why would the poor need drug testing? Are they receiving entitilements from the govt? The military conducts drug tests on the members of the armed forces. If the poor are receiving entitilements then yes drug test them.

How is this not an epic cave by Republicans?

They can spin it any way they want, but they are offering the payroll tax cut extension without having a pay for. That is a massive cave by the GOP.

What choice did they have? If the payroll tax cut must have a pay for the same would apply to the Bush tax cuts, and there is no way the Republicans will even pretend that massive suckpit could be paid for.

"If Democrats continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith"

So says the party of pathological liars!....They have no shame as they refuse to accept responsibility!

Stand back Buck and Bob it's a GOTP cave in! Quick run...

It is called stealing fire because you can't light one on your own and then taking credit for yourself as fire starter.

Buck Naked Sr, it's called 'unreasonable search' when a person is given a drug test without just cause. Simply getting money from the government is not 'just cause'.

Trying to conflate that with the military drug testing is . . . well, just plain stupid. The military are in national security positions, they carry firearms, operate things like missile systems, and are often privy to classified information. The just cause there is not because they receive government money, it is because of safety, and the aforementioned national security positions.

Why do you hate poor people, Buck Naked Sr?

An article in today's NYT's concerned the increase in Republicans who rely on government benefits, while voting for politicians who run on a platform of stopping these "handouts." Strange times we live in. Republicans claim to be for "freedom" and "liberty" but promote the concept of drug testing on recipients of government assistance. "Get the government out of our lives!" they cry, oh, but have the government administer a drug test on struggling Americans, before helping with the rent.

Buck Naked Sr.: by your logic, there is not one single person located in the US that should not be drug tested. Each and every person living in the US gets benefits from the government. Whether it is direct benefits such as Social Security or a student loan or indirect benefits such as being able to drive on an interstate highway or not being under the rule of a communist or socialist dictator. We all benefit from our government, why should anyone be subject to an unreasonable search associated with a drug test ?

I do not trust their (Boehner, Cantor, etc) motives for passing the payroll tax cuts without an offset to pay for them. In my cynical view they will do this so they can campaign on some slogan that twists it to a negative.

Drug test congress there getting tax payer money. They all need to get piss tested. Maybe the folks on Social Security should be tested. Hell test everyone. make them pay for there own tests to. The ones who test positive all go to jail. Its funny how republican/tea party only wants to test the poor.

Buck Naked Sr - So I guess we should drug test any and all Federal Contractors, All Medicare and Social Security recipients, all Federal Employees, all State County and City employees who receive federal funds. When all of the above are drug tested...I'll listen to you but not until then.

People on these boards are so partisan it's disturbing.

House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (CA) -- the "trio?" The Three Amigos, the Gang of Three, the Axis of Evil? For some reason this made me laugh...

Back to the topic... On this one, both sides of the aisle are being dishonest. For the Teapublicans, the only reason they would not "pay for" the payroll tax cuts is because they WANT Social Security to be defunded and ended anyway. Why suffer a backlash over this?

The extension of unemployment benefits is a joke as well. The extension does not apply to all the unemployed who lost benefits at the end of the year -- when the first emergency extension ended. What was all the hullabaloo about people losing benefits at the end of the year -- Who were the Dems and media talking about? New filings would be covered for a least six months anyway.

President Obama is not "cooking the books," in that unemployment is still being calculated as it always has. But how do you quantify those who are unemployed--if they are no longer receiving benefits, versus those who have given up looking for work? How do you know who has given up--how is this measured? I sure hope the Dems did not kick the long-term unemployed off assistance to make the unemployment numbers look better--this is one way it may have been done, and it is wrong. Of course ask a Teapublican and they would want them booted too, so they are ALL full of crap. UI is a drop in the bucket in the budget and stimulates the economy, but what ever.

About drug testing -- Right-wingers, understand this is about everyone who receives government benefits. Where do you draw the line? Congress, the military, seniors on Social Security, ALL received government benefits (health care insurance, etc.). Why are only the poor targeted? It's blatant discrimination that is unconstitutional!

But the real problem is that it's been tried by Rick Scott in Florida, and it's been a dismal failure. Only 2% of those receiving assistance tested positive, which is well under the general population of over 8% who use drugs. Furthermore, the state has to pay for the cost of tests that are passed. So tax payers in Florida are now out-of-pocket to pay for drug tests -- How stupid!

why would the poor need drug testing?

