a very intriguing idea. and you know, it might actually work! i think i like it!

I'm surprised you folks didn't jump on Boehner's offer of keeping everything the same with an extra bracket at a million. It's a higher rate and it had no spending cuts. Everything I thought Democrats wanted. What's the problem?

Go back and read the article, shooter - paragraph 4.

Those kinds of "statesmen" don't become successful lobbyists or sit on corporate boards.

remember its not important How you loose your position as long as you can get another one with a bigger and more golden parachute

Annie Oakley: The deal is we are not stupid, and unfortunately for you snake oil salespeople America is not buying this malarkey either.

Shooter so you do not have to strain to go back to the article - Paragraph 4:

And in case these troubles weren't quite enough, an analysis of "Plan B" from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that "nearly half of households in the top one percent would see a small tax cut under Boehner's plan," thanks to cuts in taxes on capital gains, estates, and dividends, while "lower and middle income households would see a tax increase under his plan," thanks to the elimination of existing tax policies designed to help working families.

Typical Republican Ideology protect the wealthiest on the backs of middle class, seniors and the poor. How about passing the American Jobs Act so we can get people back to work, paying taxes and spending money which grows the economy.

It's just amazing how slimy people like Sargent can be.

Nobody's taxes will go down. Everybody will pay exactly what they paid for the last decade, except for millionaires. Boehner is offering a stripped down version of exactly what you want and it still isn't good enough for you?

Fine. Boehner is on record as being in favor of Bush rates except for the the truly wealthy. Obama and you all are apparently in favor of in increasing taxes for everyone. I like Boehners's position better.

Annie Oakley: "Plan B" exempts the first million in income from taxes, thats not how it works now and you know it. Your lies are so pathological, you follow your leaders with such gusto and loyalty it's staggering. Progressive people question everything, including our supposed "leaders".

Again, Shooter, why is it you think you know better than the Tax Policy Center? Every time a serious study is done by serious economists and policy analysts that you don't like, you deny its veracity without a single substantive reason. In this case, the expiration of many tax credits and incentives as part of the cliff issue combined with Boehner's offer's specifics does add up to a cut for many millionaires, particularly those who rely on capital gains, investment income, and carried interest, while causing the tax liabilities of the middle slice of earners to go up. If you have a real substantive reply, please, by all means share it.

Ok Shooter...considering that for a good part of the last "Decade" the economy has been has been in the tank (which you seem to love to drone on and on about) How about we just roll things back to the rates they were when things were "Good"...You know under Clinton

There can and is no honest argument because business flourished under those rates and your beloved "Job Creators" were making money hand over fist...

Or were the 90's just a mirage created by the MSM and the vast liberal economic conspiracy?

Sanity or insanity: Pick one

Boehner's plan B stands for bull#$%&. The truth is that the right wing caucus is never, ever, ever going to get real. They live in some hateful, alternate reality where the president is running a "welfare state". They despise Obama for things he hasn't even done. Obama is a centrist president, just for openers. He has a very low rate of spending compared to other presidents.

These t-party freshmen in the house refuse to put their focus on what is good for America and its people. Their loyalty is to a multi-millionaire lobbyist, Grover Norquist, who is also a big lobbyist for the NRA. He is a corrupt and vicious man and has never cared about anyone but himself. The NRA spent millions of dollars, via Norquist and his ilk, to destroy the president and stop ANY gun legislation.

Newt Gingrich and his ilk primed and supported these current T-Party house members; they were put in the House to obstruct Obama and bring him down. The election and the will of the people mean nothing to them.

They will never stop doing what they were sent here to do. In my opinion they are treasonous. We need to get them out so we have a functioning government.

Meanwhile, they will never support letting the Bush taxes expire and will never, ever vote for common sense gun laws. Why? Grover Norquist, NRA lobbyist and tax phobic control freak.

"Plan B" exempts the first million in income from taxes.

Nobody making less than a million dollars has to pay income taxes? And where, pray tell, did you get that from? I'd actually like to know.

Every time a serious study is done by serious economists and policy analysts that you don't like, you deny its veracity without a single substantive reason.

VVS I'm talking about income tax rates. Would you like to talk stimulus instead? If you do, you don't have to impugn my integrity.

There can and is no honest argument because business flourished under those rates and your beloved "Job Creators" were making money hand over fist...

Are you declaring that prosperity came from higher taxes?

Obama is a centrist president, just for openers. He has a very low rate of spending compared to other presidents.

