Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:34:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Medical marijuana dispensaries are officially out of business today in Fort Collins.

Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, will be sentenced tomorrow in Detroit for his failed attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. He represented himself and pleaded guilty. At least one count mandates a life sentence. His stand-by counsel is seeking less time, alleging the statute violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Commerce Clause. He also moved to strike the report of the Government's "martyr" and suicide bombing expert, Simon Perry from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who has never been qualified by the court in this case as an expert and whose reference materials for his conclusions about future risk of dangerousness were not provided to the defense. Having read Dr. Perry's report (available on PACER and described at length here) I agree the expert's report should not be considered. Plus, excluding it won't make a difference given the mandatory life sentence requirement -- so all the Government is doing is providing Abdulmutallab provide another ground for appeal. [More...]

I suspect tomorrow's outcome will be a life sentence and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will arrive at SuperMax in Colorado within days.

Just another example of our federal courts being perfectly capable of handling terror cases, including those of the Guantanamo detainees. We don't need military commissions.

On TV tonight: The new season of Survivor begins, Top Chef winds down to the final 2, and American Idol is still doing Hollywood auditions.

Is anyone watching Justified? Critics love this season, I think the violence is over-the-top and Raylan doesn't have a big enough role. There are no humanizing stories like in the first two seasons, where even the bad guys have something positive or likable about them. This season, everyone is just bad and badder.

If you get Netflix streaming, check out Lillyhammer, the 8 episode made-for Netflix series with Steven Van Zandt (E Street Band, the Sopranos.) I have now seen all 8 episodes and it's really good -- it's a semi-comedy about a New York mobster who rats out his compatriots in crime and goes into the witness protection program -- in Norway.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Fallacy of the Whitney Houston Enabler Theory | NC Trial Addresses Racism in Application of Death Penalty >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wednesday Night Open Thread | 84 comments (84 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Lillyhammer is in Norway (none / 0) (#2)
by msobel on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:24:26 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillyhammer

: thanks, I (none / 0) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:57:32 AM EST

knew that but my fingers didn't when they typed it

another instance (none / 0) (#3)
by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:58:25 AM EST

(as in the Roman Catholic Church) of many church members being more liberal than church leaders on a social issue?

Gay Marriage a Tough Sell with Blacks in Maryland

Lilly no Hammer (none / 0) (#4)
by koshembos on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:06:32 AM EST

Yes, it's Norway and for my taste quite stupid. Van Zant is unreal in a very funny way. The story is unbelievable, he succeeds with minimal effort, and written below average TV writing. Norwegians seem stupid, fake and incompetent; why?

A sweet looking 30 something woman gets involved with a guy in his 50s who cannot even walk straight. It can happen.

I think you would be surprised (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:52:30 AM EST

how many christian evangelicals believe this. someone in the last open said something about W having the same views as Santorum. I dont think he did at all in most areas but on this I think he did.
I think I even remember him talking about it but I dont feel like looking for W videos.

Elie Wiesel calls on Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:09:37 AM EST

to make Mormon Church stop proxy baptisms of Jews

I think this story will have legs. I got this link in my email this morning along with the link to the interview with him and the whistle blower on MSNBC last night. I cant take much of Lawrence but this is worth watching.

I find this a little stunning. I think I know more about the Mormon religion than the average non Mormon person because of events in my own family but I did not know this. I knew they did proxy baptisms but I did not know they did it against the will of the person baptized or their family or descendants. for me that is a very important detail. before I knew the details I thought the practice was just a little weird but now that I know the details I have to say on a personal level I find this practice rather profoundly offensive and intrusive.
I find the thought that this might be performed on me or someone I care about outrageous. not because I put any stock in their ridiculous cultish ritual but for the same reason I would be angry if some stupid satanic ritual was performed over my dead body or the dead body of someone I care about.

I have no idea if there was a political calculation to the timing of this story. there probably was. if so I am ok with that. I think it is a valid topic for political discussion.

IMO there is an arrogance and deceit to this that rather perfectly meshes with the impression I have of Mitt Romney. this will have legs and I think it will have an impact on Romneys viability as a candidate. in all the nutty fringe things Santorum seems to believe I personally find nothing more offensive than this practice.

Good morning, Capt (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:05:03 AM EST

Maybe you can tell me why the bother if the Mormons symbolically baptize someone?

I mean if you don't believe it as any effect, why not just live and let live? Isn't that what we all want?

live and let live (none / 0) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:53:38 AM EST

and they should do the same. like I said.

