening to the radio this morning (none / 0) (#47)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    and they were talking about G.E. They made $14.2 billion in PROFIT last year, $5.1 billion in the U.S., and paid ZERO taxes.

    Wouldn't it be nice to have enough deductions and loopholes to have a zero tax obligation?

    Parent

    It's disgusting (none / 0) (#67)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    but, unfortunately, it's all perfectly legal.  
    The company now makes most of its money from lending abroad, not from appliances and light bulbs, all the better for its bottom line: As long as those profits stay off U.S. shores, the IRS has no claim. And the $5 billion in U.S. profits? Only a very dim bulb would pay anything on those gains. GE finessed a series of tax breaks and write-offs, and charmed powerful legislators with well-timed donations to their districts to keep gaping loopholes in place.
     Link
    Doesn't it make you feel all warm and cozy that G.E. Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt is Obama's liaison to the business community and the head of Obama's jobs and competitiveness advisory panel?  Immelt can teach all the other businesses (those who aren't already doing it) how to use the loopholes and write-offs and off-shoring of profits to pay no taxes, too.  

    Parent
    Probably ought to be clear that it (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:54:42 AM EST
    wasn't Krugman who made that second quoted statement, but Matt Yglasias - Krugman's post criticizes Yglesias for writing it.

    It continues to astound me that people like Yglesias just pick up on whatever the message of the day is, and find a way to make it make sense - even when it just doesn't.  And even when there is a lot of information out there to debunk it.

    Do they not want to understand these issues, or are they afraid that if they reveal that they do, there will be some obligation to go off-script and push back against it?  And then, golly, what happens then?  The Big Freeze-Out from the Halls of Power?

    Oh, dear...I think I'm getting the vapors just thinking about it!  [fanning self furiously and dabbing at fine sheen of perspiration breaking out on forehead...]


    Parent

    Reminds me of the takeway point (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    from the Walmart documentary a few years ago - if enough people shop at Walmart, pretty soon we will all have to shop at Walmart as wages get driven so low it is all we can afford.

    Parent
    $221,000 far below competent defense costs (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    I guess that means it's a given that 95% or more of Americans are incompetently represented.


    Consider a major criminal charge (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    to be the equivalent of a catastrophic health event - a stroke, a debilitating heart attack, a back-breaking fall - not necessarily fatal, if treated properly.

    Then look at what that costs, by way of comparison.

    Parent

    Savvy friends (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    President Obama said he stands by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of his jobs council, despite revelations last week that GE didn't pay any corporate taxes last year. "Americans, I'm sure, who read that story and heard about it, are wondering how this could be," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "And one of the reasons why it could be...is part of the problem of the corporate tax structure." link

    Cat food commission solution to corporate tax structure - lower corporate taxes paid for by eliminating tax loop holes such as the Earned Income Credit.

    Worse than a joke (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    An inexcusable disgrace.

    When a guy like Immelt -- a proudly tax evading, society destroying scumbag -- is not just a CEO, but PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, you know you're in a dying nation.  That Obama "stands by" this idiot is more proof our President is right there helping shut down life-support systems.  

    Parent

    While attempting to reform the henhouse... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    ...I have complete faith in my partner in this vital endeavor, the fox.  And even though it is true that the fox has in the recent past consumed several million hens, it is imperative we not let that dissuade us from our more important mission.  To kill ALL the hens we can.

    Parent
    The Stoner Arms Dealers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    Nice to see this ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 09:05:17 PM EST
    clip resurfacing.  Wesley Clark from 2007 on Democracy Now.

    Nothing most of us don't know.  But a good reminder that the current Obama Middle East policy is just a continuation of the Bush/Neocon Agenda.

    Shameless - (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 06:44:40 AM EST
    I thought it was going to be a plot point that Steve told Fiona to meet him at O'Hare, and then went to Midway.  Turns out it was just a continuity error.  Good finale to a great show though. I have to say though, I don't really like Steve much. I think I just don't like the actor.  And I didn't like that those supposedly closest to Fiona don't really understand her commitment to the family.  Like going away for months should be just like a day at the beach or a weekend off in her mind.   I think the way they boiled down her choices trivialized a lot of the rest of the story. But as I said - great show and I'm looking forward to next season.

    Mildred Pierce - If you missed the first two hours, catch up. One of a kind production and performance by Kate Winslet.

    I ended up liking Steve... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    his deception was out of shame...I think his aims & love were true.  You wish Fiona could have gone, but the reason you love her is her devotion to the kids...she'd never.  

    That bastard Frank I really grew to dislike...just can't believe he went there, even for Frank.  Good on Flip for beating the crap outta him, and then p*ssin' on him...classic.  The poor father offing himself too...rough way to go.