How do you reconcile the fact that Obama has generated more debt than Bush?

Meanwhile, back at the Beltway, my point remains. Everybody gets Bush rates with a new bracket for millionaires, and no spending cuts. Once again, what is the problem?

You still haven't answered my question shooter

What was wrong with the Clinton rates???

??? They are higher than Bush rates.

Shooter-

Nobody's taxes will go down. Everybody will pay exactly what they paid for the last decade, except for millionaires.

The rate changes that were included in the stimulus - along with other credits and adjustments put into effect over the last 12 years - can't be excluded when saying "nobody's taxes will go down". Because many millionaire's taxes will go slightly down. And all millionaires would still be getting a cut on the first million, to the tune of about 50 grand. These are not "separate" things.

Your pattern is to make a statement presented as absolute, and then when called on it, you shift your goalposts, attack the commenter, or parse their response rather than answering their questions. This is exactly what you're doing again. If you can back up what you're saying by countering the TPC report, I'm all ears eyes. Otherwise, Happy Holidays.

They are higher than Bush rates.

And yet somehow the economy didn't implode the wealthy got wealthier, unemployment was low...

So exactly how are Higher taxes "Bad" for the economy again...I missed that part

I am sorry for the spam here but since Shooter cannot read I want to make it clear why Democrats are opposing this plan since Shooter continues to entirely misrepresent the plan:

The key table you want to look at is right here. It shows that 48.3 percent of households in the top one percent would see their taxes go down by an average of $240. Those are people who make between $521,000 and $1 million. Only 28 percent of those in the top one percent (the ones with the highest incomes) would see a tax hike, of around $97,000.

Meanwhile, the analysis finds, despite the fact that Boehner’s plan extends the Bush tax cuts for all income under $1 million, many lower and middle income households would still see their taxes go up. Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, tells me that this is because Boehner’s plan does not extend several tax cuts that originally passed as part of Obama’s stimulus — one making the child credit more refundable, another expanding the earned income tax credit, and a third increasing tax credits for higher education. This cancels out the extension of the Bush-era rates for many of these taxpayers.

The upshot: around one fifth of households in the lowest two quintiles (up to $60,000) would see an average tax hike of more than $900. Around 13 percent in the middle quintile (from $64,000 to around $107,000) would see an average tax hike of nearly $800.

If you wanted to argue this Shooter you'd be conceding that the 48% are seeing a tax decrease, but that $240 in your mind isn't a big enough deal as compared to the $97,000 tax increase on the other 28% named. You would not be denying the fact that there are tax cuts for the millionaires. Doing so tells people that you do not care what the study says you only care about reinforcing the Republican line and it proves that you have no honest sincerity in discussing policy.

Please, you saw my reference to "Bush rates" in my original comment which are the rates we've been paying for the last decade. Nobody will be paying less than the Bush rates. If you want to argue about side cuts from the stimulus, do so. But do it openly rather than resorting to footnotes as gotcha.

So where on this table do you see millionaires paying $50,000 less than before?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3750&DocTypeID=2

Shooter-

It's part of the with tax increase tab, though the tab includes the top 1%, not just millionaires. If you understand marginal tax rates, you understand that Boehner's plan only raises rates on the income above a million, not on all the income of those who earn more than a million. That means that the lower rates apply to the first million dollars someone makes. The higher rate only kicks in on the money earned beyond that, resulting in lower taxes paid relative to if the bracket cut-offs were different.

By the way, you've done it again, moving the goalposts to change your argument.:

Please, you saw my reference to "Bush rates" in my original comment which are the rates we've been paying for the last decade.

You didn't refer to the Bush rates until Comment #1.14. So, in your own words, "Please."

So yes, Bush rates apply to the first million exactly in the same proportion as they did for the last decade. That is not a tax cut. After the million dollar mark taxes will be raised higher than they have been for the last decade. That is a tax hike.

Now you may think that having a rate system for a decade is "temporary", but I don't. How would you feel about a "temporary" ten year reduction in SS benefits?

Are you declaring that prosperity came from higher taxes?

yes

Wow, six times to the free-throw line in succession and basketball boy can't even get the ball close to the net. I loved how it went sailing over his head backwards that last time.

OK. How does that work exactly?

The Republican "leadership" has passed out torches and pitchforks to their base and whipped them into a frenzy by appealing to their latent paranoia and sense of victimization.

So now all the "leadership" can do is run as fast as they can to avoid being trampled by the mob that they set in motion.

