Why is this issue so serious and tense? Why are these "lawmakers" "relieved" that they have "finally" come up with a "solution" to renewing the payroll tax cut?

Kind of reminds me of a kid, when he just quite doesn't know how to ride a bike, and as he gets on, you can see the fear in his eyes, as he wonders if he will crash.

Or it's kind of like a kid who's just starting to learn how to play the piano. After he learns his very first song, he enters himself into a local music show, with a huge audience. As he sits down to play, you can see, and even feel the fear in the child as he starts to perform.

This is the feeling I'm getting from our "lawmakers", BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!

Why aren't there more people in congress like Paul Ryan, or Governor Chris Christie, WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People, you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when somebody does something, and you observe them doing it ---- you can FEEL that they know what they are doing! Just like when the doctor starts surgery in the operating room ---- how you can FEEL that he is in command of the situation ---- AND KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING ---- and performs the operation without a single error.

Everyone in congress, and the president, needs to ALREADY KNOW what he is doing BEFORE he takes office. VOTE ALL OF THE AMATEURS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The deal would not only be a win for Obama but would take the payroll tax fight — which put Republicans on the defensive — off the table for the fall election campaign...The agreement also would avert a huge cut in Medicare payments to doctors, financed by cuts elsewhere in the federal health care budget,"

It sounds like a win for both sides. The Democrats get their payroll tax extensions (and increases in the Deficit, along with bankrupting Social Security sooner), the Republicans get cuts in federal spending on health care, but most important for the Republicans, they get to neuter the Democratic plan to demonize the Republicans as 'against the poor/middle class workers'.

The Republicans realized that the liberal media would portray this as 'kicking the American workers to the side of the road', instead of an attempt to 'keep the out-of-control Deficit in check'.

This payroll tax cut is absurd. It is not a tax cut at all, it is just deferring payment on the tax bill, eventually it will have to be paid. Stealing money from social security to give everyone with a salary a tax break is stupid. This is not a middle class/poor tax break. The tax cut goes to everyone, including the rich who do not need it. There are better ways to put some extra cash into the hands of the poor and middle class than this stupid payroll tax cut.

I agree with you, JS in SD. I look at it as robbing my future pension so I can go to the movies today. When I turn 70, they are going to tell me I can't get Social Security because I already spent it!

Notice that it is called a middle class tax break but everyone (with a job) benefits. A good leader doesn't divide her/his team. A good leader takes the strengths of everyone to unify the team to achieve a common goal. We are the United States. Not the 1% vs the 99%.

All this tax cut does is bankrupt social security faster.

Yep, that $20/week MIGHT cover the higher cost of gasoline while kicking the can down the road once again and adding the cost to the debt.

It is high time Mr. Obama came through with his 2008 campaign promise to do a top-down review of all government agencies for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and consolidate or terminate those duplicate Federal agencies.

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html

As Greece has now found out, you can't simply keep borrowing from your children's future and expect tit to go on forever.

The problem with Democracy is that when the majority of people think they can vote politicians into office who keep promising more and more benefits, and just borrow to cover the promises, it can't go on indefinitely. As every person familiar with a Ponzi Scheme knows, the money runs out sooner or later.

Here's some bad news for everyone;

Greece's National Debt is now 114% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and they are essentially bankrupt.

The USA's National Debt is now $15.35 Trillion, and its GDP is $15.2 Trillion, for a Debt Ratio of 101% of GDP. That compares with a Debt Ratio of only 69.4% when Bush left office.

If the economy limps along at 3% per year (it has averaged only 2% for the last 3 years) and Obama keeps up his projected Deficits, our Debt Ratio will exceed that of Greece within 2 years.

What happens then? Can we afford 4 more years of Obama?

Did I read this correctly? That we're spending $100 billion to give people $20 a week? Seriously? Just how high does the country's credit card go? Forever, apparently.

hungrymongoose - Paul Ryan knows what he's doing? You're darn right abolish Social Security gives Senior Citizens a voucher for $5,000 for their Medicaid while inserting a $160,000 tid bit for a business he and his wife owns - good job Paul

Now for Christie, alias Bully Boy, put Social Issues on a referendum , yeah that would have worked for Civil Rights in this country

Now sir - re-think your statement!

OK, let's try this with some logic.

Let's assume that The President is correct, and this small amount of money will be a tremendous stimulant to the a economy. That's a HUGE assumption, but let's go with it, just for the sake of argument.

So then..... Why didn't The President propose cutting Federal Income Taxes by the exact same amount?

Wouldn't that do the same thing? I'm sure that it would.

Would the republicans vote for something like that?

Yes. Yes they would.

So why target Social Security? How does it make any sense for the President to specifically target funding for Social Security?

And why are so called "liberals" crying about the mean republicans blocking the President from de-funding Social Security?

I'm a Liberal.

I like Social Security being funded.

I am not blind though, and our current POTUS is a total fail.

Heck, he's not even liberal.

Barbara If you think Medicare and SS are sustainable under the present model, you are delusional!! It will require outside of the box thinking to allow these programs to continue.

This is wrong but, Democrats want to pick the fight and Republicans are not going to give more ammunition to Obama to continue with his popular class warfare, most Americans don't want Obama 4 more years so Republicans lawmakers must take the bitter drink , putting thair eyes in a bigger picture ,November election, when Republicans will win the Senate and retain the House, this is a fact. But for Republicans to win the White house they must know what battles can win, because most people know that Harry Reid and Democrats know the only way to win this election is making the impossible to continue portraying Republicans as obstructionist and party of the rich.

Hey anybody notice this little piece:

"And in a win for the Hispanic community, Republicans would drop a proposal to require that low-income workers who claim a refundable child tax credit be required to have a Social Security number. The proposal was aimed at blocking illegal immigrants from claiming the credit, but the idea created a firestorm among Hispanics who pointed out that many of the children affected by the cutoff are U.S. citizens."

So, Illegal Immigrants, who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, are getting over a thousand dollars each back without even having to have a Social Security number to file taxes WITH?

Wait, WHAT?

Say, how come we don't have enough revenue again?

How come we are funding Illegal Aliens at the expense of our own US Citizens?

I would REALLY like to know how much money my taxes are payin out to Illegal Immigrants

while American Citizens Seniors and Children are looking at reductions in services and income.

Are we seriously looking to cut Social Security and medical benefits to the elderly instead of cleaning up that kind of nonsense?