I find the thought that this might be performed on me or someone I care about outrageous. not because I put any stock in their ridiculous cultish ritual but for the same reason I would be angry if some stupid satanic ritual was performed over my dead body or the dead body of someone I care about.

and I do not think I will be alone in my discomfort with this. Wiesel I am sure has no illusions that Romney can stop this he is asking that he denounce the practice. he should do that.

"I'm not saying it's his fault, but once he knows, morally he must respond. . . . He should come out and say, `Stop it.' "

how would you feel if a voodoo ritual was performed over your dead mother?


And why should Romney do that? (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:29:27 AM EST

So your answer is that you want Romney to apologize for something he can't control.

Do you also think Obama should apologize for Ruth Bader Ginsbur's telling the Egyptians they shouldn't use the US constitution as a model?

I suspect that we are all guilty of confusing the right to do something with "should do." Mormons have the right. Ginsburg had the right. Neither should have.

For a more personal example we see see Donald, who I see as somewhat a political statist, criticizing Santorum for being a religious statist.

Your analogy is poor in that such actions in a graveyard would violate several laws. OTOH, if they want to meet in their "church" and declare she is a member I say let them alone.


: that would be your opinion (none / 0) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:37:27 AM EST

and it betrays little knowledge of voodoo. it doesnt all happen in grave yards.
let me be clear. just because I make no bones about believing that most organized religion is a sham and a scam does not mean I take issues of the spirit lightly. I most certainly do not. the Mormons absolutely DO NOT have any right to be messin with my spirit. or anyone elses who does not want it.
if there is no other area where we should be allowed to go our own way with out unwanted interference it is in matters of the spirit.
note to Mormons. keep your stupid rituals off my spirit.
as far as Mitt. he is the most prominent Mormon in the country. he is seeking its highest office.
personally I would like to know if he subscribes to this belief. still. clearly he has.

Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that "I have in my life, but I haven't recently."
beyond that I really dont care what you think. and I dont think it is representative of much.

btw (none / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:56:29 AM EST

they (the church) has been asked repeatedly to stop doing with this Jews specifically and have agreed to stop at least twice. if you watched the videos you know they did not.


The fact they have been asked (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:31:35 AM EST

and they agreed has nothing to do with anything. It is their right to do stupid things that some people find offensive....

Now, when they start digging......


: conservatives have a perfect right (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:16:55 AM EST

to alienate anyone who isn't a southern, white, anglo saxon, War of Northern Agression reenactor, who makes more than 200,000 a year..
And they can keep it up all they want.

I heard a story on NPR about that yesterday (none / 0) (#24)
by ruffian on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:06:49 AM EST

The person they were interviewing said that the departed soul is free to reject the baptism. So no harm done apparently.

But yes, religion is under attack in America. That is why we are going to have 9 months of Very serious People talking about this stuff without using the words batsh** crazy.


fact is (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:56:33 AM EST

IMO its weird and creepy. just like Mitt.


Twilight.. (none / 0) (#36)
by jondee on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:01:03 PM EST

my daughter's been going on and on lately about the helpless-virginal-Mormon-maiden subtext of the "Twilight" series..

I haven't read any of the books. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?


: clearly (none / 0) (#50)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:24:24 PM EST

in either case
this is not my discussion.

well said (none / 0) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:55:54 PM EST

as usual.

strangely I may have a stake of sorts in this. I have Mormon relatives. who know I am gay. one with whom I was very close with in childhood. I could totally imagine him submitting my name for this and thinking he was doing me some kind of favor.

it creeps me out to think about that.

his mother (my aunt) said he told her he intended to submit her name and she exploded being a devout baptist.


I'd say that the Catholic practice (none / 0) (#89)
by jondee on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 12:03:19 PM EST

of placing the souls of 'good' non-Christians (like Socrates and Plato), in Purgatory is a kind of backhanded, patronizing way of laying claims on other souls from other traditions that need saving. No?

Almost all religions come packaged with a set of grating, credulity-taxing, presumptions about themselves and other religious traditions..

As one of "the chosen" (and you're not), Weisel should be as aware of that as anyone.

So the Archangel Boney Maronie (he's about as skinny as a stick of macaroni), is out there sanctifying the souls of Moses, Elijah, and Lenny Bruce; why should this come as such as a surprise to anyone?