Great question, they can't afford drugs, and testing them to 'save' on 'entitlements' actually drives costs WAY up, because a MINISCULE percentage are caught. It COSTS MORE THAN IT SAVES.

Go ahead, insist it be done anyway.

At this point, I'd vote for Monarchy to get around congress. What are our tax dollars doing in their pockets? Can anyone remember a congress that did less work to get $200K+ per year?

I can't believe we put up with this. Maybe if enough fed up people got together at every lawmaker's house, we could just block them from going to work. It would have the same effect as having them in session.

If you're going to drug test the poor, maybe we should drug test to get tax breaks or to use loop-holes or to otherwise get a tax return?... the Bush $300 tax bonanza comes to mind as well. Hell, drug test to get a driver's license or to go on Social Security or Medicare... I should shut up... the right will take this seriously.

And for another bit of pessimistic sarcasm, I'm sure that the "backstop" legislation for the Payroll tax cut fashioned by the Republicans will be a clean bill void of political extremes... LOL.

Feisty - I think a cheap suit would be less pliable. The GOP is kinda sounding strained - maybe some in Congress are beginning to get the idea that THEY may be looking for jobs come November!

I love it!

"Great question, they can't afford drugs,"

After almost 40 years as a pharmacist, I know how many welfare recipients showed up to pick up their prescriptions, or with new ones, stoned to the point their pupils were either minned pinpoints or maxed out wide open. If the poor can't afford drugs, why do so many of them buy drugs that are not prescription.

Our daughter has taught better than 10 years and saw more stoned welfare mothers than you could shake a stick (or a warrant) at, if they bothered to show up for conferences at all. Home visits found them blissed out of their minds while the children were starving. And don't talk about taking the children away from the mothers; CPS would only do that if you could prove "imminent danger" to the children; simple "neglect" didn't do the job.

So much for "Hope," I've had about all the hope I can stand!

I guess none of you have an issue with people selling their food stamps or bridge cards for 50% on the dollar for crack or Med. Marijuana?

"If Democrats continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith, Republicans may schedule this measure for House consideration later this week pending a conversation with our members." This statement is a huge joke. The republicans have done nothing for three years except stop every bill that would do anything for the generaL PUBLIC....they have however, come up with lots of ideas that gave more tax breaks to the wealthy....and higher taxes on the middle class...which it seems , they are trying their best to do away with.

I know how many welfare recipients showed up to pick up their prescriptions, or with new ones, stoned to the point their pupils were either minned pinpoints or maxed out wide open.

Sure they did, and you know this because you tested them? Or you are making ASSumptions? I know which I think it is..

Conservatives, always willing to think the LEAST of their fellow citizens.

"drug test the poor"?

They do that in Florida already, and have found out that it costs much more to test welfare recipients than they save by denying benefits to the very few who fail the drug tests. Republican made-up, anecdotal, problems almost never exist in reality. I guess prejudice is just a tough habit to break.

Bob in KC,

Do people on welfare wear a sign on themselves stating "I'm on welfare!" Seriously answer the question since you and your daughter are such experts at who uses drugs and who doesn't.

Lies don't work on these posts. Go sell it at Fox News posts. People are very gullible on those posts. On this posts we have a data on who the drug users are and they are the upper middle class and wealthy. Imagine that. The people who can afford to get stoned do! They just never get prosecuted. Thanks to their money buying them freedom, unlike the rest.

In Florida only 2% of welfare recipients failed the drug test, compared to 8% for general population numbers.

So Welfare recipients have been proven to be less likely to use illegal drugs!

Ummmm Anna...... ahhhhhh 8mile and John R. Detroit meet me anytime.

AnaBanana-1782128 -- Bob in KC and Jollyoldsoul1 are actually drug dealers. Jollyoldsoul1 is angry because he had to accept food stamps instead of cold hard cash, and is losing business to legal medical marijuana shops. Seriously, I had to look up "bridge card" yet jollyoldsoul1 knows all about it. Hmmm...

All the Teapublican hypocrites, on Social Security, SS Disability, getting food stamps, enlisting in the military because you couldn't get a job in the private sector, receiving survivor benefits or $1,000 tax credit per child, getting Pell Grants, foster parenting, all of you right-wingers on the government dole -- YOU TEST FIRST.