Seriously?

To the point of opposition in this debate I must stand and wonder. What is it that makes some the few as it were think that trickle down economics works and is thee cats meow? Hmm? Really? What?

Because with absolute irrefutable proof to the contrary those few still believe only the rich should barely pay taxes. Have astronomical wages they "earned" while the worker bees struggle to barely make pay minimum wage in so many cases while paying the bulk of taxation in this country to pay for our military and SSI and Medicare and bridges and roads etc..

And still those few assume to tell us how WE should spend what we have contributed. Those bailouts Mr. Bush and President Obama passed.. The American public HANDED out to the rich "people" corperations. Did we get a say on how to spend it or how those corperations spent it? Billions and millions either or an our being spent NOW in elections because of the over turning of a campaign finance law that stood for 63 years. That cash could help fuel the economy .. Yet it seems ONLY to fuel the politician on whose behalf it is being used to degrade another person. ; ]

So think really hard who it is that opposes a payroll tax increase. Who only NOW is going with the flow. Who only now is doing this to save his or her self when they still do not believe in what it is they are doing. Relive what YOU have lived through over the past few decades instead of having someone tell it to you with there own bias in mind.

Cheers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this administration deported more illlegal immigrants than the previous? If I'm not mistaken, most farmers are complaining because they can't find enough 'legal' hands to tend their fields now that illegal immigrants are being deported more rapidly than before?

Johnny Q.: You are right, it is about politics. It's also about how dumb the people are, which makes the politics even more loony. Nobody wants to speak the truth anymore. Remember the talk about the Social Security Trust Fund? Well, it doesn't exist and never did. If you have an IRA or a Defined Contribution 401(K) plan, you own the money and it is in your name. The Social Security Trust Fund? You pay money in and that money goes to the current recipients of Social Security. Your "investment" in the plan depends on future workers paying for you to receive your then benefits. When Social Security started out, it took about 33 workers to pay for the benefits of 1 Social Security recipient. Now, it takes about 3.5 workers to pay for the benefits of one recipient. So, what does the reduction of almost 33% of the current payee into to the system mean? It means that whatever "surplus" was in the system is going to be spent even quicker. This means that if you are 50 years old and plan to retire when you are 65 then it will take 2 workers to pay for your "benefits". Well, I should correct that, if the current system is under funded so politicians can make a claim that they have "cut" taxes, then it may be that if you are 55 years old then when you retire only 2 people will be paying for your benefits. The bottom line? Neither dems nor repubs view Social Security as an "off-line" budget item. It will come from the general fund and before you know it, you will face the reality of what your real tax rate is, and understand that the country is broke and you may not receive what you had spent your whole life expecting to receive and what the politicians have promised you would recieve. So, plan on rioting like the Greeks!

Mowdy5gs,

Please read the posts above your comment. Finally, there are others out there who understand the idiocy of this tax cut. This agreement is pure politics, plain and simple. Obama and the Democrats continue to deceive the majority of the American People, this tax cut allows us to keep a minimal amount of money at the expense of funding Social Security. It does nothing to reduce the continued deficit spending, no cuts in the bloated government.

It is strictly a payoff to the ignorant voters and the Republicans are unable to articulate the deception.

If you want to know where we will be in 5 years, look at Greece.

What we need are more politicians like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Rand Paul. If Obama is re-elected say good bye to the America we've known for the last 200 years and hello to Greece.

Barbara,

If we, the United States, were smart, we'd listen to Representative Paul Ryan. After all, he is the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

I just heard him on "The Sean Hannity Show" radio show on Feb. 13, 2012. If you really cared about this country, you would listen to that interview. His interview is short and worth every second of it. In it, he said we have about 2-3 years ---- before it's GAME OVER ---- where we as a country WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF DEBT.

In Greece right now, where we're headed if we do not act, they've had to initiate austerity measures. So, along with these massive immediate cuts in government spending, they've also had to immediately raise very high taxes ---- to try to solve their national debt and yearly deficit crisis.

But don't forget, Representative Paul Ryan has been trying to fix our country for quite some time now. Remember, last year on April 5 he introduced "The Path to Prosperity." Upon arrival, this plan was ridiculed. It was the Republican's alternative budget to Barack Obama's 2012 budget.

Chris Christie is also another common sense man WHO IS TRYING TO PUT HIS STATE ON THE RIGHT PATH of not having to implement austerity measures, or immediately raise taxes one day ---- because his state government (predictably) suddenly ran out of money.

You can take care of the problem CORRECTLY, NOW, and RESPONSIBLY ---- or you can continue living in a lie, being irresponsible, and continue in your gross negligence.

,November election, when Republicans will win the Senate and retain the House, this is a fact.

Oskar, it is not a fact. No one knows what is going to happen in November. This election season is a giant free for all and who ever has the most chips by the end is going to take all; it could be either party. The Republican caucuses and primaries are not helping them though.

Rick has alienated nearly all of the female voters in this country by threatening to ban contraception if he is elected. Missouri had over a 100% drop in voter turn out from 2008's primary, Gingrich is stirring the hornets nest in Florida trying to get them to give only the delegates that were one to their preservative candidates, Main locked out three of their districts from even voting in their caucuses, and then there is the Iowa debacle. Not to mention Indiana's secretary of state getting canned for the 10th confirmed case of voter fraud in our history.

You have Mit Romney sitting in the shadows having this Derper Packs attacking pretty much anyone that comes out ahead of him along with new polls that show that less then 8% of Republican voters actually like Romney as a person.

I will not get into the economic reports that are helping Obama atm, even though his approval rating is edging towards 50% now. This is still Obama's election to lose and he could very possibly lose it, there are still over 200 days left and with each new fight in Congress their approval rating drops, I would be surprised if many incumbents on both sides are left after November.

So, with all of this data obscuring any objective predicitons you claim with 100% certanty that Republican's are going to win big. What are your sources? Why do you think this? Is it because you believe that no one in the right minds will vote for Obama? Do think that because everyone things that the problem is not the entire congress but just the Democrats?

A yes answer to either of those last two means you are just hoping that will be the case. What I see right now looking at the entire field of data tells me that it is going to be a complete toss up and which ever side wins is going to go big and the losers are going to get rammed out of Washington; which side that will be I will say is anyone's guess and anyone claiming absolutes is speaking opinions and not facts.

