Thursday Night Open Thread

Who's going home on The X-Factor? Last night I thought the judges were done voting and it was just the viewers vote that count. Not so. The 10 contestants with the highest viewer votes are safe. The bottom 2 will sing again and the judges will decide which one stays and which one goes home. Kind of odd -- would any one of these judges vote off a contestant in his or her group? I think Leroy Bell will be in the bottom two. He's got a great voice, but he's 59 and I doubt his fans voted 50 times each for him.

Update: So glad I was wrong about the bottom two. I totally agree with the viewers' votes. I'll be back after the show has aired on the west coast (to not spoil it) as to why I think the bottom two got the lowest votes. I'm surprised I didn't think of it before, but I didn't. [More...]

And I wasn't the only who noticed the unconscionable gutting of Desperado's lyrics -- so did The New York Times.

Truthout has a report on the deaths at Guantanamo: Suicide or Dry-Boarding?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Anonymous Plan Against Zetas is Back On | Raj Rajaratnam Designated to FMC Devens (Mass.) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Occupy the courts - Occupy the narrative (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    NEW YORK -- Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York shifted their fight from the streets to the court Thursday, when dozens of people arrested while marching rejected a deal for them to avoid trial.

    The first batch of 78 protesters from among hundreds arrested for disorder over the last six weeks filed into New York State court, nearly all of them telling a judge that they were innocent and demanding a jury trial to clear their names.

    Prosecutors had offered a deal in which protesters would see charges dismissed provided they kept out of trouble for six months. The mass refusal raised the prospect of protesters clogging up a court system that will be obliged to provide each defendant with a trial lasting approximately a day.
    Martin Stolar, a lawyer representing about 15 protesters, said pushing the cases to trial showed that prosecutors could not intimidate the mostly young activists.

    I'm lovin' it... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    Put the system on trial!  Throw a monkeywrench in the works!  Let the docket pile up till it reaches the heavens!

    More than just ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    clogging up the court system.  The plea bargain is also designed to keep them from returning to OWS.  They are refusing to neuter themselves.  That's the intimidation they are rejecting, imo.

    I don't think that deterrent... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    is even a factor...all the state can do if they are arrested again within the 6 month period is reinstate the charges, at which time the non-criminals can still insist on a jury trial to clear their names for the old charge and the new charge.

    Taking the plea is the easy way out, and kudos for the protestors for taking the road less traveled.  Our over-policing, over-prosecting system can only function because of this "easy way out", innocents taking the plea to make it go away.

    Ya can't blame people really who do take such plea deals, fighting bullsh*t charges can be expensive and dangerous to your liberty...it's always a roll of the dice with the jury, but for OWS protestors I think it's a gamble with odds in their favor.  The jury pool is the 99%, Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon ain't doin' no jury duty.


    Everything you say is true, imo (none / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    But these aren't vanilla plea bargains because these are not ordinary arrests.  These are individuals who took action -- in daylight and in public -- that could lead to an arrest.  They have a higher probability of a second arrest than the average [non-criminal-oriented] joe.  At that point charges would be reinstated for sure, and new charges would likely be added.

    My point was... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    they could still insist on a jury trial if they are arrested a second time, for all charges old and new.  Either way the state's deterrent to further protest is no deterrent at all, as I understand these protestors.  

    IOW, they can clog the courts now or clog the courts later...nobody is gonna stop protesting.

    I took a similar plea for my mj possession charges, took the easy way out, my lawyer wasn't cheap:)... but it did not deter me from continuing to break mj laws, I just rolled the dice I wouldn't get pinched again within the probationary period.  


    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    I didn't understand your point.  We were basically in accord from the get-go, I think

    We are... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:39:52 PM EST
    as usual old pal...and as usual, I wasn't exactly clear.