I have Teabagger members in my family benefiting from every single thing I just listed--I kid you not. Yet they are the first and the loudest about "starve the beast" cuts in spending, about supposedly paying too high of taxes, about the government printing too much money, about how the damn liberals are ruining the country. They must be high, let's drug test 'em!

I live here in Detroit, and I drug test for every job I take. Im a registered independent who voted for Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton. I even may have voted for Ms Clinton. Im also a 10 year vet (6 active active ready reserve) I know about this because its all over. Watch the news on Detroit. Even from away you cant not see it. I also have a handicapped wife and a blind son who I pay for medical treatment for through main and supplemental insurance (getting a lot more difficult) So say what you want, Im pretty jolly and dont get angry about much. From your post I cant say the same thing about you. Do you even know what goes on down town in a big city? Everyone that does not agree with you is a "teabagger".

Bob in KC-545426

Our daughter has taught better than 10 years and saw more stoned welfare mothers than you could shake a stick (or a warrant) at, if they bothered to show up for conferences at all.

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence!

LOL

Anyway, I'm not insinuating that you're fabricating a story...but what I am saying is that what you see may not be statistically representative of the overall population.

There are other ways of getting around the issues like fraud and supporting druggies, dealers and illegal aliens instead of people that really need it.

Problem is that those are hard and unpopular decisions that people don't want to make...so instead lets pad the pockets of a few labs with giant government contracts and not actually deal with the problems themselves more directly (and effectively).

hahahahaha....... doesnt take much does it! I dont choose my neighbors and they like me just fine. I always did like you full figured women!

Happy Valentines day!

Why not test anyone and everyone who receives government money?

I want to see the majority of welfare states tell there senators and house members that they do not want more federal dollars for there state than it pays in, how ironic that most welfare states are republican, and furthermore the red states cry aloud about obama-care , all the while they don't have health insurance they want to go to the emergency room and pass the cost on to the Blue States, GO GET SOME INSURANCE RED STATES quit freeloading off all us other States, until then shutup and sit down, let the Adults drive the Bus

"GOP readies payroll tax backstop"

Feh! More empty words and posing from "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Think Straight."

In florida they have mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, they spend millions of dollars a year to do it and only 2% of those tested came back positive that saved them less than a hundred thousand dollars I think. A stupid waste of money.

Republicans withdrew the mandatory drug testing for welfare at the federal level because the democrats attached to that bill mandatory drug testing for the legislatures. Well played democrats!

The entire house needs to be turned over and new ones elected. As far as I can see they break laws that the rest of us are held to (insider trading), they have done more harm than good and a group of kindergarten children get along better than they do. They spend more time pointing fingers at each other than they do working.

@ ex TeaParty Member

There's that lovely one! And another favorite of mine is the "States Rights" advocates

HAHAHAHA! I'm from CA...my state is the 7th largest economy in the world.

Aside from having a massive amount of people and natural resources, our state (like NY) are the benchmark that many industries have to follow because losing our markets would be catastrophic for their sales.

Hence things like pollution and safety standards on products usually have to far exceed the federal regulations because CA and NY markets are the defacto standard.

Now...take the gloves off.

What happens when you lift things like the Interstate Commerce Clause and you no longer require lender-states to support the free-loader states?

In business it's called consolidation.

Any place with an affluent population and sufficiently strong domestic industries could put the squeeze those little whiny Bible-Belt and Southern over-entitled-states! it would be hilarious! That map showing economy size and contribution vs. take from the Union would be a guidepost of where to exercise oligopoly power and conduct a hostile takeover.

LOL

Bet Ron Paul didn't think of that...Heck, Texas is barely break-even...imagine if they lost their subsidization...their economy would split in half.

You think Fiesty will be banned for breaking the code of honor??? I highly doubt it.

it is simple to fix the debt that we currently have, DO NOT let any state take more than 90% back from the fed govt, the 10% is for when catastrophe strikes, The wealthiest need to pay there fare share at 39% and tax capital gains at 39% I havent seen a millionaire yet who wouldn't take a profit of 61% of every dollar that they put in

Ex, there is actually logic to keeping capital gains tax low. Invested money goes into the economy, taxed money gets spent with no return. This is essentially why socialism doesn't work. The problem with the tax code is that there are so many loopholes that allow them to pay the same low tax on personal gain that they do on capital gains. Small business and capital gains really do need to be protected, the rest of it is garbage.

I love seeing these Republicans crying for drug testing and eliminating government programs. Most of them are probably seniors living off their, "entitlements".