Even though as a Centrist I lean more left then right usually Democrats could lose big in November, I will admit that plainly because it is an outcome I can accept and anticipate for. Everyone from the right stating there is no way they can lose may have the shock of their lives in November, it may or may not happen but they should be prepared for it if it does so they do not get blind sided.

Barbara - what would be your plan for bringing our debt back under control? We already know that obamas solution is to let his (bush) tax cuts expire, that will give us a whopping $800 billion dollors more over ten years. Quite a disconnect between a growing debt of $15 trillion+ and $80 billion/year right? Assuming that our debt doesn't increase and that that $80 billion/year just goes to paying down our debt, we should be just fine in about 187 years. Perhaps your solution to medicare and SS is that letting the cash run out completely our elderlay would just go away.

I really can't understand the idea that social security won't be there when we already know that, thanks to the oil speculators that work hand in hand with the republicans and the bankers, very few middle to lower class workers will ever be able to retire in their lifetimes. That possibility has already been taken away from us to begin with so every cent we've paid in already will simply be taken away the day our heads slump on the work benches in our job places.

Paul Ryan is currently investing in big oil, while him and his party's owners continue their strangle hold on the American people. His 2012 budget resolution is a backward-looking plan that would benefit big oil companies at the expense of middle-class Americans. It retains $40 billion in Big Oil tax loopholes while completely eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential for long-term economic growth.

Conflict of interests?

Hmm. With four to six dollar a gallon gas who thinks a payroll tax cut wont make a difference? Speculators are a problem. If I had enough power to speculate that MY company and or interests might be rising in price and it was legal to do so I might have to "speculate" that it would do so. However, speculation MUST now occur to the contrary. There will be NO war in the middle east concerning Iran or Israel. NONE. Trust me. I assure you as It has been foretold by me. Furthermore the strategic reserve will be released in some quantity to curb this speculation just as it peaks.

But to the point that Tea bagging republican extremist in government are ALWAYS wrong about everything there is this point. EVERY dollar counts. Always. Maximum value they call it. Anyone in business knows this. So ANY fool trying to tell you other wise to the contrary, that a payroll tax doesn't matter and wont do anything to prop up the newly burgeoning economy is full of themselves and is LYING to you.

Most Americans know they can use an extra tax break heck, rich folk complain about there's on the right daily. Subsidies for BIG HUGE oil is defended like there is no tomorrow. So why is a Small tax cut for working class people any different? Hmm? Because perhaps the majority of millionaires in the House wish the poor middle class and former middle class to continue to bare the BRUNT of the financial onslaught perpetrated by Corperate America? Indeed. ; ]

Why is a few bucks lost to the working force of America debated as "no big deal" as it were. No real impact to the economy? When in a capitalistic society where everything costs money, money is indeed needed. Simply listen to yourselves and see the absurdity in your phony arguments to the contrary. To the contrary of your other arguments FOR tax cuts like Mr. Norquist endorses.

Cheers

Well geez,Roy, Tell me again about the media that unfairly targets the right wing. The right wing enjoys most of the radio waves. All Republicans cry about the left wing media as they proudly proclaim Fox as the leading media. You can't have it both ways, Pal. I think a truth meter would be a most effective gauge. If your party controls the radio waves and Fox News truly holds the highest ratings, how does the left wing media hold an unfair advantage over the right wing media? Fess up, you can't be the victim and the aggressive bully at the same time despite your weak propoganda.

And in a win for the Hispanic community, Republicans would drop a proposal to require that low-income workers who claim a refundable child tax credit be required to have a Social Security number. The proposal was aimed at blocking illegal immigrants from claiming the credit, but the idea created a firestorm among Hispanics who pointed out that many of the children affected by the cutoff are U.S. citizens.

Ok? One question. How does one file Federal Income Taxes when Social Security I.D. numbers are required on the forms in the first place??? If these kids ARE U.S. citizens, why don't they have S.S. numbers? I had to make sure Mine, my wife's and my four kids S.S. numbers WERE on my tax forms. I understand that some pay Federal taxes but certainly not all of them do and just how do they get around not providing a S.S. number for their "American Anchor Babies" on their tax forms being submitted? Isn't that TAX FRAUD??

I guess your attitude on the payroll tax cut depends on two things:

1. Whether or not you have a job to pay tax on.

2. If the average of $20.00 a week is the price of your vote in November.

Because that is what this is all about. Giving more money to those that are lucky enough to have a job in this economy will do nothing to get jobs for those that don't have them. It will further weaken the Social Security System which apparently the youngsters don't care about since it only takes care of their parents, grandparents and for some great-grandparents. There again your opinion rests on whether you give a hoot if these relatives get rationed health care while no cuts are made to Medicaid which pays for medical care for illegal aliens.

Just saying, wake up and smell the coffee, this is just an attempt to buy your vote by the current administration and backing down of others.

Fitzl

The administration did not deport anyone. The INS did, and it's about time that they started enforcing the immigration laws in this country. These laws were put into place for a reason. If people have a problem with these laws, just have congress change them. Good luck talking, these tea party congress members, into that one.

More "free" (unpaid for by this generation) benefits to buy votes for current politicians. Woo hoo!

Current entitlement addicts get some extensions, SS gets underfunded, illegal aliens get free money for their anchor babies, politicians get to brag to the special interest / entitlement groups, as well as shake the tree for more bribes- er, "contributions".

Couldn't work out better for anyone...except the next generation(s) that have to pay for the corruption. Think Greece. Opa!

Yay, bipartisan solutions and more "change" we can believe in. The results of this new resolution: A "Tax cut" without any financial backing to make up the lost revenue. Just more spend now, worry about how to pay for it later rhetoric.

And you wonder why Congress has a whopping 10% approval rating?!?!

BTW- Greece is collapsing. Our fiscal state is quickly rising to the percentages that Greece has, HOWEVER we are an exponentially larger country- so instead of 10 million upset people, we'll have 300+ million upset people. How's that going to play out??

Where's Waldo: just an FYI, you can (and must) file a tax return if you have any earnings within the US, whether or not you are a permanent resident or a citizen. You could have income from a business, or from the sale of an asset. In any case, you file under a Taxpayer Identification Number, not a Social Security Number. Social Security numbers are only issued to citizens and permanent residents.

The child care credit is given to the parents of US Citizens who do not earn enough to cover the costs of child care. In this manner, those who want to work are able to instead of going on welfare.

