Love Ryan, hate him, disagree or agree with him, at least give him credit for bringing the US fiscal crisis to the attention of the American people and NOW they are talking about it. He didn't even sidestep Social Security and Medicare. How many Americans knew that Medicare was in such bad shape and needed fixing? Disagree with his approach as I do but we are debating it. Just like Obama did to jump start talks on the Middle East.

How does Ryan's plan "save" Medicare when it actually eliminates it? I don't understand your logic.

Hey Groucho, Americans are fully aware of the financial crisis without Ryan's help. He is not aware of what it really means from his lofty ivory tower that he intends to build even higher with the Bush tax cuts firmly in place. Those same tax cuts and two unfunded wars have made this crisis along with the slackening of laws in the private sector that along with corporate greed caused this whole mess. What a surprise that the wealthy caused this mess and the only way people like Ryan can see out of this mess is to make the middle class and poor pay for it while Ryan and his buddies pile the money higher inside of their ever taller ivory towers. Ryan is killing the American dream for the common man once and for all and means to look the other way while thousands or millions die a painful, premature, poverty stricken death clutching an expired government coupon thanks to Paul Ryan and his buddies.

Dear Harry;

Since it's easy to demonize someone else's proposal to deal with a difficult crisis, please pass your own plan so that people can see how YOU will deal with it.

Dear Roy,

Let the Republicans in the Senate please refrain from fillibustering every proposal that is submitted.

Wayne,

You can't fillibuster if there is nothing proposed. When the republicans re-gain control of both houses (it will happen, always does in America), we will see how many fillibusters the Dems commit.

Sure, once they figure out how to keep their jobs, then they'll start figuring out how to get someone else a job.

It's not the job of Congress to "create jobs". It's the job of private businesses to do so. It job of Congress and the Executive Branch to set up an environment of taxation and regulation that allows businesses to prosper. You can see they have both failed miserably.

JoAnnaSmith1

It's not the job of Congress to "create jobs".

So Congress can't pass legislation to create US infrastructure which is crumbling? How many jobs do you think these shovel ready jobs would create?

GM: How many jobs do you think these shovel ready jobs would create?

Apparently, not that many.

I own a bussiness, cut my taxes to 0, I'm not going to hire anyone until thare is a demand for my product.

JoAnnaSmith1..

Best estimates are that the US infrastructure is in need of over $14 trillion in repairs. Obviously, we don't have the money to do all the repairs but think of the engineers, construction companies and their workers and the people who provide materials and equipment to these companies. That's a whole lot of jobs.

JoAnnaSmith1

"It's not the job of Congress to "create jobs"."

But it IS their jogbto KILL jobs? As in the "Job-Kililng Legislation" that Boehneer kept yammering about??

Add to that the number of vending companies and restaraunts that benefit. Retailers, etc. It make sense economically to move forward with infrastrucutre improvements. But not until we finish cleaning up the mess that the republicans have left us with over these many years.

GM: That's a whole lot of jobs

And you'd think if the government was able to create jobs, it could of done so with its $4 trillion dollars of deficit spending in the last 28 months. Yet, that's all we got out of that spending spree was $14 trillion in debt, and an Obama FY2012 budget with an additional $1.65 trillion in deficit spending.

That's a whole lot of debt. Something for the children, to pay off when they become taxpayers.

2000 is calling. It is wondering where all you "Debt and Debt Service" enthusiasts were when it's budget surplus was spent in the first two years of the Bush Administration. He claims that he would have had the deficit paid down already.

Groucho

Now "shovel ready jobs" that's funny. If you have any idea how gov't contracts work you would know that 'Shovel Ready Jobs' DON"T EXIST. If a job is 'Shovel Ready' the MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED. It took Obama 2 years to figure that out. Looks like it will take you longer to get at the truth.

slodon..

I said Congress had the power to pass legislation and appropriate money for infrastructure jobs. If the term shovel ready was incorrect, thanks for the correction. Was the part about Congress incorrect also?

Groucho

The problem with the shovel ready jobs, is that due to red tape beaurocracy unless you release the projects all at one time, you create an enviroment that will kill small businesses.

Let me explain, construction jobs are bid jobs, meaning companies have to compete to get it by which the lowest bid is awarded the job. the problem with realeasing these jobs here and there is if you have a new school going up every contractor within a 5-state radius is bidding on it, therefore the ones who gets the job are the people who bid at cost or just above or below. Well the companies that can survive on that kind of profit margin are the extremely large companies that have enough funds to operate like that essentially just keeping the doors open and not growing at all. Small business cannot compete with them, so now you have a extremely large company with already deep pockets forcing out the smaller companies. This goes for people supplying material, as well. See, you have just created an enviroment that killed the small business man in construction.

