Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that these "Entitlements" are paying out at a unsustainable rate, they will go broke without some adjustments to either the age when a person can begin collecting, increasing the amount collected during a persons working career, reducing the amount paid out, or a combination of all 3. The republicans are even considering a "Means Test", that is if you're rich, you don't get to collect. The original design of the plan was based on people being dead before they would ever collect, hows that for a government plan. What they didn't expect was people to live beyond 62 years of age. So instead of vilifying republicans for wanting to address a real issue, how about democrats working with republicans to get this done. I might add that in 1994, republicans wanted to address this issue, 18 years later, the democrats continue to vilify and whistle through the grave yard as if nothing is wrong, heads stuck firmly in their collective a$$es. This issue has NOTHING to do with the Bush tax cuts. Social Security and medicare are funded by working Americans through their payroll deductions.

Medicare is paying out at an "unsustainable rate" because of the massive amounts of wasteful spending (scooters, penis pumps, etc).

Social Security is paying out at an unsustainable rate because of fiscal mismanagement and life expectancy increases.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

U.S. National Dept = $15,541,325,800,000.00

Social Security Liablility = $15,567,471,590,000.00

Prescription drug liability = $20,533,252,240,000.00

Medicare liability = $81,908,854,300,000.00

Total U.S. unfunded liability for the three Social Programs above = $118,087,340,600,000.00

"Are you In?" Denial.

I'm just curious when there going to add an Obamacare meter for the new entitlement.

If expected future outlays have increased, there must be an increase in expected future receipts to cover those outlays.

Since the GOP basic montra is to never increase taxes, the alternative really is to throw Grandma off a cliff.

The GOP fear of tax increases has gotten to the point where it makes it impossible for them to govern. The Republican party, therefore, has no place in a modern government. Anyone voting for a Republican is voting for the demise of the United States.

I doubt that many people in this country would see the Republican Party as a Party for the middle class or poor. Their actions are based on helping the wealthiest people in the country and the corporations they run and/or support.

It is the mantra of the GOP to try to cut/eliminate Medicare, Social Security and other programs that help the vast number of retired, disabled and the poor in this country. The GOP would like little else but to keep the working class from ever retiring. They would apparently like to have every American work until the day they die and paying for everything out of pocket as the GOP uses the tax base to support themselves.

Will their budget:

1. Ask Congress to pay more into their healthcare cost?

2. Ask Congress to take less in retirement pay?

Congress is overpaid. Average retirement is $60,000 a year. Almost 460 collecting this now.

Taxpayers are never asked if, we want to continue paying for this.

Ryan, must be jockeying for the next presidential election, where he will throw his hat in the race. Why on earth would he push something that could potentially hurt the GOP candidates?

If they want to cut medicare then they should start by cutting their insurance coverage after they are voted out of office (They think the elderly don't need medical care, (THEN THEY SURE DON'T). S.S. is not an entitlement (when are the idiots going to learn) My employer, and I payed for this. I have a question I payed the max. in F.I.C.A every year. Now my question is if I die after only collecting for 3 yrs. WHO GETS THE OTHER MONEY I PAID IN (IT'S MINE).

Our country has been robbed blind by snake oil legislators in both parties for too many years leaving behind an unpayable debt with out of control spending.

Throw them all out on their crooked bums before they completely destroy our country economically and financially. The Congresses and Administrations past and present along with the Fed Reserve are the core of our problems.

Where's Captain America and Iron Man when they're needed?

The Bush Tax Cuts are unsustainable- proven to add to the deficit by the CBO. The oil subsidies are unsustainable. They are nothing more than money given to corporations locally for a global/international market. How does this make sense? The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War have been completely unsustainable, yet the Bush Administration did nothing to get the orchestrator of 9/11. Just another example of corporate welfare for the military manufacturers- at our soldier's expense. TARP funds were an unsustainable give-away to Wall Street, used for bonuses and tax free municipal bonds, unpaid back by several banks. Lots of that money went to foreign investors, never to be seen again.

When the commieservative Rupublicans are ready to eliminate these unsustainable, budget deficit burdens created by themselves, the Party of NO- and have the guts to even mention them here- then and then only should anything be done to these social programs that have added NOTHING to the deficit to this point. But we appreciate this type of 'governing' just before the elections. It will put the House in the hands of the people who care the most about the 99%ers left here who pay for everything in this country!

Social Security and Medicare programs are paid into. It's not my fault they didn't invest the money. That's on Congress, not us. Unemployment is also a plan that employers pay into (and we as employees pay indirectly).

Paul Ryan needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to stop taking our money. Just try and keep doing this and the Republican party will hear from us come election day.

Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that these "Entitlements" are paying out at a unsustainable rate, they will go broke without some adjustments to either the age when a person can begin collecting, increasing the amount collected during a persons working career, reducing the amount paid out, or a combination of all 3.

Why is it so hard for Republicans to understand that if you go into deficit spending in two wars and CUT TAXES, that you go into a fiscal crisis as an excuse to cut entitlements. Because that has been your policy since Reagan.

You think Americans aren't smart enough to pick up on your starve the beast policies and holding onto not raising revenues to decimate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?

I find it interesting that on scoring none of the Republican candidate's budget decrease the deficit, they all add to it.

The Budget Control Act of 2011
Which was passed during the debt ceiling debate.

Senator McCain and Paul Ryan both voted for it. They are now crying and trying

to re-write it, because it cuts too much from the military. They now want to add more money to the

budget for the military. They voted for these cuts.

That's the way they do their budgets???

Here we go again the GNOP party trying to do away with medicare and social security so they can pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, Here's an Idea lets get the wealthy to pay there fair share and cut tax loopholes, get the big oil company's off of govt welfare, lets do away with Bushs Tax Breaks and then lets sit down and have a discussion on programs that I have paid 30 plus years into, until that happens go to HeII GNOP

TO: Alan, NJ who wrote:

Actually the money you pay into SS pays the current retirees. That has always been the system. Your money is already gone. If you are a current retiree, your benefits are being paid by current workers.

Why don't you go to your bank and let them tell you that somebody already beat you to your money and that "it's already gone"? If you want to be that kind of a sucker, or if you're trying to get people to give up their right to their own money, you go right ahead, and if someone wants to give up their rights all they need to do is vote Republican.

So long as Democrats are in office, the promise that government made will be kept and we will get our money. If Republicans get in, they THEY are going to take our money.

Republicans will do away with Social Security and Medicare and continue to take that money out of our paychecks nonetheless, just as they have always done. Republicans will cancel a program, but they never give us back the money we've already paid into it.

If you don't have any stake in Social Security or Medicare, then of course you want to steal our money because you don't have any of your own.

Republicans never worry about printing more money to make war, do they? NO.

Obama / Biden 2012

hardtostarboard -- You said:

This issue has NOTHING to do with the Bush tax cuts. Social Security and medicare are funded by working Americans through their payroll deductions.

Medicare has never been properly funded. The tax to pay for it hasn't increased in decades. They could fund it properly by raising the tax that pays for it. As for SS it could be fixed with a few tweaks.

For a long time, all the money paid into social security stayed in that account. Unfortunately, at some point,(I can't remember when) the government started "borrowing" money from social security to pay for other little pet projects. Just like a magician makes the rabbit disappear.......................

Paul Ryan voted for the Medicare RX bill with no way to pay for it.

That bill was NOT PAID for.

Look up how much that is costing us every year.

Ryan is already trying to add money back into the Budget Control Act of 2011, he voted for.

LMAO......it is Obamacare that takes $500 Billion from medicare, has a 15 member board to further cut cost and decide who gets what, and pushes millions into state run Medicaid programs......

The AHA, removes 500 billion from medicare advantage, which was an over priced Medicare program to help close the doughnut hole and fix the rates for docs that Republicans have been afraid of closing.

The 15 member board has no power to ration care, merely to look at ways of reducing costs.

I thought Republicans were solidly behind reducing medical costs.

Oh, and not for nothing....the president's last budget proposal got a unanimous vote in the US Senate. It LOST 97-0. Not a single liberal supported the president. The problem with the budget hasn't been that the president hasn't submitted one, it's that the Senate hasn't passed one, or developed its own, for three years. Despite the requirement under the law it do so.

And you leftists in here are going to criticize republicans? You might not like what we want to do, but there can be no doubt, NONE, that your democrat leaders are inept, ineffectual, and incompetent at doing their jobs. Which is probably why you will be voting for them. Again.

Can't wait to see the old @!$%# tea partiers who are bitching about the fiscal mess and collecting social security at the same time.

@sez me u whacko

and furthermore you red states that are WELFARING off us Blue Liberal states...

So did you buy the bridge they were selling also? What you are referring to is Fed money paid vs recieved. This includes subsidies, expenses for Federal infrastructure, trust money paid to Indian tribes and a whole host of other things. If you want to talk about PERSONAL WELFARE, money that goes directly into peoples pockets, there are more BLUE STATES at the top of that list.- http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/04/per-capita-federal-welfare-expenditures.html

This is just more distraction by Ryan for a do nothing congress... He wants to KILL medicare and social security completely... If anyone thinks different they are fooling themselves...

I get tired of listening to these mult millionare representatives that were elected to office on a promise to do good for the American people and all they do is make themselves rich on the backs of the middle class...

There soon will no longer be a middle class, it will be the one percent wealthy and the ninety nine percent POOR...

I note that the GOP NEVER touches that bloated sacred cow, (the Defense/Offense Budget), yet they want to continue to chop away at domestic spending. In as much as we spend almost as much on defense as the balance of the world combines---chop that poor excuse for a "necessity. Pass single payer and we won't have the discussion about any form of medical care for anyone. Cover everyone, pay medical providers fairly, and eliminate private sector underwritten health care insurance. Phuque, Ryan and Romney.

Obama-Biden 2012

Libs don't care they think Obama is the Messiah,

Fail. I don't think he is the messiah, just a better choice than the garbage the cons are putting out there.

Rich, some of your statement is wrong. I personally know that (in a divorce situation) if both are living the lower income former spouse gets credit for their own earned benefit. Then it is increased up to the benefit they would receive if they were married. At no time do they "forfeit" their own benefits. In the event that the higher income former spouse dies, the surviving former spouse is given the benefits of a surviving widow/widower. Again, at no time giving up the benefit of their own work history. I also have a sister who is receiving the survivor benefits of her late husband. They were never divorced. Again, she never gave up her benefits. They are just increased.

@lahater & bigben alaska

We care. Why is Ryan trying to go back on the Budget Control Act of 2011?

He is crying about the military cuts he VOTED FOR.

Blame that on Obama.

oh, one other thing, congress keeps stealing social security money for other "pet" projects

Rich - your post is totally ridiculous. The tax increases proposed by the GOP were on the 99% - not the top 1%. Cuts to programs were to those that helped the middle class and the poor. None were to programs like defense spending or those programs that benefited solely the rich. Sure the GOP were totally behind these budgets - they protected their precious 1% and hit those who could least afford it.

Usual GOP garbage!

lahater - and you can call a Republican a moron and 99 times out of 100 be right on target - moron!

Obama/Biden 2012

The problem here is We all paid for a service that was forced upon us, many years ago and they knew many years ago that this was going to be a problem yet they kept on taking everyones money and NOW they want to wiggle out of paying us which We all know if these idiots did not give their buddies all the Governments money and had to raid all the funds to do it there would be no problem, look at all the money spent on Wars that have nothing to do with us or our safety, what is it for, to protect oil fields in another country so their buddies can be sure to buy it so they can gouge us here when they sell to us, our their friends that make weapons can rape our country on the price of weapons to fight wars the we don't want or need.

You can call a (jack ass/obama) a race horse,

I don't call him that either. I call him President, for which he was legally elected (can't say that about his predicessor).

@lahater

25 years in the U.S. Navy. I am of the 99%.

Your name calling is demeaning you.

eliminating corporate wealthy taxes on overseas income? and this helps how? or should i say who. why do all the rich people have a lap dog named ryan?

Paul Ryan, another snake in the grass like Wisconsin's other shyster - Scott Walker. Both have plans that drain money from the 99% to give to the 1%.

Walker's budget - up over last year giving more tax breaks to businesses, huge cuts to education and programs for the poor, sick, and elderly- and now we're being asked to pay more to support the now underfunded schools. Still NO JOBS and property taxes are going up.

Ryan's plan - cuts $450 billion from Medicare and will increase the deficit, eliminates Medicare as we know it for a voucher plan that doesn't come close to meeting the costs of healthcare today. And now he wants us to pay more to support the merchants of the military industrial complex.

Both are Cut and Spend GOPers who want the 99%ers to bear an even bigger burden to support the entitlements to the 1%.

I think what is being missed is this...jobs cause the income for the USA towards taxes to be increased or decreased. While BUsh was in office this country lost thousands of jobs per month...Bush started a war with out making sure it would be paid for. Instead, he reduced taxes for his wealthy friends which cut income from our tax base...along with the huge job loss. Now the republicans are wanting to cut taxes again..making the same claims of jobs to be created when the lobs were not created the last time round with Bush. All of the cuts they, the republicans want effect only the middle class , retired and the poor. It does benefit the wealthy and big business....If,as the republicans have said they want to do..and that is cut even more taxes from big business...who many of which pay little or no taxes now because of the right offs the tax plan as it is now gives them. why should the rest of us...be paying any taxes either..could save a lot toward retirement without any taxes to be concerned with....and the tea party would have nothing to cry about.

dzaffina..To be exact, there is more than $33 trillion...that's trillion with a "t" in overseas tax free havens. This has been a bone of contention with Republicans since Bush left office. They had this money hoarded knowing all along a Financial Meltdown was coming. But the Republicans chose to look the other way at the loss of billions in taxes on those offshore accounts.

Once you get the whole picture of what Republicans are really up to you see it more clearly. They love all that cutting of programs the middle class pays for and wants. That leaves a whole pile of surplus that the Republicans then turn around and spend on tax cuts they know helps only those at the top of the greed chain.

These rich people knew going in that earning billion dollar salaries meant they'd pay more in taxes. But that's not what they are after. They feel as "entitled" wealth aristocrats they shouldn't pay ANY taxes. Hence, the glut of 3 tax cuts in a decade that made them 11% wealthier with each of those 3 tax cuts.

Republicans are after a return to a feudal system where aristocrats get to pay zero taxes, pay wages that can never be called living wages and then zap the hell out of consumers with predatory pricing. In other words, reinstitute the old days of the Great Depression when charities provided soup kitchens and Hoovervilles were the McMansions of the day. All while millions of people went jobless, homeless and healthcare was not a right but a privilege.

Hardtostarboard let's talk Entitlement Programs. How much did Mr Ryan and other elected officials pay into their retirement plans (which pays slightly better than Social Security), lifetime medical insurance (compare it to ObamaCare), fitness club membership and other legislative retirement perks that they receive just because they were elected into office. And just think if we replace them the next elected official gets the same perks almost wants you to keep them in office to keep down the cost.

It is very easy to talk about cutting OUR Social Securty and Medicare benefits, let's talk about cutting THEIR entitlement programs.

Good grief, people, did you even listen to what Paul Ryan was saying? You know, a lot of hardcore Republicans would have been tempted to throw Ryan under a bus for even saying that it's better to deduct more from the wealthy than the poor. Isn't that supposed to be a liberal idea? But that's exactly what Ryan suggested. Taxes remain much higher on the wealthy than on the poor, most of the deductions and loopholes removed would be against the wealthy than on the poor, etc. etc. This is the sort of stuff you should be appaulding! A Republican willing to compromise!

But instead, I'm hearing liberals who are so intent on plugging their ears and screaming their quotes about pushing Grandma off a cliff. You're not thinking about the big picture, only a knee-jerk reaction. Ryan is absolutely right. Medicare (and to a lesser degree (for now) SS) is sinking our country and needs to be fixed. The debt is already pathetically high (at the fault of both parties, as Ryan said). If it gets much worse, we might have to consider austerity measures. Look at Europe now... that's the future. We know it's coming. And yet we're not going to do anything about it? Better to suffer some little cuts now than big, painful ones later. That's simple logic. Remember Obama's quote about using a scalpel instead of a hatchet? At some point, that growth in the government's body is going to be so big, nothing but a hatchet can cut it off. And it'll be all of us (the average taxpayer) who feels it.

Ryan has never said he wants to abolish Medicare or SS. In fact, he's repeatedly called them necessary safety nets. All he wants to do is make is sustainable. When has that ever been a bad thing? That sounds like common sense to me. Reworking the system now so that taxpayers have the option to go with the original plan or a new plan is perfectly fair. (And as a reminder, Ryan has also said that seniors who are nearing retirement can receive the full benefits as if nothing had changed. He's not ripping off those who've already paid in.)

And as another note, to those who say that Republicans NEVER touch the military budget, you're flat out wrong. In the most recent compromises, Republicans (including Ryan) voted to have a proportional amount of money cut from certain social programs and the military, even though the military budget (while grossly high) is only a fraction of "entitlement" spending. Of course he's unhappy about it, but it was the compromise theymade. But there's no pleasing you.

You know, I used to be a neutral college student, carefully listening to both sides and never jumping on the bandwagon. But after reading the posts and talking to liberals, I'm convinced that only conservatives are taking our future seriously, at least economically. At least they're trying to avoid it. At least they're making some compromises. I'm only seeing Democrats continuing a spending binge to win over votes. If you want to be bought and paid for, fine. But know that you're going to reap what you allow our leaders to sow. Are both parties flawless? No, obviously. Republicans have screwed up, too. But Paul Ryan is the kind of leader that both Republicans and Democrats should be applauding for having the balls to take on such a politically risky project because he believes it to be morally right.