If you, and the other Teavangelicalthuglicans, would do a little research before spewing forth your hatred of all things President Obama has done to help the country, you might learn something.

As to Paul Ryan, he is proof positive that the Republican Party is intent on the elimination of the middle class and the death of the poor and disabled all to the benefit of the wealthy. That this country gets destroyed in the process is just a side show to them. The GOP truly does not care if the US goes up in flames, so long as they can say "I got mine, if you don't, well that's too bad because you didn't work hard enough to get yours before I passed a law giving it to me."

Dirp: Thanks for the clarification on the rules. Who passed that piece of genius legislation designed to encourage non-citizens to stay in this country? It's not like the kids are getting the money, it goes to a parent, one whom more often than not is here illegally. No wonder we're going broke!

This $20 per week comes dollar for dollar from Social Security which is currently underfunded. This is great politics and terrible economic policy. Obama won the PR war with Republicans. Who wants to be against giving everybody $20 per week? Unfortunately, we all lose because we are spending far, far more than we take in. News Flash: There are not enough rich people to tax to make it all up.

Look to Greece if you want to predict our future.

"The mood is to get it off the table,"

freshman Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., said. "We've got to move on to another issue."

CAN YOU GET MORE "OFF THE TABLE" Please?

And return to acting like elected officials representing the interests of the citizens of the nation Domestically and Internationally.

Instead of applying the efforts to the Lobbyists and PAC's and Mega Corporations and your reelection campaigns which from the day they take office is the only goal. It really sucks.

Fitzl

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this administration deported more illlegal immigrants than the previous? If I'm not mistaken, most farmers are complaining because they can't find enough 'legal' hands to tend their fields now that illegal immigrants are being deported more rapidly than before?

Fitzl - you are wrong. You can refer to the Dept of Homeland Security website for the numbers that show that "hasn't this administration deported more illlegal immigrants than the previous" is not true. The "Truth Team" would make themselves dizzy trying to spin that one.

FYI - The Dept of Labor has a H-2A temporary agricultural program for legally bringing nonimmigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature.

The Republicans blew it when they let Obama get away with calling the cut a "wage tax cut". Very, very few, educated people I talk with know that the "wage tax cut" is actually a cut to FICA (the Federal Insurance Contribution Act) which is the source of funding for Social Security which is already broke and desperately needs the money. The 7.65 % that we were already paying and the hidden 7.65% on empowers which resulted in lower salaries was paying only for the administration of Social Security and the payment of current benefits. As benefit obligations rise Social Security is destined for insolvency -- I'm sure you have seen the projected dates -- many of you think you will ever receive it. The Republicans created Social Security as a Federal Insurance policy, similar to private insurance, to ensure that American workers had coverage to help with their retirement, The Republicans, like any insurance company created a "reserve", one for future claims, called the "Social Security Trust Fund". Private Insurance Company premiums would be collected and invested so as to guarantee that the Reserve, the Social Security Trust fund, would always keep ahead of its future obligations. FDR opposed the idea of investing the fund but was overruled by congress. The came Lyndon Johnson who needed money to fund his "Great Society" and his highly unpopular war in Vietnam so , the country being broke, (like Richard the Lion Hearted besieging the castles of his own Lords for gold) Johnson saw a massive amount of cash in the Social Security Trust Fund and raided it. Thanks to Johnson and his cronies he "exchanged" the cash in the Trust Fund for non-negotiable government bonds (a government bond is nothing more than a promise to pay issued by the "general" government fund). Thus, since the bonds could not be sold on the open market, Social Security is presently stuck with an obligation of the Federal Government, like China, and everyone else, to whom we owe 15 trillion dollars. When Social Security needs money it redeems a few bonds from the General Fund, which can always say "sorry, China is on our case, we have to pay them first". Social Security presently accounts for about 3 trillion dollars of of the !5 Trillion but that's another lie -- the 3 trillion is what the "General Funds" is out today -- it doesn't include the 10s of trillion of dollars for obligations that will be owed to future beneficiaries (a "selectively" cash vs accounting). Since FDR the Democrats have hated Social Security. Johnson, as I said stole the Trust fund. Clinton, afraid to raise the FICA contribution, but needing money to "Balance the Budget" increased the "fixed" Social Security Benefits the income tax being received by recipients This was a sleazy move he got away with, particularly with the elderly, who don't understand an income tax form -- he had the IRS use a computation page for taxes paid on Social Security "income" to increase Social Security taxable income from 50% to 80% (it's now 85%). And we have already paid income taxes on our contributions to FICA (our premiums). No other retirement plan has you pay a double tax. So one would think, that to fix the burden on the taxpayers Obama would call for a tax reduction on the elderly Social Security recipients. NO, the elderly are still a minority and statistically do not go out to vote -- they can't get around, are in nursing homes, have no idea what the issues are. (I am disabled, yet I still vote, but my wife has to accompany me to the voting booth and I tell her what to punch -- how many people who can't see or get around do that?) Obama is not proposing reducing the outragous double tax on the elderly -- he wants to cut FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions ACT) so as to remove yet more money from Social Security. You have seen his adds "I'll give you a thousand dollars if you vote for me". That's Obama and the Democrats view of the continued existence of Social Security.

PS: Obama, if you don't want Social Security to survive, just refund (honor the bonds) the the trillions of dollars we have paid in premiums.

PS: AARP: You are worthless. you have turned into an insusance comkpany and forgotten about original objectives -- don't expect a dime from me.

\

I have to apologize for the editing above (2.35) but time ran out on my "editing" time and the unedited version was kicked up.

All of the above aside - Rick Santorum is surging in the polls? He is the best you Republicans have? If Paul Ryan has such a good plan, and all the other smart Republicans in Washington have the answers to country's woes, why can't they sell it to the majority of Americans? What are they hiding from? What a circus the republican party has become, and I don't mean that as a good thing for Democrats or the country. Our system needs sane balance, not "red meat" one liners and total nonsense that the very pathetic "base" responds to. Same is true for both sides. But who can really argue with a fair playing field, where industry is rewarded with tax breaks for moving back to the US and is penalized for moving overseas? No nation can survive with a population so broke there is no disposable income. Basic economics Henry Ford style - paying people enough to buy what is produced keeps the economy going and business IN business. So simple, but yet so incomprehensible to the Republicans. We are not in danger of becoming another Greece that is a load designed to scare the red-meat eaters. Investing in the nation, as in the nations infrastructure and education, is vital to the future strength of the US.

