Group items tagged

in the article: US President Barack Obama announced the nomination of current White House chief of staff Jacob Lew as treasury secretary Thursday, underscoring the administration's commitment to slashing entitlements and its domination by Wall Street. Lew, a longtime Washington operative and former Wall Street executive, helped negotiate cuts to Social Security with the Reagan administration in 1983, worked to slash social spending in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and served as the Obama administration's point-man in budget-cutting negotiations with congressional Republicans. Prior to joining the Obama administration in 2009, he earned millions of dollars as the chief operating officer of Citigroup's Alternative Investments unit, which made bets against the housing market as it collapsed. Holy shit. That's maybe all one needs to read of this article. That's pretty ridiculous.

Secretary General to be attending Thematic Debate in the Security Council entitled "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts"

What is it with the left and their attempts to make sure that nothing the right does or says EVER gets any credit or viewing - we just wrote an article detailing the attacks on real viable cuts and now attacks on fixes for two entitlement programs don't get discussion, but fear. Comments please!

United States v. Dougherty was a 1972 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which the court ruled that members of the D.C. Nine, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2-1 vote: " The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a "necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience, and must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny. " Nonetheless, the defendants were given a new trial on the grounds that they had been denied their right of self-representation.[1] The Circuit Judges' assumption that jurors know about their nullification prerogative has since been brought into question by other empirical evidence.[2] According to Irwin Horowitz, "Beyond the empirical issue, lack of nullification instructions maintains a deceit. After all, juries can nullify, but they know this fact only on a so

Republican politicians in general, John McCain in particular - hypocrites of the highest degree. Yes, most politicians sooner or later, one time or another display hypocritical tendencies. However, Republicans and John have taken it to new heights.

What impact do the incredible salaries of superstars have on the rest of us? What has changed, technologically and socially, to precipitate these inequities? This article also offers a brief look at the relationship between income inequality and economic growth, comparing the US throughout its history and the US vis a vis several European countries. (Part 1 of 2)

Ac­cord­ing to the Wall Street Journ­al: In a speech Wed­nesday, Mr. Obama will pro­pose cuts to en­tit­le­ment pro­grams, in­clud­ing Medicare and Medicaid, and chan­ges to Soci­al Secur­ity, a dis­cuss­ion he has lar­ge­ly left to De­moc­rats and Re­pub­licans in Con­gress. He also will call for tax in­creases for peo­ple mak­ing over $250,000 a year, a pro­pos­al con­tained in his 2012 bud­get, and chang­ing parts of the tax code he thinks be­nefit the wealthy. Until now, Mr. Obama has been lar­ge­ly ab­sent from the rag­ing de­bate over the long-term de­ficit. The White House has done lit­tle with the re­com­menda­tions of its own bi­par­tisan de­ficit com­miss­ion. And Mr. Obama's 2012 bud­get didn't offer many new ideas for tackl­ing en­tit­le­ment spend­ing, among the bi­ggest long-term drains on the feder­al bud­get. The White House move caught De­moc­rats in Con­gress off guard, ac­cord­ing to aides, and de­tails of the pre­sident's pro­pos­als were sketchy. Mr. Plouf­fe said the pre­sident will name a dol­lar amount for de­ficit re­duc­tion, al­though the White House would­n't pro­vide specifics. In­troduc­ing taxes into the dis­cuss­ion has the poten­ti­al to com­plicate the re­solu­tion of com­ing bud­get fights, specifical­ly the need to raise the debt ceil­ing, a move needed to pre­vent the U.S. de­fault­ing on its debt.