    Though I think I do allright for a guy the Partenership for a Drug Free America would claim should be a totally toasted wasteoid by now...if I do say so myself:)


    Oh, my dear! (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    much, much better than "allright"!  Your parents should be very proud.  :)

    I';m thinking about Russian so much (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by observed on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:09:51 AM EST
    that I find myself making silly mistakes when I write English now.
    I'm beginning to be able to communicate now, instead of just say the things I know.
    Yesterday I was trying to tell a waitress that my friend wanted onions in his omelet. I couldn't remember the word for onion, but I was able to say, albeit ungrammatically, "When you cut it,  you cry", and she understood.
    That was a nice success.
    I'm reading Pravda for about 1 hour per day, and picking up a lot of vocabulary that way.
    Pravda, incidentally, is a real "if it bleeds it leads" news site. I've read of stabbings, poisonings, child abductions, etc., from clicking on top stories.
    I know how to say "multiple stab wounds" in Russian, which may come in handy when I visit Moscow.

    Charlie Pierce - (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    another example of his delicate use of the English language.

    Let us direct our attention to Ben Nelson and Weepin' Joe Lieberman, one a putative Democratic senator and the other something that a putative Democratic senator might scrape off his shoe on a very hot day.


    Grand Bargain and an even (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    grander "victory" for the Democrats are shaping up in time for Thanksgiving.   By George (urr, by  Barack) it looks like they are going to do it!  The Republicans are going to give up new revenues as a part of the Super Duper Committee deal, according to John Boehner.  Grover Norquist will be thrown over board, with his secret consent and a very big lifesaver.  

    However, these will not be taxes, per se, but an overhaul of the tax code, loopholes and deductions so as to reduce the tax rates for corporations and individuals. Boehner would like a target of 25 percent as a top rate.  

    Of course, all of this is dependent on Democrats agreeing to "shore up entitlement programs."   And, taking a cue from that other tea party (theMad Hatter)  cuts are a part of the revenues--increases in Medicare premiums and increased contributions of federal employers on retirement are part of the revenues.  

    So this turkey is about to come out of the oven, a "balanced bird"---serving up lots of meaty cuts and a feather or two of revenue as a tickler.  

    Not convinced this will be (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    an increase in revenue. I feel sure closing some loopholes will only push them to find others. And what deductions do they plan to take away from individuals? We only have a couple.

    Seems like this is what they are trading for ending the Bush tax cuts for the 1%.


    I'm not so sure there's going to be (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    a deal...at least not the kind that was originally envisioned.

    David Dayen:

    Just to show you how unserious Congress is about deficit reduction (which shouldn't really bother anyone, but should highlight the hypocrisy), there is more cooperation over ditching the deficit trigger than coming to a deal that avoids it.

    A growing number of lawmakers are already talking about reversing the automatic spending cuts to defense and domestic programs that would go into effect if the supercommittee doesn't find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts by Nov. 23.

    Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) confirmed Thursday that they're working on "alternative" legislation that would scale back the size of cuts that can be made to the Pentagon. On the other side of the political spectrum, liberals are talking about rolling back automatic cuts to domestic programs.

    Officially, the leadership of both parties are saying they will abide by the trigger. But they will have to spend a year fending off their rank and file, and that's just not credible. You can see the outlines of a deal here. One side agrees to give up on the defense side of the trigger, and the other side gives up on the social spending cuts. And poof, the trigger is gone.

    And everyone will congratulate one another on their seriousness.

    Yes, they will; aren't we all proud?


    actually (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    this is very good news.

    Best case scenario in fact.

    Deficit reduction right now should be "unserious".  It's a terrible idea.  I'd much rather see tham ditch it than "come to a deal to avoid it".  Because whatever that deal is I guarantee you it's not good.  So please!  Be hypocritical cowards!  I'm begging you!


    Oh, I completely agree; and the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    kicker is that not only was all of this just so unnecessary, it was built on some very bad economic policy.  Really, though, I guess it was much more important that someone win the whose-genitalia-are-bigger contest.  Oy.

    And I saw your breakdown ("highlights?") of the Romney tax plan; I'm thinking of taking some Dramamine to counter the effects of the eye-rolling it's generated...