Or, elect Romeny, and he can do a Bain-style job on the US and we will be out of business in a couple of years.

Fitzl

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this administration deported more illlegal immigrants than the previous?"

Yeah, you're wrong. In addition to the eloquent response you already recieved from NH patriot,

I'd just like to add that The President has changed the way deportations are counted.

Now, people turned back at the border are considered to have been "deported". Under the new counting system, you can deport the same person several times each day!

Lols at the Ministry of Magic - er, "truth"

And Dirp, think about what you are saying. People who are ILLEGAL, and pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX are getting refunds.

Use your big brain, if they are getting the child deduction, and they show zero to little income, and they pay zero federal taxes

THEY THEN CAN CLAIM THE OTHER DEDUCTIONS AS WELL ON THE SAME FORM.

Earned Income Credit, Personal deduction, maybe more. Say what's the personal deduction this year? One thousand dollar? Two thousand dollars? I haven't done my taxes yet so I really don't know. What I do know, is that if you take that amount, and multiply it by the number of adult ILLEGAL Immigrants in this country, you have a lot of loot to pay for social services for Americans and thier children and grandparents.

They pay NOTHING IN and get THOUSANDS for FREE!

And we want to cut benefits to American Citizen Children and Elderly to pay for this?

Heck No! Make it STOP!

.

Third Wheel Man Why didn't you ask them that question when they were stealing from the Trust Funds to pay for FOUR TAXCUTS for the wealthiest Americans? Or when they were using the trust funds to pay for TWO UINFUNDED WARS?

I've been asking that my entire working life! System's set to go bust a year or two before my current retirement age. I've been taxed an extra 6.2% on each of the checks I've gotten and won't see anything from it. No one wants to touch it, though.

But, Chuck, c'mon, do you really think it was only the Bush years that bankrupted the system? Both parties were clamoring to extend Medicare (the AARP vote), both parties voted to fund the wars (don't want to look weak), both parties passed the Bush tax cuts (want to give back during tough times), both parties bailed out multinational corporations (TARP and Stimulus 1 and 2) and the list goes on. Those are just in the past decade. Taking from SocSec is easy. The young don't vote and the elderly are already getting benefits.

Uhhh, ECONOMY 101. When it picks up and more people are back to work, the additional workers will contribute to the SS fund. As it is, they are not. How does the economy get going? People buy things.

Surely you remember W imploring people to go shopping after 9/11, right? Wasn't that his impetus for his "temporary" tax cuts?

You know that poll they do every year, where they ask young people if the believe the "Social Security" will be around when they retire...Well it wont be, and everybody with access to the unmassaged government data knows this to be a fact...so it's not really a question of "Protecting" a "Social Security Trust Fund" because it doesn't exist...they all know within the next decade it will be officially folded into the "black-hole" of government debt...so the real question is why are still collecting any "payroll taxes"

Puh-lease - During the booming late 90s, the issue was the same. The date to implosion may have been later but the end was always the same. There are bigger issues with SocSec. My original comments were more around pols promising money back to the populace without showing the negative consequences. Not one of them ever said, "Sure, you'll get more money now but SocSec is going bankrupt 10 years earlier." Not one pol in DC is worried about the future and they should be. We've had deficits for years on end now and they are getting worse. Even if we weren't to have deficits, the debt load won't go away anytime soon.

SocSec is but an easy way to look at all of DCs policies. There is no forethought for the consequences. It's also a glimpse into how a small program to provide a basic monthly stipend for the retired has grown out of control (fiscally and emotionally) into the only retirement vehicle for most of the recipients and no one has ever said, "No. We can't sustain the benefits taking in this little." Or, "We can pay out this much but we'll need to take more." Worst of all, they are now saying, "We'll keep the benefits at current levels but reduce the amount taken to pay for it." Incredible.

They collect to fund social security. That way they can steal the money to use on the hundreds of pet projects.

Everyone that works pays into social security. There should be plenty of money to cover those that will be eligible. My question is a big one? You work fourty years of your life, you pay into social security all your working life. Then before you are eligible to collect your "guaranteed" monies, you suddenly, unexplainedly up and die. What happens to all those years of paying into social security? Apparantly they keep the money, or use it on something else. Social Security is an "entitlement" that apparantly some in congress don't realize. If you payed out of your pay check every pay day, then doesn't it seem like that would be your money when congress says you can retire and collect it. Why does congress push the retirement age farther and farther up the ladder? Simple, they don't want you to live long enough to collect. What happens to your hard earned money you put into the social security system? Bookmarked for other things. When social security was started it was strictly designed for the american working man and woman. Congress blames the american people for the shortage, yet even if you retired, there is a job opening for someone who will continue to pay into social security, but somehow congress has us convinced that it's the american people who are killing social security. It's being killed alright, but by politicians who ear mark our money for other things. I.E. trips to hawaii, new limo's, new help around the house. Politricks is a good job to get into if you can handle the deceipt..................

According to the non-partisan CBO, Social Security will live off the interest on its investments 2020 or so. At that point, they have to dip into the principle to make full payments. If nothing is done at that point, social security could still make full payments until 2049; it would have to cut payments thereafter. In 1983, social security was in danger of dipping into the principle. A few minor adjustments were made and we've been fine ever since. The social security bogeyman is just that, a bogeyman.

Puh-lease... here's another little lesson from ECONOMY 101... the numbers have been simplified so people can actually grasp the concept.

Here's a little something I came across. It puts the numbers that the politicians talk about in a perspective that the average American can understand. These are sobering numbers. And remember, it's not a Republican nor Democrat issue. It's politicians from BOTH sides not doing their job. It's politicians from BOTH sides using the American taxpayers money to ensure his/her election/re-election to buy votes. And it's politicians from BOTH parties that are selling the American PEOPLE out to special interests.

What everyone needs to remember is that the government is spending money that will need to be paid back by their yet unborn great great grandchildren.

If these numbers aren't brought under some semblance of control, The United States will implode and we the people will suffer the consequences.