So let me get this straight.....When I was working, and after deductions, I still had to pay $59,000 in income taxes each year (yes I made $200K+ ), and I paid incredible amounts into my Social Security and my Medicare for over 30 years.....now everyone is calling my "Social Security & Medicare money" that I paid into "by governmental force"......an "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM".....damn right its an "ENTITLEMENT"....I am "ENTITLED" to my own damn money that the Feds were supposed to hold for me in case of disability or retirement.......it's not for Welfare, Food Stamps, Housing Subsidies, College Grants, Auto Bailouts, Wall Street Bailouts, or, or.....it's my money in case I become disabled or retire......So go cut some other stupid program, like a pipeline for Canada, or your Drone program, Governmental Salaries and Benifits, or, or...

TO: lahater who wrote:

"...For American Girl-724855,

The world does not owe you a living. What would I rather have the goverment stealing my money or American Girl stealing my money? "The goverment can have it""

I haven't asked any Republican thieves for a DIME, I puke on them, and I know Republicans know ALL ABOUT stealing because they've been making plans on decades on how to get their greedy hands on our Social Security money.

You can do what you please with those 2 nickles you have, I don't need them and I don't want them.

Republicans who have paid no money into Social Security and Medicare should never be allowed to make any decisions concerning Social Security and Medicare because we already know what THEY are going say: "Hey, why don't we just keep their money for ourselves." THIEVES!

Obama / Biden 2012

Anyone happen to notice that the Ryan budget only cuts benefits? It does not lower the FICA tax.

For all those that complain about not receiving any benefit from Social Security or Medicare in the future - you are still going to be paying for the programs. Cutting entitlements WILL NOT lower your taxes. If the Republicans succeed in 'privatizing' Social Security - it will be a government mandate to purchase financial products in the private sector - just like 'Obamacare'. None of you will be allowed to 'keep your money' - you will simply be required to give it to someone else.

The Republicans want to run the government like a business - by raising the prices and giving you less. It is a cornerstone of 'free enterprise' to cheat customers, after all.

Dirp101, what is wrong with the Government practicing some fiscal responsibility? Why should we continue to raise our taxes if the government will not use some restraint when it comes to their spending? I am sure that you practice some financial responsibility when it comes to your personal finances why should it be any different for the government? Besides when is it going to end? They won’t even cut ½ of 1% without making it sound like the world coming to an end, I say it is time we hold the government accountable for their spending, every dollar should be accounted for and if they cannot account for it honestly then they don’t get it. It may even help weed out the government funded programs that are useless. If an elected official has a problem with being accountable for his actions and his spending do you really think he has your best interest in mind? I am going to go out on a limb and say probably not. The nation’s debt limit has been raised drastically since the mid 70s so that the government could continue to borrow and spend; they now borrow over 40% of what they spend, and how is that going to be sustainable? Their debt to income ratio is upside down and needs to be corrected before we become the United States of China.

American Girl, what will you do to make the United States a one party country with the Democrats being that one party?

The problems began when we went from the gold standard to "the full faith and credit of the of the United States of America".

1. we paid for Vietnam by putting SS into the general fund (LBJ's guns and butter)

2. we paid for all other wars since WW2 without declaring a war which used to be illegal because the politicians did not have the balls to add war taxes.

3. Government bloat and the military industrial complex along with the large corporations and their lobbying industry coupled with wall street complicity has raped the people of this nation to such a degree that no party and no individual can correct the situation.

4. the "public panderers of political poppycock" running for president are doing everything in their power to deflect our attention from the real issues of the day by delving into women's vaginas and "social engineering" on the stump. This does nothing but inflame the schisms in this country and allow them to continue to drive this nation into third world status.

5. Why can't we get answers to the following questions;

a. why do we need to have boots on the ground as armies of occupation? Taxpayers have paid billions for "projection of power" and "stand off" weapons, why can't we simply counter terror attacks on the US by sending a few hundred Tomahawks and drones to destroy the supporting nation and then make damn certain we do not allow anyone in to rebuild that nation.

b. why do we feel we must help other nations when 20% of our own kids do not know where their next meal is coming from? With the exception of the third world nations every other nation's kids DO know where their next meal is coming from.

c. Why do we have to have Doctors without borders and Dentists without border set up camp outside Dollywood and Hollywood, yet the Republicans seem to think "free enterprise" will solve the problem.

d. With regard to why we have a $16T debt it is obvious when congress can not do simple family math - the the average income in this country is about $40k/yr with a tax burden (state, federal, local, property, fees, etc)= $20k/yr leaving $20k to pay for insurance which costs around $14k/year leaving them with about $6k for EVERY OTHER LIVING EXPENSE - food, clothing, shelter and "luxuries".

e. Why do these pinheads think they have to force their religion into politics? If they want to do so let them pay taxes just like we taxpayers are forced to do.

5. why do we need in the age of computers do we need 6 million federal workers and who knows how many state and local people feeding off the taxpayer? Cut the size of government before SS and Medicare

6. Take the fraud out of SS and Medicare, certainly. Increase the punishment to such a degree it is a real deterrent not a cost of doing business.

We taxpayers MUST ask one question and DEMAND a real answer - that is - when we know as taxpayers there is such bloat, waste and fraud at all levels of government why should we vote for you when all you can do is cut services we paid separately for and not go after the root causes of what put us in this fiscal mess in the first place.

Reading these comments, from both dems and reps, is pathetic. Do all of you realize as you generalize your inflammatory comments for "dems" or "reps" you are using the same intellectually inept logic as racists? Just because someone is rep does not mean they want to destroy medicare or medicaid, and just because your a dem does not mean you want to spend us into oblivion. We will destroy our country with this "my way or the highway" mentality. Do your relationships at home work that way? Of course they do not. Everyone is trying to force their beliefs on those that do not agree, and wondering why those people hate them for it. What happened to making decisions based on facts and not spreading these mindless talking points over and over again until you actually believe them? "Reps just want to take all your money and give it to the 1%." Does anyone have any idea how stupid that sounds? At some point everyone is going to have to remember that we are all living in the same country, and country comes before party, so stop blindly supporting a party that you ingnorantly believe has your best interest in mind, and lets find common ground based on REAL numbers and REAL facts!

This plan is REPREHENSIBLE! And they want tax cuts and loopholes for the 1% . . .

Time for Romney to be honest -- take a stand once and for all. And for the rest of the “I Will Never Be President Club” i.e. Santorum, Gingrich, Paul to explain how this will help the American people . . . .

To: hardtostarboard. You state:

So instead of vilifying republicans for wanting to address a real issue, how about democrats working with republicans to get this done.

NOW THE GOP WANTS TO WORK TOGETHER!!!

I agree both parties have to work together to address entitlements, the budget, etc., but can't resist the opportunity to ask where this "Kumbuyah" moment has been for the last 3 years when all we heard from the GOP was: "We are going to make President Obama a one term president.", and bashed everything he did or tried to do! I'm sure you understand we've wasted 3 years of opportunity, in some cases with the GOP trumping up issues where none existed (Let's not raise the debt ceiling until we get what we want.), and instead of making any progress. Even now, Republican's in general refuse to give any credit where the administration has made an effort to achieve something beneficial for the country. Sorry to say, but it makes the GOP look small, petty and racist.

Yes we do have to work together across the isle, but it's a bit disingenuous to start when it only becomes apparent that he Republican party is going into the election wearing the mantle of "The Party Of NO" and needs to change it's stripes.

As an independent voter, i agree changes need to be made. The only question now is who's going to tame the Tea Party subculture the GOP has nipping at their heels?

@Noryc: THANK YOU! Finally, some sanity! You state THE TRUTH, NOT just some canned RANT! A breath of fresh air. THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

The conserving the old way has to go. The formation of this country was based in new, fresh ideas--and innovation. Now? The right pushes backward at every turn. When there's speak of cleaner air or protecting our water source, they chime in with the pro-business sales speech.

There is a lack of common interest to purge our lives of fossil fuel is an example. The lack of interest in spending money on education and infrastructure, yet another. If they would put any where near in development of clean energy that they do by giving tax subsidies to big oil, we'd be considerably farther on the road to energy independence.

Through willful acts of civil disobedience change is achievable. Do not take up arms against the government or your fellow citizens. Follow the path of Gandhi in your acts. The world will watch and we will win. Meaningful change comes without violence.

No wars, no student loan debt, and yes to single payer. Punish the wealthy for not doing their job---creating jobs. Tax them like Eisenhower--the last decent Republican. Let the Bush tax cuts die.

I like the false claims that Republicans want to be 'fiscally responsible'. Does everyone realize that only Congresses controlled by Democrats have enacted requirements for 'fiscal responsibility'?

The PAYGO requirements do exactly what a Balanced Budget Amendment does - requires that new legislation be offset with spending cuts or new taxes. PAYGO was in effect from 1990 to 2002. The Republican controlled Congress allowed PAYGO to expire so they could enact the 2003 tax cuts without the required spending cut offset. The Democratic controlled 111th Congress reinstated PAYGO and the President signed it into law in February, 2010 - well before the Republicans took control of the House.

The Republican House has only been 'fiscally responsible' because the Democrats required it. The interesting thing to watch will be if the Democrats require spending offsets to renew the Bush tax cuts.

There we go again, baseless talking points. I too am independent, because putting your allegiance behind any one entity I believe is unamerican, and a followers mentality. "The party of no" huh, how about the senate refusing to pass a buget, or anything else that congress has put forth. Congress has attempted to pass measures that both can agree would help the economy, but niether can claim full responsibilty if it works so it goes nowhere. Who said they want to make obama a one term president? Do you really think people want to see our country go to hell just so they can say "I told you so"? I badly wish that Obama would have been the president he said he would be: transparent, fiscally responsible, and willing to work with everyone. That is what got him elected, and through his own decisions has proven he never intended to be any of those. Until we find a president that will be those things, dem or rep, 4 years to prove yourself, then youre out. We dont have time for this bs game anymore.

Folks, You better get off the Republican and Democrat fight ! Both parties have been mismanaging our money, and stealing it for the last 50 years ! Everything they manage is mis-managed. The money is gone, We have to cut somewhere, and rework the entire system. I'm sorry, but I don't want to give them anymore of My tax money ! That is for all of You saying we need higher tax's. Come on, they stole it the first time, You think they won't do it again. Reminds Me of a Joke, a guy is told if He goes to room #36 in the hotel He can get a woman. He goes to the door knocks, a lady looks out the peep hole and says, "can I help You" The guy says I want to get screwed. The woman says slide 100 dollars under the door, which He does. A few minutes of standing there with no results, the guy knocks again. Again the lady says can I help You ? The guy says yea I want to get screwed, the lady says again ? How many times do We let them rape and pillage us ? Wake up people, before it is to late ! Thinking the government can do anything for You for free is ludicrous !

Nerm, is that why this administration has run up more debt in three years than all the other presidents combined ? Not !!!

The United States government cannot operate without a 'budget'. Just because people are too uninformed and too lazy to learn - does not mean there has not been a 'budget'.

Stop trying to be a giant among the small minded and learn something about how you are governed.

The buget proposed has merrit. I know people are going to jump up and down like fools and say they trusted the government to take care of their money and make sure they got what they were owed. Guess what, the elected officials voted into office by that generation robbed them blind. Now instead of dealing with the mess they created as a group during elections they want to steal from their grand children who may have never voted in a federal election.

Lets face it the Government is not a brokerage firm and has no investment strategy. The Government is going bankrupt and unless we can get that under control we will be listening to China as it dictates terms of our bailout.

What?? A plan to make Government Programs sustainable!!! How dare he propose such a thing. I'm glad Demcrats haven't even tried to run a balanced budget and continue to let these programs run into the ground without so much as an outline as how to save them.

PRINT, PRINT, PRINT, / SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. It's the only way to make sure the system falls, and remember you all voted for it to happen.

ez me u whacko

and furthermore you red states that are WELFARING off us Blue Liberal states

Wrong. Many red states receive more than they pay in but blue states receive the most welfare. Keep in mind that just about every financial transaction has some tie to New York and all of our entertainment comes out of Hollywood so that would explain why they have more tax dollars available. There is a very good chance that citizens all over the US have contributed to those tax dollars.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/The_Biggest_US_Welfare_States?slide=2

Does everyone understand that there are millions of ederly republicans? Do you really think that they would support a party that wants to abolish their means of living? How do you not understand that you are simply repeating what you are being told to believe. Politicians are betting that you are dumb enough to believe them, rather than doing the research for yourself. Everytime a politician uses the words poor, middle class, ederly, and children, rest assure the following statement is a load of crap. Stop being munipulated! Medicare WILL go broke. SS WILL go broke. These are not unfounded statements, they are freakin facts. If something is broken, what must be done? Anyone? Thats right, blame each other and never do a dang thing. Stupid, right? That what we re doing, and we look like total morons. Dems and Reps alike.

The United States government cannot operate without a 'budget'. Just because people are too uninformed and too lazy to learn - does not mean there has not been a 'budget'.

Really? Can you name me the Budget Obama and Democrats have put foward? Ryans Budget plan is called "The Path to Prosperity.”

It has now been more than three years since Congress has passed a budget.

Remarkably, our federal government has been running for years on annual "continuing resolutions." Not the same as passing a budget, but just puts things on auto pilot and there is no spending changes.

Ok then Nerm, let me say that differently, a budget has not been "passed" in three years. Is that better?

@joel-989818 -- Over 95 pct of the national debt was created in the last 30 years - starting with the Reagan administration. What changed 30 years ago that lead to that much debt? Maybe giving up on manufacturing and subsidizing a 'financial services' economy was not a very good idea.

Just so you know, roughly half of the national debt is owed to - the United States government. The privately owned national debt is about half of GDP. The national debt owed to private entities (governments, banks, private citizens) is about one eighth of the TOTAL United States debt. The TOTAL United States debt (private and commercial debt) is four times GDP. The private sector owes three times the national debt - to banks - to investors - many of them foreign owned.

When inflation caused by Wall Street speculation rises faster than incomes - then government revenue from income taxes will not increase as fast as costs. Simple as that. Wall Street is more responsible for creating our national debt than the government.

Does everyone understand that there are millions of ederly republicans? Yes, so what. You think these Republicans have seen the Government lie, cheat, and steal, yet planned their future totally dependent on Government Programs.

Do you really think that they would support a party that wants to abolish their means of living? Many of them do not look to the government for their "means" of living. To be a Conservative means you don't count on the government nor do you look to them for your lively hood.

Using your "Logic" then business must not be conservative. They have their hand out begging for government help while the other hand pays lobbyists to do their bidding in government. They receive much government support.

When inflation caused by Wall Street speculation rises faster than incomes - then government revenue from income taxes will not increase as fast as costs. Simple as that. Wall Street is more responsible for creating our national debt than the government.

Nerm, Everything you posted was just crap! The government BORROWS from other to pay ITS BILLS. The government owes roughly forty percent ofmoney to itself, through the Federal Reserve Bank and other government accounts. The majority of the debt is owed to foreign investors, insurance companies, banks, and other privately held entities. The money is used to operate the federal government, which currently costs around two trillion dollars a year, yet does not bring in through taxes nearly enough to pay what it spends. You trying to say WallStreet is responsible for Government debt because it lends the money makes no sense. The government can not possibly pay back what they owe and are making no attempts to solve the problem of Bankruptcy because they will be gone and some one else will have to deal with it.

@LogicReguired -- The 'Path to Prosperity' is a political piece - not a budget. By waving this around, you are revealing your complete and total ignorance of how the government functions and what a real government 'budget' actually means.

The 'Path to Prosperity' is specifically designed to inflame the ignorant, uninformed, and lazy to rally around incumbent politicians. Apparently it has worked as planned.

Using your "Logic" then business must not be conservative

Your right businesses are NOT conservative. Businesses are greedy and try to get money any way possible. Why did so many Oil Companies give to Obama when they knew he wasn't for drilling? Because they knew giving to his campaign might save them from being targeted by his administration. Businesses do what's best for them not their beliefs.

Its ok nerm, don't hold back, just say it "I hate republicans!" Now, can we move on? Does it matter who spent what and when? That is an endless arguement with both sides having plenty of ammo. Instead, can we focus on what is causing our problems NOW. Spending, no matter who is doing it, is an enormous problem. It does not matter who holds our debt, what matters is that we are borrowing at such an unsustainable rate that it will eventually lead to concequences that no American is going to want to endure. Wall street does not create inflation, the government does by printing more money than they can back up. Low to moderate inflation is created by real demand for goods and services. This has gone up with our population explosion, not bankers or people on wall street. Please, stop believing, and even worse, repeating this crap.

I thought Republicans were solidly behind reducing medical costs

Eric, are you kidding? The GOP wants medical costs to SKYROCKET, so that the 1% can take more money from the poor and middle class.

Next you'll be saying that you thought Republicans were for fiscal responsibility, while ignoring the fact that a Republican House, Senate, and President DELIBERATELY turned a federal surplus into a deficit, just so that they could give every wealthy family in America an average of $130,000 per year, every year for over a DECADE. And to do it, they had to abandon "pay as you go" and after they were swerpt from power they used the fillibuster to make sure that "pay as you go" remained dead.