Just today I had a Republican gentlemen tell me he is fed up with Obama. Before I could ask why he went off on a rant.

He told me that private companies, who by the way work off a 20% overhead, could give us better coverage than the government. Then before I could tell him how we pay the most for health care out of all industrialized nations because of our privatized health care system, he decided to tell me about how angry he is that we have S.S..

This gentlemen was retired and living off medicare and social security. He told me how hard it was to get by without a large savings and retirement fund. Before I could tell him that this was absurd because he was living off of these benefits and would be on the streets without them, he decided to tell me that anybody who votes democrat should be thrown in jail for their treachery.

I said nothing, nodded and thanked him for his time. This gentlemen will be living off his expensive government pension for quite some time. Let's hope democrat employers like myself can help him keep his retirement fund in tact. He certainly won't be getting a job with any of the local employers I know.

LOL Flying typical far right wing lack of logic. Social security is fundamentally flawed in that if that same amount of money that people paid to it, if they were to put that to an invested 401k, they would all be millionaires by now. Not having the republicans whining that they are leeches after they spent that money themselves. It would be nice to see at some point have an opt in program for social security and allow people to choose to use that money in a 401k instead.

If you try to explain that we are already paying for the healthcare of those 30%, it just goes right over their head. If you try explaining how the private system is no where near prepared to take on the largest users of healthcare and the entire population is a walking pre existing condition, they don't get it. Privatising medicare would destroy the healthcare system, there is no way that the elderly could afford the fees they would have to charge with the amounts the republicans were giving. Its called STUPID tea party morons.

How dare those Republicans. The Democrats went out of their way to craft a sneaky trap, trying to make the Republicans look like 'obstructionists' every few months until the election, and now the Republicans have outsmarted them.

How dastardly of them.

Here is an example as a nurse I encountered of private insurance efficiency. I had a patient who could go home with a daily intravenous infusion of antibiotics by a home health nurse for ten days. The private insurance company refused to pay for the home health. Instead they paid three thousand dollars a day to keep him in the hospital for those ten days versus the couple of hundred a day that it would have cost for a nurse to come to the home.

Do you think medicare quibbles about that? No, they go for broad spectrum cost cutting efforts and they run far more efficiently than the private sector. Yes people its true, in this one instance the government does it better.

Roy, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both said openly that they would do everything they could to make sure Obama was a one term president, no matter what it took.

You want to talk about games? The republicans have NO room to talk. As an independent I feel forced to go democrat this next election and pray that the tea party stupidity has been reigned in by 2016 so we can get a fiscally conservative policy.

How dare they.. How dare the democrats to exepect the top 2% to chip in ..everyone knows that the seniors on S S and Medicare are resposable for all the debt clinging to their entitlements as thou they deserve them and those freeloading middle class people that wont work just because they cant find any work ... how dare Obama to try and force hard working hedge fund managers and bankers and wall street moguls .. to help out in these hard times

I like what Bloomberg said on that Jim, he said that the Bush tax cuts have to expire, they will never balance the budget otherwise. He also said the wealthy alone isn't going to do it either, that the payroll will have to be allowed to expire but everyone should have to take the hit. Bloomberg for president, the man uses logic and not politics, then again he is an independent.

independent jim You forget that not all of the top 2% are "hard working hedge fund managers and bankers and wall street moguls". As a matter of fact I would guess that only a small % of the top 2% fit into that group! Keep up the misinformation. It sounds good to the other 98%!!!

Jan-21270 "I feel forced to go democrat this next election and pray that the tea party stupidity has been reigned in by 2016 so we can get a fiscally conservative policy."

Thanks for the hearty laugh - calling the Democrats 'fiscally conservative'.

Hardy har har.

Um actually I was not, I am waiting for 2016 in hopes that we will get some sane republicans to vote for so we can have a fiscal conservative. In the mean time I will vote for the democrats and pray they don't screw things up too badly.

For the record, the ones running now outside of Paul (wack a doodle in his own way) don't really seem any different from Bush and the way he spent money is not fiscally conservative. Cutting taxes to the wealthy and then spending like crazy is not fiscally conservative.

FlyingEnergy "I love seeing these Republicans crying for drug testing and eliminating government programs. Most of them are probably seniors living off their, "entitlements"."

Gee, I didn't realize that the most seniors were hooked on illegal drugs.

lol

Roy look up the success of drug testing on welfare in Florida. They spend millions and save a few thousand, wow thats a winning idea. Only 2% have tested positive. Yet another fiscally conservative idea NOT

Jan, spot on.