=======================================================================================================
Take some of our key economic numbers — how much money the U.S. government brings in, how much it spends, and how much brave politicians are “cutting” to bring those numbers into balance — and simply lop off eight zeros (i.e., divide by 100 million) to make those numbers something that American families can relate to:

Why S&P Downgraded the US:

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 (Two TRILLION one hundred seventy BILLION Dollars)

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000 (Three TRILLION eight hundred twenty BILLION dollars)

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 (One TRILLION six hundred fifty BILLION dollars)

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700

Family budget: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 (Interestingly enough, EACH person in America actually has MORE than this number as THEIR INDIVIDUAL portion of the Federal DEBT)

Budget cuts: $385

=====================================================================================

Look again at the "National Debt": $14,271,000,000,000

FOURTEEN TRILLION, two hundred seventy one BILLION dollars and this DOES NOT INCLUDE what is called "Unfunded Liabilities". This number represents ONLY what the Government HAS ACTUALLY BORROWED. It does not include Social Security, Medicare, and other "unfunded liabilities", those things that the government has promised to pay for but with no idea how to pay for it, other than saying "The full faith and credit of The United States". That "full faith and credit" is YOUR income.

Old Vet

Did you know that Social Security PAID out more then it had in REVENUE in 2010??

Looks like the CBO missed their estimate by 10 years. What do you say about that?? Do you still think SS will be fine in 2049???

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

Old Vet...

You DO realize don't you that it's YOU, ME and EVERYONE else that is paying the "Interest" on those investments don't you?

By law, not that anyone in Washington ever actually cares about the law, the Social Security Administration can only "Invest" in US Government Treasuries.

So, not only do you need to pay your usual federal income tax, Congress also believes they should USE your SS funds to buy additional votes to ensure their continued raping of the American people from their position of CORRUPT POWER.

Hey everybody, don't panic about social security. It's not going to be "gone" someday. Even when the trust fund goes "broke" in 2037 (or whatever it is at the moment), the current system can maintain 75% of payments if we make NO CHANGES. I don't call that getting "nothing". I'm one of those that's set to hit 67 right about when it's supposed to go "broke". After paying in for my whole life, you better bet that there are a few 10's of millions of us that will make sure we get our money back. At that point, we'll be the old people that politicians listen to. So don't worry, you won't get screwed out of your social security.

YOU can't buy things unless you have jobs

Chuck

those tax cuts meant $70 - $130 Billion to the deficit up front, but you think that is a giveaway. Really? Rich people don't take the money and store it in a lock box. They don't stick it in a passbook savings account. They invest the money, because they know they can Double it every 5 - 7 years PROVIDED they invest wisely.

$70-$130 Billion = how many jobs? 1/3 - 1/2 of that goes back to the government in SS, income tax and taxes on profits not to mention what those people spend money even more taxes are generated other people who are hired. - and on and on . . . . ..

carl-3838426

You really should look at the history of Social Security, and while you're at it, benefits currently available.

First, Social Security was initially developed to provide a "SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME" to a persons pension. It was NEVER designed to be the sole source of income. Also, when it was established, what most don't know was that the actual concept was for the "recipient" to die just prior to receiving benefits or very shortly thereafter. Look at when it started, the "retirement" age and Life expectancy actuarial tables. It's very eye opening. So the politicians KNEW what they were doing. It was developed as a source of revenue that would "be there for you when you retire" but in truth was a new revenue stream, and they could quasi-legitimately claim they didn't raise taxes.

As for what happens if you die before receiving benefits, haven't you ever heard of "survivor" benefits? (This is also a reason the "system" is in trouble.) My wife worked for a short period before our son was born. But she has enough "work" credits to claim her own benefit. HOWEVER, she'll receive MUCH more if she claims benefits from MY work history. In fact if my wife had NEVER worked, she would be eligible for a monthly benefit check just by being married to me. To add further to that.. If you divorce someone after I believe 7 years, and then remarry, BOTH (or more) wives can claim benefits on YOUR work history.

The system has been raped by POLITICIANS from BOTH major parties for years... as long as the rape would get them re-elected. It's really sad when you think they're USING YOUR OWN MONEY TO BRIBE YOU.

Someone please explain this to me. The only job my mom ever had was working part time 20 hrs/week from 1971-1979. She made $7.00/hr ( college degree-good money then for p/t ). What she paid into SS on that $140/wk was a pittance. She has been collecting $900/month for the last 18 years. That amounts to $194,400.00

I love my mom but something is not right here.

The Breeze..... Here's a cut and paste from my answer to just this question. It's right above your post by the way.

Social Security was initially developed to provide a "SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME" to a persons pension. It was NEVER designed to be the sole source of income. Also, when it was established, what most don't know was that the actual concept was for the "recipient" to die just prior to receiving benefits or very shortly thereafter. Look at when it started, the "retirement" age and Life expectancy actuarial tables. It's very eye opening. So the politicians KNEW what they were doing. It was developed as a source of revenue that would "be there for you when you retire" but in truth was a new revenue stream, and they could quasi-legitimately claim they didn't raise taxes.

XDm9mm... I had already posted before I saw your 3.15 Now I understand. Thanks for the help.

Breeze... No problem... happy to help.

I only wish MORE people knew this and understood it better. Oh, and when it was first established there was NO spouse, much less multiple wives getting beneifts on a husbands work credit, nor was there SSI or benefits to childern.

When the "covered" person died, they were granted a stipend for burial purposes.

Again, the politicians are using OUR money to bribe us, rape our country and the VAST MAJORITY of the American people are so mis-informed that they THANK the politicians for the rape and don't even care about the disease they've just contracted.

XDm9mm = and we all know what the yield is on todays treasuries, with our current low inflation rate, yield is negative. Bet the politicians don't want to talk this up.

"everyone knows social security won't be around", etc, etc, blah, blah. So we have dusted off our crystal balls, have we? Fortunately, for all the gloom and doomers, no one really knows what the future holds. Republicans are by nature pessimistic and not very creative, Democrats are optimistic and look for new solutions. Moving forward requires creativity and ability to think outside of the proverbial box. Standing still or going backwards is easy.

Disabled, you are 100% right. Every SOB in washington needs to be sent home, Repubs and Dems alike and then we need a bill for term limits. No more than two terms for anyone. Same insurance as the rest of us and NO retirement benefits for any of them. While we are at we should take away all retirement benefits from existing members.

I'd like to propose a tax law change. The next time a company sends jobs overseas and lays off workers here in the US, the company continues to pay Social Security taxes on the laid off worker.

Not only should they go home they should go home with no benifits. Why should they be able to do one term and we pay retirement and medical for the rest of their lives. Plus all of their family members are covered. Then all they do is try to cut anything that mite be of help to the general public.