Now that American Girl has been paying into Social Security all her life, Mitt Romney wants to figure out how to rob her of that money and give that money to his rich buddies. \

Want something sustainable? End the cap on FICA contributions! Let rich folk like Mitt Romney pay the same FICA tax rate as the working poor and middle class, and we'll be able to cut taxes for EVERYONE.

nj--bj, from the earliest days of the Obama administration, democrats made it well known that republicans were not welcome in their quest to "Change America". Entitlement reform is a ticking time bomb that needed to be addressed 20 years ago. Every time republicans have put a good faith proposal forward (as a starting point), democrats jump all over it in order to scare the electorate and score points with the ignorant, and unfortunately it works. After reading these responses I am more convinced than ever we are running head long toward collapse of our society. The majority of our leaders today have no backbone to do whats right or necessary for the survival of our nation. I have enough integrity to admit that in past administrations, republicans were/are responsible for a significant part of our problems today. That said, I've rarely if ever seen such admissions from democratic supporters who are either too proud, indoctrinated, or ignorant to the true root causes of this mess. Thats OK, I'm a survivor, I and my family will get through he hell on earth thats just around the corner, which could still be averted if we all start working together. But it ain't happening. Liberals would rather we all go down with the Titanic, secure in their belief that the ship is too big to sink. The only difference is, there are enough life boats on this ship. What Ryan wants to do is make sure the boats are there for all of us when or if we need it. The democrats just ignore that the ship is sinking at all.

@Nerm_L - Please save your time and not post to me anymore, I will not debate with someone who writes such nonsense. I ask you a question and you didn't give me an answer you just gave me some political line about Ryan's Plan being nothing more then a political piece. How ridiculous, the Ryan plan will probably not pass because of politics, but it is a budget that could be voted on and passed tomorrow. I asked you to give me the name of the Democrats or Obama's plan but because you can't, (because they have no such plan or proposal) you just attack everyone else who is putting forward ideas. You completely lie about the Governments debt, and post things so innaccurate I can only assume your a hack, or a joke. Either way please don't waste anymore of my time because reponded to stupidity I will no longer do.

Well, i believe that we should set limits on what people on SS gets. one should not be getting a cent more than the other. All SS recipients should be getting a $1800 a mth income, and 'NOT" allowed to work. either you work or you collect SS benefits. This will then open up the job market for the young people that re in need of jobs, and if people are collecting SS and working they are double dipping imo. SS are for those tat are retired and do not want to work.

Medicaid and Medicare, and all other medial should be FREE in America. Just charge every American $20 a mth for medical and that should bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of all medical care for all medical expenses.

A job that flees America and goes overseas should be made to pay their American taxes on that business. They should not be allowed to live here, sell here, or profit here tax free by taking their jobs to another country for slave labor.

We need to start protecting the American people, their jobs, their futures, and we all need to stop giving subsidized programs and ax-breaks to the rich in this country also.

It's time to take America back, end all pension benefits for government politicians, and we need to stop letting people on SS from double-dipping. You should either collect SS or work. You shouldn't be allowed to collect both, and the same should apply to all Vets as well.

@Alex-6351 -- I would be described as either a conservative Democrat or a progressive Republican - there is not much difference between to two. The last REAL Republican to live in the White House was Richard Nixon - unfortunately he was a crook. Eisenhower was a REAL Republican. REAL Republicans disappeared a long, long time ago.

You, sir, are not a Republican.

If you REALLY want to know the difference between Republicans and Democrats - read the party platforms from 2008. Each party creates a platform at their respective national conventions. The party platforms are the guidelines and priorities of each party until the next national convention. Each elected official pledges to support their respective party platform.

Republcan Party Platform for 2008

Democrat Party Platform for 2008

When you cast a vote for a party candidate - you are not only voting for the candidate. You are also endorsing the party platform and you are pledging to support that platform. Read the two platforms - open your mind - and decide which you think is best for America's future.

Eric, are you kidding? The GOP wants medical costs to SKYROCKET, so that the 1% can take more money from the poor and middle class.

Commonsense : Your post was ridiculous. Everything you wrote was pure junk, the GOP have talked about what they would do to try and LOWER medical and health cost, and have never said they wanted to give money to their rich friends. What a joke! What money would they give to the rich, the Government has NO MONEY! Your Social Security fund is empty just like mine and everyone elses. Money is gone replaced with IOU's. Trying to fix this problem while keeping the programs in place has always been the position, save your dribble for The Huffington Post Morons.

American Girl,

BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY PAID MY MONEY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE AND I WANT THE BENEFIT OF THE BARGAIN THEY PROMISED ME WHEN THEY STARTED TAKING MY MONEY!IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY ME MY RETIREMENT MONEY THEN THEY OUGHT TO GIVE IT BACK WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF INTEREST THEREON AT THE LEGAL RATE! BUT REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK, THEY WANT TO KEEP IT, STEAL IT NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THAT'S MY MONEY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!

I just read a post that Libs are more analytical than Rep but I say that is not true just look at what America Girl writes; she wants us to believe Rep are keeping our Social Security money and that could not be further from the truth. The truth is Social Security was started by president Franklin Roosevelt a Dem president. http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341#when The Rep have also tried many times to do just as she has suggested and give you your money to do with it what you will savings plan, ext. What about welfare lets reform that and either put the person to work for the welfare check or they don't get one, I am sure there would be a lot of resistance for the USA to do that and people are not entitled to that money.

But when has a Lib ever worried about FACTS.

VOTE OBAMA ALONG WITH HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP AND HIS FAILED POLICIES OUT IN 2012

PUT SOMEONE IN THAT HAS ACTUALLY RUN A COMPANY OR A MUNICIPALITY

Brad: you are absolutely correct, the US Government ratio of spending to revenue is out of control. Since the 1980's, the continued cuts to revenues have out paced the increases to spending by more than 2:1. Currently the major targets of the GOP, Medicare and Social Security, reduce the deficit rather than increase it. Both are on a trajectory for failure in the future, that is why the revenue and expenses of each need to be corrected.

The Affordable Care Act (which the GOP is intent on eliminating) does have some cost containment measures for Medicare. And why doesn't Congress finally allow the payments to doctors be reduced as it should have been for the last 5 or is it 10 years ?

The Federal budget has two sides, revenues and spending. When all efforts are designed to reduce the 20% of domestic spending and the deficit amounts to 40% of the budget, the deficit will NEVER be eliminated. 100% of discretionary domestic spending could be eliminated and the budget deficit would still exist. There must be a reduction to military spending and there must be an increase to revenues. That is the only way the deficit will be reduced.

As to Ryan's budget: I have read it. The purpose behind it is to break the promise made to people who have been paying into Social Security and Medicare for more than 30 years. The government made a promise to people: pay now and when you grow old or disabled, you will have a certain amount of money available to pay your bills and you would have medical care. The GOP plan eliminates that promise and instead gives you a voucher for which you might be able to buy insurance.

Since 100% of all medical insurance for senior citizens requires medicare as the primary insurance provider, requiring seniors to now have to go out and find private insurers (who do NOT currently exist) with a coupon for partial payment of the cost IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN HOW MEDICARE WORKS.

This is a bait and switch tactic of the worst kind and anyone who votes for a Republican really does not understand that the GOP is intent on destroying the United States of America in favor of the fuedal states of the corporations.

"I think that they have a lot to gain by supporting a bold proposal on Capitol Hill. They also find a way to speak to the base through this."

Don't you just love that word "bold?" That's Teapublican code for bullsh!t. Right, BS that ONLY speaks to the base. And no, just because something needs to be done does NOT mean supporting draconian proposals like Paul Ryan's take from the poor to give to the rich. The saddest part of it all is that these hideious "plans" would destroy everything good and still not lower deficits. Oh, and those cuts you like so much -- make sure you include cuts in defense spending, especially Homeland Security.

The first step is to make the tax code fair, with elimination of the 2003 Bush tax cuts for the rich. Then when the economy is strong enough, allow all the Bush tax cuts (2001 cuts) to expire. Also, the FICA cap needs to be increased from $106,000 up to $500,000 in income, plus means testing -- Millionaires need not collect.

But most of all, don't steal from trust funds like Social Security, run up deficits with unnecessary war, then tell people "oh, gee golly whiz, we have to cut your benefits." Jagoffs, pay the IOU! You can't just walk away from the debt you incurred--face the damn music and work on real solutions. Everyone knows people can't get health insurance in the private sector after the age of 50 with any pre-existing condition and afford to pay for it!

President Obama is able to propose a budget very close to the same amount, yet does not destroy safety nets to do it. Conservatives, think about why that is. Think about what far-right radicals like Paul Ryan are really trying to accomplish. They don't give a rats arse about deficits--they have dreamed of ending all social programs from the the day these were put in place. Why? So that we can forced into a Race to the Bottom, with every man, women, and child for his/herself? WTF?

I'm not surprised Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin. Look at that smug little sh!t Gov. Scott Walker who cut programs and attacked middle class workers in order to give bigger tax breaks to corporations. He's about to be thrown out of office. Paul Ryan, keep it up, because you're next.

Throw all the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

As has been said upstream, the program pays current intake out to those already retired. The money that was paid is gone. Social Security was funded with the largest generation in the known world paying in. That generation, when they came of voting age, voted for the politicians who bankrupted the system and then raided the bank. The tax cuts, the projects, the pork, the favors, much of these went to the American people in the form of garbage, candy, empty calories.
NOW, the bank funds are empty. Have been. Now, the administration decides to bolster the economy by taking less of what it needs to fund the SS programs it cannot fund already. And the whole time my parents and grandparents are screaming about "Where THEIR money is", the government has got me, their child and grandchild, in an alley with a gun to my back and their hand in my wallet.
This isn't about "wealthy Republicans" or even Democrats for that matter. Its a matter of a social program that was broken from the outset, funded on unrealistic expectations, and hammered by an assortment of social, political, and financial issues through the course of its life. You want to know where your money is? Look around you. Look at the people you voted for over the last thirty years.

I'm 28. I own my own business. I will never retire, I cannot retire, because the government will always need my money to pay for the people who made mistakes before me. I started paying in at 16 when I got a legit job, but I couldn't even vote for two years. At 18, I was literally stuck with the classic South Park "Douche or Turd Sandwich" options, and now grandma and grandpa are demanding a pound of flesh from me for the mistakes they made decades ago. You want "what's yours?" Fine; but know you're taking it from me. You're not taking it from "them", you're taking it from me, from your children and grandchildren, because you cannot deal with the matter yourself.

Where do you liberals think money comes from and how is it backed?

@LogicReguired -- Fair enough. You are correct, I did not answer your question.

Inflation can be caused in three ways. The government or banking simply printing money - not borrowing money but actually creating money not backed by anything in the economy - will create inflation by adding excess dollars to the economy. The government can create dollars by simply printing them. Banks create dollars through debt. Outside of government, in the private sector economy inflation can be created by either wage inflation or tangible inflation. Wage inflation means price increases are caused by increased labor costs - workers are not hurt so much by wage inflation because prices rise in step with wage increases. Tangible inflation is caused by rises in the cost of tangibles in the economy - energy, raw materials, equipment. Tangible inflation hurts workers because their wages do not rise in step with price increases.

The manufacturing sector has declined over the past 30 years - the decline in domestic manufacturing has resulted in a decline in wages. Inflation in the economy has not been caused by increasing wages.

The economic sector that has dramatically increased over the past 30 years is the financial services sector. That growth in the financial services sector has been based on speculation in debt, raw materials, energy, and other tangibles in the economy. Wall Street does not speculate on wage increases - only on tangible 'values' in the economy. The inflation in the economy is linked directly to growth in the financial services sector.

Declining wages - lower government revenue. Speculative inflation - increased costs. That is why Wall Street is more responsible for creating our national debt than the government.

The bottom line is that an adult has to make hard choices, a kid does not. A adult will make hard choices even if it makes people not like them, a kid will try and give everyone everything so you will like them.

Just like a good president has to make hard choices even though he may anger a lot, hard choices have to be they are necessary for America to be successful as a nation. A bad president, like a kid will not make tough decision and will try to give everyone everything, even if it hurts us, for people to like them.

VOTE OUT THE KID IN 2012 AND PUT IN AN ADULT

Ever check your dog for ticks? I do. Once while checking an English Shepherd under a bright light, there, looking straight back at me was this big eyed, blood sucking bastard of a tick. Seen and pulled many ticks. Mostly, they've all looked pretty much the same, but this first mentioned was different. It was the way It looked out of It's eyes. Face and eyes looked just like those of "Paul Ryan" in the articles featured photo. The wisconsinites have sent a "bloodsucking tick" to the Congress and stuck it to the tender ass of America, and I for one, resent the hell out of them for doing it! Wisconsin!, get rid if this piece of Sh^t!

Alex and Fed up - Good posts, good points. We need to focus more on issues and debating potential solutions instead of calling each other names. The question is, how do we do that? I know there was/is a group trying to become a middle ground party. Maybe we throw our support there and try to gather like minded folks to the middle? Personally I tend to be a moderate conservative, though somewhat to the left on social issues (a bit libertarian, perhaps.) I believe that the most imminent threat to our national security lies perversely from our own government. Its unwillingness to spend within its means will ultimately kill the country.

So my personal view is these spending cuts to ss and medicare are necessary. We also need to end the Bush tax cuts - across the board, not just on the wealthy. Third, we need to shrink the military budget as well. I know it sounds like austerity, and maybe it is. But though it will be hard to do now, and will have unpleasant effects on the current economy, I beleive these are things that need to be done. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts, and trying to get some honest debate going.

More misinformation, using AHA/Medicare as a Red Herring, inable to ever tell more than a half-truth, which makes it a lie. That is the Ryan/Republican Plan.

The Democrats are also stuttering when they offer few pragmatic comprehensive solutions as well.

From

PolitiFact | $500 billion from Medicare for Obamacare

The national health care reform law, though, made several changes to Medicare, which makes up 12 percent of the federal budget.

In a few cases, the law actually increased Medicare spending to provide more benefits and coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a trusted independent source that analyzes the health care system. For instance, the health care law added money to cover prevention services and to fill a gap for enrollees who purchase prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program. (That coverage gap is sometimes called the doughnut hole).

Other provisions are designed to reduce future growth in Medicare spending, to encourage the program to operate more efficiently and to improve the delivery and quality of care, in ways including reducing hospital re-admissions. The bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009.

So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare.

For all of you claiming Paul Ryan is being the adult by addressing spending....let him suggest cutting anything the Republicans want instead of Social Security and Medicare.

Cut Defense spending, raise taxes on the rich and be a real adult, Ryan.

Do you really think it takes an adult to say all the politicians spent your money and now YOU must pay for our mistakes? Get the money somewhere else and stop feeding us garbage.

@StoptheCannibals-2908428

For all of you claiming Paul Ryan is being the adult by addressing spending....let him suggest cutting anything the Republicans want instead of Social Security and Medicare.

While I would personally agree that we need to make some fairly massive cuts in the defense budget you're comparing apples to oranges. SS and Medicare are quickly becoming insolvent. Without reform they would eventually take up 100% of tax revenue, so how exactly do you suppose that's going to work? At the current rate within the next 30 years we won't have the money to pay the interest on our massive debt, every penny we bring in will go to fund Social Security and Medicare. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize something needs to change, you just need to stop buying into and then regurgitating the nonsense and drivel.

Where to start?

to the person who "owns his own business at age 28." Good for you but a lemonade stand and a paper route do not count. Go and tell your parents and grandparents that they screwed up by voting for the wrong people. Hindsight is 20/20 but I know people who bet on the instant replay and still get it wrong. SS & Medicare may have been flawed from the start but they were promises made by your (and my) elected officials. I started working at age 16 for $1.05 an hour. Retired at age 65. Am I getting SS & Medicare? Yes. Do I "need" them? No. With my pension, IRA, 401K, etc.l I am at the point where my SS income is taxed. So be it. But it was $$ that I paid into the system for 46 years. Tell you what, cut off my SS right now but give me a tax deduction every year until "my" account is zeroed out. Or, if the feds have a few bucks laying around just give me a check for whatever is theoretically in my SS account. You don't even need to pay me any interest on that money, just the principal. Right now I'm saving every dime of my SS money and when it reaches a certain level I am going to divide it equally among my children so that they will get at least something for their contributions.

Since there is no cap on Medicare earnings, why not remove the artificial cap on SS earnings. Will not solve the problem overnight but it will help.

Someone asked why Ryan was elected in the first place and keeps getting re-elected. I used to live in that district. He was first elected because the Dems put up a weak candidate. He keeps getting re-elected because the Dems keep putting up weak-ass candidates, because when you meet him he comes off as a nice young man, not at all crazy. But the real reasons he keeps getting re-elected is that his district was gerrymandered to make it just about impossible for a Democrat to win. Ronald Reagan could come back as a Dem and still not win that district. Also, Ryan has a couple of million dollars in the bank provided to him by the health care and insurance lobbies. Acts as a serious deterrent to any challenger.

Ryan's budget proposal--same pig, different lipstick.

Here's solution for funding SSI and Medicare, take the billions we send overseas to our enemies and use it here where it will do some good. All the money we've flushed down the toilet in Afghanistan and Pakistan haven't done any good for this country so let's put it where it's needed.

Tyler - I think you are wrong for suspending SeekingSanity he was talking about a group no an individual, you guys never suspend FiestyRedHead for the same conduct. It stinks... I know Know I too am suspended right.

Ugh. Okay, I'll commend the Republicans for offering a plan, but that is as far as it goes.

