Wow - home run!

Wow, fat bashing. Progressive!

Errr.... PORK, not fat! Besides when you are fed a straight line like that.....

No, pork is an accurate description. Do you not hear them squealing every day?

"Human - The THIRD White Meat"...

Yum!...

If the Act had not been corrupted by additions it would pass easily. Your side got greedy.

Re: #2.1

Since when is expanding the Violence Against Women Act to cover more - you know - women corrupting it by additions?

That's being greedy? I think it is recognizing a legitimate concern and addressing it.

Naw, Shooter just likes raping them Injun squaws... Why else would he pick that there name?

/snark

Maphi I'm sure you view the additions as worthy, others don't. So now, rather than pass the original version (which the House has done) Democrats get nothing.

@Shooter

The Republicans made a choice about the additions to the VAWA and by voting against it have shown where their priorities are.

They chose not to protect Native American and undocumented women and chose to protect people who commit violent crimes against those vulnerable women.

These women have lost nothing - they had nothing to lose.

The Republicans have now "won" - and women who were protected under VAWA have lost.

Congratulations to the Republicans for standing up for their principles. Remind me what those principles are?!?

Maphi, here's a reality you're going to have to face... laws do not prevent violence. They just determine who cleans up the mess. Are all these people already covered under existing law? Yes they are. This is about certain people more privileges than everyone else. That's called discrimination.

Surely you aren't in favor of discrimination?

Re: #2.6

"This is about certain people more privileges than everyone else. That's called discrimination.
That is not correct. This is about people who do not receive protection from violence that others do. That is not discrimination - that is JUSTICE.

"Are all these people already covered under existing law? Yes they are."

You are sadly mistaken.

From a CNN article:

"The House bill failed to extend the power of Native American tribes to prosecute offenses committed by non-Indians on tribal lands, which the National Congress of American Indians said allows abusers to "game the system" and avoid prosecution."

From a NY Times article:

"The House bill is likely to be stripped of three provisions that have incensed some conservatives. One would subject non-Indian suspects of domestic violence to prosecution before tribal courts for crimes allegedly committed on reservations. Another would expand the number of temporary visas for illegal immigrant victims of domestic violence. The last would expand Violence Against Women Act protections to gay, bisexual or transgender victims of domestic abuse."

Maphi, it's still true that violence will NOT be prevented. You just want a different set of rules for favored groups. If one person hits another, it's assault no matter your color, race, or creed. Under the law, all people are supposed to be treated equally, no?

Shooter, your argument has been shot down so many times I'm surprised anyone lacks the shame to present it again. Just because a law doesn't force everyone to do what it says is no reason not to have a law. Any law that is broken can be argued against using your "logic." People drive through school zones at 50 mph. So we should remove any limits and shrug our shoulders when kids get run over???

Re: #2.8

" Under the law, all people are supposed to be treated equally, no?"

You are correct. And if that is the way it works, there would be no need for VAWA.

It's called criminal extortion.

The teapubs never want to pay their bills, yet they blame the dems because the bills don't get paid. Two wars on a credit card, Medicare Part D on a credit card, tax breaks on a credit card but no one is supposed to mention all those because it's in the past. They don't want to pay for it or talk about it. Let's send the country into a tail spin because the House in Congress doesn't want to pay their bills and lie about it besides.

Oh, they want the bills paid, but you are absolutely right - not by them. They want the bills paid by their children, the poor, the elderly, the sick - anybody but them!

tax breaks on a credit card but no one is supposed to mention all those because it's in the past.

In the case of tax breaks - which have been extended again years after Bush left office - it is also in the present. Congress is still using the credit card to the tune of $1 Trillion plus for the past 8 or so years (even now under Obama for 4 straight years) so we will be talking about the debt ceiling at least once a year or more. This is the new norm - raise the debt ceiling a couple of Trillion, then do it again the next year when we use up that "cushion"....etc, etc. It will become a regular argument and we will all get used to it. The players will change (Republican President fighting with Democratic Congress and vice versa) but the plot won't.

Krugman is a lying sack. the only person that has threatened tens of millions is Obama when he threatened to withhold SS checks. Worse Krugman knows very well that SS and Medicare are already adding to the deficit and need to be reset.

But Krugman also thinks running the Govt printing press is just fine because he doesn't care if our debt ever gets paid down. He's no better than Madoff.

Shooter,

As you are well aware, Social Security and Medicare only contribute to the deficit to the extent that 'your side got greedy' and refuses to honor the bonds in the entitlement trusts.

These trusts are over two and a half trillion dollars in surplus. Acting as though these surpluses do not exist is to deny facts you know to be true.

Talk about your lying sacks.

I feel I've done my job if I've drawn cockroaches like Cliff and Shooter into the light.