Mariann

You should do some research before you spout off about things you don't know anything about. Here read this.

Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension
at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible
for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after
completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of
service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting
amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final
salary.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

Think how much money if we didn't have to pay hem 80% of what? About 200K. I'd like to retire on 160K a year, how about you?

Term limits.: 8 years for the House: 12 years for the Senate. No pay raises, ever, and no pension. Health ins.? Obama care for all govt' employees.

Oldman young eyes - I totally agree with your term limits idea. This will help reduce the amount of corruption politicans create to better themselfs and speed up the turtle pace Washington DC seems to move at in getting things done.

I would also like to retire with 160k a year, I wonder if it is tax free or if they use all the loopholes possible to reduce the amount they need to pay.

nobrent: how about we add they must pay the workers they laid off 50% of the salary they were earning before the layoff, until the employee finds suitable reemployment!

RAS - voters have the ability to impose term limits through their vote. there is no need for laws imposing term limits if all voters take their vote seriously. the outcry for term limits is only heard from the losing side. if everyone was an informed and thinking voter, term limits would take care of themselves.

Kristen - you may be right. Unless we (the voters) are able to find real legislators to elect. We have time to fix SS for another 75 years, but we need public servants in these offices, not publicity hounds.

This is the goal of the republican party .... they have wanted to do away with social secuity since it began. I can't understand why anyone who gose to work and pays into these programs would ever vote for the party that wants to give them nothing and give it all to the very wealthy. The wealthy get all the tax breaks because?????? No one has come up with a good answer yet

Mariann - The answer to your question is easy. The typical Congress person is rich. Very much so. Congress makes the rules. Answer - Congress won't make rules that negatively affect Congress members.

The big issue as of late has been dividend income. It's taxed at a lower rate than working income. The theory is that we want to encourage investors and spur growth. The part that the pols don't say is that they all have investment portfolios, some into the multi millions of dollars. Why on earth would they want to raise their own tax rates? Or, the tax rates of their contributors? Everyone will complain, even the pols, but no one will do anything about it.

Bring it back to SocSec. How about we fund it by raising the limit of eligible dollars to $250k but only pay out on incomes up to $150k? The 'rich' are funding more but there is a limit on what to get. Could be a slippery slope no doubt but just an idea. I can't imagine that'd go over well with many lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc, though.

Mariann and ThirdWheel

Wasn't the Payroll Tax Cut Obama's idea??? Isn't he the one who wants to CUT Social Security??

BTW do you know that if you buy a house within the next 10 years you will be charged a .5% fee if your mortgage is serviced through Freddie or Fannie?? That means for $240 ($30 per week) you will pay somewhere in the neighborhood $6000 over a 30 year mortgage?? SOUNDS GOOD DON'T IT??

Get $240 now but pay $6000 later. PROGRESSIVE MATH FOR YOU!!

slodon - screw your head back on - there was no talk of cutting SS on the DEM'S part - just the RETHUGs

canary

Maybe you should pull yours out of your butt.

President Obama heads to Scranton, Pa., on Wednesday to begin his push for Congress to halve payroll taxes for most workers--a plan that would be paid for by increasing taxes on wealthy earners.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-democrats-begin-push-to-extend-payroll-tax-holiday/1

Then there is this.

At the White House, President Obama urged congressional Republicans to join Democrats in approving the extension, arguing that it is urgently needed to prevent what would amount to a tax hike on middle-class families next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-democrats-to-try-again-with-scaled-back-payroll-tax-holiday/2011/12/05/gIQAtOEhWO_blog.html

Or this?

Estimates provided by the White House show that the payroll tax cuts proposed last night by President Obama would cost $240 billion next year, just shy of the $245 billion cost of the Bush income tax cuts during the same year as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice.

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/09/president_obama_proposes_payro.php

Canary

Now I assume that you know that the Payroll Tax,commonly referred to as FICA, PAYS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. Thus a cut in the Payroll Tax is a CUT IN SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING. A CUT IN SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING IS A CUT IN SOCIAL SECURITY.

IF one is so lacking in intelligence to assume that a cut in the tax rate will translate into a cut in benefits, then one does have their head cross threaded... The benefits might be cut beginning about 10 years from now or so ASSUMING that the lack of revenue remains - of course, all that is necessary is to remove the current upper limit of SS tax and the program becomes "solvent" again. - even past 2036

so explain how the US can deport a CITIZEN?

Why do you say that paddy, you don't want Americans successful?

McPaddy--Sorry you feel that way. "Anyone" is not running this year and those who are are losing badly to Obama. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html.

Of course I do. obama doesnt want americans to be successful; he wants them to be ants on his ant farm. Success will begin when obama is sent back to chicago to organize a community. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!

Have you EVER listened to a speech from President Obama, if not WHY?

Paddy, I would like a date with Michelle Rodriguez but I also have enough of a grasp on reality to know that is unlikely to happen. Comprendez?

tryreality...

I've listened to every speech (at least those broadcast) he has given, I even noted when he made a speech at the Democrat National Convention when Clinton was the golden one, that he was being groomed.

He IS a fantastic speaker. And I don't believe anyone can or should try to take that ability from him. As long as it's a written speech he does a wonderful job, with his pals Tele and Prompter... but then MOST politicians do the same.

However, EVERY "promise" he made he has failed to fulfill. He also noted that he would halve the defecit by the end of his first term. By adding trillions to the debt, I'm not quite sure how that is being accomplished.

So yes, I've listened to him. A wonderful speaker is a given. As a man who can succeed in the position of President of the United States, he is an utter failure.

You're obviously a faux viewer. President Obama has more accomplishments for the middle class in 3 years than any Gop President in modern time. Take that tin foil hat off and see the light. President Obama in ANOTHER LANDSLIDE.

tryreality

Then why hasn't the deficit been cut in half???

It's called OBSTRUTION.

try

REALLY?? But the Budget is EXEMPT from the Filibuster. So why haven't the Progressives had a Budget that RAISED TAXES on the RICH and CUT THE DEFICIT?? Republicans couldn't stop them in 2009 2010.

mcpaddywack - Impeach the President on what grounds - trying to help the middle-class?

Yep according to Republicans that is an impeachable offense!!!

Nice try

Help the middle class? are you kidding? and yes i have listened to obama's speeches....they are great but he is a liar. ANYONE BUT obama iN 2012!