By the way I supply material construction companies, every I talk to in this industry says the same thing. your local contractor will not get the job, unless they are a very large company based in that area.

Any suggestions as to solve this problem?

Ymerej..

Aren't all State and Federal jobs awarded on a competitive bid basis? If that's true then how do the small companies get awarded contracts?

Why can't smaller companies ban together and form "cooperatives" sharing equipment, employees, expertise, expenses and profits. A large group of independents can compete against the large companies. I don't know if that makes sense or not or even if it's feasible but that's all I have.

i live in california. i saw a lot of construction with respect to monies from the recovery act, with signage to indicate such activity. guess what, there are central areas in california that equal rednecks in the reddest states. do you know, the citizens wanted the recovery signage to be removed. they didn't want reminders of obama enhancing their roadways! go figure!

wntrfrdscntnt

What are you talking about? Yea, I see signs crediting the recovery act and I also see Cal Trans all over it. Los Angles equals redneck?

thetotas,

He referenced "central areas" of california. Since when did LA become Central California(i.e. Fresno,etc.)?

Groucho

Congress can indeed pass legislation for infrastructure and repairs. But it takes a few years to find,prioritize,and get the necessary permits for these jobs.

wnt

I live in Ca. also,haven't seen any of the signs you talk about here on the Central Coast. And we have a lot of road work on 101 going on right now and in the past 2 years. NOT SIGN ONE from Santa Barbra to Salinas.

Somebody crank up Go Bless America for Missy.....I swear some of you Liberals.

I agree. I see myself supporting Ron Paul on social issues in keeping the government out of my bedroom, doctors office, and recreational activities. But his foreign, defense, and economic policies are complete disasters. No one thus far has articulated reasonable economic policies, but it seems that the republicans have forgotten that the last election was based on job, jobs, jobs, and not a woman's reproductive freedom; or collective bargaining rights.

This current Congress based on Mr. Cantor's rules is out of session more than any Congress in history as we quickly approach the debt limit cliff.

Good to see you posting, Missy. I'm not in favor of purely political votes, but it seems to me that the amount of time the Democrats in the Senate spend on them is nothing compared to what the House Republicans do, so in this case--why not?

I think the Republicans are still misreading the results of the 2010 election and think that Democrats supporting a budget with Medicare in it will hurt them. I don't think it will. The conservative base will never support the Democrats and folks in the middle will look at all the issues before voting next year.

This current Congress based on Mr. Cantor's rules is out of session more than any Congress in history as we quickly approach the debt limit cliff.

Funny stuff. The House is doing the heavy lifting, from completing the FY2011 budget, which both Harry and Nancy "forgot" to do last year, to building a solid FY2012 budget plan that addresses the out of control growth of the the entitlements. The Senate - not so much. The Senate spends its time with The Gang of Six (now Five) and complaining about the GOP.

You don't have to be in session for long to get the required work done. The House has proven that.

What if anything does that FY2012 budget do to curb out of control Defense spending?

<Crickets>...

Steeler fan, I don't think the sheeeelacking the dems took in Novemeber has been misread at all. Look at the Sheeeeelacking the socialist took in Canada a few weeks ago and the Sheeeeelacking the socialists took in Spain this past weekend. It appears the whole world is catching on to the socialist/dem agenda and are rejecting it. They world is realizing that socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money. That time has come and the socialists/dems will continue paying the price at the election box.

On another note, no coverage at first read regarding Obama's violation of the Constitution under the War Powers Act when the deadline for congressional approval passed on Friday? How kinetic.

yes well, the last legal war we had was WWII. that's a lot of presidents to drill back on, right?

Listened to an interview with david stockman today. he was of the opinion that we were going to see a "technical" debt default.

His reasoning was that the right doesn't want to raise revenue and the left doesn't want to address spending cuts especially within the context of medicare/SS reform.

rather looks like both sides wants to see us go down the tubes before each side wakes up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70070512/

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/69402400/

Wish I could agree, but in the last Congress every bill that the democrats put forward in the Senate was met by a republican filibuster. My only regret is that the democrats never forced the republican senators to actually vote on the bills versus just taking their "word" that it could not pass. The House has passed a bill, its mean-spirited and worthless as far as I'm concerned, as it destroys programs while still leaving the country no better off in the long-term. Even after all its cuts to programs it still will add to the long-term debt. Until the Bush tax cuts are repealed, and sensible cuts in spending take place neither party has a leg to stand on.

Hey, JoAnna -- what's this "FY2012 budget" thing that the article attributes to President Obama. I thought he didn't have any spending reduction plan.