Ryan-What about my generation??? What is it about your plan that is "credible?" I mean, you offer a helluva lot of cuts and reductions, but you do NOTHING to increase revenues. Not even for entitlements. It's all cut-cut-cut with you damn right-wingers. What ever happened to shared sacrifice??? You plan to deal with our fiscal crisis solely on the spending side. I admit that we are spending too much. Why do I say this??? Because I am afraid for the mounting debt, NOT because I am one of those idiotic small-government idealists. If you want to reform entitlements, there is way to do it without privatizing them. Simply set the cap to 90% of earned income, reinstate the estate tax, use progressive indexing, raise the retirement age to 67, raise taxes on benefits, and adjust COLA. That would eliminate the entire shortfall for SS plus over 100%, and could be applied to Medicare. But no; you don't have the @!$%#ing guts to tell the rich that they need to pay more, and so you throw this onto my generation.

And what is with this tax code plan??? Two brackets??? Are you nuts???? You would cut taxes FURTHER in a freaking debt crisis??? How the HELL did this guy get into the House fiscal committee??? You don't cut taxes in a debt crisis; you RAISE them. Revenues as a share of GDP are barely 15-16%. Before the Bush tax cuts, they were 21%. Why can't you remove the Bush tax cuts??? Maybe not now, as we are in the middle of a recovery, but a few years from now??? I think Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes if the money was being spent IN America instead of on stupid foreign adventures. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Add that with reforming the tax code, spending cuts, and entitlement reform, and you could ELIMINATE future deficits. But that only happens with tax increases. Face it, Ryan: tax cuts don;'t work anymore. If the Bush tax cuts couldn't help us, how could any further cuts do anything better??? In fact, it is proven that tax cuts don't do much to help unemployment. They don't. Here is MY deficit plan; reforms entitlements and the tax code while trimming costs AND working to help the economy. I wished Obama had a better budget, but at least he isn't cutting into domestic programs and safety nets that support the poor and the middle class. Anybody who supports the Ryan budget is either an idiot or a psychopath.

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases, mostly overseas, to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $2.7 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts but retaining about $1.1 trillion for the middle class.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Reform tax code: decrease about 70% of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Broaden tax base. Approximate savings=$ 737.1 billion a year.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Total savings=~$13 trillion plus perhaps trillions more in interest.

I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie… Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by the mid-to-late 2020s.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology every year for 4 years.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects every year for 4 years.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.
• Reform Post Office. Eliminate 60,000 payrolls through early retirement, increase stamp costs to $.51, cut administrative salaries and budgets, pay freeze, adopt methods that FedEx and UPS do, transition to an energy-efficient postal fleet and turn postal buildings "green," and find more ways to trim costs.

Man, there sure are a bunch of right wing haters on this vine today. I just wish the ones that love to use the word "LIBERAL" would look up the words definition in the dictionary. That might be to much to ask since they've already been brainwashed to the point where their beyond help.

It almost looks like flip-flop Mitt did this budget. He wanted it to look good but then when they realize its not a functutal budget they want to change it. Do you really want to vote for a Repube for president? I read a post where the person was saying that 99 out of a 100 repubes are morons, I have to agree and anyone that votes for a repube is a moron too. The repubes can't even come up with a budget thats good for them and people are going to vote for them? No way, lol, can't be, it just dosen't make any sense at all, but then they voted Dubya in two times, so its not to bright of a bunch of people voting here.

@Bill1488

you guys never suspend FiestyRedHead for the same conduct.

FiestyRedHead sticks to the boards where no one ever get suspended, if she dared stray into one of the others she'd be banned for life weekly.

daMoose52 -- Oh stop boo-hooing. My siblings and I are baby boomers, and each one of us have been hit hard by the Great Recession in terms of our 401Ks, home equity, lay-off/pay cuts, etc. -- All the things one traditionally depends on to retire has been wiped out for my generation. On top of that, siblings with kids have sacrificed everything to help their kids in this poor job market, even to the detriment of their own retirement.

My mother and others in her generation are the only ones who have done okay in this recession thanks to Social Security and Medicare. I would not begrudge her this, and in fact feel this is a testament to the success of these programs and all the more reason we need to protect and strengthen these programs. Lord knows many in my generation will have to work until they die, but without Medicare would be completely doomed.

You have your whole life ahead of you. Make good education, career, and financial decisions. But don't attack those who have done the right things but are screwed nonetheless thanks to failed Teapublican policies.

oneiron-4324713 -- And likewise to you already retired, stop boo-hooing. Social Security is like an insurance plan. Even though you may never make a claim, you don't get your premiums reimbursed. That's the only way SS could work. If we all put away a little each pay period into a savings account, we could never retire on it. The SS funds are pooled and invested in T-bills. Similarly that's how you get your vehicle replaced when you total it if need be, because your premiums would not be enough to pay for that, get it?

The problem is more people are living longer and in poorer health. We need to be realistic and prepare. Just ending these programs is a cop-out and a despicable one at that. Paul Ryan is delusional--his plan would put us back to pre-industrial days when conditions were horrible and society paid the price in other ways.

We need to increase the cap on FICA, means test, and reduce health care costs with a universal health care system for all. Social Security and Medicare would be solvent overnight.

Um, would we need Medicaid in a universal healthcare system?? Medicaid is for the poor, and wouldn't we dismantle it because everyone would have government-run healthcare??

And conservatives: why do you hate government-run healthcare, or even mandated healthcare??? Much of the world already use it, including "socialist Europe," and they live MUCH longer than we do and have much more efficient systems. I personally don't mind having a universal healthcare system; sure, I might be another young "socialist" and "Marxist," but if it is more efficient I'd be all okay for it. Hell, sometimes capitalism sucks, and we need socialism. I think that a blend of capitalism and a tiny drop of socialism is the best for an economy and a nation. The life of someone is not necessarily something you want to leave wholly in the hands of the for-profit and cost-cutting "free market." What say you??

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS 2012

OBAMACARE 2012

And Rich 1.32, when did the GOP EVER offer a deficit reduction with tax increases. The Ryan plan CUTS Taxes significantly. Even today, the plan consists of $5.3 trillion in cuts and $2 trillion in LOWER REVENUES!!!!!!! That is a crock and a shame, and the damn GOP ought to rot in hell for their obstructionist and assine attitude. @!$%# the GOP, and to HELL with tax cuts for the wealthy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I guess with so many GOP in congress going down this November, Ryan wants to ensure the Presidential Candidates will fail too. I know they're depending on the ill-informed and weak-minded to carry the votes for them, but hay, look how many voted for Bush twice...well at least the first time..ha ha ha

I know it's got to be real hard for them to figure that Obama really got elected rightfully so, even with all their underhanded ways to steal as many votes as they did. It must be heart breaking for them. They just can't believe he won. ha ha ha. So now they want to make sure every possible Dem can't vote or they'll throw them votes out. That's why the made up voter fraud crap is they're new agenda. But the GOP is the only one commiting the fraud. hee hee hee Talk about third world politicians, well they ante got nothing over the GOP here in America.

I hope so, jones. I pray for it. I really do.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

LOL.....ANY BUDGET is better than running a country for over THREE YEARS with NO BUDGET.

But....Leave it to Beaver.....uh.....Mr. Obama.

I believe it has only two tax brackets as well: 10% and 25% = huge deficits immediately. And Romney's plan is even worse. Throw the Teapublicans out!

LMFAO.....collapsed in Comment #1.25 for telling the truth. What uniformed Liberal did that?

I received this text message from my friend that's an economics major in Eau Claire, Wisconsin:

"It's a common sense assumption that the more people you have living and working in America, the more spending there will be. Right-wingers are really afraid of numbers that get bigger. This is why they cannot manage economies of such larger scales, such as government budgets. Best they stick to mismanaging their household budgets, it's within their grasp for their smaller minds to handle."

Tell your friend he needs to switch majors.......That is asinine.

Unfortunately, Hiram, if you look at the budget and fiscal records of the last three Republican administrations and the budget proposals from the Republican candidates, Rradiko's friend is right on the dot. I mean, it is pretty obvious that conservatives don't know how to balance budgets in a fair manner. What they think is that they can simply fix the problem by cutting spending and then cutting taxes in the hopes that the economy will make up for lost revenue. Unfortunately, it is proven that tax cuts often (note that I say often and not always) do little to stimulate an economy, and almost never pay for themselves. Take an adviser to President Bush who stated that Romney's tax proposal would usher in "dynamic growth" by cutting taxes by 20%, far more ambitious than the Bush tax cuts and far more expensive. In my view, if Romney's tax plan was to be implemented and the average tax on 1% of GDP growth is about 15%, the economy would have to expand by about $22.67 TRILLION dollars over 10 years. Assuming that our economy is $15 trillion, that is an explosion of over 150%, or 15% every year. My model is obviously flawed, but there was a report on CNN where it was estimated that Romney's tax plan would require a 5.4% annual GDP growth every year in order to be revenue neutral. That is higher than growth during the dot-com boom. There is NO way that tax cuts will EVER pay for themselves, and I say raise taxes on all of us right now. Let us have higher taxes now so we won't have to pay double 10 years from now.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

F*** THE RYAN BUDGET 2.0

"AX THE TAX CODE" ?? BYE> BYE> "DEFICIT" ...

Funny how you rail against Republicans and seniors for Medicare, when it was passed by the Democrats in Congress and signed into law by the Democrat in the White House Lyndon B Johnson. It cost 3 billion in 1966 and was projected by Congress to cost 12 billion in 1990. Of course like everything coming from Congress the price was grossly understated and it cost 107 billion in 1990. So you fools that believe any of the costs or savings surrounding ObamaCare here is a preview of that reality.

Social Security was another Democrat sponsored and passed piece of legislation in 1935, and signed into law by Democratic President Roosevelt. There is no social security lock box, and the program is going broke. That fact is not up for debate, it is a matter of when and not if.

So here we have people that rail against Republicans and seniors for programs started and passed by the Democratic Party. Programs that so far only the Republicans have come to the table with any solutions to try and fix their inevitable collapse, and somehow they are the ones being demonized. I guess the supporters of the Democratic Party are just too use to being told what the politicians want them to hear, to now be expected to face reality.

I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to the idea of our society helping retired elderly Americans obtain health care. What's going on here? Do people forget that they will someday be elderly themselves?

What does it say about our society when we spend hundreds of billions of dollars making weapons to kill people while complaining about having to spend money caring for our parents and grandparents?

Rick - Here's the reality.....Republicans HATE HATE HATE Medicare and Social Security and have been trying to "get rid of them" for decades going back as far as right after Social Security was implemented. That's how much they despise these programs. They are not honest brokers in their attempt to "save Medicare and Social Security". Those are just code words to their base that they will end them given the opportunity to do so. If the American people vote in Republicans to the majority in the Senate and the Presidency, these programs will vanish as we know them and the American people will be hurt badly by this. These two programs are the only security the middle class has left and they are easily fixable. I propose to anyone here that the majority of working Americans would gladly pay a little more in FICA taxes to ensure these programs are there for them when they become old.

Well laurie-480643 isn't it he Republicans that are offering the solutions to fix the problems with those programs? Or are you of the belief they are fine and will last forever as is? How about sighting your source for your "Republicans HATE HATE HATE" rant?

Rick - Spare me... please. All anyone has to do is go back in history and see the evolution of Republican thought on these programs. Enough said. The Health Care Act addressed a number of areas relative to Medicare and found $300 billion plus in savings in this program. But I wouldn't expect you to site that relevant fact. So yes the Democrats absolutely offered solutions to Medicare. Additionally, an increase in FICA taxes for every worker should also be on the table. Again most workers would gladly pay a few dollars more to insure these programs are there in their current form for them.

Rick 546746: I can solve the problem you have with one of the "pampered". Have the govt. issue me a refund for the full amount of the "entitlement" I have been paying into for the last 40 years and I'll happily go away.

Republican solutions for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security = Eliminate them.

Those are the facts. That's why Republicans won't raise revenues. They have to stick to the starve the beast policies that got us here today to remove the entitlements.

@laurie-480643

The Health Care Act addressed a number of areas relative to Medicare and found $300 billion plus in savings in this program. But I wouldn't expect you to site that relevant fact

ROTFLMAO! Because it isn't relevant since it is NOT a fact. It's a projection based on the usual BS or politicians throw at us. This figure is based on a 27% cut to physicians and it's been on the table since 2003! Congress delays it every year including the two years Obama had a filibuster proof majority. If it did pass all that it would mean is that you'll pay more out of pocket, good luck getting that to pass, seniors would riot in the streets which is why politicians treat it like a hot potato. If you believe that is suddenly going to happen you are as naive as you sound.

Why is it that Democrats believe oil is a finite resource and we have to tax it and regulate it to death because some day it's going to run out but they believe tax dollars are infinite, will never run out so we need to make no regulatory changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? @Eric-913730. Wasn't it President Obama who cut the SS payroll tax and refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire, so isn't he the one starving the beast? You do realize that even if you confiscated all the wealth of the 1% you might be able to fund government programs for about a week or so?

@cindy-1134090

Rick 546746: I can solve the problem you have with one of the "pampered". Have the govt. issue me a refund for the full amount of the "entitlement" I have been paying into for the last 40 years and I'll happily go away.

it is not that simple and here is why:

republicans say that if we just allow people to keep all their money that they can use their money to provide for their own care. makes sense. but what happens to those that simply squander that money away? should they be left to rot? the epitome of that idea was ron paul in whatever one of those debates. said exactly that, in nicer words, of course, because he wasnt willing to face the logical conclusion of his idea.

what about those who do actually manage their money responsibly, but still don't make enough money to cover their health expenses? should we leave them to rot an die as well?

and here lies the difference between liberals and conservatives: we see someone who by no fault of their own, are in bad times, and we even see those who by their own poor choices, are in bad times, and we have an innate desire to help, not question their motives. conservatives, on the other hand, i have no idea what they want to do.

there is a psychology term, which escapes me right now. but it describes a behavior where people derive pleasure from watching the misery of others and they justify it by convincing themselves that they are in a better situation because they made better choices.

im sorry. thats a pathology to me. and it appears most, if not all, modern conservatives are afflicated by it.

Will someone please inform Mr. Cantor Tea Pothead that Social Security is NOT an entitlement? And he'd better stop calling it that or his ass will be grass come next election for him if it isn't already.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are EARNED INCOME BENEFITS. NOT ENTITLEMENTS. I'm fed up with these little twerp snot nosed Daycare brats who think they can just rip off what someone else worked for and paid into for 4 or more decades so they can send it all to their private contractors on Wall Street to play high risk games with. That's really what Cantor PotParty is all about. He fools no one.

All of these programs are earned through regular payroll deductions. Just like the 401Ks. With one major difference. These programs are safe so long as there remain a working class of Americans. Can anyone with a 401K tied to Wall Street say the same? How many people bitched from 2004 through 2008 about how much their 401Ks lost?

Earned income benefits are benefits of working your ass off and then paying for programs we want that we KNOW are secure. Nothing tied to Wall Street is secure anymore. Not when half the population of Wall Street are a bunch of hot to trot Madoffers in little bois suits.

laurie: Republicans HATE HATE HATE Medicare and Social Security and have been trying to "get rid of them" for decades going back as far as right after Social Security was implemented.

My, so dramatic. I guess if you yell, shout, and wave your arms around like a crazy person, someone might pay attention to your rants. Getting rid of these programs doesn't exactly solve many problems. Reforming these two very underfunded and mismanaged programs so they can serve the next generation does solve some problems. The GOP has put forth their ideas. Don't like them? Well, lets see the Democrats plan, the plan other than to demagogue the GOP plan.

laurie: I propose to anyone here that the majority of working Americans would gladly pay a little more in FICA

Obama just won a "fight" with the GOP lowering payroll taxes. The pundits all cheered this victory by Obama as him "fighting for the people". Obama is not back-filling the loss of those funds laurie. FICA is being defunded by Obama to the cheers of all, so I truly doubt they'll cheer if he ever decides to increase those taxes.

And you're entitled to the money you put in ewent. Hence the name entitlements! Duh.

mhrjhn...So you are also entitled to your 401K? That's an entitlement too...So is the house you pay a mortage off on. So is that car you buy on time. Come off that BS. That word "entitlement" is a word all righties use to demonize people doing nothing more than denying Wall Street more high risk with our payroll deductions.

Those who call earned income benefits "entitlements" do so for effect and to divide and conquer. If the Republicans could get their syrupy mitts on SS, Medicare and Medicaid payroll deductions, it would be in the hands of another Madoff Wall Street as we post is breeding right now.

The rich bitch even with all the money that helps them live large. It's time to remind these rich bitches who helped them get their wealth. They didn't do it without consumers, taxpayers or their employees. They can drop their autonomous wealth BS. No one falls for that anymore.

Cindy, don't forget to get your interest on that payment. :)

Backcountry164 - you really shouldn't open your mouth unless you know what you're talking about. President Obama had a filibuster proof majority for 7 months - from July 2009 to February 2010. But, you love to pretend he had it for 2 years. Get your facts straight.

Some people are to stupid to understand what entitlement means, who the hell do they think they are to force the people to pay into a fund and now say we should not get what We paid for, they can all kiss my Azz...

Rick...Grow up. How safe is your money with Wall Street? You are obviously too young to know what happens when speculators get hold of all the money you invest. Ask anyone whose parents lived through the Crash of '29. They would tell you that no matter how much money you had in any bank, when the banks slammed shut, your money went with it.

Now for all the young pups out there too stupid to know what a real speculator-caused Depression is like. Take a good look at what the oil speculators are doing to the price of oil right now. There is no shortage of oil. There are 200 million barrels in US reserve and the use has gone down 11% in just the last 3 years. But as we all know, alternative energy is making Big Oil's obscene profits take a huge hit and they don't like it. Well, boo hoo.