The idea is to get people back to work so they can put some of their money back into the economy. It's called a snowball effect. S.S. will be just fine as long as we keep the GOP out of power.

2% SS money for employed people, who have jobs. what does this has anything to do with getting people back to work? it's a pathetic theory and makes no sense!

Cellisis--Putting money in the pockets of working people makes excellent sense. Those people use the money to buy stuff. People buying stuff creates demand and demand creates jobs. You may think the theory pathetic, but it's been in use for eighty some years by both Democratic and Republican administrations and seems to have worked pretty well.

Make NO SENSE to someone that don't know what they're talking about. Want to try again?

wait until you retire and SS has no money left. that's what you expect, right? that makes sense!

Old Vet and Tryreality

Then was does the Bush Tax Cuts make NO SENSE?? They cut taxes for everybody.

Unless the US gummint goes tits up, there will be funding for SS (like it or not)

Rick--The assumption is that the people collecting unemployment will go back to work when they can find a job. Meantime, extending unemployment gives money to people who actually buy stuff, thereby creating demand, which creates jobs. The playbook comes from every administration, Democrat and Republican, since 1933. As for social security, see post 3.8.

Rick, perhaps we can stop extending unemployment when the number of available jobs is in the same light year as the number of available workers? Get the point?

Rick, ever try to play musical chairs with 10 people and 2 chairs? Guess what? 8 people don't get a chair. Has the light bulb come on yet?

i think citizens should be ask if they want the deduction on their payroll some of us don't want it, you have to pay it back at the end of the year anyway. correct me if i am wrong.

Osvaldo... no you don't pay it back.

It is LESS deducted from your paycheck (probably called FICA on your pay stub) every pay period.

HOWEVER what many have neglected to think about is simple.

Social Security deductions, like 401k, deductions come out of your GROSS pay BEFORE taxes.

That little extra you see every payperiod is NOT equal to the amount you "saved" by not paying the full FICA tax. If you check you will find a difference. The lower FICA deduction has INCREASED your federal taxable income. So they give it (back) with the one hand and take it away (again) with the other.

9mm

Then there is that little fee you pay if you buy a house within the next 10 years to pay for that $240 TAX SAVINGS over the last 2 months. Now that .5% fee is ADDED to your Mortgage ,if it is serviced by Freddie or Fannie,will add up to $6000 over the life of a 30 year loan on a $150,000 house. But hey you can get $240 now and PAY $6000 later. Sounds like a good deal to Progressives.

business are the one to put people back to work not gov't

I think we should lay off half the gov't workers send them home save a lot of money and put them on unemployment roles wait for business to hire them

Your rant doesn't include anything that Bush added to the debt, WHY. That is where the problems started and you look the other way. 2 wars, tax breaks for the rich and prescription drug program part D, ALL OFF THE BOOKS AND BORROWED MONEY.

Try reality..

LEARN TO READ, and I QUOTE:

it's not a Republican nor Democrat issue. It's politicians from BOTH sides not doing their job

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700

Family budget: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Budget cuts: $385

An apples and oranges argument. You can't compare macro and micro economics.

XD: Learn to look at the whole picture and not only what you want to see.

Anon... WHO is comparing.

It is a means to bring it into a plausible realm for people to understand. The vast majority of people have NO concept of what a million dollars really is, much less a BILLION or TRILLION.

Once they understand the concept on a "personal" level they will be better able to comprehend the numbers on a national level.

$400,000 to Mitt Romney is pocket change.

The whole picture???? I remember a man on the campaign trail (not that it ever stopped) who said "why would I give the car back to the people who drove us into a ditch?" (or something along those lines... I admittedly DON'T remember the exact quote)

We're in a HOLE. When you're in a hole and trying to get OUT, you DON'T keep digging yourself DEEPER.

So, tell me, WHAT part of the "whole" picture don't I see??

tryreality...

You're getting desperate.

First, you accuse me of a "rant"..

I showed EXACTLY where I indicated it's BOTH parties.

Now, you bring up Romney.

Why? WHAT does he have to do with this thread? Because he's wealthy? Guess what so is Obama. And do you really want to look into the finances of Pelosi, or Reid, then maybe you'll just want to look at Cantor or Boehner.

The GOP is desperate, they will be caving on EVERYTHING to try to seek re-election. The problem with that is it's 3 years to late. President Obama in ANOTHER LANDSLIDE.

tryreality "tax breaks for the rich"!!!?? Only 22% went to the top 2% ($800B out of $3.7T over 10 years)! Even Obama, when he allowed the Bush tax cuts to be extended, called it the largest tax cut for the middle class in history!! Was he wrong again!!??

tryreality...

Yes, the GOP is struggling.

However, I believe you are just a political ideologue praying for your anointed one to maintain his current address. But then I DO believe you would also be so blinded by political ideology that you would have voted for Marion Barry like everyone in DC did... EVEN after a felony drug conviction.

BUT you NEVER answered my question.... WHY did YOU bring up Romney?? And you also FAILED to respond to anything else I indicated. What's the matter. The answer isn't in some play book you're using?

Try... Lay off the juice. The GOP is not trying to get " re-elected ". They are trying to get "elected ".

Ed> Oh I get it all right. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul and pretending it isn't even happening and that there is no cost. Do you get it?Is the light bulb coming on now, Ed?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, TISSUES

fire, I totally agree with you. Enabling people to put food on their table or buy much needed prescriptions is such a frivolous thing isn't it?

fire, I totally agree with you. If I had a choice between feeding my family or putting groceries on my credit card, I would let my family go hungry.

It's funny how so many people like the idea of some assistance when there are many more unemployed people than available jobs.

It's funny how so many people like the idea of a payroll tax cut when they take a job paying 60% of what they use to make. You know, to put food on the table?

You're right Ed , we can just worry about our debt in some other decade ....

It's funny how some people think that paying $6000 over 30 years is a good way to get $240 over 2 months.

I doubt it, newbook. I've got a dozen donuts that says come Jan. 20th Obama's still president, but the R's will control both the House and the Senate. Not my preference, just what I think is most likely.

they want a same kind of president

Tea Party Rules!

hey big how are you..why yes im doing fine at this time thanks

I was leaving you alone you know .... not going there with you ....

I know you like Obama ....

I think you know I don't ....

I'm glad your fine elvis .... good to see you .... you're looking good tonight .... have you lost some weight .... ??

no fat and ugly

Well , at least you're honest .... "LOL"

I told you i dont lie