Isn't it odd that no one has bothered to make the argument that if tax rates had been 10% points higher on everyone making more than $200,000 per year and 20% higher on everyone making more than $2million per annum, for the last ten years, the debt ceiling wouldn't have needed to have been raised multiple (7) times over that same period?

McConnell just can't have it both ways - either the President offered a budget, or he didn't.

As the lawyer says to the shifty-eyed winess in the chair, "We know you're lying - but is it now or was it before?"

And this story fails to point out that there is indeed another Democratic budget proposal in the House, that offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That budget plan indeed does contain a deficit reduction and debt retirement component, using both judicious spending cuts and reasonable revenue increases to do the job. In addition, it provides far greater fairness to middle and working class taxpayers, while also preserving essential public programs and services.

Yeah, Sen. McConnell, we know you're lying.

Uh John A., McConnell is in the Senate. I believe he would be referring to the Dems Senate budget plan which doesn't exist. If the Senate put forth Obama's plan as the one they endorse, you would be correct. So far, they haven't done that.

"They aren't even pretending to put principle over politics here"

What's that you say Mr. Turtle?...and what exactly do you say about the bold medicare-killing plan of Mr. Ryan?

Easy to kill the most vulnerable I guess.

Mr. Turtle, get rid of the oil subsidies, and raise the tax rates, get rid of the loop holes that corporations use and find all those off-shore tax exempt accounts.

...and the Turtle steps up....not really 'cause he is afraid of the Senate vote on the Bold plan, so let's change the subject to the Democrats....NO!

Mitch the Defense Chief Extraordinaire. If the Dems are chumps, why don't you, Mitch, back this bill? Take off your goggle and wipe your shameless face of sweat. I guess rep ryan has pooped on you.

Mitch McConnels 1 Priority is getting to be Majority Leader!

Nothing else matters!

I have never voted for Hal Rogers, but he's done more for our part of Kentucky, than McConnel has done for the entire State.

McConnel, like others, have lived at the Public trough all the time while saying Government Bad, but I like the benefits You DumbA$$eS Pay Me to say this Crap!

So the House Republicans pass a budget that proposes the elimination of Medicare and Senator McConnell is upset that the Senate is voting on it? Why did the House pass it then?

Here's a very brief summary of the CPC budget proposal:

- $1.7 trillion in spending cuts
- $5.6 trillion deficit cuts over 10 years
- Balances the budget by 2021 with a $30.7 billion surplus
- Reduces national debt
- Addresses Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security financing

And much more. The plan can be found at:

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf

This is a serious proposal that actually reduces deficits and debt - unlike the Ryan plan, which adds $6 trillion in deficits over the next decade and would achieve balance for 60 years.

Mitch: The Republicans passed a bill in the House. The responsible thing to do is to bring it to a vote in the Senate. It's looking like only Senate Republicans who come from very safe states will support the bill. The other senators will head for cover.

Who is the biggest fool in this story? John Boeher who insisted that the budget go to a vote and expects Republicans to fall in line and support the Ryan bill. Second biggest fool goes to Eric Cantor. Biggest loser, Paul Ryan who may not even keep his seat in Wisconsin.

Rocco, man, you gotta READ the article. I'm not making it up - the story said McConnell wants a Senate vote on the President's plan. Of course it has to get through the House first. If you have a problem with that, ask McConnell, maybe he can get his foot our of his mouth long enough to explain.

Correction to my #1.8 - the Ryan plan would NOT achieve balance for another 60 years.

Bob:

You are so full of crap one could dip it out with a spoon.

Paul,

Revenue has never exceeded 19% of GDP since WW II no matter the rate which varied from 90% - 35%.

Obama is spending 25% of GDP.

What part do you not understand?

Steeler Fan-380417

they want to prove they're no doodle heads.

Ron,

Still gutless?

Try to refute something big boy.

Arbitrary numbers amounting to no logical argument, bob. GDP isn't a static number. If we put the middle-class back to work in America doing what needs to be done, rather than letting it all fall apart, and work to avert disasters like floods and droughts, GDP and Tax revenue will grow exponentially. How the GDP is calculated is more than half of your failed argument.