The only stupid people I see are those all too willing to trust Wall Street. Ask those who got Madoffed how much they'd trust Wall Street. I'll bet anything they are now forced to rely on their Social Security.

Because you are too young to know this, FDR instituted Social Security because too many Americans ended up with banks stealing every dime they had in savings. It's also why the FDIC was created. Do you bitch about that too? Too bad if you have to have payroll deductions taken from your paycheck.

If your Wall Street investments nose dive and you're left with zero and have NO SS, what do you think you'll do? Go begging the rest of us to provide for people too stupid to see that Wall Street is an insecure greed drive platform of investment that has already crashed 4 times in less than 75 years while Social Security is still going strong after that same 75 years?

Your post fools no one. People like you would love nothing better than to have wads of payroll deductions to play with on high risk investments that "entitle" your ilk to more taxpayer bailouts.

"Wasn't it President Obama who cut the SS payroll tax and refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire,".......... REFUSED? hahahahahahaha, yea, he refused to let the bush tax cuts expire. is the rightwing really that stupid or do they think dems are that stupid.

If the money paid into Social Security and Medicare had been handled correctly these problems would probably not exist. But our congress started to steal from the funds to pay for their pet projects and the Pentagram "borrowed" money, never paid back, to pay for their pet projects. Before you cut SS and Medicare how about cutting the entitlements congress gets. And don't foreget the 401 k's that bottomed out when the market crashed.

Just so you know, SS was running Billions in surplus back in the late 60s and early 70s and was sustainable indefinitely. That is until Teddy Kennedy and his buddies decided to "Borrow" from it for mass transit projects in Boston. They stole, in mean, borrowed billions from SS and never paid any of it back, which by definition is stealing. That is exactly what put SS in the shape it is in today, when Kennedy stole billions from it. Now wasn't that the bad ol' Republicans fault ?... Opps, my bad, Teddy boy was a Democrat, so there's no blaming the SS mess on the R's. Another Democrat stroke of brilliance, with SS being in such dire straits Obama cuts the payroll tax that funds it.... Damn republicans.<sarcasm>

The Republicans like to make the 'worthless IOU' claim - which only shows that Republicans do not understand finance, the economy, or 'personal responsibility'.

I suppose the housing bust was based on 'Republican thinking'. After all, those loans and mortgages were just 'worthless IOUs'. No one should be required to pay back a 'worthless IOU' - paying back a 'worthless IOU' wouldn't be very 'conservative', would it?

ewent

Thanks for your post...some of these "me, me ,me baby's, just don't get it YET. Maybe if the had to support Mom, Dad for a few years, they would get it!!??

@SeekingSanity

Backcountry164 - you really shouldn't open your mouth unless you know what you're talking about. President Obama had a filibuster proof majority for 7 months - from July 2009 to February 2010. But, you love to pretend he had it for 2 years. Get your facts straight.

I've got my facts straight, you are the one who's clueless. Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, while being elected as independents, BOTH CAUCUSED WITH THE DEMOCRATS, thus giving them a filibuster proof majority.

Aside from that my point remains valid, even if the super-majority only lasted 7 months the dems still did not pass the bill Obama needs to validate his 300 billion Medicare savings making the claim just more of his BS. Like the 900 billion his Health Care Act was supposedly going to cost. That was a 10 year projection by the CBO which, by law, could not factor in the fact that most of it would not even go into effect for years. The new CBO 10 year estimate puts it at 1.76 trillion which is why we don't hear a peep about it from Obama as we're closing in on the 2 year anniversary of his signature legislation. Independent estimates put the real cost at well over 2 trillion when (if) it goes into effect completely.

@praysalot

Thanks for your post...some of these "me, me ,me baby's, just don't get it YET. Maybe if the had to support Mom, Dad for a few years, they would get it!!??

Ummm, that's what we're doing NOW. The only difference is we give the money to the government and let them squander half of it before they pass what's left on to our parents. Clearly you are the one who has trouble "getting it".

BANG!

"What was that?"

"Oh, nothing, just the GOP shooting themselves in the foot again."

BANG!

"What was THAT?"

"They reloaded."

Obama/Biden 2012

"I think that they have a lot to gain by supporting a bold proposal on Capitol Hill. They also find a way to speak to the base through this."

Don't you just love that word "bold?" That's Teapublican code for bullsh!t. Right, BS that ONLY speaks to the base. And no, just because something needs to be done does NOT mean supporting draconian proposals like Paul Ryan Hood's arse-backward plan to take from the poor to give to the rich. The saddest part of it all is that these hideious "plans" would destroy everything good and still not lower deficits. Oh, and those cuts you like so much -- make sure you include cuts in defense spending, especially Homeland Security.

The first step is to make the tax code fair, with elimination of the 2003 Bush tax cuts for the rich. Then when the economy is strong enough, allow all the Bush tax cuts (2001 cuts) to expire. Also, the FICA cap needs to be increased from $106,000 up to $500,000 in income, plus means testing -- Millionaires need not collect.

But most of all, don't steal from trust funds like Social Security, run up deficits with unnecessary war, then tell people "oh, gee golly whiz, we have to cut your benefits." Jagoffs, pay the IOU! You can't just walk away from the debt you incurred--face the damn music and work on real solutions. Everyone knows people can't get health insurance in the private sector after the age of 50 with any pre-existing condition and afford to pay for it!

President Obama is able to propose a budget very close to the same amount, yet does not destroy safety nets to do it. Conservatives, think about why that is. Think about what far-right radicals like Paul Ryan are really trying to accomplish. They don't give a rats arse about deficits--they have dreamed of ending all social programs from the the day these were put in place. Why? So that we are forced into a Race to the Bottom, with every man, women, and child for his/herself? WTF?

I'm not surprised Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin. Look at that smug little sh!t Gov. Scott Walker who cut programs and attacked middle class workers in order to give bigger tax breaks to corporations. He's about to be thrown out of office. Paul Ryan, keep it up, because you're next.

Throw all the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

Rick-3608408

Your right Rick, some people are too stupid to undrstand what an entilement is and from your post; it is understood that you are too stupid. I have gone to war and I have paid into this system my entire life and to have a person of your incredible hate filled rants is why more and more people are going to run from the republican party. Your parents I am sure (you probably hate them.) are very proud of you.

zaruski, You liberals have this desire to help everybody, but not with your own money. You want to do all this good with the money you confiscate from somebody else. I don't mind helping somebody else, but I don't want to help those who don't even try to help themselves. Those whose idea of a career is sucking money from the government and finding new ways of getting more money from the government. You might want to pretend that there are very few of those leaches out there, but in reality it's a very large number. Until the waste in these systems is cleaned up, don't try to lay a guilt trip on me, or appease your conscience on my dime. If all of the liberals on this site crying for more taxing and spending were to open their own check books and donate something, maybe we wouldn't need all of these government programs.

cindy-1134090

I would not make that offer. All you paid would not pay for one heart attack or one questionable knee replacement. Have you looked in to what it being charged by medical providers these days? Astonishing! But then, those mansions on the hill that are the "homes" of Doctors have to be paid somehow. Not many Doctors are familiar with the "taste" of what it means to be middle class. Maybe during medical school; but certainly not many years after they complete it.

And the propaganda beat goes on. Look at all I have paid into the system!! Unfortunately, it is a pittance compared to what you expect to take out of it.

Junicon - Not complaining about helping my grandparents; complaining about the government doing a bad job of "helping" my grandparents for me.

If one never had piles one would never have had to use "preparation H". If the country had never elected republicans the country would never have fallen victim to institutionalized thievery.

laurie-480643 If Republicans hate Medicare/SS then why did George Bush fight so hard to get the prescription drug program through for the Elderly. People seem to have selective memory when it comes to programs. And why did Obama cut Medicare by $500 billion last year? Oh my he hates hates hates the elderly!! (Ridiculous, just like your statement) Ant the cuts were mostly to medical providers who if they are any good, are not taking any new medicare patients today. In the end someone in government, from either party, has only their best interest at heart.

I would imagine that there are quite a few people that would not be willing to have their FICA go up. In fact, if I recall, we are paying 2% less in SS right now (into our 2nd yr) which was a ridiculous proposal considering the shape of the fund. And there would be yelling from someone if they would have stopped that 2% in Dec. Oh there was, I believe the Dem's in Congress were crying, the Republicans hate the poor, they need to pass it..... SS cannot afford this 2% cut especially with high unemployment adding to the shortage and baby boomers retiring early because of unemployment. They should have decreased Federal Withholding by 2% instead.

SS was not intended to be one's sole retirements in the first place. And initially when passed by Roosevelt it was only to be given to those people who 'paid' into the fund. All that has changed over the years. Now people believe it's their sole retirement plan and they are entitled to it regardless of whether they contribute or not. We should go back to the original bill as it was written, only for those that contribute, period.

The problem with raising the FICA rate is that Congress will indeed spend it or borrow from it to pay for pet projects. There needs to be restrictions on the Fund, just as there are on a 401K, 408, etc. Congress cannot touch it. Maybe then people might trust the government with their savings.

But at a point, people need to stop relying on the goverment to take care of them. They just need to take care of themselves and their own family members. Just as the families did before SS even came into play. Children took care of their parents, parents took care of the grandparents and children. They seemed to survive just fine for many many many generations.

God you Republicans make me ill.

First off, for those of you mouthing off about how money has been "stolen" from the Social Security Trust Fund (I particularly like the comments about Teddy Kennedy appropriating billions) - provide sources or shut up. I've yet to see one bit of fact (but plenty of fiction) to back it up.

Would you like to know what "constitutes" a "raid" on Social Security? Here it is.

Back in 1983 when the government bumped up the FICA taxes (for social security and medicare), the government was pulling in - and we still are to this day (in 2009, total benefits paid out equalled $686 billion compared to income - taxes and interest [more on that in a second] of $807 billion) - more money in terms of what they collect vs. what they pay. The government authorized the social security system to make "loans" to the government in terms of treasury bills... the same type you and I buy when we buy a treasure note.

So what constitutes a "raid"? Well, if you believe that the treasury notes are worthless, then social security has truly been "raided". The fact that we're running a surplus [back to that "interest" I spoke of above] between payroll taxes and the interest paid back from the treasury on those initial treasuries purchases says we're not broke.

You want to know what the real bitch of the Republican party is? Let me sum it up for you. Rather than using the surpluses to purchase treasuries, one big leg of what the Republicans want to do is to use the surplus to invest it in private securities with potential return rates above and beyond what the treasuries pay out. So the potential reward is higher - but so is the risk. For those of you who retired recently or thought about retirement but can't afford it because your 401(k) funds took a nosedive... how would you feel if your social security money went the way of the 401(k) funds? Probably not very happy. The fact is, Treasuries - while they don't produce a huge return on the initial investment - do offer some security because there's a set return on the investment.

Here's another issue that Republicans never think about.

The Social Security "Trust" funds are controlled by presidential appointees on the Social Security's board of trustees. Can you imagine what the fallout would be if the "presidential appointees" for Bush had chosen to invest your money into Halliburton? Or if Obama's presidential appointees invested funds in that "solar panel" company that people are hopping up and down about? If the money is being invested in private funds - someone has to make the call as to which funds to invest in. If they make the wrong choice - it's my social security on the line.

The other lovely Republican idea is to allow YOU to invest your social security money as you see fit (kind of like a quasi-401(k)). You could choose from a select group of investment - all run by prominent financial service firms. Yeah - that idea has some merit. That makes a lot of sense... let's provide Wall Street with more steady, fee-based income to play with. And then, when the individual has made a poor investment choice and the value of their social security is half what they paid into it when they retire - who is going to be responsible for providing for that elderly senior? Johnny tax payer.

Soldier's Dad

Just so you know, SS was running Billions in surplus back in the late 60s and early 70s and was sustainable indefinitely. That is until Teddy Kennedy and his buddies decided to "Borrow" from it for mass transit projects in Boston. They stole, in mean, borrowed billions from SS and never paid any of it back, which by definition is stealing. That is exactly what put SS in the shape it is in today, when Kennedy stole billions from it. Now wasn't that the bad ol' Republicans fault ?... Opps, my bad, Teddy boy was a Democrat, so there's no blaming the SS mess on the R's. Another Democrat stroke of brilliance, with SS being in such dire straits Obama cuts the payroll tax that funds it.... Damn republicans.

Father of soldier, you are very misinformed. No one "borrowed" money from SS. The way the Social Security Act is written, the SSA must take all money that is left over after paying out its obligations and purchase Treasury Bonds. the SSA then sells those back when it needs the money. So, it was never borrowed and it is paid back. Stop trying to spread misinformation and educate yourself.

to tomthemystified

Like Cindy, just give me my money back. Forget the interest. Over my 49 year working career, my employer and I threw in several hundred thousand dollars into SS. I just had a knee replaced--cost was about $35,000. I'm still ahead of the game

It really never ends with these Republican jerks. They will stop at nothing to screw the vast majority of American people with their Tea Party agenda. Of course while they take away retirement security, health care for seniors and other critical social programs they make certain that their rich employers get their taxes cut to the bone or even eliminated. Why any American citizen would stand still for this legislative abuse of power is beyond me. I do know one thing for sure, myself and my entire extended family [that’s over one hundred voters] will never vote for a Republican again.

JoAnnaSmith-

We know that all you spout is meaningless right-wing drivel. So try bringing up REASONABLE points.

And as for Obama and the payroll tax cut, it HELPS the middle class because it applies mostly to the middle class. Economists say so. I would do the same thing to help the economy. Without it growth could slow down or even contract. I'd rather have less funding to go into the still solvent SS for a few years to help the economy than have a solvent SS and a tanked economy. Would you???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Oh, and its funny how the GOP claim to be the party of tax cuts, and yet they balk at the cost of extending the payroll tax cut for the middle class, even though they didn't do the same for the expensive Bush tax cuts. What say you???

Hey ewent.

How would you consider this: a young dude; just into politics, already knowing that speculators control the price of most commodities??? Well, I am he. No offense, but I wonder why the older generations keep calling people of my generation "fresh" and "naive." Wish they wouldn't subject ALL of us to that...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Tired of Stupidity & raddave,

Check out this link and if you read it through you'll find that there's plenty of blame to go around on the mess SS is in. Especially note the part about how the government can "invest funds in itself" and you can see what I was talking about how SS has been truly raided.

I stand by what I said about Ted Kennedy being one, but not the only raider of SS. That was just one example that came to mind. There are many more.

Link did not post. www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp There was a surplus of 2.2trillion that the politicians couldn't keep their hands off of.

Senate rejects Ryan budget; vote puts GOP on the spot

From Carrie Dann and Libby Leist

Senate Democrats forced a vote Wednesday on the controversial fiscal plan
drafted by House Budget chief Paul Ryan, splitting the Republican caucus and
forcing several vulnerable GOP senators who are up for re-election to go on the
record supporting or opposing sweeping changes to the nation’s Medicare system.

The vote on the measure – which failed as
expected -- came on the heels of a decisive Democratic victory Tuesday night in
a New York special election that focused heavily on the proposed Medicare
changes.

Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and
Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in breaking with Republican leaders to oppose the
Ryan plan.

Snowe and Brown are up for re-election in
2012.

Tea Party-backed Sen. Rand Paul of
Kentucky also voted against the budget, saying its proposed spending
cuts are not deep enough.

All Senate Democrats voted no.

The final tally was 40-57. Fifty-one yeas
would have been necessary to move the plan forward.

Only four Republicans voted against the
Ryan plan when it was passed by the GOP-led House in April. All House Democrats
opposed the proposal.

The Senate also voted on three alternative
measures, including one to take up President Barack Obama's budget.

What they are NOT TELLING YOU ..is the voucher program is for a set amount ..if your in a nursing and it costs 8k a month ...and the voucher is for 800.00 your share of cost picked up by your family is 7,200.00 a month ....They the congress and the senate took the bribes so that healthcare cost could rise .

Correct, Ryan's last plan to "save" (starve) Medicare would cost seniors $8000 a year in health care costs.

Look at what Cantor and his TeaPotHeads really want. Smaller government run like a corporation. All payroll deductions funneled to Wall Street to do with as they please. All decisions on quality of life left to the neocons board of directors and their appointed CEO.

When the rich needed that bailout in 2008 and 2009, why wasn't that called an "entitlement"? After all, in the past 3 years, it "entitled" 7 CEOs of the biggest banks who helped themselves to TARP and ARRA to increase their paychecks 26%, didn't it?

Rich asses don't like the word no. They don't feel they are in the same league as all other Americans nor do they feel they must live within THEIR means...something they are all too expert at spouting for effect as needed. No one is "entitled" to wealth. No one disrespects a wealthy person who actually earned their wealth. Sitting at a keyboard and using investors money or buying and selling businesses that leave millions unemployed isn't wealth worthy of respect and any dumbass could do that.

Look at what the rich have done to Wall Street in just one decade. No one trusts fund managers anymore. They make more in commissions than their investors earn in half a decade. This is the wealth they want respected? BS.

We are working on that here in Wisconsin. Hope the other states with congress persons that don't represent those they serve are working on getting them out. :)

justsaying1043...You guys in Wisconsin have lit a fire under a lot of us in other states. Congratulations. That midwestern common sense rules! We have all begun to see a lot of Walker in some of our politicians in other states. Following Wisconsin's lead, it's long past time to clean house.

Ewent - you're all racing to the bottom. Can't wait to see who wins.

How about we start with cutting the medical insurance for anyone in public office. Since they can vote for their own pay raise surely they can afford their own insurance. Then lets cut the money they recieve in order to maintain 2 households. They aren't working in Washington long enough to need another house. I could go on and on.