    Some days I can't believe we aren't trapped in an absurdist play of infinite length.


    just consider it maya (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    an absurdist play of infinite length

    If the goal really was to cut the deficit, not (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    strangle government, Congress would simply let the Bush/Obama tax cost expire. Half the deficit gone in one vote. And cutting the deficit inhale is more than enough to keep us humming along.

    A pox on all their houses.


    were 25% with no loopholes or deductions? I'm asking because I don't know. I'd think with companies like G.E. out there that pay nothing and actually get money back that a flat corporate rate with no funny business would make them pay their fair share, along with everyone else.

    oh my, this is very amusing! (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    according to a story in today's washington post, the cain campaign is giving some thought to legal action against Politico, which leaked the story of his apparent untoward behavior, while the head of the National Restaurant Association. exactly what form any legal action might take wasn't discussed.

    too funny. threatening legal action against someone, for publishing true facts. how dare they!

    Well, sounds like Cain needs some (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:20:12 AM EST
    protection against true facts!

    He's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    not going to file a suit. He's just grifting for more money.

    I'm truly torn (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    Not a big fan of either Politico or McCain. Maybe they will take each other down and we all win.

    Mc (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:07:01 AM EST

    Ha! Sorry, habit. Cain of course. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    A source of economic inspiration for Herman? (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    Politico reports that an attorney for one the women says that his client's settlement was dated September of 1999.  9/99.

    As they say on SNL - Really? (none / 0) (#10)
    by coast on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    I think the bar has been set fairly high in this area by other politicians.  His downfall will be in how his campaign responded to the article, not and not by the actual offense.

    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    on Obama's odds of getting reelected.

    Nothing shocking or surprising (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    I've been preaching it for a year. It will come down to the economy.  Nothing else matters.

    Pretty (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    much what TLer's have been saying for quite a while. It depends on who the GOP nominates and how the economy is. I don't agree that it's completely dependent on the economy because if they nominate a crazy like they want to do, it's still going to be hard for the GOP to win.

    Oh sure (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    But they won't.  The Republicans may have crazy ideas and some crazy candidates, but they aren't stupid.  They read the same polls as everybody else.



    I think so, too, jbindc (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    The movers and shakers of the Republican Party settled awhile ago on Romney as most likely to beat Obama, and I think they'll get their way in the end on the nomination.

    For a while (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    I wasn't so sure but at the rate the GOP is dumping their oppo research first on Bachmann (though she really didn't need much. Just listening to her talk pretty much disqualifies her), then Perry and now Cain I tend to agree that Romney is going to be the nominee because all the others have turned into just temporarily sitting in the front seat of the clown car.

    obama's re-election only depends (none / 0) (#59)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    on the republicans nominating someone. once that's done, the election itself is mere formality. i mean really, have you actually paid attention to the republican candidates?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    Romney could beat him.

    Nate sure used a lot of words (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    to basically say (paraphrasing James Carville somewhat):  "It'll be the economy, stupid."

    Thank you Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    There I was reading, and then reading and reading and reading....did I mention I was reading?  And it was all stuff that essentially I already knew but hey, maybe something different/new information will show up at the close.  Ummmmmm No

    Oftentimes, Nate sure likes to (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    "see" himself "talk."   ;-)

    I think (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    he uses a lot of words to kind of confuse people as to what the point of the article is. It really could be summed up in one sentence: the economy and who the GOP nominates.

    One sentence and a post script (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    PS.  By the way, he's bleeding voters from all sectors.

    Nate needs to (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    cut out most of his pontificating (and obfuscation) and just present us with his statistical projections about each match-up, with a very brief explanation.  His stats are interesting, his long-winded opinions, not so much.  (To tell you the truth, I paid a lot more attention to his baseball prognostication than to his electoral.  He was very accurate about the results of the 2008 Presidential election, missing only in Indiana, but he messed up on the 2010 general election in the U.K.)