I feel no sympathy for Boehner. I save my sympathy for the reality-based segment of Americans. They deserve better.

America is being held hostage to these T-party house members and their god, Grover Norquist. The end is not in sight, either. They won't negotiate, they won't give and they won't stop doing this until they are voted out.

Our country is being controlled by a bunch of ignorant, hate filled freaks who have the audacity to call themselves congressmen. They live in an alternate universe of paranoia and prejudice.

Boehner's job now is herding cats. It won't work. We are stuck in this muck and mire till 2014.

richsmit. #4,

Yes, that is the horror: Cantor.

We have GOT to stop ascribing so much "power" to Rush Limbaugh. He's a paper tiger as much as Grover Norquist and the NRA. Same for Newt Gingrich. He's OUT of Congress now so why listen to him?? Lawrence O'Donnell had a great piece on Gingrich last night and Newt's proclamation of being a "Reaganite" but all of the policies Newt has supported are NOT in the mold of Reagan but of Newt himself. Love how the RWNJs rewrite history to suit themselves.

The only person with "power" in Republicanland is the person with the big checkbook. They happen to own the news industry, so that is why we THINK that the talking heads are the ones with "power", but they are reading a script.

Limpy's "power" would disappear tomorrow if he stopped reading the script. Why do you think Becky is no longer on Fox Noise? He stopped being a good soldier...

Concur. Boehner is "leader" of nothing. He's just the mouthpiece. Whatever true power there is keeping Washington Republicans in their no-tax hate-Obama lockstep is concentrated elsewhere, likely outside the beltway.

If Boehner does go, my assumption is someone else just as weak will be installed. It's been their trend to keep these so-called leadership positions manned by controllable personalities.

Perhaps referring to Limbaugh specifically was giving him too much credit. Perhaps I should have referred to the Mighty Wingnut Wurltzer, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock, or maybe the Koch Brothers, but the truth is since the Gingrich "reforms" which were intended to concentrate control in the hands of the Speaker, a Republican Speakership has been worth less than a warm bottle of spit. His "reforms" prove that Newt Gingrich is a failed political thinker and leader. That he is allowed on television at all is proof of the power of his booking agency and the failure of television producers to think outside the box.

Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the radio haters all get direct orders and talking points from the Heritage Foundation, Club For Growth, Freedomworks, and Americans For Prosperity, it's a known fact not denied by the jocks.

Boehner is like the flailing tip of a water wiggle going at 150psi. Constantly spouting off out of control in one direction after another, and never actually getting anything accomplished.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for this @!$%#. A lot of people have been hurt badly by these obstructionists - while they play games.

Swerver,

Yes, but if Boehner is replaced, it will be by Eric Cantor. Think about that. Boehner is no ideologue. Cantor is, in the same way as Ryan. If you saw the old movie, Dr. Zhivago, Cantor is Strelnikov, cold hearted, cold blooded, dedicated, misguided fanatic.

He can't wait to ride that train with the other fanatics in the House.

My question for obama , on throwing COLA in on the deal , just how did that have anything to do with lowering the debt ? It did not , he basically just made himself out as a liar once again on the subject of defending SS and the working class , and there really is no way he can just explain this part of his personality away , let alone explain WHY they would just throw that in there for no reason

Trollop: No, the real question is why you believe that tripe about the President. If folks like you were correct about him, he would have abandoned Social Security and Medicare some time during the previous four years. It's not like he never had the opportunity.

And if you stopped to actually think for a change, you'd notice that the reason why the President goes through these motions is obvious. When the GOP inevitably destroy the process, he looks like the adult while they look like the petulant children, and they get all the blame. That's how it happens *every single time*, and yet you and yours still cling to your Obama Derangement Syndrome and pretend that he's giving away the store.

Except that he isn't. And you simply have no excuse for your refusal to face that reality.

Hey Shade,

Reality is all perspective, one to a customer.. I'm glad you have faith and certainly the President appears civil and adult-like but the petulant children he is dealing with are slime. As an ODS sufferer, I feel that telling the GOTP the word "No" consistently has more value than playing a game *pretend bargaining* with people's livelihoods. Decorum from a "Leadership" position is long overdue. Menudo anyone?

I am devastated that President Obama would put that entitlement on the table for the vultures to pick at. He promised us he would not.

This is a very bad sign, and I am wondering what Obama is thinking. The elderly make an average of $22,000.00 a year. Plus, SS does not add to the deficit. These vultures will chip away at the most vulnerable among us in order to keep the wealthy from getting a 4 point tax raise that they did without most of their lives, and did very well without.