Cutting benefits will not lower anyone's taxes. You will still be paying FICA taxes. You pay the same - for less product.

Doesn't that sound like how to run a 'free market' business?

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis, released his second official budget as the chairman of the committee overseeing fiscal matters; the plan contained proposals for sweeping reforms to entitlement programs, along with other cuts in spending.

I can only think of DRACULA when I see this individual: Paul Ryan Sucking blood of those who need the help the most....There are no words to describe him....Arrogant SOB is a good start

LMFAO!! Only good ole liberal MSNBC makes it sound like a bad thing to cut hundreds of billions of $ a year from the federal budget. They are clueless to the fact that the vast majority of ordinary citizens want these cuts. Yes, put all these cuts on the table and let the American voters decide in November. Bye bye Barrack! LOLOL!

So let me get this straight.....When I was working, and after deductions, I still had to pay $59,000 in income taxes each year (yes I made $200K+ ), and I paid incredible amounts into my Social Security and my Medicare for over 30 years.....now everyone is calling my "Social Security & Medicare money" that I paid into "by governmental force"......an "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM".....damn right its an "ENTITLEMENT"....I am "ENTITLED" to my own damn money that the Feds were supposed to hold for me in case of disability or retirement.......it's not for Welfare, Food Stamps, Housing Subsidies, College Grants, Auto Bailouts, Wall Street Bailouts, or, or.....it's my money in case I become disabled or retire......So go cut some other stupid program, like a pipeline for Canada, or your Drone program, Governmental Salaries and Benifits, or, or...

"Let's give the country the choice of very clear two futures, let the people of this country decide in the fall and whoever wins that referendum gets to implement that plan," Ryan said.

We already know where the majority of Americans stand on this. They don't want Medicare privatized. They want reforms that will strengthen these programs, not end these programs as we know it. And they sure as heck don't want more tax cuts for the rich, which will cause deficits to grow larger, which Teapublicans use as an excuse for cutting these programs for middle class Americans.

It's interesting how Paul Ryan dictates to the GOP/TP candidates running for president, rather than being "bold" and run for POTUS himself. Really, this goes for all the back-seat drivers from Grover Norquist to Rush Limbaugh to the Koch brothers. There is no dignity or anything courageous about these guys.

So bring it on -- All of it including the War on Women and let's have a "clear choice" for the voters. And when the GOP/TP radical "right-wing social engineering" is soundly defeated, will you please STFU Paul Ryan? No, of course not, you'll continue your subversive chipping away at our rights, at our liberty and freedom.

Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

LMFAO!! Only good ole liberal MSNBC makes it sound like a bad thing to cut hundreds of billions of $ a year from the federal budget. They are clueless to the fact that the vast majority of ordinary citizens want these cuts

Paul Ryan: With his stupid face telling us to "cut spending" while he continues giving multimillion dollar SUBSIDIES to big oil...Yeah! let's cut the spending. We can start by PAUL RYAN quitting his job and putting his resignation!

WHO IS THE CLUELESS NOW???

Republicans, screw these terrible ideas.

All you need to do in order to have an affordable healthcare system which includes Medicare is to get the greedy healthcare insurance companies out of the equation. And second to start cracking down on all the companies that get setup to intentionally fraud our healthcare system.

That's it. You don't need to go and try to "privatize" or "voucherize" anything.

Vouchering is the biggest scam out there.

Imagine your grandmother with a voucher trying to negotiate with these predator greedy healthcare companies. - Ridiculous !!

.

If the Republicans are being 'bold' and 'innovative' with this budget - why do Republicans point out that Democrats have already cut $500 billion over 10 years from Medicare? Sounds like the Democrats have already started cutting entitlements.

The Democrats required those Medicare cuts to 'pay for' the ACA legislation - Obamacare. BUT the Democrats did not simply eliminate benefits - the Democratic plan transitions the benefit to the private sector while maintaining the same level of health care.

Like it or not - the focus of the Democrat's approach was to maintain the same quality of health care while trying to lower cost to government. Why is that bad?

The focus of the Republican plan is the money. Money - first, last, and always. Is money really more important to Republicans than people?

The Democrats' plan is no plan. It's just the same old, "we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem" argument. Sort of like a corporation saying, "screw the customers, just keep hiking the price of the product - we don't need to be efficient."

"Let's give the country the choice of very clear two futures, let the people of this country decide in the fall and whoever wins that referendum gets to implement that plan," Ryan said.

The problem is that most people in this country don't want EITHER of these "two futures." Most Americans are moderate, open to compromise and want something in the middle. We know that neither party has ALL the answers. The problem is that in Washington, especially among the GOP, "moderate" is a dirty word.

The Democrats are the ones who insist on lumping Social Security and Medicare in with welfare, food stamps and medicaid. One is paid into by those who are expecting to receive their money back with interest. The others are widely abused by people who accept money taken from those who have worked hard while refusing to do so themselves. Social Security as it is currently enacted is headed into the insolvency and those of us paying into it now will NEVER collect anywhere near what we have paid into it. That's simple mathematics. There was an option put forth by the Bush administration that was actually just first proposed by FDR but under the market conditions at the time of the passage of Social Security, the Republicans blocked it. That option was privatized accounts invested into blue chip stocks that were to remain the property of the people paying into them. The current ponzi scheme set up was originally supposed to be temporary with the money invested into the private accounts going to those who were younger while older workers were paid with the difference between what was invested and what was paid in. While the Democrat politicians berated the Republicans for attempting to make the private plans an available OPTION for those who chose to take it, they themselves and all of their staff members are, in fact, enrolled in exactly those types of privatized plans. The privatized plans that the Democrats refused to allow the rest of us to have access to have been available and used by federal employees since the mid 80s. The question for those Democrats who derided the people seeking to give those of us who wanted it the private plan option is this: "Are you a liar, a fool or both?" If the privatized plans aren't bad, they're liars for deriding them. If they are bad, they're fools for being signed up for them. If they aren't bad and they think that we are stupid enough to believe their lies, they're both."

Social Security has to be redone. The social welfare programs are failures and need to be completely revamped. The Republicans reformed them in 1996, but Obamao signed an executive order overriding the law. We simply can not afford to keep funding people who refuse to work. I've seen these people up close and personal. Want to have a wake up call? Park outside of a housing project the first week of the month and see how many rent to own trucks are there making deliveries. I hate to think about how many high end stereos, big screen tvs and home theater systems I've delivered to the housing projects. People getting their apartment rents paid for with someone else's tax dollars using their paychecks to rent to own high end electronics. They use rent to own because as long as they are renting the products, the housing authority doesn't count the money being spent as income.

Lt Scrounge-4042308

My God ! You really are full of misinformation and BS. Maybe you should stop getting your so called "facts" from Fox Lies.

You need to learn how the nation works. It is not the duty of the Senate to produce a budget. Stop watching fox noise. It makes you expose your ignorance.

Sounds like your history book dates back no further then the Bush years, so why don't you look up the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The fact that the Harry Reid led Senate has found "deeming" as away around their official duties, it does not provide cover for their dereliction.

Is very true rtaylor1313.

But when has the senate actually done their job of passing a budget?

Rick....my friend these programs are going broke because the Republicans keep cutting taxes back and back and back to the point where the government can no longer function properly. You the know the Republicans mantra of starve government and then drown it. Well that's exactly what they are doing. They cut off taxes and then say government isn't working. Well....duh...I guess so if you don't fund government to work for the people. It's easy to forget why these programs, SS and Medicare were implimented. If you were to go back in time to see the social ill these programs corrected, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as "making people dependent" on government. Seniors by the very nature of their advanced years and compounding illnesses are dependent. Advances in medicine have caused them to be able to live longer but as a result they need to expend more resources to be able to live longer. An average middle class person cannot save enough over their lifetime to live 20 or 30 years longer after retirement. It's just a fact....SS and Medicare need to be viable for seniors and continue with a guarantee of coverage and a guarantee of defined pension benefit.

Rick - I suppose you have actual facts to back up everything you are saying as well. Or could it be that you just can't refute my assertions.

The elimination of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are just additional steps in the Republican plan to "Take America Back"......... to 1750... and eliminate the poor, disabled, women, minorities, the middle class, actual members of the military, and veterans. Mercenaries and military suppliers need not worry, the GOP has your back.

News flash, laurie. It was the American Jobs Act that cut the payroll tax rate. The tax that directly funds Social Security. stop telling lies, you are not helping Obama.

Laurie - OK, we get it you hate republicans...oh my, they hate everyone except the rich and corporations, blah, blah, bladefu4kin blah. Then please, with all your political wisdom - tell me ONE, just ONE thing the dems have done to address the fiscal infrastructure of these programs? Any one thing? Don't even give me ObamaCare either. You can't because your party hasn't done a thing to address it. At least Ryan has the STONES to put something, anything out there that addresses this. Obama, he's probably "selling" his green energy plan to a high school in Omaha. I'll tell you what Laurie - go back to your pack or Marlboro Reds and your egg McMuffin and wait patiently for your welfare check...the adults will discuss pressing matters of the day.

@Rick,

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives^[1][2][3] to cut taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to create a fiscal budget crisis that is intended to force the federal government to reduce spending (rather than restore tax levels). The short and medium term effect of the strategy has been increased United States public debt rather than reduced spending.

The term "beast" refers to the government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs^[4] such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare^[3] and public schools. The proponents of the starve-the-beast strategy have never advocated cuts in military, weapons, or prisons spending.

The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush's administration were attempts to "starve the beast." Bush said in 2001 "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind—a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."^[5] The tax cuts were extended by Pres. Barack Obama in what Obama stated was a "compromise" with congressional Republicans.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Elliot - I'm aware of that fact...so tell me what has that got to do with the price of beans??? Supposedly those funds are being replaced through general revenue. I'm talking about additional payroll taxes to shore up Medicare and Social Security. If given an option the American people will not want to see these programs cut. They will prefer to pay a few dollars more to preserve them....guaranteed they would respond that way.

laurie-480643

Rick....my friend these programs are going broke because the Republicans keep cutting taxes back and back and back to the point where the government can no longer function properly. You the know the Republicans mantra of starve government and then drown it. Well that's exactly what they are doing. They cut off taxes and then say government isn't working. Well....duh...I guess so if you don't fund government to work for the people. It's easy to forget why these programs, SS and Medicare were implimented. If you were to go back in time to see the social ill these programs corrected, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as "making people dependent" on government. Seniors by the very nature of their advanced years and compounding illnesses are dependent. Advances in medicine have caused them to be able to live longer but as a result they need to expend more resources to be able to live longer. An average middle class person cannot save enough over their lifetime to live 20 or 30 years longer after retirement. It's just a fact....SS and Medicare need to be viable for seniors and continue with a guarantee of coverage and a guarantee of defined pension benefit.

Well, Laurie, The American Jobs Act was a program put forth and passed by democrats. This is the Program that cut taxes that go directly to funding Social Security.

laurie-480643

Elliot - I'm aware of that fact...so tell me what has that got to do with the price of beans??? Supposedly those funds are being replaced through general revenue. I'm talking about additional payroll taxes to shore up Medicare and Social Security. If given an option the American people will not want to see these programs cut. They will prefer to pay a few dollars more to preserve them....guaranteed they would respond that way.

Yes Americans would prefer that a program not be changed. However, when the money runs out and we are this far in debt there comes a time when necessity trumps preference.

laurie - Rick never has facts to back up his rants. He just posts whatever he wants and expects that people will buy into his garbage.

Seeking Sanity...Rick's posts are like investments you continue to pour money into when you know they don't have a prayer of ROI...roflmao.

So laurie, what will you do to make the United States a one party country with the Democrats being that party?

Mr. Righteous...You have some pretty impressive people who have left the Republican party in just the last 5 years. What does that tell you? These were among the most savvy Republicans with good old fashioned Republican values.

No one in this country wants one party rule. I was a Republican (BB - Before Bush). I got fed up with the male bully bois who were the only voices we were allowed to hear. I got fed up with the "men" of the GOP always pushing women to the back burner. There are only two very valuable GOP women left, Collins and Bailey-Hutchinson. The only member of the old guard of GOP men is McCain. Other than that you have a bunch of Tea Party Twerps the old guard has no patience for.

Sometimes the young and the brash just don't get it. Set the teeth of the old on edge and they usually end up with a size 10 shoe in their nether regions ...which is where the Tea Party Brats are right about now.

The programs are going broke because theey have been pilfered by dems and reps both. Payroll tax cuts just furthers depletes the funds. It was stupid to cut payroll taxes when thee programs are in such dire need. The bush tax cuts need to expire and things go back to normal and if need raise SS age to bring in more cash.

I paid in 50 years and now when I draw it,....I want my money back. I don't think reps want to kill it but it needs life threatening help and quick

Thank you for your response, ewent. I understand what you are saying.

Since laurie pretty much hates Republicans and therefore those that voted for them (after all that's how they got into Congress), I wanted to find out how far he/she would go to back up his words.

Back in the 80's the Dems had a 2:1 majority in the House and had the majority since FDR. A Repub on C-Span was discussing how the Congress would become more Republican. I called into C-Span to ask the gwntleman how this would happen after the American electorate had been voting more Dems into Congress for some 35 years. His response centered around a change of thinking of the voters that had been growing for many years. And this ebb and flow of majorities has been happening since for whatever reasons.

After reading the argumentive comments here and on other stories, I choose to challenge those who, again, pretty much hate what's going on today in this society what they will do to change it to something they want especially at the expense of burning bridges to those who brought about the present set up. Call it the "political scientist" in me.

Personally, I could not see how this country/society could continue to do what everyone wants in terms being a kind of utopia where everyone has a great job, a family, a big house etc.. This thinking began back when I was a long haired teenager (early 70s) and continues today with my concern for my daugther and grandson and their futures. Hellz bellz, I'm 57 and I worry about my and my wife's futures.

Mr Righteous,

Not every one is happy the Reps/Teas are "self destructing". We need a two party system to keep things in balance. The Teaparty has cannibalized the Republicans and now both are bleeding to death. I was a card carrying member of the GOP for 35+ years. NEVER again. That party is Toxic! Sad. But I do have faith in Some of our young people coming up. (not the me,me,me spoiled brat's) They understand the dangers of war. They understand the need to watch out for others. AND they see the GOP/Teas for what they are...Muppet's for the rich.

Praysalot, what do you think the make up of a second party that is not a duplicate of the Dems should be? Do you think the Repub haters, not those disappointed with the Repubs, want a one party system?

The presidential candidates have nothing to gain by supporting this. They don't need to speak to the base. The base will vote for the "not Obama" candidate. The independents don't see it as bold and it will easily be spun as "they're taking your medicare away."

@Rick-3416939 -- The government cannot spend money without a 'budget'. That is one of those 'inconvenient' Constitutional requirements that does not support your uninformed opinion.

Unless, of course, you are claiming the Republican House has been violating the Constitution by agreeing to spend money without a 'budget'?

What, exactly, do you thing a government budget is? Do you have any idea?

@Rick: You know, there's a word for people like you: Hypocrites. You can't back up your own facts so you devolve into name calling and insulting. Of course that is a common trait shared by Fox News and people who watch Fox News, so it doesn't surprise me

Rick-3416939

I repeat, social security and medicare are NOT entitlements. These programs are funded by special taxes specifically for these programs. We have been warned for the last 3 decades about the effect, that the baby boomers will have on social security and medicare. Instead of fixing the problems, they have decided just to basically get rid of the problem. No wonder congress has 9 percent approval rating.

tweeet.....,

At this time SS is an entitlement. That is using the word 'entitlement' in a positive sense since one is entitled to it since they actually contributed to it. It is not a welfare program, I think is what you mean. It is however a partial redistribution program since lower income workers receive more in proportion to their contributions than do higher income workers.

As to Medicare, this is truly becoming a hybrid. Already 50% of its funding comes out of federal income taxes and not the fund itself. It did not use to be that way but costs skyrocket and no politician is willing to raise the additional revenue through payroll taxes and thus just piggy back it on the national debt. Thus all of those who do not pay federal income taxes, or pay very little, are getting a large subsidy/partial welfare benefit. Also, some pay only $95 a month for Part B while others pay over $300 a month. More redistribution and it will get worse. Yes, it has aspects of entitlment (in the good sense) since recipients must have had at least some money taken from their paychecks to fund it.

All of what I just stated is lost on the public and the politicians. They are either too ignorant of the complexities or have another political agenda.

Seniors by the very nature of their advanced years and compounding illnesses are dependent. Advances in medicine have caused them to be able to live longer but as a result they need to expend more resources to be able to live longer. An average middle class person cannot save enough over their lifetime to live 20 or 30 years longer after retirement. It's just a fact....SS and Medicare need to be viable for seniors and continue with a guarantee of coverage and a guarantee of defined pension benefit.

Laurie the big-time socialist, The US government and tax paying public are not responsible for keeping old people alive for as long as they want - the costs of doing this are a big reason Medicare is nearly broke. Healthcare costs are enormous and unless healthcare providers cut costs by cutting staff, salaries, and benefits there is no chance healthcare costs will ever come down. There is a limit to what social welfare programs like Medicare can pay, so that's why you have to take care of yourself, and, if you don't then you're out of here - taxpayers should not be burdened by never ending tax increases to pay for the old folks. Too much of out nation's GPD goes to the elderly - they're the priviledged caste because they vote en masse!