    I personally (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    think Silver is overrated and he's saying that there might be 4% growth next year? That sounds like a complete fantasy.

    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    To a large extent, he's skating on his past reputation, and he's gotten overly enamored of his own opinions.

    All the rumors that Corzine (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    was being looked at to replace Geithner will surely help Obama as well.  He had better hope to God there is no actual evidence of any of that.....that his amazing crook bundler was being looked at to replace his other crook friend.

    And then there's the insane Euro bets (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Corzine made.  I just have to wonder, having that direct linkage with the White House and being told how Geithner and Obama would allow the Euro to fold over their dead bodies.....insider trading and all that kinda $hit :)  I know, I know, as the White House goes so goes Goldman Sachs.  But didn't Corzine notice that Timmy said that the U.S. would never be downgraded and the next day we were?  Didn't he notice that Timmy and the administration are about half full of bull$hit when it comes to playing Masters of the Universe?

    I don't know if the rumors (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    were because of a serious consideration, or just trial balloons by the Obama Administration to gauge reaction, but wouldn't the Senate confirmation hearings for Corzine have been a hoot?  "Mr. Corzine, about those missing customer funds......"

    Obama's only hope, (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:03:35 PM EST
    An improving economy, was again dashed by today's jobs report. The NY Times is featuring the contrast between Obama's projection for the economy when he was elected and the current dismal numbers.

    So, here we are, three years into his Presidency, and by all accounts, the unemployment rate will be worse after his first full term than when he took office.

    And, the architect of this disaster, Tim Geithner, remains firmly entrenched in his post.

    For the life of me, I don't understand this hold he has on Obama.

    After all this time (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    I have come to the conclusion that it's one of two things: Obama is ideologically a Republican or Obama is simply in over his head and clueless as to what to do and just does what Geither tells him to do simply because he doesn't know better.

    You have to remember that Obama has never been held accountable by the voters before because he's never had a capable opponent. I think this is a huge void for him. I mean he always got reelected to his senate seat in IL no matter what he voted for or against.


    And then there's "All of the above." (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    Ideologically Republican (he's got a wide judgmental streak that's classicly Republican to go with his right-of-center policy preferences)

    In over his head (his sales pitch never matched his ability to deliver)

    Clueless (this is a subset of "in over his head:" no matter what book you read about the Obama presidency, one thing comes through: he may have grasped concepts, but he had no idea how to implement them, and he's let himself be led around by the nose to predictable results)

    Geithner's puppet (and even if it isn't Geithner, the dynamic will be the same: he will trust whichever Master of The Universe is sitting in that chair, also to predictable results)

    He's always managed to get out and away from whatever office he's held, before he had to face the consequences of his actions; I don't imagine he much likes being in a corner he has no credible means of escape from.


    Yes, but (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    most people learn from their mistakes. What strain of stubbornness, what ideological capture, what suicidal attraction does Obama have that compels him, when having a choice, always makes the wrong one?

    My opinion is now and has been (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    that Obama is pursuing precisely the economic policy that 1) benefits his savvy friends and 2) is the economic policy that he agreed to pursue in exchange for the financial backing and political support he received to become president. Geither is just another useful tool to divert the blame for Obama's choices.

    What MO Blue said. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    Is he that clueless (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:06:17 PM EST
     that he doesn't know that simply pushing for good policy is his road to success, and re-election?

    By now he should have figured out that what he's doing is...not...working.


    His definition of good policy and (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    yours - and mine, and a long list of others who comment here, are not the same.

    And, to make matters worse, I am convinced that in many cases it isn't even the policy that matters to him, but being able to claim a win, or tick a check-mark in the "done" column because it looks better politically.

    And that's one of the things that bothers me about him winning - that it will validate four years of f**king around with people's lives.  And then - oh, joy! - we can count on even more of it, and count on it being done more openly.

    For the last three years, Obama's been saying "F-them" - meaning us - behind our backs; he wins and he's saying it to our faces.


    Now that's really pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    only because it's so true.