Here's a very brief summary of the CPC budget proposal:

- $1.7 trillion in spending cuts
- $5.6 trillion deficit cuts over 10 years
- Balances the budget by 2021 with a $30.7 billion surplus
- Reduces national debt
- Addresses Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security financing

You missed the $7T in new taxes. $3T in addition to immediately reverting to the Clinton tax rates.

Rocco, (and Mitch McConnell)

Try reading the Constitution sometime. Responsibility for the budgeting and raising of revenues belongs in the House of Representatives. The fact that that House GOP has promoted such a ridiculous Ryan budget is what's making the entire House and Senate GOP fill their diapers now that the voters caught wind of it. I'm enjoying having the GOP expose itself as the party of shills for the wealthy and corporate elitists. Let the comedy continue.

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States...

BOb:

hold it. please state your facts (references) and statistics to your claims and we go from there. how about that.

Strange that the minority leader of the senate takes issue with the majority leader allowing a vote on the minority's proposal. Very strange indeed....

Oh yeah, the People's Budget, produced by the Progressive Caucus, does increase revenue by closing some of the loopholes that were opened over the last few years, again restoring us to the tax rate we were at when this nation was prospering. The tax changes mentioned in the peoples budget are listed below.

Individual Income Tax Policies

Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and incentives for children, families, and education

Immediately rescind the upper-income tax cuts in December's tax deal

Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)

Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)

Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income

Progressive estate tax (Sanders' estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)

Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28%for high earners

Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer

Corporate Tax Reform

Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned

Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies

Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee

Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)

Reinstate Superfund taxes

These see to me like reasonable revenue increases to go along with substantial cuts in spending.

Yes, this was pasted from the progressive caucus site.

Damn right Feisty.

Bob, where do you get your information? It's all bull that has been made up, with not one bit of truth.

No wonder the republicans-tea people are stuck on stupid.

Ted, good post. I hadn't bothered to put that part up because Alan had taken on the tax changes in a different blog. The CPC budget really does make sense.

Of course, to the Tea Party and Libertarians, ANY tax is "theft," and they foam at the mouth about it. Now that I think on this, in fact, I wonder about JAS1 - many of her statements really do match the rhetoric of the militia movement ... and make no more sense, as well.

Paul,

You are crazy, not stupid.

Check out Investors Business Daily: The Dept Problem In One Word: Spending by John Merline on 05/10/2011.

You can snag the tax rates at Tax Policy Center - Historical Top Tax Rate.

BTW - Without checking I mentioned the high rate of 90% above. The highest was actually 92% in 1952.

Pius,

In addition to the two mentioned to Paul and respective to the recovery - Go IBD Editorials: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents on 04/28/2011.

Actually you can pretty much stay in IBD archives. There are a ton of energy columns. Does Obama Want $8 Gasoline? posted on 02/25/2011 is one of them.

The also have a recent article on the failed stimulus - A Shovel-Empty Waste Of $787 Billion on 05/18/2011.

Just scroll down to the bottom of their front page to the archives and you will find more than enough. Foreign policy / Mid East lots of stuff for my general statement. There is also a Thomas Sowell column about dependency you should read.

Check out NRO and RCP too. Let me know if there something specific I didn't cover.

TO: bob-1805084 who wrote:

“Ron,

Still gutless?

Try to refute something big boy.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don’t blame Ron, we are all tired of arguing with fools.

American Girl,

Too stupid or too uninformed to refute anything either, huh?

BTW - Is there a cite where all the intelligent libs hang out, or is this the best libs can do?

Some folks are just stuck on stupid, and that would largely apply to anyone who would vote against their own self interests.

So Bobby, how much do the rich corporations pay snakes to lobby for them on the Internet?

So Bobby, how much do the rich corporations pay snakes to lobby for them on the Internet?

So AGirl, where do you go to have your brains sucked out of your head?

Dear Harry Reid;

We know how easy it is to criticize someone else's proposal, but where is yours? You didn't bother to pass a 2009 Budget until half way through the fiscal year, and then you did the same thing for the 2011 Budget.