How else can you get free entertainment like that? Kind of like watching a dog chase it's tail.

C'mon Cliff - just admit it. You and your kind are traitors looking to destroy America.

And Shooter - my, my, my a SNAKE! Fearsome! Even your name - "Shooter" so much like the little boy who can't wait till he can shave.

I love you crazies! Never stop typing away.

John, there is no separate pot of money. There is no savings account. The bonds are only claims on future tax revenues which for the sake of simplicity we'll call income taxes. Because the programs are in deficit the shortfall is made up from income taxes.

"Interest" paid on the bonds come from income taxes. Any bond "redemption" would come from income taxes. So, since they require income taxes to continue at full strength, both SS and Medicare add to the deficit. Any questions?

Lots of them shooter but we know better then ask you because you can only repeat conservative lies that you picked up and mindlessly repeat day after day after day.

Shooter,

The bonds are special, zero interest bonds. But they are US Treasury Bonds, which the Constitution requires be honored (and in rather unambiguous terms, too).

The payroll tax has been hugely in surplus since 1986. If the bonds are not honored, then the money was and is used for general operations. If this is the case then the 15.3% payroll tax should be applied to all income, regardless of source or size. So the effective uppermost Federal Income Tax rate will be 55.2% and the effective capital gains rate will be 35.3%.

Also, that extra 15.3% is not subject to credits, exemptions, or deductions.

Social Security and Medicare have been covering deficits for decades. They are not the source of deficits, for without an interest-free two-and-one-half-trillion dollar loan to the treasury our interest payments (and hence deficits) would be much higher.

Congress, especially 'your side' of Congress, is just going to have to face reality and match non-payroll taxes to non-entitlement spending. This will very likely mean raising Federal Income Taxes to pay for the last two wars and any future wars.

The days of taxing the working poor and middle class to pay for tax cuts for the well off and rich are coming to an end. Get over it.

Cliff,

I am referring to bonds that can only be sold to the Treasury Department with an interest rate controlled by the Treasury Department to, on average, match the core inflation rate. (Real Yield ~ 0% vs Real Yield of ~1.5-2.0% for 30-year Treasuries.)

Another way to look at these bonds is that they are 30+ year bonds paying interest at approximately the 7 year Treasury rate. The interest savings to the Treasury have been covering lower tax rates for upper income brackets since the surpluses really began to kick in in 1986.

Now that the Baby Boom is reaching retirement age, these low interest bonds will be redeemed and the real cost of wars, tax goodies to donors, and Defense Department mismanagement will be shifted to the Federal Income Tax.

Cliff, consider that for every actual commenter there are multiple lurkers interested enough to read the comments. For instance, whenever I look at a Krugman column I check the comments for opposing arguments. I think it's worth the effort to push back.

John, it doesn't matter whether there are bonds or not. If you destroyed the bonds, nothing would change. Consider giving your child an allowance. You've promised to deliver a dollar a week, and you write out an IOU for your child to treasure. Should your child lose that IOU or it gets destroyed in the washer, it doesn't matter. Only the promise made matters. When you give your child an allowance do people deposit enough money in a savings account to generate a dollar a week? No, it comes out of your salary.

The bonds are meaningless, interest paid is meaningless. It's all an accounting fiction to make appearances. The only things that are real are the laws dictating benefits (which can be nullified any time) and the tax revenue stream to pay for that promise. Everything else is "Kabuki theater". Questions?

Cliff,

When the one floating the bonds sets the interest rate for a sale that will happen no matter what it is not surprising the rate is lower than those obtained at auction.

Shooter,

The bonds are meaningless only to those ignoring the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Thank you for demonstrating, with help from the House GOP, that magical thinking and gross irresponsibility continues to dominate the conservative movement in this country.

John, believing in Santa Claus doesn't make him real. Where do you think the interest paid on those SS bonds comes from? How responsible is it to think there is some magical source of money for SS other than current taxation? Fantasies don't pay the bills.

Guys, Don't be too hard on Shooter and the other dickwads that come from fantasy universe. Unfortunately too many people like them are in Congress and can do a lot of damage if they aren't kept under surveillance. Shooter provides a service of giving us their talking points and excuses for doing what they do. Without him, we wouldn't be prepared to respond to their warped sense of reality, their twisted way of using words and concepts, and the way they shift blame for their own errors from themselves to others.

That and they (righties) don't like their own flock.

Telling, isn't it.

Shooter,

If Social Security had been run on a pay-as-you-go basis since 1986 and all else remained the same, the Feds under Regan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama would have had to borrow 2.7 billion dollars more at treasury auctions. To replace the special SS trust fund bonds with the most similar security available, the 30 year note, would have essentially doubled the interest rate on those bonds.