I now classify all Republicans as the enemy.

Above $250K is 2% of taxpayers; above $1 million you are talking about 0.4% of taxpayers. The difference is also hundreds of billions dollars in revenue over the next 10 years.

It is not linear. Meeting "halfway" at $625K would give up the majority of the revenue.

Someone named "Love & Peace" cries about "gun control". Welcome to Wingnut World, where up is down and guns don't kill people...

L-Dude you missed my point about gun control, b/c my previous post lacked any details on that specific topic. What I meant is that our country is dealing with many heavy and important issues, and I cited gun control as an example. I am inferring from your post that you presumed I was against gun control -- but you presumed wrongly. Amazed at how quick you were to condemn me without me having expressed anythying susbtantive on the topic.

LovePeace: Why is it that wingnuts like you even try to compare a liar like Boehner to Obama? Seriously. They have nothing in common. Obama can deliver and compromise, it irks his caucus, but we go along. Boehner can't point to any time he has ever negotiated in good faith, on anything. 100% gimmicks and smokescreens for Boehner, and Americans know it. You folks are going to fight each gun control attempt tooth and nail, so if you truly support gun control, you are going against the grain.

LDude, the Prez and Boehner are more similar than you want to realize (Prez was terribly dishonest with us as to what sparked the murders in Benghzi). I support gun control -- whose grain am I going against? I don't even care if you answer that question b/c I believe what I believe whether or not it fits with someone else's view. If our govt decides to take all guns away from its citizens, then I would oppose that. Otherwise, I am cool with all other forms of gun control. And, I am THRILLED that Biden's task force (presuming it will actually do some work) will also look at the impact of violent entertainment on our society. To me, guns alone are not 100% of the problem. And Boehner and the Repubs are not 100% responsible for the mess our country finds itself in as it relates to gun control and the economy.

Benghazi? Thats it? You want to compare Obama to Boehner based on that? Thats why we mock you folks, facts are simply not facts to you folks. Discussions are near impossible when the parameters are set to that kind of imbalance. It's nice that you support reasonable gun control, but I'm afraid you are a minority in your caucus, and your caucus is run by dishonest people.

LDude, thanks for the response. I always get anxious that no one will make fun of me, so I am glad you were able to "mock" me... I feel better now.

You brush off Benghazi as if it is non event. It involves the death of us citizens and it involves multiple lies by the Prez and his Administration. It involves failure to respond to requests for protection. The Prez puts Ms Rice in front of the media to lie and then offers to promote her. The Prez t hen lies to the UN 2 weeks after the murders. Amazing you find that to be a small matter. Amazing. I would be just as angry if a Repub Prez acted the same way. Lives were lost in Benghazi and you would rather focus only on money/taxes.

I'm not in a caucus, but yes sometimes my views line up with Repubs and sometimes with Dems. I do not believe either party has sole control on all-things truthful. Both can be and should be held accountable when they mess up or are dishonest, and since both paries are made up of humans I know mistakes and dishonesty are always present. Amazing if you believe to the contrary.

LP, have you read any of the report that came out yesterday. Yes, there were systemic failures in the State department (dating back to Clinton, through Bush and now Obama) and those should be addressed and ought to be criticized by the media and an informed public. However, the report also showed that there was no "lying" by the administration. There were details withheld from the public for national security reasons and a UN ambassador who told people what the CIA was telling her. Let me ask you this, the last time there was an unsolved murder in your city, did the police immediately release every piece of information that they had or did they withhold information during the investigation so that they don't tip off the suspect about how close they are. Additionally, during the preliminary stages of an investigation information is also withheld to prevent family/friends from finding things out through the media rather than by law enforcement. Bengazi was not a scandal at least in so far as "lying" to the public.

Speaking of Benghazi -- we had seven times the body count at Sandy Hook. Where's seven times the outrage from the GOP? The demands for investigations? The search for someone's head to put on a pike?

So you simply buy the FauxNoise Behghazi propaganda, and then sprinkle in feces about me thinking an incident where Americans die is nothing? I have to repeat once again, you folks don't travel in factual land, your strawmen have strawmen. You spout complete wingnut drivel, then claim you don't belong to a caucus, thats quite rich. Try elevating your game a little, look to and at history. Reagan your hero had 250 Marines get killed in Lebanon with no protection, and the Democrats had the class to not politicize it. You folks don't operate that way. You want to pretend House Republicans would finance extra protection for diplomats, when they would not and you know it, they cut millions from the State Department. Heck, keep on arguing, all you do is confirm what we all know.