I find it very hard to hear these people when they say how much better our lives would be if a for profit corporation was running things, instead of a tight budget, highly regulated government organization. Most country's pay half of what we do for health care, yet when I travel to Canada or Great Britain, I don't worry about their health care system being any worse than our own. In fact I rather like not paying to see the doctor when I'm sick. I got an ear infection in France once and was very happy with the treatment I got. It was exactly what I would expect to get in America, the only difference was the cost.

There is some backwards logic to the tax issue however. We need to eliminate the tax cuts for the top 1%. That is income tax. Investments in corporate infrastructure and in the market are not taxed at the same rate. This would imply a double tax, which we do not have. Raising taxes actually fosters investment. The reason for this is investment spending is taxed at a lower rate, 15%, this is why Romney is receiving so much scrutiny. I don't believe what he is doing is totally wrong. His money is going to investments. The problem is that he is using this as a pass through. Sending his income into investments only to take them out at the 15% tax level. Which is not a true investment. It would be like giving your check to somebody and then taking it back the next day and claiming it was an investment. Unless that person went to a casino and was very lucky, I don't think that money would have gone to much use.

TES, yes the top 2% are made up of truck drivers, septic tank pumpers, school teachers, retail clerks, mechanics, electricians and the like.

Get real, the 1% are mostly freeloaders.

Roy Wilson,

I'm pretty sure Florida netted -200k from their drug testing. I agree with Jan, not very fiscally conservative.

And my biggest issue with the current GOP-The Norquist pact, not all have signed it but anyone who has is a deal breaker for me. I would not vote for them. Grover Norquist is a lobbyist for the Koch brothers-Oil barons from Texas. They have signed a pact to protect the interests of the Koch brothers, that to me should warrant their removal from office. Their oath is to the people they represent.

I hope that the democrats slam the GOP so hard on that they are forced to do away with it. So many people I have talked to are completely unaware of the fact that the GOP is mostly owned by oil guys.

Matthew, Houston, "TXBuck Naked Sr, it's called 'unreasonable search' when a person is given a drug test without just cause."

I think the majority of Americans think that people who live off of the taxpayers should have to pass drug tests. Why should the taxpayers pay for your drugs?

Perhaps if you don't get public assistance, you would have to use your money for food, rent, etc.

Roy, in the state that they have it, its been proven to be cost prohibitive. How can you call yourself a conservative and advocate spending money on something that is just costing more money?

Roy Wilson. Please try harder to comprehend what the man is saying. He hopes for a viable, sane conservative candidate to vote for in 2016, which doesn't automatically mean democrat, obviously. I've seen you around a lot too. You = professional blogger / slant manufacturer.

Jan-21270 "Roy, in the state that they have it, its been proven to be cost prohibitive. How can you call yourself a conservative and advocate spending money on something that is just costing more money?"

Welfare is costly too, but we do it because it's the right thing to do. We should drug test welfare recipients for the same reason.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Well there could be some miracle and none of the candidates get enough delegates so it goes to the convention and they will find someone who actually can solve the economic problems and not only has ideas but knows how they as president can get them done....

Because when only 2% of welfare recipients that underwent the mandatory testing in florida tested positive they spent millions on the other 98%. They lost money doing it. Simply put, its not saving them money on welfare its actually increasing the money spent on welfare.

IMHO you talk just to hear yourself talk!! The top 1% pay 38% of federal income taxes per the IRS website. Even the hated 1%er Romney paid over $6M in 2 years. That probably doesn't count as a freeloader any more than those 47% who pay no federal income taxes Doesn't paying no federal income tax and getting handouts make one a "freeloader"!!??

Tes are you seriously suggesting the 47% of people in poverty can compensate for the low personal income tax that Romney and others like him paid due to loopholes in the system? LOL That is as smart as Bachman.

The tax code needs to be reformed and loopholes need to be addressed.

More brain dead from the far right. Drug test everyone, its okay if we double the cost of welfare in the process. People in poverty are freeloading lucky duckies living in the lap of luxury off of tax payers, they should pay more taxes and that will solve the economic problems. How is it possible that people are this stupid? Its not even one of them, its all of them that are behind this brain death.