Let's keep it going (none / 0) (#10)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:26:24 AM EST

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people seeking unemployment benefits in the U.S. fell to the lowest point in almost four years last week, the latest signal that the job market is steadily improving.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the fourth drop in five weeks and the fewest number of claims since March 2008 -- six months before Lehman Brothers collapsed and only a few months into the Great Recession."

Let's keep the GOP clown show going! (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:29:59 AM EST

Announcing Operation Hilarity

It's time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That's right, it's time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states--Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks--to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.
Why would we do such a crazy thing? Lots of great reasons!

I am so on board with this


I don't think TN (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35:16 AM EST

is an open state.

Could be wrong.

See you later!


: you are (none / 0) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:47:12 AM EST

Tennessee - Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days - Jan 6).

Well, I see that you still don't want to talk abou (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:33:57 AM EST

where the numbers come from... I mean all those no longer looking for work, etc.

But don't worry. Obama's energy policy is gonna jack gasoline prices to over $4.00 and the election will be over.


you cant even (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:45:36 AM EST

get your talking points right

its over 5.00 - 5.50

and who do you think will blame Obama for that except people like yourself?


And Howdy's correct (none / 0) (#22)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:01:51 AM EST

Obama's energy policy will have nothing to do with gas prices. If Obama opened up every conceivable pipeline tomorrow, the impact would not be felt on prices for 4-5 years. In fact, what we are experiencing now is the state of affairs resulting from W's energy policy at before he left office.

The infrastructure required to take advantage of relaxed regulations should be hitting now.

Perhaps the issue isn't the government regulations. Perhaps the issue is that Iran is going to threaten the world's oil supply, a billion Chinese have started driving in the past 5-10 years and there is only so much gas to go around.

Perhaps.


Capt, Obama will get blamed... (none / 0) (#25)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:08:09 AM EST

gas prices are seen as the president's fault, like the economy gets attributed to the president.

Since the economy still sputters along AND gas prices go up, a contender can make the case that he or she would do a better job, lower gas prices, create jobs, etc... doesn't matter if it's truthful, only that this gaping wound can't be fixed by the president, and the opponents can poke it with sticks.

Unless the opponents want to keep talking about contraception and so forth. If the republican candidates keep addressing birth control, welfare, immigrants, and Al Qaeda, so be it. Nice to grow the straw to make straw men out of for them... I'll be glad if they keep on with the Captain Insano issues. Perhaps the inmates did take over the asylum, and the current ilk republicans will move further toward irrelevance.

But then ALL of the problems become democratic problems, and I haven't seen leadership addressing these problems. For example, cutting UI to 73 weeks... continuing the poorly-planned and wrongfully-implemented SS tax cut, the Bush tax cuts, so forth...


I dont really think so (none / 0) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:54:01 AM EST

some people will blame him. some people will blame him if there is a late spring. but I think that most people who are not already inclined to blame him for everything will understand that nothing he did had much to do with the rise in gas prices and nothing he can do will have much to do with it.

of course they will try to use the "pipeline" and such. I dont think it will have much impact as far as the presidential election is concerned beyond the fact that it will slow the economic recovery which could have an impact of course depending on how much and when. still not my biggest worry for the fall.


Every Spring (none / 0) (#38)
by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:31:21 PM EST

Just in time to grab big profits for Memorial Day traffic & beyond, the Oil Boys have been raising the prices for years now. Since a lot of people now are familiar with that pattern--even mentioned here and there on mainstream TV news this past week--these guys seem to be moving a bit earlier with their profit-taking maneuver.


: true (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:09:56 PM EST

but unfortunately its also true that this year may be particularly severe. if it goes to 5.50 (as I read yesterday is possible) it is going to cause some real pain.

: thank dog (none / 0) (#40)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:15:59 PM EST

I have a motorcycle

: True (none / 0) (#83)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:14:00 PM EST

But it's started from a higher base and a lot earlier.

It is the economy that will do the work (none / 0) (#81)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09:02 PM EST

Jim (none / 0) (#21)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:58:38 AM EST

I understand the numbers fairly well and the drop is not attributed to people who have stopped looking for work. Companies are laying off fewer people and hiring more:

"At the same time, applications for jobless benefits are falling because companies are laying off fewer workers. A separate report from the Labor Department, released earlier this week, showed that job cuts have fallen below pre-recession levels. Layoffs dropped last year to the lowest annual total in the 10 years the government has tracked the data.
With job cuts low, even a modest increase in hiring results in net job gains."

- USAToday

I understand the need by some to find a charcoal lining in every bit of decent news, but sometimes there aren't any. Increasingly that is the case. The recovery appears to have begun in earnest.