TIGER, lying to the public is what happened...saying the attack was in response to a youtube video is lying. Silence would have been the correct action if the intent was to keep the investigation private. Glad I could help you see the difference. Plus, since the murdered Americans had requested an escalation in protection due to recent attacks that had occurred nearby (British, and Red Cross) you do not get in front of the tv cameras for 2 weeks and perpetuate a false narrative about a youtube video. I was in law enforcement -- I can assure you that telling lies is not preferred over keeping silent or making vague/general/broad statements. The Prez and his Admin lied to the American people.

EDDIE, the perp that killed the innocent kids is dead. Whose head would you suggest be "put on a spike" ? As to your ability to measure outrage and determine if it is from a Dem or a Repub, can you tell me how you learned this skill? It seems to me everyone is upset at the murders of those kids, to suggest that only the Dems are lamenting these deaths is rather hard to fathom.

LDUDE, if the Prez asked Congress for emergency funds for increased protection and all Repubs said "no way" -- then that is a story I would like to see brought to the media. Sad if Congressional Repubs also misbehaved, though it wouldn't surprise me. Of course, that doesnt absolve the Prez from his lies that he and his Admin made about a youtube video. Amazing. Unbelievable.

Plus he considers "debt reduction" to include interest they dont have to pay on money they decided NOT to borrow.

Because that is how debt works L&P. You will never be able to reduce the 16 trillion currently owed because that is for services already promised. That 16 trillion debt stays until the service is rendered. All you can do to reduce debt is to either not promise future services (thus reducing future spending) or to gain new revenues that will then pay for said future services. That's it.

lying to the public is what happened...saying the attack was in response to a youtube video is lying.

The video aired on Egyptian television which prompted outrage all over the Middle East- it was not a "youtube" video. I am sick of hearing this lie. Just because the video is only available on YouTube here in the US doesn't mean that's true everywhere else. Stop being an arrogant American and assuming the world revolves around you- it doesn't. The attack took place in part as a response to the video. The report never denies this to be true. You have yet to provide evidence that the video was not part of what contributed to the attack. Until and unless you can prove this to be true you cannot state that anyone lied.

since the murdered Americans had requested an escalation in protection due to recent attacks that had occurred nearby

This is not true. There were requests from the station in Tripoli- the embassy- requesting more security for the embassy as well as requesting, in general, better security because the local militias were seen as failing to provide adequate protection. The report specifically stated that part of why these requests went unanswered is because of funding restraints thanks to the GOP. However the report then also went on to name specific things that could have been done that were not. That was due, in large part, because intelligence did not indicate that the Benghazi office was in any danger. There had been minor upgrades to the compound as well as a minor increase in security staff (I believe it said from 8 personnel to 16), but that was it and it was never prioritized because the Benghazi office wasn't specifically mentioned in the security requests (that was the Tripoli embassy). The report accurately states that because of the general concerns expressed and more recent attacks the DOS should've made security upgrades despite the lack of security threat and the report stated that this was due to mismanagement on behalf of the Department of State. That's it.

I was in law enforcement -- I can assure you that telling lies is not preferred over keeping silent or making vague/general/broad statements. The Prez and his Admin lied to the American people.

A vague and general statement is what Rice gave. You also are fully aware that here in the US we do not assume guilt until it's proven, yeah? Where is your proof that anyone lied?

For the record the report specifically stated that the Administration did not cover up or misrepresent information to the public. You really should read it.

Cartoon, you have a great tendency to say what I'm trying to say with significantly more detail and clarity and I thank you for it. I love how Susan Rice lied because she repeated what the CIA was telling her to say. Bengazi was not handled perfectly but the systemic failures in embassy security date back to 1998 according to the report when the embassy bombing occurred and nothing changed (btw kudos to Rachel for pointing this out).

I try to be as fair as I can be, Tiger. I really do. I think people just think of me as some partisan hack, but I do honestly try to hear out what everybody is saying and make logical assessments based on the information I'm given. In the case of Libya it has always seemed to me that there were logical criticisms to be had about the entire attack and how both government's responded. With that said it seems to me that instead of asking legitimate questions about the entire event, Republicans have instead been fixated on how to blame Obama for it. The thing that I hate about this partisan bickering is that the American public is being left high and dry while the bickering goes back and forth. It's the Democrats defending against accusations (like always) and the Republicans attacking (like always) and in the wake we're missing really serious inquiries about things like the status of our intelligence gathering abilities, whether the Libyan government is actually an ally or not, etc. and we aren't even talking about it. Why bother doing serious inquiries to get to serious answers when bull@!$%# and propaganda to raise funds is soo much easier?