Why do you constantly shirk your responsibilities? What are you afraid of?

Here's a very brief summary of the CPC budget proposal

Kudos to them for proposing a "budget"

It's nothing but a joke. As unrealistic as Bill Clinton's "surplus". Obviously scrubbed together by a bunch of college sophomores fresh out of Economics 101.

Here's the most sensible proposal......scrub "entitlements".

Sit back and watch America regain greatness. Opportunity exists....time to stop listening to the ones who failed.

DBO, see my post #1.2 above. The Democrats indeed have TWO budget proposals pending, the President's and the CPC.

But I get your point ... good one.

John, What is the Dems Senate budget plan? The House puts out a plan and the Senate puts out a plan and then they negotaite. The dems in the senate have not done that. The proposal that Obama put out is just a proposal. If the Senate dems like the proposal so much, why won't reid hold a vote on it?

OK, Dems- cook up a budget for these MeFirst, Corporate shills. Start with defense. Toss in some single-payer HCR, and then do with a budget that anyone else would do: Add some INCOME to the mix!

Let’s see it. Let’s see the cowardly Democrats come up with a budget they can agree on and pass in the Democratically controlled Senate. We know what the Democrats are against, now let’s finally see what the Democrats are for, let's see what the Democrats stand for, and then let’s let the American voter decide whose plan they like better, the Democrats or the GOPs.

.

Reid said yesterday they Senate Democrats will not produce a budget this year. Plus we know Reid will never allow a vote on anything from Sanders.

I agree with DB Observer. Either the democrats should "cook up" a budget or wait it out. The problem is they will not produce a budget, they are too afraid. Not all democrats hate defense, or are even willing to amend the tax code related to oil companies.

Further, they know what happens if they try to wait it out. Obama will lose, just like Bush 1 unless unemployment goes down and the economy picks up.

It is the republicans that get to play the holding game.

Rocco, you are a little off on your civics.

The House introduces bills. After they have approved a bill, it goes to the Senate. After the Senate approves, the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill are resolved. After a final vote, the bill then becomes law. Note that it is rarely this simple, but that's the theory.

In this case, the proposal was made to the House (the Ryan bill). Boehner brought it to a vote in the House, where it passed (the litmus test). Now Reid is bringing it to a vote in the Senate. McConnell realizes that since the House passed the bill, there has been a lot of public outcry against it (the town hall meetings) and he realizes that the Senate will vote the bill down. That is why he is upset.

unless unemployment goes down and the economy picks up.

I could of sworn the Teapublicans promised to fix ALL that if they were voted in back in 2010...

Instead, they've waged war on womens reproductive rights, voter suppression, killing Medicare & Medicaide and so on...

Do you REALLY think voters are going to buy into the right wing BS again?

Trust me... they won't be FOOLED again! ;o)

Why should we trust you Feisty Redhead?

It's all and only about the economy. Just ask GW Bush, who had a 90% approval rating just a year or so before the election.

Quote of the day:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

muffintop1?

George Bush spiked to above 80% only directly after the attacks of 9/11, when Americans probably would have rallied around Donald Trump, if he'd been President.

It was downhill after that. Bush left office with the highest disapproval ratings in recorded Presidential history, 70%, according to some polls.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

Amy, I meant the older Bush, my regrets.

HW Bush had 90% after the rescue of Kuwait. Problem for him was the economy, as Bill Clinton and his advisors so correctly noted.

Rocco - what's your REAL point?

It obviously is NOT about how U.S. budgets are made. Not only I, but several others, have been patient enough to explain the process, but you still keep going back to the carping about a Democratic Senate budget.

This begins to smell a lot like the typical GOP/TP propaganda method. Keep saying the same thing repeatedly, figuring at some point the misinformation - or outright lies - will enter general circulation as "fact."

