Further proof that the Republican Party needs to be designated the Confederate conspiracy to subvert and destroy the United States that it is. Where are the black helicopters when we really need them?

I guess if we don't fund saftey net programs the people who depend on Social Security and Medicare aren't going to get sick or grow old?

The key reason Republicans want to gut both programs is they don't want to pay back the money the funds have loaned to the government to pay for their fighter jets and aircraft carriers.

By demanding X over what is even ridiculous, Republicans set the terms for the next Obama cave. When Obama gives only 1/2 X, Democrats shriek victory has been had. But what has really been done is the country has moved to the right yet again.

Republicans do not care that they look ridiculous to reasonable people. To their supporters, they seem reasonable, despite their extreme stupidity and unreasonableness. To their benefactors, Republicans are doing what they are paid to do.

And that's exactly what is going to happen. Obama will begin dismantling the 20th century in a couple of weeks, the country will lurch further right, and Democrats will exhale with a sigh of relief claiming it could have been much worse. And the people Obama has betrayed will defend him.

And then it starts all over again.

@Disgusted

Come back from the ledge. We like having you around.

Obviously McConnel and Boehner doesn't understand the power of a pissed off Lame Duck veto! If Republicans want to keep up their bullsh1t then they might as well kiss the Keystone XL, coal, oil, fracking, pharmaceutical and estate tax subsidies and loopholes goodbye.

If the social safety net programs are not funded, most of those who depend on them will die. Remember Alan Grayson's speech before the House?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

Disgusted, I would prefer more Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxers would be elected and I agree we are going too far to the right.

I'm in CA, we voted a super-majority of D's in the State Legislature. How did we do that? Someone in other states need to ask "how". We had a standoff over budget because of the Norquist mentality, no taxes raised without supermajority, no budget passed, schools unfunded and cut … every single year. Well, what can we do? Elect a super majority and hold their feet to the fire. We were sick of this b.s. every. single. year.

How do we get through to the American voters, they need to pay attention closely, vote every election, write their Reps and stop buying into the cr@p being shoveled to them by Corporate lobbyists, ALEC, Ayn Rand "followers", Rs and TPers?

I find what you are pointing out to be very facinating John. It's where the rubber hits the road on a dishonest right wing talking point, "energy independence". So many right wingers purposely muddy the waters about this when they scream drill baby drill. I think it would be good policy to reign in a good portion of our oil exports for the good of the country. The markets will have to adjust. As it is now we have a drilling rig sitting on an Alaskan beach getting hammered by waves. Is it worth destroying our environment so that people in India can buy gas cheap...

India will buy its oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia. Obama can say all sorts of BS, like look- we are not going to sell out our energy independence, it is "our oil" for "future generations", and we are going to "bank it". Further, we will not be dragged into foreign cost wars with people who do not value democracy over oil. So he can hit lots and lots of notes that will resonate on the Right.

But the glory is that he needs no legislation to do this. The EPA has already declared CO2 a pollutant and the courts have upheld it. What the EPA needs to do now is use rulemaking to progressively prohibit the export of CO2 generating energy sources. If the energy companies export Hydrogen, fine, but they may not export CO2 generating fuels. Those who do will face progressively more confiscatory fines.

This will be world war III with the oil lobbyists, and the fight there does not require new legislation, but is a defensive war to block Oil industry action to stop the EPA rules.

O'Reilly really believes in energy independence, and from this Fox exchange, you see the political memes he is sounding.

This will further shred the Right into the factions that support the privileged, and the nationalist/ populists.

As the US supplies become flush with oil, domestic prices at the pump will plummet. But EPA rules will limit the free fall, keeping prices high enough to make competitive green energy propulsion competitive. Revenues from fines are plowed into subsidizing purchace of green vehicles like battery or fuel cell (hydrogen from plentiful fracked natural gas whose carbon is already efficiently separated during refinement).

The trouble is Lisa Jackson. If she leaves there will be a monster battle over her successor. We need a strong administrator at epa.

Any support for the O'Reilly theory of Tides?

Currently the US Military protects the World's oil supply for itself and the whole of the world. China, India, Europe all appreciate our generosity $300B/year (since they don't have to pay for it). Also currently the US imports $300B/year. Taking all the money we have spent for oil imports over the years, and investing it creates a net worth for the foreign owners almost the same as the entire $16T of the GDP.