The Social Security Administration has covered the real size of our deficits for thirty years, and even now subsidizes our annual budget by financing a big chunk of debt at rates well below market.

Again, if Social Security collected exactly what it paid out every year and had a small trust to assure stable payments interest payments on the debt would be much higher than they are now. And more of those payments would go overseas.

Entitlement programs are not contributing to the deficit; in fact they continue to reduce our deficits even today. The real problem is refusing to match discretionary spending with an appropriate level of Federal Income Tax.

So Shooter, where would you cut an excess of $900 billion from the annual discretionary budget? The Defense Department has the largest part of the discretionary budget, at about $800 billion a year. Next is the federal part of Medicaid, at about $200 billion a year. The rest of the discretionary budget is about $650 billion a year.

Gut defense? End Medicaid and evict the frail elderly from nursing homes? Close the Federal Courts and Prisons?

I live in neighboring Nevada

Of course you do - that's where prostitution is legal. I bet that's yet another opportunity to show your greatness.

Wow, I'm never going to let you know what my last name is! You'd have way too much fun with it!! ;>}

"Let them people in the devastated hurricane areas eat cake." Oh, I think the rest of the country heard the Republicans loud and clear.

If it were only Sandy relief it wouldn't be a problem. Your side got greedy.

Please cite what "pork" is in the legislation? What is there that is unrelated to either rebuilding destroyed and/or insuring said infrastructure is not again destroyed when the next "Sandy" appears.

I'll wait...

Here you go.

http://juneauempire.com/state/2012-12-30/senates-hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-contains-cash-alaska#.UOeGr4ZyK_R

This one's better.

http://heritageaction.com/2012/12/epitome-of-ridiculousness-feds-will-waste-hurricane-sandy-disaster-aid-money/

Thanks shooter for the link. $ 2 million for the roof repairs at the Smithsonean and $58 million for planting trees on private property? This is one thing I dislike about how bills are crafted in Congress. You bring up a much needed program - like relief from Hurricane Sandy - and you add totally unrelated crap to try to sneak in through. I thought Obama was going to get rid of all dog ears during his first term. Nothing...nothing has changed or will change in DC. I do not even view the office of Senator or Representative as a very honorable position. Just above used car salesman in my book (no offense to used care salemen).

60 million out of 60 billion that doesn't meet your smell test and you want the whole bill eliminated? What about all the other good allocations within the bill to help people in five states, businesses, government infrastructure rebuilding that will come from this money? That's trash; give us a break. The fisheries protection in Alaska may be needed to right past destruction to the industry or to compensate for damage to the Atlantic fishing losses...but to view the larger bill as all pork or unnecessary or politically motivated demeans the real suffering and need of the people who have suffered from Sandy and other disasters. How many House members voted against the aid given to Midwestern and Southern states for tornado relief in the last year? How much "unrelated crap" was snuck in for those Red states yet no peep was made or alleged? And, the 2nd site is from a Heritage Foundation blog and thus questionable as to the validity for "facts" or its opinions.

Did you notice how much of that money won't be spent until 2015? Would you like to explain how that helps people today?

Aren't we constantly being told that business, the market, investors, and consumers all need to have confidence in the future? Doesn't it take time to PLAN how to best utilize funds appropriated? If your point were valid, wouldn't we just appropriate monies for the Defense Industry, private contractors, any future building or infrastructure projects for one year's production/contracting at a time? Your arguments don't have credence or credibility.

Ah, so these really aren't "emergency" funds in your view. So this...

but to view the larger bill as all pork or unnecessary or politically motivated demeans the real suffering and need of the people who have suffered from Sandy and other disasters.

is BS. I see honesty is not your strong suit. Tsk.

I could not have said it better, although the Army of Dick(s) dissing Beck is pretty @!$%#ing hilarious all on it's own!

And he's a Mormon from Idaho!

And he is Larry Craig's replacement. Y'all remember Larry, who was arrested in an airport bathroom for entirely different reasons?

Speaking for the presumably vast majority of us who have never been arrested... maybe Idaho should just pick their Senators by lottery?

Having lived there for a number of years, I know that it couldn't hurt in any of their elections !!! Idaho had one of the original crazies in the House - Helen Chenoweth. I think Michelle Bachmann idolizes her!

The Drones are killers of children? BULL. In fact the Drones kill Terrorist leaders who kill more Arabs than Americans. I have seen a person on Al Jazeera who THANKED the US for taking out some of the Terrorist Leaders since they would bomb Coffee Shops or any place full of innocent people just to earn their title of a Terrorist.

The Drones have SAVED far more lives than they have taken. Don't believe all the BS you read from these people. I have seen FIRST HAND where the North Vietnamese saved children that died and placed them at the site where the US attacked a Missile launching site and the VC then claimed it was a school.

Hint: Russell's Paradox.