FOR THE LAST TIME: THE SENATE DOES NOT WRITE ITS OWN BUDGET PROPOSALS. EVER, EVER, EVER. PARTY IN CONTROL IS NOT RELEVANT. THE SENATE MAY RE-WRITE BUDGET PROPOSALS PASSED UP FROM THE HOUSE, BUT MAY NOT ORIGINATE THEM.

Class is over. No further discussion.

They would cut subsidy payments to oil companies.

Groucho- I keep seeing this, and I keep posting in reply: Maybe you need to look for the plan there in between all those pages of job-creating legislation Boehner's crew has cooked up. I think the Dems hid it in there. Good luck with your search.

(oh, and increasing revenue DOES contribute to a balanced budget. See, you don't 'CUT' a budget, you 'balance' one.)

Forrest Grump..

You need to look up what a subsidy is Forrest. It's NOT a check written to a company. It's a tax deduction.

There is NO payment to anyone.

That guy Ira Lapin posted a great description of what subsidies are a few days ago.

drive-by-observer..

Again..I asked for specific cuts...I read Obama's proposal and he's proposing significant cuts across the board and a revamp of Medicare.

Oh, and I know how revenue works. Assume you increase revenues, where do the cuts come from?

Just site any significant cuts, any.

Has the Pentagon found the $2.3 TTTrillion that Rumsfeld announced was unaccounted for on 9/10/2001..........? We should be able to cut spending there until they "find" the missing TTTrillion$$$.

Here is the progressive budget.

Apparently First Read won't allow me to post links, but Google "Progressive Budget" and you'll find the link.

nisl..

Posting links..

I had the exact same problem on the previous thread and had to manually type them in. Didn't know they were missing until too late.

Forrest the democratically controlled senate failed to take the "subsidies" away. And that was because not all democrats agree with that position.

And cutting expenses typically leads to more, not less solvency.

Groucho, how can you say that raising taxes is not a budget cut...?

And then, a few posts later also claim that a subsidy is not a payment?

sub·si·dy/Noun

1. A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
2. A grant or contribution of money

You can call it or describe it anyway you want but the bottom line is that it is a 4 billion plus gift to the most profitable industry the world has ever seen. The purpose? They need us to sweetin the pot or they may just quit the oil business, 38 billion in one quarter is hardly worth it without the subsidy. There is no way to defend this while cutting education, health-care, SS, medicaid, medicare, head start ect ect, and everybody knows this except the republicans in office, and the democrat from Lousyana.

XXXX

Forrest Grump and fielden

This is a cut and paste of what Ira Lapin wrote about subsidies and specifically oil company subsidies.

Ira Lapin

For those of you who are confused about the "subsidies" the oil companies receive and what the dems want repealed here's a little explanation. Subsidies are NOT checks written by the government and given to oil companies. This is a misconception and misnomer. Subsidies are tax deductions and credits that oil companies can take based on the tax code. The following is a list of deductions that the dems want to eliminate:

1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.

2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.

3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well's total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment's value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.

4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from "passive activities" such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.

5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.

6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.

7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don't pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use "enhanced oil recovery" methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

The total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.

These are targeted revisions that only apply to oil companies, not ALL companies where some of the deductions would apply. The oil companies will pass along these increases in cost to the consumer and we will pay more at the pump.

Instead, if you think oil companies are making money off the backs of the consumer then pass a windfall profits tax that returns some of the windfall gains back to the Treasury. Seems more logical than unfairly targeting ONE industry. It's the same as targeting one race or ethnic group and not all industries doing business in this country.

drive-by-observer

(oh, and increasing revenue DOES contribute to a balanced budget. See, you don't 'CUT' a budget, you 'balance' one.)

Unfortunately the dems have yet to balance ANYTHING!

And increasing revenues doesn't necessarily balance the budget... you need to change the ratio of revenue to spending... that can be done by increasing revenue and holding or decreasing spending... too bad this administration has forgotten that so the spending increases continue.

Oh BTW DBO... simply balancing the budget won't work. You see, we need a surplus now becasue we have a little bit of debt to pay off ;-)

We always needed a surplus in order to avoid having to borrow money to operate, but people would freak out at the idea of the government running even a small, and temporary, profit. Stuck on stupid, the brainwashed sheeple, voting against their own economic interests..