Fiscal conservative does not mean screwing poor people, it means protecting invested money, keeping spending to a minimum and using logical math to balance the budget. There is nothing logical about attacking the poor and personally the dehumanizing tactics of the tea party against the poor is a little too close to what the Germans did to the Jews before exterminating them. STOP ATTACKING THE POOR and read about how the system could be changed conservatively without punishing one class.

Only an ignorant person would call $6M over 2 years "low personal income tax"! If you think this is low, can I assume you paid more!

Jan-21270 "Because when only 2% of welfare recipients that underwent the mandatory testing in florida tested positive they spent millions on the other 98%."

If your figures are accurate, I might have second thoughts. Do you have a reliable link, or is your % made up?

Also, did a significant number of recipients drop out of welfare programs because they couldn't pass the test?

Frankly, I'd be very surprised if only 2% of them failed drug tests.

When its only 14% and everyone else is paying far more, yes I call that low, personal income does not fuel the economy which is the logic for those tax breaks. Only an ignorant person would fail to take into consideration how much the man made during that time. Why is it people like Bloomberg, Gates, Zuckerberg and Buffet all think that the tax code needs to be changed to get rid of the Bush cuts so the budget can be balanced, but you all great one do not think that? All of them are billionaires several times over...somehow I believe them over you.

Roy it doesn't allow me to give links, but just do a search on Florida drug testing on welfare and the information isn't hard to find. It also added 2% did not finish the process? Possibly to avoid drug testing so it was more like 96% passed, still a significant cost.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Here is where most people heard the story, the video.

http://floridaindependent.com/67763/daily-show-welfare-drug-testing

This one is a little old and not all results where compiled at the time. But it says at that point there was a .4% fail rate. At a cost to the taxpayer vs savings of negative 200k.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/state-losing-money-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-applications-drop

I think people are having trouble with this because it goes against their stereotypes of well fare recipients. I mean, if their not drugged out hippies, why aren't they living the high life?

Jan-21270 "Why is it people like Bloomberg, Gates, Zuckerberg and Buffet all think that the tax code needs to be changed to get rid of the Bush cuts so the budget can be balanced, but you all great one do not think that?"

I'd be perfectly OK with letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. I don't recall anyone saying the tax rates under Clinton were terrible, so let them revert to those rates.

Buffett is being a bit disingenuous when he says his tax rate is lower than his secretary. If much of his income is in the form of dividends, taxed at 15%, then he's not accounting for the 35% tax rate on the corporate income before the remainder can be distributed as dividends. When you add it up, he might actually be paying closer to 50% in taxes on the same income - obviously far more than his secretary's tax rate.

PS - I too think that the tax code needs to be revised to eliminate tax 'loopholes' and make the wealthy pay a much higher effective tax rate, but I found it interesting that Obama proposed MORE tax loopholes in his new Budget.

We can agree there, but we still have to address spending across the board and just attacking entitlements is not only wrong but it won't do it. We spend four times as much as any other country on defense, we are pulling out of the wars. Its time for them to make the cuts they can safely do. I have a real problem with Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all wanting to increase defense spending.

Obama isn't perfect, and I was shopping for a fiscal conservative, unfortunately they all fail to pass the test of logical answers that would actually reduce the spending and deficit.

Jan Look at the numbers! "and everyone else is paying far more"!??!! How can you say everyone when 47% pay none!?

TES,

We have all analyzed the Rights claim that 47% pay no taxes. It's B.S., keep it honest here please.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/

Okay, everyone that isn't in poverty spends more. however forcing people who can barely feed their children on minimum wage jobs more, just to eek out a few more billion a year for the government seems more than a little cruel. They pay no federal income tax because they are at or below the poverty line. Have you ever been in poverty? Have you had to choose between food or electricity? Have you ever had to go hungry? Most of those people are working, they just are at jobs that do not pay enough and we NEED those kind of workers too. Tes, you are obsessed with demonizing the poor, the tea party has done its damage to its followers. They have successfully indoctrinated you to hate poor people. All I am asking for is the same thing that people like Buffet and Bloomberg are asking, and that is the middle class and the wealthy are going to have to let the Bush cuts expire so we can balance the budget.

Flying, talking to Tes is like talking to a wall. She is too focused on hating the poor to look at the bigger picture.

Roy, I do appreciate you hearing me out, it seems we are not that far apart on some things. I do hope you change your mind on the drug testing, its an irrational waste of money and one more indicator of the tea party attempting to demonize the poor. Why would they have even brought this bill to congress when all evidence in the state that enacted it was that it was a completely fiscally irresponsible move?