    Parent

    The Fiona character is the perfect female (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:20:26 AM EST
    oldest child of a severe alcoholic.  Reminds me of my mother.  After my mother died her siblings actually argued with each other about how nobody held them together anymore....it was seriously dysfunctional too because arguing will not lead to much togetherness either usually :)

    Parent
    I just figured out (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    I want to get Fiona together with Raylon from 'Justified'. Or if she wants a bad boy, Boyd Crowder. He's better than Steve.

    Parent
    I don't even mind the deception part (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    A lovable rogue character would be fine. That's why I think it might just be the actor that I don't like.

    Yeah, Frank had that and more coming to him in spades. Lip is so cool. Very sorry about poor Eddie. If he were as shameless as Frank he'd still be alive.

    I like the exploration of desperation in that show -  how do we deal with it?

    Parent

    I love Lip too (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    Flip is the best... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    but that Karen is gonna break him I think...I see more heartache in store for him in Season 2.

    Also see the cop's desperate infatuation with Fiona approaching stalker territory next season...can't wait!

    Parent

    Err... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    Lip...not Flip.

    Parent
    Mildred Pierce (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    only caught a bit of it on the way out the door but it looked like something I will want to see.

    Parent
    Count me surprised (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    I know that Nozolino hasn't been convicted and I suppose this demonstrates that I am biased and discriminate :), but I always figured that it was someone from Fort Carson who snipered the divorce attorney in Colorado Springs.  It happened before we had to move South.  Whoever did it was one hell of a shot...sadly.

    I got to watch Mildred Pierce last night and I loved it. I have waited months for it though.  And I watched the Shameless finale too, which was very good as well.  Next Sunday it's the Borgias along with Mildred Pierce for me.  I will be in T.V. heaven most likely.  My husband BBQ'd steaks last night so that I could focus wholely on Mildred Pierce.  Maybe steaks next Sunday too?

    I'm baking a pie next Sunday (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    for my Mildred Pierce dinner. And chicken. No waffles however.

    Borgias - yay. I will be right there with you in TV heaven.

    Parent

    I have never had chicken and waffles (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:49:03 AM EST
    but I would like to try it now.

    Parent
    I never learned how to make a pie either (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    My grandma Vera was very good at it, so was her sister and they both played large roles in raising me after my mom was gone.  I just wasn't interested in cooking though.  When I was in town I was all about school, and when I was out at the ranch I was all about what was going on outside and not inside.  So I have no idea how to make even a decent pie crust.  We were laughing last night because if the value of a woman was still largely based on her cooking abilities I'm worth about 25 cents.

    Parent
    "Mildred Pierce", the HBO series (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    started out very well should prove to be a big hit.  However, it is a very different "Mildred Pierce"  than the 1945 movie release, which was recently shown on Turner Classics and is on Netflix.  The movie was a 1940's film noir with, of course, the tough, but naively loving mother, played against character by the iconic  Joan Crawford. Kate Winslet's Mrs. Pierce is a very nice "grass widow".

    Ann Blyth's Veda was evil, while, so far at least, Evan Rachel Wood's characterization is more fantasizing brat. No equivalent of the wise-cracking Eve Arden has yet appeared, but Guy Pearce makes a better playboy than Zachary Scott. The HBO series, is apparently, much more faithful to the original book set in the 1930's Depression years.  And, the HBO series is great for its faithfulness to the period--in all ways, including personal grooming.

    Parent

    I haven't (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    watched the series but I just loved the Joan Crawford movie.

    Parent
    I think Melissa Leo is the Eve Arden (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    equivalent, but of course the writing and characters  are not exactly the same.

    From the previews I was not sure I would buy Guy Pearce in the role, but I am sold.

    We haven't seen Evan Rachel Wood yet - she steps in when Veda gets a little older than they left off last night. I think the mother-daughter relationship is fascinating so far. Of course with 5 hours there is a lot more time for character development and they don't have to resort to shorthand.

    Parent

    Yes, so far we have seen (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    Morgan Turner as young Veda and it will be fun to see how the bratty Veda develops into the evil one.  Jack Carson was excellent as the movie's Wally, the sleazy real estate developer, and business counselor/sometime lover of Mildred. James Le Gros, as the HBO Wally, is sleazy alright, but the raffish, heart of gold (sort of) part of the character seems missing, or at least, is too abruptly achieved.

    Parent
    I agree about the Wally character (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:41:54 PM EST
    I didn't think that interaction was handled as well as the rest of the movie. Not getting Mildred's motivation there.