Bleh and now I've made myself disgruntled.

Anyways Tiger I enjoy your posts and I think you speak eloquently enough. No compliments needed- you do a heck of a job yourself! Maybe pat yourself on the back more? ;-)

they have nothing now . I don't know why Obama even bothers

He bothers because, by going through these motions and showing that he's the reasonable one, he can honestly pin the blame on GOP when they ruin the process. And it's working.

You do realize that government spending is DOWN under PRESIDENT Obama, right?

Of course not. It is not possible to be a supporter of the GOP without being delusional and largely divorced from objective reality. See also the twit up above who mocked Obama for including savings from interest on cancelled projects as "debt reduction" even though GOoPers use the exact same accounting trick when calculating the savings from cutting the safety net.

Not to mention that the Republicans added to the debt with their spending limit shenanigans , increasing via a reduced credit rating the interest we pay on the borrowed money

Jes, apart from the stimulus please point out one thing Obama has done to raise the deficit from when he took office. Oh and before you say it, do some research because "Obamacare" reduces the deficit by 100bn over 10 years.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105327/cbo-obamacare-deficit-medicaid-expansion-cost-revenue-exchange#

Alan, you are correct -- Repubs did the same numbers trick (the interest thingy) that I referenced in my previous post. So the Repubs are just as goofy as the current Prez's attempt to use the same gimmick. But the fact the Repubs did it in the recent past doesn't mean the Prez is correct in using it currently. Both parties are wrong for using it to fool/trick the American people. Unbelievable if you have a view to the contrary.

No, he doesn't realize that spending is down under Obama or that the spending cuts that the GOTP are demanding contribute nothing to the current deficit or budget crisis.

RAZIEL, the facts point to a different result than that which you are claiming. Spending has increased under Obama, but at levels MUCH lower than what he wanted had it not been for Congress (presumably Repubs) saying "no" to the Prez's spending desires.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

You do realize your own article shows GDP spending going down under Obama yeah? And that even if you use the adjusted figure of 5 that would still make Obama rank below that of George W. Bush...

I swear people please read the things you are linking before you link them.

Also I should point out that the article you're talking about doesn't address the issue of spending per se, it addresses an analysis given by a certain individual. Since the claim above was about the CBO you do realize your response is a non-sequitur and is therefore completely irrelevant, yeah?

Thanks for the link, Sally.

Looked in vain for my CongressCritter... oh, well.

Have supported Grijalva with my minimal cash, though, even 2000 miles away.

Sorry Jes but the "people are living longer" argument isn't supported by the facts. IN fact, many of those who rely on medicare/medicaid are living well short of the date upon which they become eligible for medicare. Life expectancy like most things is tied to socioeconomic factors that result in the poor living shorter lives. It makes for a convenient argument (one I used to subscribe to) but when you really examine the facts: 1, it's not really true; and 2, the savings by increasing the retirement age are negligible and actually increase total healthcare spending (albeit with a small reduction in Federal Government healthcare spending).

Also because it annoys me when people spout "facts" on here without some sort of support see

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/10/a-better-way-to-raise-the-eligibility-age-for-retirement-benefits/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

There has been no mention of cutting current members benefits, but of tweaking the system to allow it to be there for future generations

Yes there has been. The plan put forward by Romney/Ryan would've drastically cut benefits for Medicare. Right now the reimbursement rate for Medicare is about 85%. Their plan would've cut that rate down to 65% and would've only had the plan increasing at the rate of inflation for every year thereafter (2%). The problem is healthcare costs rise well above the rate of inflation (roughly 3%) which would mean that progressively those on Medicare would be required to spend more and more money to be given less and less coverage.

There is no such thing as Medicare and Social Security being "unsustainable." That is another flat out lie from the GOP universe. What you mean to say is that these programs will no longer be revenue neutral. They will not cease to exist or go bankrupt unless the US government does. These programs do not have to be revenue neutral for them to exist and provide the same benefits. This is a false dichotomy argument and it is a logical fallacy.