Thank you in advance. I know I can count on you to clear up my confusion.

AM: I know I can count on you to clear up my confusion.

It's not possible for anyone to accomplish that task.

I knew I could count on you. Thank you.

And when you slap JAS1 with the truth, you see her resort to the only thing she knows. JAS1, so lame.

Zzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiinnnggggggg!!

Anna

Obama's Budget is a PROPOSAL Not a Budget. The President sends his Budget Proposal to Congress to act on as is or to use as a guide line or to ignore all together. In any case it is the House of Representatives that builds a Budget not the President.

slodon:

In any case it is the House of Representatives that builds a Budget not the President.

Ah. So the mythical Obama FY2012 budget mentioned above does not exist and never COULD have existed because it wasn't President Obama's responsibility to build a budget. So when JoAnna keeps asking where his proposal is, that would be the answer, right?

Thank you. Sometimes this thinking stuff is hard work.

Zzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiinnnggggggg!!

Et tu, dbo? ;-)

Kathy

Filibuster is a rule of the Senate to PROTECT the MINORITY. Until the Jan. 2011 election the Democrat led Senate could muster 60 votes to over ride a filibuster. It would have taken some prodding and cajoling but it could have been done.

Remember Snowe,Collins, Spector,Lieberman and Sanders. Spector,Lieberman and Sanders could be counted on to vote with the Democrats about 90% of the time. Spector was an almost sure thing also. Hell he voted with the Demcrats so many times that he changed Party trying to get re-elected in Nov. 2010. Hell the White House even tried to get the Democrat challengers to quit the race.

So I think your Filibuster is BUSTED.

Harry Reid is a dinosaur. He is a fine example of exactly the kind of spend and tax liberals that need to be shoved out of congress (and politics) once and for all.

Has he ever come up with anything productive?? Ever??

jas1 -- did you know the -trillion$ budget is because bush kept the wars off-budget? no doubt we were going to pay for it one way or the other. all obama did was actually acknowledge the cost of the wars.

wntrfrdscntnt

Always appreciate a good literary reference. Not to mention a good poke at JoAnna.

Thank you.

Anna - Obamas FY2012 budget was only what he would like to see, or perhaps the only plan he would sign. A wish list if you will.

naturally you being the faithfull liberal, you could have easily found this piece of propaganda...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

Anna

Can you explain this from Harry Reid?

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/harry-reid-foolish-democrats-offer-budget-plan#ixzz1NEmuN0CD

wnt

True Bush kept the Iraqi and Afgahn wars off the Budget . But they are still counted in the DEBT. So when the Treasury says that we had $10 Trillion in debt on09/30/2008 it counted the cost of the 2 Wars that the DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR.

Progressive,

Soon as I see you refer to Representative Ryan as "Richie Rich Ryan", I instantly lose interest in whatever you are trying to say, and I quit reading your post.

This is the type of rhetoric that turns independents off.

cheers progressive forward1 -- not to mention, the ryan plan doesn't even make a difference until some 10 years from now. in the mean time, our retirement age will most likely be raised, those of us who are 54 and under will not receive social security. how many of us have been paying into these programs? i have for at least 30 years and these jokers are wanting to shank me.

Lee

You need to go back to school and learn math and history. Or at least how to use the internet for research.

1. Trillions in tax cuts for the rich--NOPE

Under George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

Source--

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/27/the-facts-about-the-bush-tax-cuts/

Notice that their article references the Wall Street Journal.

2. Obama stopped losing jobs.----WRONG

After passing the $860 Billion Stimulus Bill the Unemployment rate went from 8.5% in March 2009 to 9.4% in Dec. 2010. How can you put 1.2 million people back to work and have the unemployment rate go up?

In March of 2009 there were 132 million working full time non-farm jobs. In Dec. 2010 the were 130 million people working full time non-farm jobs. Thats a LOSS of 2 MILLION JOBS. Hardly a gain of 1.2 million.

Source--

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The rest of your post is just plain Liberal/Progressive poppycock.

cheers, lee!

slodan, when clinton raised taxes, those wealthy capitalists where more than motivated to make money. how many jobs? some 220 million? when bush gave the freebies, how many jobs? 3 million? someone is doing some funky math somewhere ...

NY 26 district: Dem now leading at 10PM Eastern Time.

if they lose ny26, they could lose the entire house in 2 years.

what makes it extra funny is that they will lose to democrats running on tax increases.

if i called republicans tone deaf, i wonder if they'd know what it meant. ;)

UH RAH! Hochul kicks A$$!

Dahly, that's because mostly tea partiers do polls, they live for them, don't ignore the quiet voters.

Send a link please????