Con (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09:01 AM EST

text...


Edger (none / 0) (#47)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:59:25 PM EST

That is a very insighful and completely speculative post submitted by Brad Pitt's character in fight club.

Repeat: your response to my analysis was to submit a speculative response by Tyler Durdin, a fictional character with no economic bona fides that I can tell other than the fact that he's been an anonymous member of that blog for 2 years.

Not to point a fine point on it, but Mr. Durden believes that "the self-delusion of employers is just as palpable as that of market participants" and that people are hiring despite the fact that they obviously should not be.

The stupidity of that statement speaks for itself.

Luckily, we have a bold prediction:

"Expect to see this "favorable" trend reverse within weeks, as the groundwork for more easing has to be set (more on that shortly). "

Oh I will Mr. Brad Pitt's character in Fight Club.

I will.


This from the guy who wants us to (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Anne on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:21:13 PM EST

pay attention to what people say, and not to who says it - at least when it's Andrew Sullivan doing the talking.


: Sullly (none / 0) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:26:38 PM EST

IS brilliant.
Tweety told me that.
but ftr I agree with everything ABG said.

: The distinction (none / 0) (#54)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:35:32 PM EST

is that you are free to evaluate Andrew Sullivan's credentials, for better or worse.
All I know about Tyler Durden is that he can take a punch and is very closely related to Ed Norton's character in the movie.

I can only conclude (none / 0) (#66)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:26:20 PM EST

that you aren't aware that Zerohedge and Tyler Durden are among the most respected sources of hardnosed factual economic analysis anywhere on the web.

Do you actually work at smearing yourself? Please keep going the way you are.

At the rate you're going, you're going to run out of feet to shoot yourself in soon. Which may explain the trail of bloody footprints behind you...

For an encore, why don't you take a few shots at the CBO?

CBO: Longest Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression

February 16, 2012- After three years with unemployment topping 8 percent, the U.S. has seen the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, the [CBO] noted in a report issued today.
[Dems Tout GOP Payroll Tax Plan as Political Victory.]
And, despite some recent good news on the economic front, the CBO is still predicting that unemployment will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The report also notes that, including those who haven't sought work in the past four weeks and those who are working part-time but seeking full-time employment, the unemployment rate would be 15 percent.
The CBO made its comments in a report examining the long-term effects of joblessness, and possible policy options to boost employment, including unemployment insurance reforms and job training programs.

CBO delivers devastating numbers to Obama's reelection efforts

PHOENIX, February 16, 2012 - President Barack Obama's reelection efforts received a terrible blow today from the non-partisan [CBO], with numbers showing a very grim and poor outlook on the future of America's economy.
Though the official Department of Labor number shows that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% in December 2011 to 8.3% in January 2012, the CBO report states that, "The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent."
A `real' unemployment rate of 15% is absolutely unacceptable for any president. Especially when running for reelection, on the platform of the same failed policies.

And please ask me who the CBO is. Please? Lol. ;-)


how about asking you (none / 0) (#67)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:38:33 PM EST

who the Moonie Times is.

congratulations on the framing. in all honesty, I think Obama will gladly take the "devastating economic news" of late.

but it must be terrible for you.


Don't get me wrong (none / 0) (#68)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:43:08 PM EST

Who could complain about a .2 percent drop in the fake unemployment rate? This is all great news. Compared to where the economy is heading...


btw (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:56:49 PM EST

I have a whole list of wing nut sites I regularly visit that I could give you for reference material. why stop with the Moonie Times?


like I just said in another thread (none / 0) (#69)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:55:29 PM EST

your transparently desperate search for bad news is getting funnier by the day.

but then I as totally sure you would be spinning the news the same way if it was bad for Obama.

well, wouldnt you? of course you would.


Very desperate search, yeah (none / 0) (#71)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:57:45 PM EST

Takes about as long as it takes to open my eyes every morning.


dont despair (none / 0) (#72)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:00:19 PM EST

gas prices are going up. you and Jim may actually have something to complain about soon. wouldnt that be novel?

Obama will still win but at least you wont have to post made up crap from the Moonie Times.


CBO (none / 0) (#73)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:12:59 PM EST

You're going to be up for awhile tonight trying to put a damper on all the places that have reported on that February 2012 CBO report (.PDF).