Jan-21270 "We can agree there, but we still have to address spending across the board and just attacking entitlements is not only wrong but it won't do it."

I don't think anyone is seriously trying to do away with entitlements - but I believe we do need to put them on a sound fiscal basis. I reviewed Obama's last Budget (2012) and, over the next 10 years, the Deficit in Medicare/Medicaid was over $7.7 Trillion, and accounted for ALL of the projected 10 year Federal Deficits (and then some). I believe there is some 'tweaking' needed to control costs, but we need to raise taxes to fully fund these programs.

On Social Security, only very minor 'tweaks' are needed to make this program viable for the long term.

Unfortunately, Obama's new (2013) Budget totally ignores any changes to these programs, which are headed for a cliff.

That will be tweaked by congress, unfortunately we have a congress that are so ideologically opposed the kind of rational discussion we are having doesn't happen. Until we see some compromise from both sides, we are in trouble no matter who the president is.

FlyingEnergy "TES, We have all analyzed the Rights claim that 47% pay no taxes. It's B.S., keep it honest here please."

I think responsible people have been consistent in saying that 47% pay no Federal Income Tax, which is actually correct. Only those on the Left try to twist that into saying the claim is that no taxes of any kind are paid by the 47%. I guess you qualify as someone on the 'Left'.

And the right neglects to mention how little would be gained by forcing people in poverty to pay more in federal income taxes. It certainly would not be anywhere close to what the payroll tax cut and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy being allowed to expire would yield. For what end to make it necessary for them to get food stamps and other government assistance to feed their families?

Jan I have lived in poverty!! My father died at a young age leaving 4 children, ages 2,4,6and 8. Now I am in the top 1% of earners. And before you slam me for using welfare, I will tell you I pay more in federal income tax in 1 year than my family received in total. The taxpayers made a wise investment don't you think!? I was poor long enough that I knew that I wouldn't live like that my whole life. I was not content, as some are to continue to suck at the public teat! I do not hate poor people. I hate the attitude of some who would rather call for more tax on me to support their lack of effort and failure (many times due to lack of effort)!

And I agree with you on one thing. The Bush tax cuts should end ($3.7T over 10 years). No not just on the wealthy but ALL of them! But this will not "balance the budget". We are talking about $370B/yr into a $1.3T deficit! Do you see how foolish it is to think you can balance the budget by increasing taxes alone? It is even more foolish to think you can do it by only raising taxes on the "wealthy". But it sounds good to the other 98% (think buys votes).

Tes, I have repeatedly stated my issues with the current GOP contenders. Not only do they want to cut those taxes more but they are advocating more defense spending. It is unrealistic to do more than lean down medicare and social security, so defense spending has to be addressed and I have never asked for anything besides allowing those tax breaks (for all) I am middle class and that includes the payroll deduction. There is no other way to balance the budget. Please read my posts more thoroughly I have ALWAYS said spending and revenue HAVE to be addressed or its pointless.

For the record, I have no issue with Romney on how much taxes he paid, as long as its legal I would only pay what I had to also. I commend people for success and achievement, I commend you too. However the repeated reminders of those in poverty not paying taxes sounds like you hating the poor because we both know that isn't an answer. It has to come from the middle class and wealthy and spending has to be cut dramatically if there is to be success.

Jan-21270 "Tes, I have repeatedly stated my issues with the current GOP contenders. Not only do they want to cut those taxes more but they are advocating more defense spending."

Can you provide a reliable link to any GOP contender that has said they want 'more defense spending'? I haven't seen anything about them wanting to INCREASE defense spending, now that the Iraq war is over.

For clarification, I have no issue on the tax on Romney I have an issue with the system of loopholes that allows him the same tax breaks on personal gain that is intended for capital gain. The tax laws need to be reformed to protect capital gains and small business, and address revenue where they can. This norquist pact of no tax increases no matter what is garbage. We can't balance the budget without both revenue increase and decreased spending, the gap is just too huge by now.

Roy that comes from the unilateral fit they threw when the military announced its cuts due to the mandatory across the board budget cuts when the super committee failed. They all came out against cutting defense spending, and also various things they wanted to spend money on when it comes to foreign policy. Essentially what it amounted to was anything Obama does is evil so they will do the opposite, no matter how stupid it sounds.

For all those who are for drug testing of anyone who receives money from our government:

Let's take it a step further.