It is one thing to suggest oil energy independence but look how hopeless it is to try. Hopeless because we are utterly addicted to Oil, and the suppliers are utterly unwilling to allow alternate energy developments. The strategy is perfectly clear; using the existing oil industry's extraordinary power to manipulate the political systems of the world to aid and assist the existing oil industry to expand even more. Then with those guaranteed profits to purchase every potential energy alternative, and drive them out of business as needed. Then when the oil energy cannot meet demand then to market alternate energy owned by the existing oil industry. But you know since there is that much money and power capable of owning everything there is no need to get upset by conspiracy. It is already over. The world is thus locked in a grid, military expense enough to ruin a nation, energy usage continued unabated to ruin an economy, and money flowing abroad and back to purchase a political system. Someone has figured a way to win we just don't know who that is.

They want $1.5 trillion in cuts? Simple: cut off the Red State welfare transfers (all the programs the wingnuts don't pay for since their states are all economic disaster areas), and cancel the F-35. It takes care of the $1.2 trillion too.

TC, how about cut them off in those states that wished to secede from the U.S. to illustrate things more clearly?

Which states? Idiots in all fifty signed onto petitions to secede after the last election. Now, if you mean the states of the Confederacy, then I'd be all for that.

Or, better still, official recognition that the Republican Party is inherently treasonous and subversive. We need to de-Republicanize America.

Deliberately seeking to harm the US economy to get what they want is quite literally terrorism. Think I'm exaggerating? Remember bin Laden's MO: using terroristic violence in order to destabilize the US economy. Economic destruction is what bin Laden was about; killing people was just a means to that end. The only essential difference between al Qaeda in its glory days and the Republican Party today is in the preferred tactics of each, one violent and one nonviolent, but both see (or saw, in bin Laden's case) the crippling of the US economy as the key to getting what they ultimately want.

Yeah, I noticed that there are idiots from so many states that did that.

I'd have to change it from state to persons that are getting welfare checks that signed the petitions to secede.

It was a bad idea, meant to somehow show in a personal way how the anti-Obama/anti-government folks may have a stake in the cutting of SS, Medicare, SCHIP, food stamps…

You are correct, idiots from all states signed those secession petitions.

"McConnell and Boehner need to...put their proposals squarely on the table..."

That's the plan. They want cuts, they will need to propose them.

The Republicans are not going to propose cuts because they want the Dems to do the dirty work. But Dems can flush the Republicans out by making the House come up with a budget to send to the Senate. When the Republicans demand cuts in the budget they are not going to make any specific proposals because they want Obama to do so. Republicans know Obama still has his campaign apparatus and public opinion on his side regarding entitlement cuts. Obama needs to keep the ball in their court.

That's why I'm not going to offer cuts. They are screaming cuts, hell no… I'm not going to say well, we gotta cut peoples' Medicare and SS. The opposite. Call and write your Reps. No cutting those, but:

I did offer cutting welfare in those red states that signed petitions to secede from the U.S. But that's all I've got for now.

It's time we stopped providing the armed forces--at our cost--for the defense of Japan, Germany, and no small part of the rest of the industrialized world. It's been almost 70 years since WWII ended. With the amount of stuff they're selling us, I don't think we have to worry about their attacking us again.

The world has changed. Our defense philosophies need to change, and the spending attached to them needs to be drastically reduced.

Pat , dems have passed bloated military spending the last 4 years with out a peep , then they turn around the next day and pass cuts to meals on wheels , I predict dem voters are in for a bit of a shock over the next year , but a lot of them really do not give a crap either , and a lot of them arerefugees from the gop , so what do we expect?

Patango

I agree that the Dems are complicit. Defensecontractors have been amazingly effective at boxing the politicians in. However we are doing a terrible job of letting the minority party set the agenda. Why do the Tea Party fanatics decide what we discuss?

Swords to Plowshares is our point. Reduce long term defense spending and replace it with one time infrastructure.

We just used taxes to crack the GOP and we can use defense spending to finish the job. They are weak.

Just so you know , I completely agree with you , but DC displays ZERO political will to do so , which is very disappointing , I write and call my congressmen , to no avail , they are cutting programs that help the elderly here , it gets very little news coverage

They did have a local telethon here , to replace some funding for meals on wheels , but that was all local , what about the cities that could really care less about the local elderly poor? They will be screwed

it would be great to see Obama step forward with that Idea Pat , unfortunatly , I do not see many dem voters calling the DC dems on this

Many years ago Ike warned US about the Military-Industrial-Complex - and WE paid him NO MIND. Now Defense contractors have gotten slick - so they spread the jobs thru various districts in various states and then when "cuts" are proposed those Representatives screech about "jobs"! My question too is what ever happened to those "free-markets" when it comes to Defense contractors? I mean if they aren't "making enough money" then maybe they should switch to something other than warfare & armaments, right?! I mean imagine what could actually be accomplished if they put some of that R&D money they get tax credits for into things that are really life affirming, have a real productive use and can benefit people & the planet, wow!