    Parent
    I take it back (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Mildred does like to degrade and abase herself a bit.

    Parent
    I can't do my own crust - I get the Marie Callande (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    frozen crust. But that lemon pie she was making at the opening looked just like mine!

    Parent
    First 2 parts of Mildred (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    were well done I thought, this being the gritty version that's much closer to the book than the classic movie was.  My only objection so far was the scene where Mildred slaps and spanks Veda -- not many adolescent girls at that point, after a good walloping with the hand, would have stayed in the room as Veda did to listen to any more from their mother, in my fatherly opinion.

    Also, was looking for Mare Winningham in the first two episodes (in the 80s and early 90s a fave lovely actress but not seen much since), and had to look it up -- she plays fellow waitress Ida.  Completely fooled me -- actually the young Veda looked more like a very young Mare W.  

    Parent

    I think it is part of Veda's (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    manipulation of her mother that she stays to reap the rewards of her remorse.  That is one twisted relationship there.

    I was totally fooled by Mare Winningham too. I had forgotten her name was in the opening credits, but remembered there was some other 'name' actress I was expecting to pop up. Then I was wondering who was playing Ida - she was so great - so I replayed the closing credits. Mare!

    Parent

    Just out of curiosity, TL: (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:22:21 AM EST
    what would the going rate be to give a competent defense to such a murder case?  I'm not doing and haven't done that kind of heavy defense work and literally have no idea.

    I'll throw a dart at the wall and guess at somewhere between $750k and $1M up front before counsel lifts a finger.  When one gets down to figuring out how many hours are spent on case management conferences, motion hearings, and then trial preparation and trial, on a complicated case I could see 500 hours easily being spent before a single juror was seated and 1000 hours without a doubt before the jury got it.  Maybe even 1500 hours b/c there are so many charges.  I would think that during trial, 80 hours a week is pretty much a given, per lawyer.

    And all that assumes the lead lawyer is doing all the work.  If I were defending such a case, I would want a pair of lawyers (one lead and a second-chair to deal with all the reasearch and such that would come up), so even at a lower rate for the second-chair, a million is easily needed.

    And that's without factoring in things like experts.  From my experience with PI cases and talking to friends who are also involved in them, there are a lot of doctors who won't show up to testify for the people they treated unless and until they get certified funds in their hands, to the tune of $10k or more per day.  And if you subpoena the treating doctor, he will balk or fnd a way to sabotage the case.  I have to believe that wiretap experts, forensics experts and all the rest are at least that mercenary.

    If (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    If he hired the equivalent of a public defender, my guess is that it wouldn't cost as much as you're estimating....

    Parent
    Private lawyers don't (none / 0) (#56)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    work for the wages public defenders get.  Public defenders also don't have to come up with the expenses of both the case and their office.  Private lawyers have to support everything out of the fees their clients pay - everything from the rent to the secretaries to the computer paper to the techie coming in to debug the computers to the law library (do you have any idea what law books cost?  A lot.) to the coffee.  

    And, as the newspaper article notes, this case is expected to take two months to try.  I've worked on a couple of those two-month trials and during them, the lawyer trying the case can only hope to be able to put out the fires and avoid emergencies on all the other files in that lawyer's care.  Your whole attention is devoted to the trial you're doing.  Figure also at least a whole month in advance of the trial devoted solely to preparation for the trial.  And we haven't even mentioned the need for that private lawyer to be generating new business while on trial.

    Parent

    Interesting part of the story (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    Gray also said there may be some lawyers who might be reluctant to represent someone accused of shooting a lawyer. Nozolino is accused of wounding attorney John Ciccolella in a sniper-style shooting in which a shot was fired through the window of his office, hitting him in the eye.

    Defense attorneys? Presumption of innocence? Hmm....

    Parent

    It might give me pause (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    if I were a defense lawyer.  The presumption of innocence is an important bedrock of our system of justice, but when you have even the merest suspicion that he might shoot at lawyers he doesn't like, and it might be your eyeball on the line....... maybe they're using an "abundance of caution."  (Besides, the presumption of innocence is what should be given in a court of law, and in all public pronouncements, news articles, etc.  People, even lawyers, are still allowed to have their own private feelings about it, as long as they don't speak up in public about them and potentially taint the case.  And I don't believe that there is anything that says that any individual lawyer must take all clients that come to him.)  

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    And as I've said before, in my experience, if you talk to defense attorneys privately, they will admit a great majority of their clients are actually guilty, but their job is to make sure the government plays fair.

    Most do not run around seeing conspiracies and corrupt police, prosecutors, and judges around every corner.

    Of course I would expect them to be careful.  One wonders about those who aren't concerned.