About 2,440,000 results. Better put on a pot of coffee.


well with 2,440,000 choices (none / 0) (#74)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:04:35 PM EST

I can certainly see why you chose the Moonie Times to link to.

the whole "devastating" thing is very you.

your problem this is not news to anyone who knows dick about this issue.


for the record (none / 0) (#75)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:21:39 PM EST

a little perspective from factcheck.org

Chamber Misuses Report, Misleads Voters

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims in a TV ad that the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment "could top 9 percent in 2013." Maybe so, if Congress doesn't change current law -- specifically if it fails to extend tax cuts, fails to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax that threatens to raise taxes on more than 31 million Americans, and also allows big spending cuts to take effect. But CBO also said that wasn't a prediction of the future. The CBO's "alternative fiscal scenario" -- which considers the impact of Congress acting as it has in the past -- projects next year's unemployment rate could range from 7.4 percent to 8.9 percent.
And after CBO issued its analysis, the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 8.3 percent.
Home * The FactCheck Wire * Chamber Misuses Report, Misleads Voters
Chamber Misuses Report, Misleads Voters
Posted on February 10, 2012
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims in a TV ad that the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment "could top 9 percent in 2013." Maybe so, if Congress doesn't change current law -- specifically if it fails to extend tax cuts, fails to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax that threatens to raise taxes on more than 31 million Americans, and also allows big spending cuts to take effect. But CBO also said that wasn't a prediction of the future. The CBO's "alternative fiscal scenario" -- which considers the impact of Congress acting as it has in the past -- projects next year's unemployment rate could range from 7.4 percent to 8.9 percent.
And after CBO issued its analysis, the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 8.3 percent.
The Chamber, which spends tens of millions each campaign cycle on TV ads, announced on Feb. 9 that it was running TV ads in support of or opposition to candidates and members of Congress in 12 congressional and eight Senate races. The pro-business advocacy group billed the TV blitz as a "voter education" campaign. But voters in Rep. Judy Biggert's 13th Congressional District in Illinois aren't getting an education. They are being misled by a 30-second spot called "Judy's for Jobs."
The ad, which praises the GOP congresswoman for voting to create jobs, starts with the narrator saying: "Unemployment's sky high with no end in sight." As he speaks, a headline from a Jan. 31 U.S. News and World Report article flashes on the screen: "CBO: Unemployment Could Top 9 percent in 2013." As the story makes clear, that sky-high unemployment rate is not a forecast, but a baseline projection that CBO uses to measure the impact of congressional actions against current law. The story says that "if Congress does nothing," then unemployment would climb to 9.2 percent.
On the same day CBO released its report, Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote on his blog that Congress is expected to make "substantial changes to tax and spending policies." So, CBO once again prepared an "alternative fiscal scenario" that projects the impact of possible and likely actions.
We'll let Elmendorf explain the difference between the projections:
Elmendorf, Jan. 31: Each January, CBO prepares "baseline" budget projections spanning the next 10 years. Those projections are not a forecast of future events; rather, they are intended to provide a benchmark against which potential policy changes can be measured. Therefore, as specified in law, those projections generally incorporate the assumption that current laws are implemented.

But substantial changes to tax and spending policies are slated to take effect within the next year under current law. So CBO has also prepared projections under an "alternative fiscal scenario," in which some current or recent policies are assumed to continue in effect, even though, by law, they are scheduled to change.
Under the alternative fiscal scenario, for example, CBO assumes that Congress will index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. The AMT, which was designed to make sure wealthy Americans pay a minimum tax, would raise taxes for millions of middle-income Americans, because it was never indexed to inflation on a permanent basis. Congress has fixed this problem every year since 2001. If the AMT took effect as required under current law, then more than 31 million Americans would get hit with a huge tax increase. Nobody believes that Congress would let that happen.

jeralyn delete this if you want (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:28:51 PM EST

and I will repost it. it is very sloppy. sorry.


damn sloppy (none / 0) (#76)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:23:05 PM EST

cut and paste. but I think we get the idea.


We get the idea (none / 0) (#78)
by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:31:23 PM EST

It'll be great! Obama a Shoe-in for 2012 Re-election!

Losing to win will be such a minor unimportant price to pay to have their guy in the oval office, after all. It just doesn't get any better than this.
Think of it! No one will have to spend 4 years pretending all over again to be opposed to most of what Obama has been doing the past three years while getting 4 years of the policies they've been cheering for the past three years, and cognitive dissonance could probably be treated with proper medication anyway.
Or booze. At least booze and pills are still manufactured in America.
Not only that, the economic "recovery" will thankfully continue. Why, if you've been wanting to launch a new business Obama soon will have the business climate improved to the point where you'll be able to hire an American workforce for your new venture for no more than the cost of labor in China! Thanks to the first trade agreement entirely negotiated by Obama.