If you state that the Baby Boomer generation is the reason why the programs- Social Security and Medicare- are currently facing a deficit then what you are inadvertently saying is that this is not a long term viability option. What you are saying is that this is only problematic so long as the Baby Boomer generation is alive and living off Medicare and Social Security. Once the Baby Boomers die off that means the program will go back to being revenue neutral. For the record this is true, but I do not think you realize that you're making a huge deal out of something you already just argued will fix itself if nothing is done (although my hope would be that this isn't the case since it would skyrocket per year deficits in the US).

Lastly if less revenue is coming in to pay for these programs than is going out you do realize that means you've just made the case for a tax increase, yeah? You just derided higher taxes on an above post and here you are blatantly stating that the problem with this program is that not enough money is going into the program to cover the larger generation. That's because more people are retiring than there are wage earners to pay for those going into retirement (which means there aren't enough wages at current pay rates to cover said retirees). You know what's an even easier way of dealing with this problem than a tax increase? A wage increase. If you increase the amount of money a person earns then you increase the amount a person pays into the system: since wages have been going down collectively for each new generation you've just now given the basic progressive argument.

Bernie Sanders has talked about this a lot. You have 2 options: increase the minimum wage and work aggressively to increase incomes for the middle and lower class OR lift the tax cap. Doing either will fund the program for the next 80 years which will completely cover the dreaded Baby Boomers and solve this fake fiasco crisis.

I don't view Repubs as dangerous to the country. Disagree with them on things, yes, but they are not dangerous. Both sides, we need to stop demonizing the other side just b/c their ideas are different. I have even seen multiple posters on this website calling Repubs (aka fellow Americans) "terrorists" and one poster said Repubs are worse than the Taliban. Unbelievable. And we wonder why we don't get along with each other -- it's because of the nastiness with which we view those that disagree with us. Love and peace is what we need, despite disagreements.

They had no qualms about holding the country hostage with the last debt limit. Yes they are very dangerous. It isn't a matter of disagreement. If there was any reason behind most of what the current crop of GOP do or say then it would be a difference of policy. They are just nuts, misguided and very, very misinformed.

L&P: Spare us your concern trolling. What terriels wrote above about the GOP harming our economy with that debt ceiling charade is just the tip of the iceberg. They are also responsible for the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the policies that crashed the economy in 2007, the lack of gun control that murders over 12,000 Americans every year, the bankruptcy and death of millions of Americans from easily treatable illnesses due to blocking decent health care reform, and much more even beyond that.

Yes, the GOP are dangerous. That is not rationally deniable.

I find it shocking that any govt (the USA) that has a group of people (Repubs) fighting to NOT raise taxes on its citizens, it labeled as terrorists, nuts, Taliban, crazy, stupid, etc.....Unbelievable.

Now, one can disagree with Repubs attempt to keep taxes low. I have no problem with folks disagreeing. But to label them as crazy, is shocking. Since when does a citizenry cry out load with vigor and anger for higher taxes upon itself??? UNBELIEVABLE.

SHADE, I am sorry you view them as monsters. I know many Repubs that work very hard to end suffering and poverty in our country and around the world. They are not deamons that need eliminated or silenced. You scare me with your anger. Indeed, you scare me. You do not seem rational. I sure hope your views are not a true representation of what all Dems/Libs believe. If the Prez believes as you do, then he will NEVER agree to anything that Boehner proposes and then we will all suffer the consequneces of continued gridlock. The Dems/Libs do not have sole possession of all-things honest and pure, nor do the Repubs. Try to open your mind to these realities.

OK, I'll bite. Name one single thing a modern Republican has done for the "poor"?

LDUDE, Boehner is no monster, wrong as he is at times. But he is no monster, and caring for the poor is something he does actively:

Chairman of Commitee on Education and Labor

Following the election of President George W. Bush, Boehner was elected as chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee from 2001 until 2006. There he authored several reforms including the Pension Protection Act and a successful school choice voucher program for low-income children in Washington, DC.^[16]

Boehner and Senator Ted Kennedy authored the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which was signed by President George W. Bush in 2002.^[17] Boehner said that it was his “proudest achievement” in two decades of public service.^[18] Boehner was friends with Kennedy, also a Roman Catholic, and every year they chaired fundraisers for cash-strapped Catholic schools.^[19]

News Flash For LoveandPeace: Poor people don't have pensions, and "school choice" destroys public education. And No Child is a dismal failure. I would say nice try, if it was. Romney stated your parties position on poor people very well...