Now someone slap me, cause I know I'm dreaming.....

We have to overwhelmingly vote against them in 2014. The next debate will be cutting SS and especially Medicare. That could sway red districts to vote them out, if they remember that fact, the one that shows the Rs DO want to end SS and Medicare, well loved programs, by Rs, many TP Rs said "hands off my Medicare".

They must be voted out of House majority and give Ds a filibuster proof Senate.

They've been on an 80-year crusade against the New Deal.

Because the New Deal is unsustainable and costs way too much. Things were quite different when those programs were initiated. People didn't live as long. Smaller population. More people working than not. SS and medicare MUST be reformed. And by the way, the red states aren't in near the financial difficulties that blue states are in and taxes are lower in most too. Red states know better how to budget. Very proud of the red states. Take a look at the solvency of the blue states compered to the red states.

You can not back up one claim you just made , THE BLOW HARD party

Jes: You make a very valid point about reforming Medicare, there indeed has to be reform. Then you went on to demonstrate for us how difficult this will be, trying to have a fact based discussion with all the garbage you throw in is impossible. IMHO the way to save Medicare is to change from fee for service to capitation, like Howard Dean proposes. We have to empower the doctors to take ownership, and we need to protect these doctors from having to practice defensive medicine.

Ronald Reagan, in a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, had the best answer for those proposing cuts to Social Security:

Reagan said, “Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all… Social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or raising or lowering the deficit.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI

Because the SS trust fund is now and always has been invested in US treasury bonds (which do pay interest, as do all treasury bonds), the Republicans like to scream how the program is broke and how taxpayers are funding the shortfalls in SS... by which they mean the interest payments... but that's purely BS. Just because the money is owed to the American people does not mean those bonds are any less valuable than bonds owned by private investors or by other countries.

Funny.

Right, they contradict themselves one moment to the next.

The President needs to lead. Now he tells the President, you hurt our feelings, so you are a doo-doo head. I wouldn't be surprised if he told him to f himself.

But, crying out loud, the President gave you cover by saying you can call it keeping taxes low for 98%, not raising taxes on 2%.

These guys are truly infantile idiots. But, they are constantly playing to their base that eats up this type of juvenile rudeness. But not all their base is like that, many have left the R camp.

Yeah, if you think about what passes for "humor" these days--bathroom jokes and embarrassing people is about the sum total. I'm talking about the mainstream stand-up industry, which has exactly zero appeal, IMHO. No sophistication or ability to engage with the audience in a positive way.

Notice that the conservative echo chamber has adopted this same philosophy. It's all the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend. Put down the "other guy" and the people listening will like you. I don't hear the same destructiveness coming from the progressive side, which is maybe the reason I like them better.

JL, I briefly heard Becki-poo (whose show displaced the great Thom Hartmann's on what was S.F. progressive AM station) just saying certain names with an accent at the end supposed to incite a negative response on its own.

Talk about lack of substance and training parrots (yes, in the echo chamber).

Well I doubt Reid is going to change the filibuster , so mcconell will be shutting down the senate , and the gop will be shutting down the house , so I do not see how mcconell is wrong?

The only revenues we have is what we got now , after the massive tax cuts , to start talking about NEW REVENUE now is a bit backwards , to me any way

I am not aware of a obama / dem plan for new revenue ? And it would have to be one that would pass the tardo congress , so what am I missing?

China put about a 5% tax on all imports a few years ago , and are using the trillions from that to invest in their infrastructure , america is to dysfunctional to do anything that constructive tho , because we have been taken over by the tardo brigade , with the DC dems rolling over to much to ever put a stop to it

But at least we can talk about gun control now , RIGHT???!!!!

FLOP

i

This is exactly the problem, neither side will voice much less make the cuts necessary. I blame BOTH sides.

Only one side - the GOP - is asking for cuts they have refused to name in over a year of wrangling and campaigning. The GOP wants Obama to negotiate for them and be the first to guess what cuts they want for they are too cowardly to name the things they want to cut. If you blame both sides for one sides failure to govern, you are rewarding the GOP for their obstruction and refusal to functionally debate.

If you're going to Rob Don, you'd better be aware that Don's now packing heat, Rob.