No republican could ever approach Obama's accomplishments.

Isn't he wonderful? The guy blows me away.


: huh (none / 0) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:33:44 PM EST

must be a fellow chamber of commerce fan

: thanks for the 5 (none / 0) (#80)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35:59 PM EST

if she deletes it I will glady repost the debunking of your BS in a more readable form.

: Wait a second (none / 0) (#91)
by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 12:35:19 PM EST

Edger made a point by linking to his own blog post. This is the first time I realized that he'd done that. I sometimes click on those links and just assume it is another person supporting his point.
Awesome.
The good news: looking back on his stuff over the years makes a lot of my points.

Economists (none / 0) (#90)
by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 12:15:07 PM EST

Who do not think things are getting better are in the large minority from what I have seen.

The issue is that using almost any metric you can provide, things are better based on that metric. If you want to go directly to the best source of determining how we are doing, go to the people. They feel better about the economy, consumer confidence is up and approval of Obama's economic policies are rising steadily.

You are firmly invested in the idea that the economy is not getting better and will not give up that investment without a fight.

The question is how long you will keep up the effort in the face of concrete evidence.

Bottom line: things are getting better. You do not want to give Obama or maybe the dems credit. So you deny what everyone else seems to understand is reality.

Your credibility is the one taking the hit. Not the rest of us.


: "From what [you] have seen." (none / 0) (#92)
by Anne on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 02:44:08 PM EST

Great qualifier, and carries more meaning than you think. Especially since, in the prior comment, you just marveled at the fact that Edger has his own blog - you didn't "realize" that because you "assumed" something that a little - and I do mean "a little" - more reading would have made obvious.
So, when you toss out statements like this:

Economists [w]ho do not think things are getting better are in the large minority from what I have seen.
without (1) any supporting links or references or quotes, (2) create something known as a "large" minority, and (3) qualify it all on the basis of what you have seen, well, I think the person with the credibility problem isn't Edger, or me - it's you.
Because I don't think there are too many people who believe that what you have seen is all that much. You're "Headline Guy," because that's about as deep as you want to go. You bring talking points, sound bites and Andrew Sullivan here to prove your credibility and, I don't know, I guess you keep thinking that we're buying that nonsense.
Say, have you read Nouriel Roubini? How about Kathleen Madigan? Not going to provide links - you won't read them.
And weren't you the one who kept beating the drum that Obama was being held captive to the effects of the European economic woes? So, how does that all factor in here? Or have you abandoned the European excuse now that you don't think you need it? Any chance conditions in Europe will have any effect on all the upward movement of the US economy?
Things are getting better for some people, ABG. How much better remains to be seen. I know you hate to hear it but lower wages, reduced benefits, rising gas prices, the end to extended unemployment benefits for some people - these things are still an issue. If I lose a $50,000 a year job, am unemployed for 2 years and get pretty much my same job back, but making $35,000 a year, have to pay more for health insurance, more for gas - well, I might be better off than I was collecting an unemployment check, but if I'm trying to play catch-up on bills, have no savings, ran through my 401(k) so I could hang onto my house, well, I still don't have much to put into the economy and I'm never going to really get ahead. And now, I'm pretty much terrified because I have less of a safety net under me now than I did before.
I think people are, to some extent, getting used to living on less, to doing without, to demanding less from their employers; we are developing a servant mentality out of fear that the next stop on the tour is destitution.
You see this through a lens of what's-good-for-Obama; many of us look at this through a lens of what's-good-for-the-people; they do not appear to be the same thing.

Oh please (none / 0) (#82)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:10:06 PM EST

There are about 1.2 million people who dropped out,


Funny stuff (none / 0) (#28)
by Yman on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:26:59 AM EST

But don't worry. Obama's energy policy is gonna jack gasoline prices to over $4.00 and the election will be over.

Gas prices will rise - and this will probably hurt Obama's numbers - but it has nothing to do with his energy policy. Making stuff up is easy ...

.... but not remotely convincing.


The Lin-stributor... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04:01 AM EST

was in full effect last night at the Garden, dashing and dishing for a career high 13 assists and another double double in a blow-out win over Sacramento.