Yes lets all vote to keep the Democrats in power. After all they have added almost 6 trillion to our national debt in just 4 years. They have given us ObamaCare with a price tag that keeps doubling. They are running trillion plus annual deficits. They have no budget because they don't need no stinking budget when they can simply borrow and print money out of thin air. They might not be the part of personal responsibility, but who cares when they keep telling us what we want to hear and what we should say. But the promises! Could the promises get any better?

Nice try Rick,

The national debt you care so much about since Bush left office is over 90% Bush's fault with his crazy wars and unfunded welfare to the rich via tax cuts. Keep praying for amnesia. That is the only way Republicans will win anything this November. I understand amnesia is prevalent among the deep south. Not so much anywhere else. Thank goodness for that.

AnaBanana-1782128

The worst deficit of the Bush term was 460 billion during his final two years when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Bush added just over 4 trillion to our national debt in 8 years, far too much I agree. But Obama has ratcheted up the spending to 1.2 trillion in deficit spending and you claim that is Bush's fault? Keep praying for amnesia? I am just hoping they start teaching math again in this country.

If you want to play the blame game, why were deficits OK under Republicans? Your hypocrisy negates your arguments.

If you want an honest discussion, stop with the Fox talking points and get real. You know this is not a real budget, just as they have not passed a real jobs bill, burying poison pills in everything. Government requires working with others to find solutions, not just saying know for two years.

Hey Steve-2352647 point out where I have said any deficits under Republicans were okay? I will wait while you pull your foot out of your mouth. I just want to know why deficits were bad when Bush was in office but Obama gets a pass? This country is headed for a financial collapse, and right now it is under the direction of Obama and not Bush. What is Bush forcing Obama to run 1.2 trillion in annual deficits? Or maybe Obama just doesn't care about the financial health of this country, as one thing for sure not many if any of his policies are working.

Here is how you solve the budget crisis.

1. Raise the FICA cap

2. Let all Bush tax cuts expire

3. Cut military budgets by 50%

4. Cut all corp tax loopholes

5. cut all corp tax subsidies

6. Restore Clinton tax rates

7. Establish single payer health insurance option

and last but not least vote every stinkin republican out of office.

get a job

Ana and Laurie...do you smell that??? Rick smells alot like Troll. No ideas and lots of Faux talking points.

Rick341.... - your post about Bush's deficit is a lie. Bush didn't bother to count the costs of two wars, as well as other "miscellaneous" expenses into his deficit.

What Republicans refuse to admit is that Bush started the ball rolling downhill and it can't be stopped quickly. Most of us - who use common sense - knew his mess would take years and more than one President to fix. You can't repair a quagmire like Bush left quickly.

Seeking Sanity...Thank you. I recall distinctly in 2008 just before Bush's last public speech him saying that the total deficit was $1.3 trillion. But, according to the GAO, he lied. He lied ball faced to the country. It was at $3.2 trillion and counting.

So Rick needs to clean up his posting before he tries to post lies. All anyone would have to do to prove his posts wrong are to show him that televised clip of Bush making that lying statement.

Both you ewent and SeekingSanity need to post your sources. Because nothing you two spew has any basis in fact.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/the-national-debt-by-president/

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Listen to the sounds of crickets as ewent and SeekingSanity can't back up their rantings.

All you guys and gals talk about the past.....it's DONE! TAlk about what can be done NOW to fix this deficit attrocity that is goin on. We need postive directions to solve this b4 we are broke....LOL we already are.

Rick, I smell MSNBC/WH plants. Nothing you've said is factually incorrect, but the koolaid drinkers seem to be willing to say ANYTHING to avoid criticism of Obama. You throw 'em data and they reflexively regurgitate "Faux News!!!!!" Typical of the mindless.

As if Obama campaigned on "Three years from now, the US will still have a severely degraded economy, but it still won't be my fault". Or "What could I possibly have to do with high gas prices?"

justredd, no one in any party (accept Paul, who I don't support) seems to give a pooh about the debt.

ewent, look up the difference between deficit and debt please.

Corybud, since you want every stinkin' Republican voted out of office, are in in favor of have a one party system, the Democrats being the one party, in this country (the United States)?

Republicans are the party of No

Dem's are the party of me, me, me

Republicans say to the Dem's, If you keep eating all that candy from China you are going to get sick.

Dem's say, I don't believe you. 10 min later Dem's are puking in the toilet.

Republicans have to clean up the mess.

After all they have added almost 6 trillion to our national debt in just 4 years.

No, they have not!

2000 was the last budget of Bill Clinton's - the national debt was $5.7T

2009 was George W, Bush's last budget - the national debt was $11.9T

national debt as of March, 2012 is $15T - Democrats have added ~$3T.

Much of the debt that Democrats accrued is due to deficits caused by decreased tax revenue and increased unemployment benefits. Decreased tax revenue was caused by high unemployment. Unemployed people don't pay taxes and they consume unemployment benefits. High unemployment was caused by the trashed economy which they inherited from Republicans and George W. Bush.

George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with a clear Republican majority in both houses of Congress. They spent money like drunken sailors. Dick Cheney is famously quoted as saying that "deficits don't matter".

Now, given this, I have only one question for all of those advocating that we vote Republican in the Fall: what makes you think Republicans will act any more responsibly than they did the last time they were in power? How can you believe they will do any better than Obama since every Republican candidates' economic plan has been shown by independent analysis to actually increase the national debt by more than Obama's current levels of spending?

lahater......which "mess" are the Republicans cleaning up or for that matter ever cleaned up? The country was in a great state when Obama inherited it wasn't it? Unfunded tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, no bid contracts (Haliburton) .

I am not in denial, CBS is. Just go look at the government site that lists our national debt by year. No matter what CBS says, you can add and subtract to come up with the numbers I stated.

Note that CBS says that it was $10.6 on Bush's last day in office. What they conveniently forget to mention is that his last budget was still in effect until October 30th of 2009, 9 months after he left office. The national debt for that budget year (Oct, 2008 to Oct, 2009), something that Obama had no control over, increased from $10.1T to $11.9T. There it is, $2T that they lopped off of Bush's record and gave to Obama.

Hope that helped get rid of your delusions.

TO: lahater who wrote:

"...Republicans have to clean up the mess."

Whaaaaaat?

Republicans ARE the mess, and everytime they get in office they make an even BIGGER mess out of everything!

As long as I have been alive, Democrats are the ones who have had to straighten up Republican messes, JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW. When Democrat Bill Clinton as President, we had 4% unemployment and a $450,000,000,000 surplus. Republicans wanted that money so bad, they lied, cheated, and stole to get in office and that $450,000,000,000 surplus was the FIRST thing they hit. After that Republicans spent more than a million dollars everyday Dubya was in office from his very first day to his very last.

Obama / Biden 2012

Yes American Girl, we will lean forward not backwards.I have lived long enough to know what you say is correct. The repubs are for the money,by the money,and to the money.It's Ryan's Kabuki dance part 2,dance you lil snot nose,I hope voters give him,Canter, Boehnor, and McConnell the boot out of Congress.They don't care about America only money and political clout. They make a mess everytime,then blame the dems. OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 J-MAL

My only beef with Medicare is that there is loads of wasteful spending going on in it. For example, have you seen those adds for scooters which you can get for "little or no cost to you"? That's because they just bill Medicare and make all the taxpayers pay for it.

Your first sentence is the crux of the whole issue. NO elected official should be saying entitlements as though it was a bad thing. Every adult who has worked has a reasonable right to expect some help when they get older because of the money they put in beforehand.

Ruken- You are right about your issue with Medicare. That said, shouldn't EVERYONE be excited about the provision of the ACA that has an independant board that identifies waste such as the scooters? This is not a partisan issue unless you are worried your donors will lose money. (see GOP)

The few times we have good ideas, proposed by Congress, they get scuttled by morons playing games. Throughout history, it has been both parties but in honesty in the last 12 years the GOP has lost its freakin mind!!

It is an entitlement if you take out more than you put in which is the usually the case and is the problem. If you can only take out what you put in to it, then that is a bank.

your so called money has already been spent. President Johnson was the first to start spending money from social security. There is a I.O.U. note in there for you though

Yes, Diane. You are wrong and have a simplistic view of things. In fact, if you think the government has just been sitting on your Social Security and Medicare money all these years and keeping it safe for you, you are delusional and need to seek medical care immediately, mental care. Social Security has never operated that way, not since FDR started the program back in the 1930's. Ditto for Medicare. Wake up in the real world. All the money that you've been paying in via Social Security and Medicare taxes over the years has been used to pay benefits to the recipients during those years. Your money isn't there any more; it never sat around in a separate account waiting for you to come in and claim it. Your beneifts will eventually be paid from the payroll taxes of the people who are working at the time you start receiving benefits.

P.S. One easy way to start fixing the problems of Social Security is to remove the cap on how much income is subject to the Social Security tax. The current limit is $106,700 and it's completely arbitrary. Eliminating the cap won't cost anybody making less than that a penny. All of their income is already subject to the tax. Only people making more than $106,700 a year would be affected, but it would generate substantially more income for Social Security, without technically raising taxes at all since tax rates won't be changed. Think about how much more Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and others making more than $106,700 per year will wind up contributing to Social Security. that alone might be enough to bring the system back to solventcy. If not, then (and only then) should we talk about increasing the Social Security tax rate.

Just my 2 cents.

Diane, you said it just right. We paid in, interest should have been growing, then we should get back. Unfortunately, congress uses SS moneys for lots of things. Then never puts the money back. And those that are old enough to be drawing from SS had less children. That means less money being paid in now.

So between no interest, congress stealing and smaller families, we seniors are in trouble.

I can't help but notice how there's not a single mention of the 7 private HMOs in Texas last week that bilked Medicare out of $350 million. Or that Healthcare South CEO a few years back who helped himself to a nice fat salary courtesy of Medicare patients.

But let's do take away the only mobility some seniors might have. They don't want seniors to drive but they want them to take a 3 hour ride on a bus or train to get to jobs they now have to keep until they are 66 years old. They don't want them to need any medical help because that might cost the rich young "shop till they drop" and "happy hour" crowd a little more payroll deductions. But these cruds will spend $50 on a manicure they can do themselves or a tan that will end up causing them cancer 20 years from now or those nice Friday to Monday mini-vacations where they go rock climbing on fake walls or play other very expensive "survival games".

Look in your own backyards at how much money you waste before you come down on the seniors.

The problem is that not everyone paid into it. You have challenged adults (mentally) collecting Social Security and they've been getting it since they were born. I know a man who is on Social Security because he's always been fat and now he's in his early 50's and just can't work anymore. These people are getting a lot of entitlement for very little input so you and I make up the difference. Why aren't Politicians looking at Foreign aid? We could drop that by 50% and save a bundle. Pull out of Afghanistan - they don't want us there anyway and we aren't changing their minds or hearts by burning their religious books or going on killing sprees of innocents. Stop paying for foreign people to come to the US and go to College. What? None of you knew that? Call any state University and tell them you are from India and want to know what type of "help" you can get for a Bachelor's, Master or even a Doctorate. That's right, a free ride. University of Tennessee is one of the worst for this and who do you think pays for that? We spent 100's of millions of dollars building in Iraq (schools, hospitals) and that didn't include the $12 BN a month it was costing to have the Military there. When John McCain ran for President he kept saying, "I know how to get Osama Bin Laden." Apparently he wouldn't tell us unless he was voted in as President though and that's why he lost. We need people who have a real, and livable plan. I am not affiliated with either party but I know I'm sick of them both. I want to hear a plan from the Republicans and not just, "Obama bad, me good". If you want my vote, shut up about the other guy and tell me how you'll solve problems. I know what the current administration (both President and House) are doing wrong. Now tell me what you'll do right.

at 70, I've seen some things, and I'm glad George W. didn't get social security privitised! My 401-K is still healing from his recession. I paid social security for 43 years, and I want to get what I was promised! Is that too much? How many republicans voted to "borrow" from the social security trust fund? MANY! I have never missed a vote, and don't intend to. Social security is the "third rail"; touch it and you die!

Good for you Kent. The Republican party, as evidenced by Paul Ryan, keeps trying to say that they won't effect those who are already retired. Instead they are trying to dupe the next generation.

Anyone who is over the age of 17 and votes for a Republican is, unless they are Romney class wealthy, an idiot.

Now I put the question to you, dirp101: If it is idiotic to vote for a Republican, should we have a one party system (the Dems being that one party) in these United States?

social security was robbed in order to pay for other "more important" things like tax cuts for corporations, which by the way, have now been deemed people, so their tax cuts should be resinded.

What you all fail to mention (conveniently) is that of our current $15T debt, about 1/3 is owed to Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. It is almost equally split: $2.5T owed to Medicare and $2.5T owed to SS.

At current levels of spending, that is enough to float SS for 3.6 years and Medicare for 5.6 years without any payments from individuals at all. When George W. Bush took office in 2000, we had a balanced budget. In fact, they were predicting surpluses and expected top have the national debt paid down to 0 by 2010. If not for George W. Bush and his insane economic policies, we would not be having any discussion about SS, Medicare or the national debt right now.

And don't you think that's part of the plan? Here's the most likely scenario for Republicans: eliminate SS and Medicare. Since they don't exist any more, they just tear up the IOU's for SS and Medicare Trust Funds. Presto chango, they drop the national debt by 1/3 and look like heroes without doing one damned thing! Other than getting rid of two things that have stuck in their craw for 50 years!

Unless and until Republicans start showing some sense and advancing real plans with real benefit to this country, I will be voting Democratic!

Money borrowed from Social Security Trust Fund by Congress (both D- and R-controlled) = $2.6 trillion

Tax revenue lost because of the Bush tax cuts = $2.6 trillion

Let that sink in for a minute...

--------------------------------------

MrRighteous: Please stop interrogating everyone about a one-party system. If you want to illustrate a problem, illustrate the solutions first.

I'd prefer a no-party system - the person with the best logical, feasible plan gets my vote. Everyone's vote counts equally and you have to have the most votes to win. One-term; six years; get out - for ALL political positions. Cycle presidential, congressional and senatorial seats with an election every two years, in respective order. Oh, and every candidate, upon the announcement of their candidacy, takes an oath of truth just like you do when you testify in court. The candidate lies - felony perjury charges are levied. If you want to run my country, then accountability will be compulsory.

But we can't have that, can we? That would be... fair.

Two things the GOP will never cut: oil subsidies and defense funding.

Defense spending HAS been cut as part of the Super Committee deal last summer.

The oil companies get a tax break like other industries. They, however, only get a 6% break while others get a 9% break.

The Bush tax cuts were 1 trillion over 10 years. For you mathematically challenged that is 100 billion per year! We are running 1.2 trillion in annual deficits, so it is going to take a heck of a lot more the expiring the Bush tax cuts to bring this fiscal mess in order.

Read up on the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Here is a link to get you started.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58693.html

Rick-

$100B a year is still ~10% of the deficit. That's very significant for just one expense.

Ruken, and so you are delusional enough to believe that if you give Congress more tax money they will actually use it to cut the deficit? So where is the other 90% going to come from?

Ruken, and so you are delusional enough to believe that if you give Congress more tax money they will actually use it to cut the deficit? So where is the other 90% going to come from?

I don't know the entire budget, and I'm sure neither do you.

But I'm positive that if people actually sat down and started it from scratch as opposed to doing a Copy+Paste every year, they could trim out all the "small" expenses that I'm sure exist and will add up.

But as for ideas? Um...we could end the war in Afghanistan, as we're not going to "win". We could reform Medicare spending and curb the vast amounts of fraud going on in it (I believe 60 Minutes did an article on it a few months ago), eliminate oil company subsidies, lower the corporate tax rate but close loopholes, reform SNAP so that it is really going to people who need it (not $1M winners in Detroit), um...I'm sure I could think of more if you want.

Ruken, the Erskine Bowles Commission would have been a good place to start if anyone in the White House was actually serious about the massive debt. Mandating 2008 spending levels would also have done a lot of good. But there is no reason to expect anything from the current administration we have in Washington at the rate they spend money. It is time to clean house and start over.

It is time to clean house and start over.

If there were a viable alternative I would be for this, but there isn't. But alas that is a separate topic.

The problem also with 2008 spending levels is that we had Iraq + Afghanistan going on.

mhrjhn---the oil companies get a tax break like other industries. They, however, only get a 6% break while others get a 9% break.

I didn't realize the oil companies only get a 6% break while other get 9%. Do you have an address so we can send a check to the oil companies or do you think they're getting their 3% at the pump now?

Defense spending HAS been cut as part of the Super Committee deal last summer.

Ah, but the Republicans are already trying to correct that:

National Journal reported last week that the House GOP budget, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled today, would “pull the defense-spending cuts [of more than $500 billion] mandated by sequestration off the table.”

Nope, the other posters are correct here. Republicans will never, ever allow Defense spending cuts. That's just too much money in their pockets (and out of ours) every year.

The Bush tax cuts were 1 trillion over 10 years.

Not accurate! President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years. So there is $1.7T over 10 years for both tax cuts.

Note that these were just estimates based on projections of the economy. The actual numbers have been calculated by several sources (Google it, I am not going to do all the work for ya) at around $2.5T through 2010.

Actually Rick and EEngineer, the Bush tax cuts cost approximately $3.8 trillion over 10 years, and that includes increased debt financing. Go to the Tax Policy Center and check it out.

END THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

RAISE THE TOP RATE TO 45%.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO THE GOP 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

So who exactly destroyed the economy? Those over seeing Fannie and Freddie say Barney Frank? Maybe the one that signed NAFTA into law which allowed millions of American jobs to leave the country over the next decade in say Bill Clinton? Come on enlighten us?