I don't think that specific cuts need to be voiced immediately. They need to roll up their sleeves and get busy cutting. Every program must be evaluated. People want to protect programs like Head Start. It has NEVER been successful and has never done what it was intended. It must be one of the first to go. Slash education? Yes, where it is not working. Fund programs that are successful. Dept. of Defense must have lots of waste in it. Take care of that too. ALL programs. SS and Medicare included.

TCinLA, I don't like guns (per se), don't own a gun, don't hunt...oh, unless "heat" means something else...not much up on the young folk lingo. Ha.

That would require Cavey Spelunker McCaverson (the 3rd) to employ "Executive" decorum. That's not how we play this!

Nope, this was a band-aid measure to keep from going over The Cliff. I believe President Obama campaigned *and was elected* on a promise to reform the tax code. There's a whole lot more to this than changing the rate on one bracket.

What JL said.

America has needs to meet. While I agree that we have to make sure the programs are as efficient as they can be, Congresses past have made promises that need to be kept. If that means we have to raise more money to pay for the promises Congress has made then we have to raise the money.

Pulling the rug out from seniors and the poor might be easier than dealing with more powerful groups, it is simply wrong. Sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Eliminating tax deductions and credits to corporations that amount to corporate welfare--starting with about $40 billion in subsidies to oil companies (the most profitable firms on the planet)--would be a good way to reduce that deficit that Republicans are (insert hearty laughter here) so worried about.

Jango , that would just go along with them pretending to want to reform healthcare , immigration , and military waste , they have NEVER done anything about those programs , while giving it lip service for 40 years , a bit of a pattern there

The problem is going to be bringing in Republicans to "negotiate" about something they prefer to demagogue. Like trying to have an honest discussion with a liar...

I don't know the numbers for SS or Medicare, some people say they're in trouble and some don't, but instead of cutting benefits, couldn't they be at least partially fixed by increasing the tax rates from 6.2% and 1.45%, respectively, to 6.5% and 1.5% and uncapping the limit on SS taxes? With the exception of the limit on SS taxes this amounts to a $0.0035 increase per $1.00 in wages on both employers and employees ($1.75 on $500.00 in wages). I think both employers and employees can afford it, though I wouldn't doubt repugs would complain it would hurt jobs.

Dream on... You are wrong about lumping all "progressives" together, and you are wrong about Obama. Go ahead and concern troll all day about "progressives" while your party eats it's young...

You want a plan to eliminate the deficit and national debt? - consider the following:

Increasing the top ordinary income tax rate by only 3.5% to 39.5% on marginal income over 250K ( Obama's original proposal ) would generate about $70 billion a year; but letting it rise from there to 70% over 400K ( the pre-Reagan top marginal rate ) would generate about $700 billion a year. And applying this 70% marginal rate to any combination of all forms of income over 400K ( including stock grants, options, dividends and capital gains ) would generate hundreds of billions a year more. The result would be a budget surplus.

And since the richest 1% have accumulated a total net worth of about 20 trillion dollars since 1980 ( most of it existing wealth 'redistributed' upward because Reagan's flatter, 'fairer' tax rates did not increase the inflation adjusted GDP growth rate ), an effective ( loophole free ) top estate tax rate of 90% on marginal wealth over 50 million dollars ( the pre-Reagan top rate was 77% over 10 million ) would generate enough revenue within a generation to eliminate our national debt.

And the families of the richest 1%, with 4 trillion left, would still be the richest 1%.

I just answered that question, see 21.1 above.

In addition to looting by the richest 1%, our economy is "still on its deathbed" because of free trade with slave wage nations. Consider the following:

We now import over a trillion dollars worth of computers, cell phones, TV's, furniture, appliances, toys, tools, clothes, and car parts annually from countries like China, Mexico, Indonesia, and India; - corrupt Third World nations where tens of millions are kept desperately poor so that they must accept less than $4000 a year and work 70 hours a week just to survive like animals in polluted slums or crowded barracks.

Do some arithmetic; - one trillion dollars worth of Third World imports divided by 14 million unemployed American workers equals a little over $70,000 per worker.

So; if we restored tariffs on slave wage nations and saved a trillion dollars by making products that we now import, we would create 14 million manufacturing jobs worth $70,000 a year, eliminate our 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and have $500 billion left to buy all the oil we need at a fair market price. ( making military occupations that invite terrorism unnecessary ) We could even afford enough oil ( a nonrenewable national resource ) to put some back in the ground for future generations.