    Geithner was Wall Street's choice (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    The hold Geithner has on O is that he is a direct link to the purse strings.

    On the jobs report (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Some tidbits - not much good news.

    The number of long-term unemployed fell 366,000 to 5.9 million, the Labor Department announced Friday. But since it first topped 6 million at the end of 2009, the size of the population coping with six or more months of joblessness hasn't changed much. The latest datapoint represents the third time the number of long-term jobless dipped below 6 million this year. Each of the two previous times, it went back above 6 million the next month.


    Shierholz said there were 4.4 million people who'd been out of work a full year in October 2010. That number has fallen to 4.1 million. But the number of very long-term jobless -- people out of work 99 weeks or longer -- tells a more a discouraging story.

    At this time in 2010, there were 1.5 million jobless who'd passed the 99 week mark. Now there are 1.8 million. (There were 2 million in September, but since these particular data on unemployment duration are not seasonally adjusted, month-over-month comparisons don't really work.) The 99 week milestone is significant because once someone's been out of work that long, he or she no longer qualifies for unemployment insurance.

    Change you can believe in.


    Mitt Romney's (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    economic plan:

    "Mitt Romney unveiled a sweeping budget-cutting plan today that would increase the eligibility age for Social Security and cap Medicaid payments to states.

    Romney's plan would also increase the eligibility age for Medicare and allow seniors to choose between the government-sponsored plan and private insurance.

    The plan would cut at least $500 billion per year from the federal budget as of 2016 and dramatically shrink the government, pulling back funding from areas that Romney says the nation can no longer afford.

    Those areas include Amtrak, which would lose all government subsidies. Romney would also slice $600 million from the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation Fund."

    oh and just for goodies:

    "Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding -- Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood"

    Read the link.  It's full of goodies.

    Romney's cuts to Social Security (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    and Medicare would automatically lose him most of the senior vote (and the election) if it weren't for the fact that Obama was pushing to cut those programs as well.

    Of course, if Obama is able to push through his Grand Bargain which includes cuts to those programs in late 2011 or early 2012 that will take Romney and the Republicans completely off the hook since Obama will have already officially cut those programs.  


    Er, nowhere is there any way to read (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    or deduce that any talked-about Obama Administration approach to Medicare & Social Security would be the privatization mix (aka Vouchers) that Romney has just announced.

    Er, nowhere is there any way to read (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    or deduce that I said Obama planned to privatize Social Security in my comment.

    The word used was "cuts" not privatize. Cuts that Obama was willing to make to domestic and safety net programs:

    Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

    Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

    Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

    Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny. link

    Exhibit X (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    as to why I'm leaving the presidential ballot blank if it's Romney vs. Obama. If it's a nut, then and only then I might pull the lever for Obama.

    Romney's plan sounds almost like it could have been lifted from Obama 2012.


    that's not true (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    Obama has not proposed eliminating funding for Title X, amtrak, the arts, or public broadcasting.

    I understand that medicare and social security are important and people don't trust Obama on those issues.  But they are not the only important things out there.  Title X cuts in particular are a very big deal.  We all have our pet causes.  Needless to say as a 20something woman, this is one of mine.  So no, I don't see it as being similar to Obama's 2012 campaign.


    Actually, Romney's plan almost equals (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    Paul Ryan's not-so-well-received plan from early last spring. Especially the Medicare Vouchers.

    Sounds like... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    no cuts at all to "security" spending, and I'd surmise DEA/NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS/ATF/ICE and all the acronyms for harm that escape me are considered "security".

    How could anyone take such a plan seriously?


    It is already being called (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    Romney's Medicare Voucher Plan. Ap & others are noting how similar the Voucher Plan for Medicare is to Cong. Paul Ryan's now almost-infamous plan.

    Ah yes, for statisticians like Nate S. & others, politics always throws a curve to offer an ever-changing analysis. (And, given the amount of words Nate had to use to cover all the bases, etc., I suspect he really does know that there ain't no mathematical equation this far out.)