Fans in attendance felt somewhat cheated, chanting "We Want Lin" as Super Lintendo sat for nearly the entire 4th quarter as victory was assured.

We go for 8 in a row Friday, New Orleans come to town. Keep on rollin' boys!

I agree about Justified (none / 0) (#27)
by ruffian on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:13:11 AM EST

I am disappointed so far, for the reasons you name. I'd rather see the interpersonal stuff between Raylon and Boyd than another bloodbath. But what do you think happened at the end of this latest episode?

Ia anyone watching "Luck"? I'm loving it so far. If it had just a touch more character insight I would even put it up there with Sopranos. Maybe that will come.

I left a comment about Dexter the other day (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:02:20 PM EST

I forgot to mention (without spoiling it for anyone who has not seen it) the last 15 seconds of the last episode. something I think we both predicted would happen in that season.
very anxious to see how that works out next season.

I think next may be the last season. I think they are all probably ready to move on and dont want to turn into the simpsons who have run out of ideas.

and maybe not.

but if so I have always thought that the only logical conclusion for the series is for him to get caught and stand trial. he will be a monster to some. a hero to others.

just a theory.


I missed that Dexter comment (none / 0) (#44)
by ruffian on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:55:33 PM EST

Yes, I am very interested in seeing that play out. Actually that circumstance (that happens at the end) is more true to the books.

I don't want to see anything as blatant as a trial, but I would like to see the different perspectives brought into play in other ways.

I think the series has probably run its course after that.


I have been waiting for the series to end (none / 0) (#52)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:31:07 PM EST

to read the books.

I love the series and the writers to much.

the other comment was about the last season and its subject - faith.

I was a bit disappointed in the way it was handled. I started recording it after the first couple of episodes because I was not mentally up to watching my favorite writers deal with the issue of faith. I expected, from the first couple of shows, a season dealing in depth with the issue of faith. and Dexters lack of same which is equal to my own. and I wanted to be in the right "place" to see that happen.

it, IMO, ended up being sort of a vehicle for the seasons featured killer and I was a bit disappointed with that. but all in all I was pleased with the season.


: I know - it started out with Dexter really (none / 0) (#57)
by ruffian on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:23:22 PM EST

thinking about it and asking interesting questions, and then turned into just an excuse for the murder tableau that seem to have been done in many other books or movies.
Still worth watching, but not the best season.

study on interracial marriage (none / 0) (#29)
by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:33:52 AM EST

tells us what every young-ish urban dweller already knows. White guys date asian girls, black guys date white girls, and hispanics date everyone!

Also, the practice and acceptance is on the rise. All joking aside, this is the future of America.

Eventually they aren't going to be able to do these studies anymore since the groups will get too confusing. 57% of asian-white males marry black-hispanic girls while only 10% of hispanic-asian girls marry black-white boys.

Joe Kennedy III (none / 0) (#32)
by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:34:02 AM EST

officially running for Barney's old seat.

I don't have much insight as that's the funniest looking congressional district in the state, even after they sort of fixed it in 2011. It strikes me that Brookline and Newton may be places where the name will help not hurt - as there are plenty of people there with rich parents. As for the rest of the district, who knows. It's got everything from rich quasi-urban dwellers, to western quasi-rural suburbs, to working-class mill cities.

preliminary polling (none / 0) (#33)
by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:40:26 AM EST

has him way up over the probable republican challanger.

"Kennedy, the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy who recently left his job as a prosecutor to consider a run, would defeat Republican Sean Bielat, 36, by a 2-to-1 margin"

Also:

"Twenty-eight percent of respondents said his pedigree would make them more likely to vote for him, while 15 percent said it would make them less likely to support him, and 56 percent said it made no difference."

No word on other Dems. From what I've heard, he's a very good public speaker, but that's about the extent of it. Then again that's more than I know about Republican Sean Bielat, 36.


he really (none / 0) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:32:37 PM EST

looks so much like a young Teddy.


yea (none / 0) (#55)
by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:45:19 PM EST

that's the first thing I noticed too.

He has the Kennedy stamp all over his face. Although I don't recall the rest of them being red-headed, I guess it's not surprising it popped up in one of them.


also (none / 0) (#56)
by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:00:12 PM EST

the boston.com comments are great. If you want to see 400 people completely freaking out.

One of the biggest changes I saw from boston.com to bostonglobe.com is in the comments since you have to actually subscribe to the newspaper for the second one, which means you probably live in the area.