While I detest the NAFTA and GATT treaties which led to an exodus of manufacturing jobs from the US, one must be aware this decline in the middle class unquestionably started with Ronald Reagan and his cohort Donald Regan, who re-started supply side economics, more commonly known as trickle-down Reaganomics. It was the start of a flat line covering 35 or more years in middle class incomes, while the wealthy have seen unprecedented increases entering triple digits. It is a indisputable fact. Look it up!

Agreed daveNJ.

Rick, YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!

daveNJ gave you the facts, and they are indisputable.

Since neither daveNF-2028123 or the Rod_Father offer facts, try this on for size and see if you can keep up with the years of increases and declines and who was in office at the time and prior too. I will even include my source, either of you have one? Yeah, indisputable unless you look at the facts. Nice try Rod_Father, or should I say McFly?

In a study conducted in 2006 by The United States House of Representatives there were some interesting income findings that show the effects of the middle class squeeze. According to the study, not only is real income decreasing for the middle class, but also the gap between the top wage earners and the middle earners is widening. Between 2000 and 2005 real median household incomes in the United States has declined by 2.5%, falling each of the first four years of the Bush Administration, falling by as much as 2.2% annually. Overall real median income has declined since 2000, by $1,273, from $47,599 in 2000, to $46,326 in 2005. According to the survey, working class families headed by adults younger than 65, have seen even steeper declines. Although they had seen an increase in real median household income from 1995 to 2000 of 9%, since 2000 their income has fallen every year and a total of 5.4%. In actual money terms this correlates to a decrease of $3,000 from $55,284 to $52,287.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class_squeeze

It would appear the real decline of incomes in the middle class began just a few short years after NAFTA was signed? Huh, do you think it was a contributing factor, or are you sticking the with and spewing your talking points?

Believe what you want. Blah, blah, blah. I lived it! How about you? I'm still waiting for my first bit of that Reagan trickle down!! It's not going to happen and it's a failed policy the Party of No is still trying to sell. Fat Chance Bubba!

Rick I will agree that NAFTA was the mass exodus of jobs overseas but the widening of the gap between the rich and poor started with Reagan.

A major part of Ryan's budget IS tax reform. But why would I expect anyone else to know that.

The current tax code offers our politicians some of their greatest power to sell influence, and yet only the Republicans seem to want it reformed. Makes me wonder where the Democrats are on this issue, other then just talking a good game.

No, a major part of Ryan's budget is increased Defense spending:

National Journal reported last week that the House GOP budget, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled today, would “pull the defense-spending cuts [of more than $500 billion] mandated by sequestration off the table.”

But I certainly wouldn't expect you to admit that.

It is not surprising - Republicans get way too much in graft from the military-industrial complex. No matter what they say, Republicans are not interested in decreasing government spending. They want to increase government and redirect it to their favorite charities (themselves) at the expense of everyone else in this country.

Just "AX THE TAX CODE" (1.1TRILLION in "breaks") and BYE> BYE>.... "DEFICIT"

The simplest answer is usually the best answer. We could go to single payer like all other developed nations. But we have cavemen who are scared of comon sense progress.

It is cheaper and everyone would pay in. Also it would take the profit mode out of healthcare. Win win for all!!

Win Win?

You will lose your individual freedom of choice and will be at the mercy of a state run system that will decide for you. It has never worked and will never work. Other nations flood your system for health care.

Very Socalist view.

We have nonprofit health care organizations that are very successful. Since time immortal heath care has been defined as "a humanitarian need of people."

Only with the invention of the Health insurance companies did the definition of health care change to mean meeting the profits of the insurance companies.

How quickly you all forget the health care crises this country faced about twenty five years or so ago when the health insurance companies put their profits above the medical needs of people. They drove doctors out of practices, hospitals to close, enrollment in medical school were at all time low, and a host of different health care providers to go out of business.

Yet, our President and Congress decided that these were the best people to administer to our medical needs without even exploring other options. Then they put some piece of crap together called the affordable health care act that's a piece of crap. Unbelievable that you would accept this shoddy half ass effort by our president and congress.

You all are insane for supporting this irresponsible actions by the people we elected to protect us from Companies like the Heath Insurance companies that have denied medial treatments and services to people/children who need them.

How many time have you read or heard or attended a fund raiser for someone because that person's health insurance wouldn't cover the medical bills for a child/parent?

With 46% of all Americans living in or at the edge of poverty, do any of you actually believe our government that has a national debt of over 15.4 trillion dollars can afford to buy health insurance policies from health insurance companies that are going to make a profit off each one of those policies.

Where are your brains? We've reach 3rd world nation status not only in infantile deaths, but many other medical categories. That is out right disgraceful for a nation that claims to be the world leader in medical research, services and treatments.

You all have educated yoursleves into stupid without the ability to think anymore.

MRWSR - A person doesn't have individual freedom of choice when they don't have the means to exert that freedom of choice. If you're a senior on a fixed income what "choice" do you have....eat or buy medicine or go to the doctor??? If you ask most seniors they don't feel that Medicare limits their choices for health care at all. As a matter of fact is expands their choices because of Medicare's guaranteed coverage for the elderly. All Americans should have that guarantee. That's individual freedom of choice when you can actually go to the doctor of your "choice" when you need to or buy the medicine of your "choice" when it's prescribed to you.

So, lets just spread the wealth and make sure everyone has the right to affordable health care.

Do you honestly believe that under the obama health care that you will have a choice and our seniors will be protected.

If you do, then you deserve the result.

16 trillion in the hole? Are you nuts? Where did you pull these numbers from? If the government would take social security and medicare out of the general fund (that is the fund that pays for ALL things government) and put them in their own separate funds like they origionally were, plus pay back all of the money taken from the funds, there would be plenty of money to pay for these "entitlements" for decades.

Shut your pie hole

16 trillion in the hole? Are you nuts?

Actually, the Government is only $15.542112 trillion in the hold right now. You can find it at:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If the government would take social security and medicare out of the general fund (that is the fund that pays for ALL things government) and put them in their own separate funds like they originally were, plus pay back all of the money taken from the funds, there would be plenty of money to pay for these "entitlements" for decades.

And how, exactly, are they going to do that? Congress has already spent everything that they took out of the trust funds and replaced them with Treasury Bills and Bonds. In order to redeem those instruments they must sell more debt as the money has already been spent. Congress raided every piggy bank in the country to buy "paper butt holes for wooden horses" or some other equally useless item that repaid a contributor or bought more votes.

The problem is that the money is already gone and no one in congress has stones enough to either raise taxes or the debt to get it back. But the problem with raising taxes only without getting control of congress is that they will just spend whatever else we give them just as they have done for the past 50 years. There is no accountability or Responsibility in Washington and THAT is where the real problem lies.

MRWSR.

Win Win?

You will lose your individual freedom of choice and will be at the mercy of a state run system that will decide for you. It has never worked and will never work. Other nations flood your system for health care.

Very Socalist view

So you think it is better that some clerk in a highrise who gets a bonus for every turn down they make is better able to decide for you?

The US has one of the lowest tax rates of any nation on the planet. Sure there is a lot of waste and that should be cleaned up. Some has been cleaned but we have much more to go.

We have the most technically advanced military on Earth and want to demonstrate this to far less powerful countries, why? Why must we be a bully rather than like a benevolant parent? The latter would cost alot less in people and money. The military-industrial complex would have problems under the latter that wouldn't please the conservatives. General/President Dwight Eisenhower a goor Republican warned about the MIC. Reagan, on the other hand, embraced it. Sure his over spendin on military to win the cold war worked but the cold war is over and now it is time to cut back, way back.

We can't depend on either spending alone nor cutting alone to fix our budget deficit problems. It will take a combination of both. Certain programs like Social Security, Medicare and Job creation along with infrastructure building and maintenance, schools and new energy should be priorities. They will bring a brighter future as FDR's plans did for us. Some of what he started in the CCC and WPA not only saved people from starvation but helped create new private businesses that since thrived after being turned over to private control from the gov'ment. The recent recession is the closest we've come to a repeat of the great depression and the same sort of things that got us out of the depression will be needed to end this recession. We are already going in the right direction. Whether we accelerate that move to a stronger, more energy independant nation that cares for ALL of its citizens depends on who controls the government afer this election. We can vote for Republicans and go back to the 1840s or we can vote for Democrats who will bring us, better than ever, through the 21st Century.

Everyone must participate with both benefit and sacrifice.

Baldeagle,

I an very tired of the progressive left saying "sacrifice" and our military is "bully tool". God Bless our troops and their service. I am thankful that we have them and am for more of them. We are on a road to a welfare state of handouts. My choices are not made in some highrise building, they are being made for me in the white house. You love it, you want more. You belittle the american worker, the military men and women. Your two programs that you mentioned still recieve government money. My money, I am sure you must get a check back every year. Enjoy all of our hard work, occupy the streets while we work hard for our families.

if you read anything about the taliban, it is Biden and obama, biden also said that the Taliban are our friends, when? when they killed our men?, or when they help kill our men.? glad biden likes them i don't.

and i'm voting for the other.

Biden didn't call the Taliban our friends.

One of my favorite quotes is, "You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

There are some, both Dem. and Repub, that seem to think Retired Military pay is also an entitlement. One of them is Sen John McCain, a decorated Vietnam POW. I just sent our junior Senator a letter (via email) last night suggesting that if the Republicans, him specifically, are so worried about budget the US Senators, and House of Rep's cut their salaries by 50%, and cut their retirement entitlements by the same amount. I should have also added they can't draw retirement until they have served minimum 20 years.

In response to those who said FDR is responsible for SS, yes only because his predecessor let Wall Street go belly up because of greedy people in power. If the Republicans get their wish, we could easily have same thing and I'm guessing crime would get so bad we'd all wish we were DEAD.

What happened,

So it was okay with you when Bush and his mentor Cheney took away your rights under the "patriot act" but whatever it is you are complaining about, and you haven't stated just how that is happening, regarding the current Administration isn't okay?

Some people's kids...

On your pay stub you will notice something called SSI. The SSI stands for, now pay attention, Social Security INSURANCE. Like any insurance it should be there if and when needed. It is not, no matter how much extremists call it an ENTITLEMENT. Unless you don't think you should be entitled to what you have vested interest in. Personally I believe you should be able to say no thank you when offered benefit whether you pay into it or not. Then those sitting on street corners with tin cups will be former conservatives who are gonna make it on their own and have until a major catastrophy happens or they get old. The word entitlement is used by the extreme right (almost Facist wannabes) to decry this insurance. It is funny how they can favor over priced medical insurance but hate socially based insurance as some sort of Socialism. If it is Socialism it has worked, and worked well for over 50 years. Some tweaking may be in order but not much. Total elimination is unacceptable.

Larry - You will be giving hundreds of thousands of seniors a death sentence if you cut off the guaranteed benefits of Medicare. I know this full well as I deal with seniors everyday in my job who need the medical benefits and who can barely afford the amounts they pay now. Remember most seniors are on a fixed income with no means of supplimenting their incomes. I'm afraid that taking benefits away from seniors and asking them to pay much more than they are currently paying is a recipe for social unrest the likes of which we haven't seen in this country in decades.

laurie,

Didn't Ryan say people that are 55 or older will not see any changes in their coverage? Anyone under 55 needs to make changes to their retirement plans. I am OK with that, what do you want?

You're missing the rub here- why do anything to social programs while Ryan touts giving more to the already filthy rich? That is the crux of the argument. People see this, it's the question of fairness that replaced deficit talk last year. You cannot ask those living at the poverty line to do with less when people see the disparities in wealth in this country right now.

Hey, it's not like everyone just has their hand out for theirs. It's more like hey, we paid into it, we've had adjustments made to these programs before, how about asking those who have more than enough money their whole families couldn't spend it all in their lifetimes to help out in the rich tradition that made America great for centuries?

If "corporations are people", like in Romneyland, then it's apparent where those people absurdly stand on what made this the greatest nation on Earth. The rest seem willing and happy to help their neighbors out when they need a hand. That's the country I was born in!

Rich-281385

Oh, and not for nothing....the president's last budget proposal got a unanimous vote in the US Senate. It LOST 97-0. Not a single liberal supported the president. The problem with the budget hasn't been that the president hasn't submitted one, it's that the Senate hasn't passed one, or developed its own, for three years. Despite the requirement under the law it do so.

And you leftists in here are going to criticize republicans? You might not like what we want to do, but there can be no doubt, NONE, that your democrat leaders are inept, ineffectual, and incompetent at doing their jobs. Which is probably why you will be voting for them. Again.

First of all, that "vote" by the Senate was not a valid one. The Budget bills must originate in the HOR. It was political STUNT by McConnell to bring it up for vote. And you wing nuts fell for it because you now claim that no "liberal" supported Obama. Again, the Senate does not develop budgets, the HOR does. And, this year, just like last one, Ryan did not consider the President's budget request to develop his bill, which is in violation of the law that you claim dems have violated. The Senate is also not required to pass the HOR budget. BUT, a budget was passed in December, so your point about the Senate not passing one in three years, is a lie.

As to your prior post. It was not the Dems that walked away from the budget talks, it was Boner, after he supported it. Because he found out the teabag members would not support it.

There is no proposal to get rid of medicare, social security, or medicaid. Are you really that ignorant?

mhrjhn - That's effectively what would happen under the Ryan plan because the guaranteed benefit seniors get now would disappear to be replaced by a private insurance scheme that would subject seniors to market conditions just like the rest of us have to endure.

Boy, the government should hire a know it all like you. You seem to have all the answers, none of them right though.

Yes I am that ignorant...and I vote!

What???? Those industries are heavily regulated!

mhrjhn, the bank regs, the fiance reform has not been enforced. On paper the laws exist but the GOP has been holding it up. Other regulation also have been held prisoner cause the have not been financed or have no dept head in charge cause the GOP has held up there nomination.

What???? Those industries are heavily regulated!

With Exxon Mobil posting record profits, and being the highest valued corporation in the world, there's no reason they should be getting any tax subsidies.

I'm with Ruken!!!

I'm with Ruken!!!

Is Ryan spewing Fox crap or is Fox spewing Ryan crap? I forget now. Either way it's crap, BS, Fake crisis, boogie man politics, the same old sh*t to trash the safety net that they never wanted in the first place.

Do you real think they give a rats a$$ if it failed. Hell no! They want it to fail, just as they have since it was implemented. Don't listen to these Fools! They want to eleiminate it. Get it? Gone, not-a, capoot!

Why listen to these money hungry winner take all Tea GOP ever? All the figures they're feeding you are are crap. All the doom and gloom is crap. What part of more for the wealthy and less for the rest can't you figure out? And yet people argue over the lies and misinformation like it's facts. And others argue against the fake figures they provide like those are facts? None of it is true.

The only thing the Tea Party folks want the government out of is out of their way from them screwing everyone else out of their homes, dreams, security and wealth. Otherwise they want governments full control of your love life and every other personal freedom you now enjoy, State by State.

The GOP are good at pointing the finger and accuse the Dems of doing something on the fed level while they themselves are doing that very thing on the state level. Those democrat feds want to rule your lives! Stop them! Fear them! While the GOP states try to take every freedom a woman has away from them.

The feds will never be able to take your 2nd amendment rights from you or your guns on the fed level, but the GOP, they sure will encroach on them onthe state levels. Be aware that when they acuse Dems of something, you can bet that is precisely what they are up too. And they've shown their hand over and over and over on that. Cutting food stamps, Unemployment Benefits and on and on they will obstruct and stall and slow things down to a crawl. Then say see we told you it wasn't working. Just like they have with the Postal Service and now Freedom of Religion but not Freedom from Religion..

Bob, then Congress should get rid of their health care. It is part of that era.

Bob, then Congress should get rid of their health care. It is part of that era.

+1

The constitution was written in the 18th century. So I guess we should consider it invalid too since it is that old.

GOP hasnt either. Why do we pay them?

The GOP passed a budget for 2011 when they took over the House even though it was supposed to have been passed by Oct of 2010 for fiscal year 2011. It was only for the last six months of 2011, and it was six months late becasue the Democratic controlled House failed to do there jobs in 2010. Even then they had to force it through the Senate, and it was only for the last six months of 2011.

The House also passed a budget for 2012, which of course was never ratified by the Senate hence the reason we have no 2012 Federal budget. We are arguing about the 2013 budget that he House already passed and the Senate has again, as usual failed to have their budget ready.

The only thing the House and Senate vote on right away is how much of a salary increase they want to give themselves. There's never a delay in that vote.

Kurt is that your life story? If it isn't then don't try to tell it cause you don't really know, okay.

Nope, it is of Mr. Barry Soetoro, the current Illegal Occupant of the Oval Office. One would think in this Post 9/11 World, you Democracts would not want a Candidate with a history of such close assoication with a Pentagon Bombing Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers.

TO: Kurt's comments who wrote:

"Nope, it is of Mr. Barry Soetoro, the current Illegal Occupant of the Oval Office..."

Carnival barker.

I really dont want a candidate that all they care about are remove regulations, allow business to be free and profitable. We allowed the bankers to be free and lack of regulations and their "best interests" were for themselves and not us as a country. We allow the oil industry to run our energy policy- do you REALLY believe they do it with the country's best interest at heart or what's best for their bottom line.

Wake up people- no regulation, no or limited govt means we are allowing the for profit system to dictate our country's future and not the govt which represents us.

Don't feed the TROLLS !!!!

In other words, do not respond to Kurt's Comments.

sorry dirp that the truth is scary for you that you have to resort to calling anyone expressing the truth as "Trolls". You stick to your name calling while I will stick to the truth.