    Parent

    Surprise - Dems Agree to more budget cuts (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    The White House and Democratic lawmakers, with less than two weeks left to avoid a government shutdown, are assembling a proposal for roughly $20 billion in additional spending cuts that could soon be offered to Republicans, according to people close to the budget talks.

    That would come on top of $10 billion in cuts that Congress has already enacted and would represent a deeper reduction than the Obama administration and Senate Democrats had offered previously in negotiations. But it isn't clear that would be enough to satisfy Republicans, who initially sought $61 billion in spending cuts and face pressure from tea-party activists not to compromise. link

    After several kabuki performances,

    Will the Budget Process End Where the House Leadership Started?

    It's beginning to look like the 2011 federal budget process could degenerate into a passive compromise that ends up precisely where the House Republican leadership started out nearly two months ago. That would be a very strange outcome for the Senate Democrats and the president to allow.

    Of course negotiation are not over, there is still time for Obama and the Dems to offer even more.

    You beat me by five minutes! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    I'm not one bit surprised at this latest "give," and I know you aren't either.

    If they were going to be passive about it, the least they could do would be to passively resist, but no...they just passively acquiesce.

    They are worse than useless at this point; they are dangerous.

    Parent

    Not passive IMO (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    C O M P L I C I T

    The objectives are the same. All the rest is smoke and mirrors to give the illusion that the two parties have different agendas.

    Parent

    When you're driving the getaway (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    car, you're just as guilty as those who actively committed the crime, and I see some of these Dems in just that way.  They're not making noise, or refusing to participate, or doing anything to stop it from happening - they're just going along.

    It's passive, but it's enabling, and ultimately makes them complicit in whatever happens.

    But, so what?  It's not like they're being held accountable for it by anyone they actually give a damn about - as long as the corporate elites and the wealthy are happy, the rest of us can just f**k off.

    Parent

    Several are actively participating (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    in the robbery.

    Conrad, Durbin and Warner are actively selling the recommendations of the Cat Food Commission and 32 Democrats signatures on letter to Obama requesting him to (paragraph in letter)

    "Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform." link



    Parent
    Actively turning their backs on (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    what the Democratic party was supposed to be about, actively furthering the Republican agenda, actively boosting the fortunes of those who already have fortunes, actively looking to make already difficult lives even more difficult, actively speeding up the economic downturn that is going to result from these policies.

    Together with the silent enablers, the ones driving the getaway card.

    I wonder if any of them were watching the anti-austerity protests in Britain yesterday?

    Parent

    Shocking (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    Just waiting for the Social Security axe to fall.  I will actually be surprised if it doesn't happen before 2012.

    Parent
    More from same link (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    First, as already noted, the president has already moved substantially from the budget he proposed for 2011. His choice to move that far from what presumably he believes is the budget that would best serve the country is already a major concession. If one believes that negotiations should yield results roughly near the middle of the range of disagreement, it's important to note that the president already met the other side half way before the negotiations even started.
    ...
    Unfortunately the administration backed away from its budget even before the negotiations started, and the Tea Party is calling the shots in the House. So instead of negotiation between the president's original level and House leadership's original level, we're stuck negotiating between the Tea Party's $100 billion, and the new status quo's $50 billion. That means the likely compromise is right where the House Republican leadership always wanted it: around $74 billion.

    That's not much of a compromise if we end up with what the House Republican leadership wanted in the first place.



    Parent
    Single payer lawyer insurance (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    for all!

    Maybe this is our problem (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    I hear ecuador (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    is lovely this time of year!

    Parent
    Empire -- Long and Hard... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    ...when you can't be.

    Parent
    happiness is a warm empire.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    rimshot! n/t (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    you have to watch (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    out for those Anacondas down there..

    Parent
    Well gee thanks Dadler... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    just what I needed...uncontrollable mass pop-ups with the headline "Pen*s" in the cube.  Good thing I'm quick on the manual shut-down draw brother!

    Could be worse I guess...I could have the Asian curse in lieu of the Irish Curse...so I got that goin' for me:)

    Parent

    my app-ologies (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    Quick hands, good job.

    Ahem.

    Parent

    winning hearts and minds (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    The Kill Team
    How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses - and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: An exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon

    prepare for horrific images and videos.  they repeat a little trick I have heard from my friends who were in VietNam:


    Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they "would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over."

    this was a new twist:

    The photos collected by soldiers included many shots of local children, often filed alongside images of bloody casualties. At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets.

    makes you proud to be an amurkan dont it?

    I don't (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    think I can read that article. I scanned it and it was enough.

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:49:10 PM EST