But seriously, who are all these wingnuts that read boston.com? Where do they come from? My favorite is all the people talking about "idiots" in MA and how it's going to hell because of liberalsm, etc... Last I checked we really didn't need or want their advice on how to run a state. Stay home clowns.

As for Joe K III, why not? He seems to be going about it the right way at the least. Will he benefit from the name? Probably. But there is good reason for that. He's already talking about "constituent services", something TK was one of the best in the business at, and a good mantle for him to try and take up.


: After a quick look at the intro video (none / 0) (#61)
by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:19:02 PM EST

...He reminds me of his grandfather in tone, sound. Definitely the Kennedy draw; and, maybe some of the older generation magnetism. 'Pleasantly surprised because his message had verve in his voice. An earnest tone, look.
Lots of things are said to skip generations; maybe that earnest public service virtue will be there again.

: MA is the second favorite place (none / 0) (#64)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:49:58 PM EST

after SF for them to bash for being "librul".
because thats what Hannity et al tell them.
its funny. I was there for 3 years (Boston) and it was not my experience.

Joe K III certainly has the Kennedy hair. (none / 0) (#62)
by caseyOR on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:31:05 PM EST

Not the color, maybe the red comes from his mother's family, but he's got the mop top with which all Kennedy males appear to be gifted. And since old Joe was bald, the great hair genes must be passed down from Rose's side of the family.

And Joe III does look so much like his Uncle Teddy, rather than his grandfather Bobby. Joe III does project that same earnestness that so endeared Bobby to so many in the years after Jack died.

As an aside, and this is not a criticism of young Joe. I wish that working as a defense attorney was as equally viable as a stepping stone to political office as working as an assistant district attorney.


Does anyone know (none / 0) (#45)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:57:48 PM EST

who the very nice subservient women in yellow, sitting appropriately behind the men represent? <snark!>

http://ow.ly/i/sLRU/original

I so love it when a woman knows her place at a contraceptive hearing <snark! snark, snark!>

As a true believer (none / 0) (#58)
by CoralGables on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:58:03 PM EST

in studying up on anything that you plan to debate, you could at least provide the link to the real subject matter. Although you probably passed for the same reason I'm passing here...backlash.

Personally I thought SI should stick with the tradition of their cover being closer in age to the mid-20s and up. If it was my job I would have chosen Bar Refaeli from this years group.

I could see a debate on Upton's age more so than body type.

: Well played sir (none / 0) (#65)
by CoralGables on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:53:06 PM EST

Gary Carter, Mets catcher, dead at age 57. (none / 0) (#59)
by caseyOR on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:17:43 PM EST

Cause of death was brain cancer.

As a Cubs fan I know I am supposed to actively dislike, if not outright hate, the Mets, all the Mets, and especially Mets who were good enough to make the Hall of Fame. Really though, could anybody hate a guy as nice as Gary Carter?

This is sad news. My condolences to his family and friends.

Forgot to include the link (none / 0) (#60)
by caseyOR on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:18:53 PM EST

to the story about Carter's death.

Here is that link.


: Sad news... (none / 0) (#84)
by desertswine on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:35:42 PM EST

Thanks for all the thrills Gary. I'll never forget 1986.

Very sad... (none / 0) (#85)
by kdog on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 08:27:25 AM EST

Thanks for the memories Kid! You gave Expos & Mets fans no shortage of those!

Gary Carter was the best in the business for a generation at the toughest position in baseball, and he did it all...driving in runs, throwing out runners, calling a superb game. While being so nice and wholesome it was almost sickening.

Game 6 1986 Bottom of the 9th, two outs two strikes he rips the single that started the rally of all rallys no Mets fan will ever forget. Gary The Kid is immortal.


Missed your post before I posted mine (none / 0) (#87)
by ruffian on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:54:52 AM EST

As usual, we think alike. This one makes me sad more than normal, probably because he was young enough that I have real memories of him. And living in Fullerton CA in the 80's he was often in the news since he grew up there.

He must have been a truly nice guy to transcend our Mets-hate.


RIP MLB hall of famer Gary Carter (none / 0) (#86)
by ruffian on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:51:05 AM EST

Dead of brain cancer at 57. He was a Fullerton CA local hero when I lived there in the 80's - an illustrious alumni of the high school my siblings attended. Always was hell on the Cubs, but seemed like a good guy nevertheless.

Jeralyn, there is a SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#88)
by caseyOR on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 11:27:58 AM EST

called rodrigosouto who has hit many many old threads.