LDude, you are very judgmental. Pensions -- you are correct, most poor folks do not have them but remember we want Congress to work for ALL Americans, right? School Choice and No Child -- the intent of both programs was to help the poor children, not rich kids -- even if the thing didn't produce as much fruit as anticipated (why didn't it produce fruit? b/c the govt cannot raise and educate children alone, it takes active parents doing stuff at home). Despite your belief that this country of ours would vastly improve if all Repubs were to suddenly selfcombust/die, you would still be stuck with sinners and liars.

As to Benghazi vs Reagan's 1983 event, they are similar in that we were attacked. Security was lacking in both matters...but I am pretyy sure Reagan didn't order the Marine guards to carry weapons without bullets. Did Reagan lie to the American people about the cause of the murders like Obama did? You are free to disagree with what Reagan did, but his actions were quite different than what our current Prez did. Reagan made some poor decisions, yes, but he did not expressly lie about the cause of the attack. Sorry, you and the dailykos cannot compare the 2 tragedies to defend Obama's actions.

OK, you were indeed unable to identify a singe thing the Republicans have done for poor people, not a shock by the way. And you continue to push lies about Benghazi. Having a "discussion" with you is hard on the neck, all that twisting and turning is making me sore. I think I will take a small break and sample some medical marijuana, it works well on my neck.

you would still be stuck with sinners and liars.

So Love and Peace you go through this diatribe about how the anger between the parties is causing all these problems and how you're scared of the mean things people are saying. You then make this statement. You do realize that what you just said here is a hate filled statement expressly saying that all Democrats and liberals are sinners and liars whereas all Republicans are saints and never lie. Not only is this laughably false, but it is the exact same partisanship you were just deriding. You've just proven your own hypocrisy on this issue and proven that you do not, in fact, believe that both sides are the same.

Again provide any evidence that President Obama lied to the American public. You said you worked in law enforcement- which I do not believe- and yet here you are willingly incriminating a person without any evidence to support your accusation.

LDude, Bush passed tax cuts for even the poor folks in 2001. Remember that? Bush returned money to the people when the feds had a surplus...b/c he said it was THEIR money. Remember that? And abroad, he pioneered the PEPFAR thingy to fights AIDS...I am pretyy sure the rich did not benefit but that PEPFAR targeted poor folks. Remember that? BTW, I use Bush just to make your neck hurt more...by no means do I want to hold him up as postor child for being a tremendous Prez, but he did do some good things for the poor. You cannot deny that.

I think I would preeefer you grab your reeefer...maybe then we can embark upon another discussion that consists of you calling me names and ending with you calling me names. On second thought.....

I think I would preeefer you grab your reeefer...maybe then we can embark upon another discussion that consists of you calling me names and ending with you calling me names. On second thought.....
BTW, I use Bush just to make your neck hurt more

So, again, you claim that you're upset by partisanship and the fact that the parties don't get along and demonize each other simply because they disagree....so then you proceed to demonize those who disagree with you because they disagree and you do so while pandering to partisan politics.

Great job on the hypocrisy bud

CARTOONY, what happened? Be my saying you are "still stuck w sinners and liars" meant that just like the Repubs, the Dems have liars and sinners so that even if all Repubs disappear, you/we are still stuck with sinners and liars. I have no clue how you could interpret it any other way.

The anger between the parties isn't the problem so much as the anger/demonization prevents the parties working constructively together to SOLVE our collective problems. The other thing I see in posts on this Maddow Blog is how intellect is presumed to soley reside by posters within the Dems/Libs...amazing. That is problematic. By way of example, lets pretend the Prez thinks Boehner/Repubs are (a) dumb, and (b) uncaring monsters...what in the world would compell the Prez to reach a healthy compromise with dumb monsters? And same if Repubs thought the same thing about Dems/Libs...no agreements would be reached b/c no one in their right mind would negotiate with dumb monsters and so we citizens suffer. Yet, I see some citizens wrongly believe the other side are dumb, uncaring monsters. Amazing. Simply amazing.

I refuse to believe a guy named Cartoony is an uncaring monster. He may reach decisions that sometimes I disagree with, but he cannot be a monster, can he?

Sorry CARTOONY, saying I did something to make his neck hurt more can seem mildly mean spirited. But that was not my true intentions, I was just being scarcastic which doesn't come through well in written text. I don't want DUDE's neck to hurt, but choosing Bush does spice up the conversation some. I am sure if you read my other posts (and it seems you are trying to do so) you will not see naming calling on my part.