Why is Groucho so afraid of the oil barons losing their subsidies? I find it interesting how many republicans get very defensive over those "gifts" to big corporations. The only spending cuts they want are those that help real Americans.

TO: SickOfTheBickering who wrote:

drive-by-observer

(oh, and increasing revenue DOES contribute to a balanced budget. See, you don't 'CUT' a budget, you 'balance' one.)

“Unfortunately the dems have yet to balance ANYTHING!...”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WRONG: President Bill Clinton balanced the budget back in the 90s, replenished Social Security, and even had a surplus.

The REPUBLICANS never balanced ANYTHING, threw out the balanced budget, stole all the money out of Social Security and replaced our $2 billion dollars with an IOU signed by George W. Bush, and ran staggering, record busting deficits to support the Republican Lie Called The War In Iraq.

American Girl,

Clinton did with a republican congress.

lib50

Why is Groucho so afraid of the oil barons losing their subsidies? I find it interesting how many republicans get very defensive over those "gifts" to big corporations. The only spending cuts they want are those that help real Americans.

.......................................................................

These "gifts" are also granted to every other corporation in America who can take advantage of them. This legislation referred to by Ira Lapin is targeted only at the the oil companies which makes it discriminatory and probably unconstitutional.

3wolvesandamoon: i don't think the republican dominated senate and congress had a choice after shutting down the government...the people screamed bloody murder!

So are they ALL just sucking off the government teat then? If you don't want to cut some of them I assume you want all of them cut? Fine, helps the deficit that much more. Take away Bush tax cuts to the rich (or if it is all or nothing, take away all of them) and now we are talking.

lib50..

Can't argue with that logic.

Exactly. Unlike the last session of Congress when McConnell filibustered virtually everything that passed the House, having an up or down vote on major legislation that passes the House is a breath of fresh air. I hope Reid and the Democrats allow an up or down vote on every crackpot idea that the Teabagger dominated House passes. It would get the Republican Senators on record and show that the Democrats are not the obstructionist Party of No.

While I agree with your first remarks, you are overlooking some things in the second. You are correct, spending/budget bills are supposed to begin in the House. Budgets traditionally begin by the President submitting one to the House with copies to the Senate. President Obama submitted a budget early this year, it's what all the negotiations are about, the Gang of 6 (now 5), the VP working with the republicans and democrats to find compromise; our President meeting with the GOP and Democratic caucuses separately and the leaders together. Democrats in the House prepared the People's Budget in response to the Ryan one but the GOP will not bring it to a vote because, well, they already chose the budget they want--Paul Ryan's. Senate democrats are waiting for the results of the Gang of 5.

A day without a cut and paste from June, Fl is like a day without Orange Juice. Thanks

It really is sad that some of these people are not able to articulate in a way to convey their own thoughts but must rather rely on others to speak for them.

It is also somewhat rude. We are all free to go to whatever websites we choose. By cutting and pasting they are forcing certain, and always left leaning websites on others. It is also very boring. State or own position or not. If you can't just enjoy what others have to say.

June, Fl - You hit the nail on the head!

Well said, June FL, and I don't see any cut and paste either!

What a shame that those who disagree with a view do not debate the claims within a comment but rather attack it as cut and paste. Rocco and Muffintop do not refute what June wrote, my guess is that they can't so instead change the subject.

Why do we expect sheeple to know the difference between cut and paste and ones personal comments?

Could it be because they can't think for themselves and have to convey the comments and thoughts of others and think everyone is like them? Poor things.

Yeah, the "shared sacrifice" is working people sharing tax burdens with other working people while the rich and multi-billion dollar oil companies have lunch on our dime.

Yet you continue to vote him in...

BRILLIANT!

Nicely said, Dan.

That's why Ryan was angry at President Obama who flat out said it was not courageous. Not only that, the republicans want to repeal health care which has measures that will reduce medicare costs and also for everyone else. If they GOPTP repeals HCR, pre-existing conditions, unlimited coverage, inability for insurers to cancel policies when someone becomes ill all goes away. The House already repealed it. Seniors are generally more prone to illness, disease and major health problems--repeal the protections within HCR, and force them into private insurance is not only uncourageous, it isn't even humane.

TO: Dan-3126637 who wrote:

"Would someone please tell me why Ryan's considered courageous for voting against the bi-partisan deficit commission's budget proposal?..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Because if Republican Voters ever came to understand what Ryan is planning to do they'd tear Ryan a new one.

Democrats have no trouble understanding that Ryan's "plan" is nothing but a roadmap to steal our Social Security Retirement money and abolish Medicare.

I just can't buy McConnell as a statesman who decries politics after he stated that his top priority was the failure of President Obama.

Paul Ryan's budget only has 2 things on the chopping block: Social Security and Medicare.

I guess everybody knows by now that Republicans have steadfastly refused to raise any taxes on any rich people or multi-millon dollar corporations, and have put the full weight of the entire deficit on the back of the American Workers, all while Republicans scheme and connive on how to steal our Social Security retirement money.

Fancy, it's NOT just Medicare that Paul Ryan has written in that so-called "budget" it's our Social Security Retirement Money too that Republicans want to use to pay for their Lie Called the War in Iraq.

that's just wrong. how many of us citizens and non-citizen pay taxes? all of us have had these deductions since we'd started working. unfortunately for those of us under 54, while still paying, are now being informed we have no access to these entitlements in their original model. yes entitlements, because we are still paying in and we are entitled -- it's not like someone just handed that money over, we've invested and our public servants are wanting to re-neg for their benefit and are hoping we won't notice -- you know, it's really hard to stop pi$$ing mid-stream...

TO: K2mn who wrote:

“What more do the GOP have to do to prove that they DON'T CARE about the middle class?!?”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republican voters are in such a fantasy land that they don’t even believe the Republican politicians who tell them straight out – “Hey, we want your Social Security retirement money and your Medicare benefits because we don’t want to tax the rich.”

Even if you tell Republican Voters straight to their face, with your hand on a stack of bibles, they still would not understand a word you’re saying.

Republican Voter response: "Huh?"

It's not a given that the Dems will pick up that NY district yet...but...

If the GOP thinks that winning an off year election in a NY district that went for McCain/ Palin in 2008 is some sign from above that they're on the right track, they better stop snorting Ron Paul's "legalized" cocaine.

Term limits just make it easier for the jerks to sneak in when we're not looking. Why punish a legislator that's doing a good job of representing his district?

What we need is full disclosure of finances and public financing of campaigns.

MkeMike, Dems are running more than 10 points ahead in New York.

Next.

public opinion polls are not elections. Do not underestimate the GOP/Teabaggers ability to turn out the vote especially in an offyear, special election.

Roughly 23% of an electorate can carry an election in an offyear, or special election because fewer than half the voters actually vote. Until more people are educated as to exactly what the GOP is doing, it would be best to assume that we need every vote to reject them.

I look at the NY 26 as a referendum on killing medicare even if the democrat loses a close race. The fact that a democrat is viable in a district that has only had 3 democrats represent it since 1857is an accomplishment--close is nearly as good as a win. I hear the spin that a 3rd party candidate is splitting the GOP vote except the pre-election polls show that a good percentage of the TP candidate's drop in support was going to the democrat.

well let's hope boehner's bribe to the public and gimmie to corwin regarding special training for airline pilots pans out...

TO: MkeMike who wrote:

"public opinion polls are not elections. Do not underestimate the GOP/Teabaggers ability to turn out the vote especially in an offyear, special election."

^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's not MY opinion, that's the New York Voter's poll of likely voters.

Being that I am an individual, and NOT a multi-million dollar corporation or a mega-millionaire, I have no reason to vote for ANY Republican, especially when Republicans are planning to steal my Social Security Retirement money that was taken from each and every one of my paychecks ever since I BEGAN working, and Republicans plan to take my Medicare health insurance.

Republicans are STRICTLY for the rich, and only the rich.