Anyone driving a motor vehicle has to take random drug tests(and pay for it themselves), to get a license and drive on public roads and highways.

Every vehicle will also have a breathalyzer, so no person can drive intoxicated.

If you all want to be issued a license by the "gubmint" or drive on roads paid for by taxpayers, you have to show you aren't endangering everyone else.

That sound fair to you?

American Lobo "For all those who are for drug testing of anyone who receives money from our government: Let's take it a step further. Anyone driving a motor vehicle has to take random drug tests(and pay for it themselves), to get a license and drive on public roads and highways."

Silly argument - Nobody get's paid by the taxpayers to drive a motor vehicle, but drivers must pass a reasonable test for the privilege of driving, so I see nothing wrong with having people who collect money from taxpayers pass a test to show they are spending the money wisely. Nobody has 'right' to public funds, with no conditions attached. Welfare recipients are expected to use the funds wisely, and I see no problem in ensuring that they do so.

If we had a true media instaed of a bunch of corperate lapdogs and propogansists from Fox this 47% myth would disappear. It inculdes the working poor, many of whose employers count on thier employees recieving government assistance. The job creators whom the rightwing politicos exalt as the messiahs of our nation. They live in the burbs and thier employees live in the projects. If your business does not pay a living wage YOU are the welfare queen. If higher wages mean you cannot compete or that i pay more for the product, so be it. I would rather pay more to a scrupulous businessperson than pay less and have thier workers living in poverty or be supported by my taxes.

Since corporations are people, should we drug test the CEO, board of directors and all the VPs before they get their government handouts?

I get drug tested in the military(reserves) and at work(civilian) what is the big deal? I do not see anyone complaining at either location.

No Roy.

Everybody who uses public roads while being on drugs or intoxicated, are actually presenting a danger to the rest of us on those public roads.

If someone receiving money from the "gubmint" wants to drink or get high privately(away from places where they endanger others), they should have evry right to do so.

Now, if people are using their kids as a means to receive more money from the government, then they should have to be raising those kids with government money, while SOBER. Once they have shown they can't properly take care of their children(because of drugs or drinking), they should have to pass drug tests to receive any more assistance.

Buck Naked Sr

I get drug tested in the military(reserves) and at work(civilian) what is the big deal? I do not see anyone complaining at either location.

Then you aren;'t listening. A LOT of people take issue with it, but as the DEA and the FAILED 'War on Drugs' have become so ingrained, MANY Americans no longer take umbrage at this unreasonable search.

then they need to go work where drug tests are not required.

TES -2640989

"I hate the attitude of some who would rather call for more tax on me to support their lack of effort and failure (many times due to lack of effort)!"

So..."lack of effort"?

I currently work 60-70 hours per week because I've requested from my boss verbally, in writing, and in a presentation form that if he were to purchase a relatively nominal piece of software or upgrade (let's say$5,000) that I wouldn't have to work that many number of hours, more like 50. Of course I am salaried, so there is no benefit to him, right? Of course in my presentation I didn't present that "I" would save time but rather the benefits within his organization in easier processing benefits for others as well (they now being hourly) where the reduction of time (in dollars) is more than double in one year than the cost.

Have you ever heard of a boss who does that?

Maybe your comment of "lack of effort" falls on deaf ears because your perception is the effort must be for you and you alone is how the rest of us see it when you (I mean YOUR attitude alligning yourself with the .3%)

I agree there is a larger percentage than most would believe of those that are being assisted by welfare that could better themselves and choose not to; however, there are many more that their effort has had a 2x4 slapped against their face just because of their effort. Think prison guard abusing their prisoners.

How many times do you suppose they heard, "No I don't have more hours (while I hire more part time help)."

I think the point you really have not yet understodd throughout all of this, primarily because you focus on the "lack of effort", thinking that your effort got you where you are today. Not assistance from, family, friends, family's friends, networks, groups, people. It was all 100%, you; therefore, anyone else can do it. Very intelligent individuals, very wealthy individuals and the less fortunate, intuitively know that it required more than an idea, it required more than money, it required more than just cheap labor, and it required more than just your time and energy in order for you to be the 1%. It shows lack of graciousness for those that know they did help you get there. Kind of like an Academy award winner walking up to the podium and saying, "I'd like to thank "me" for this award, since I did the acting AND voted 100% of all the ballots for this award. So, again, I thank "me" for this Academy award."

When your business first got started the government's taxing structure (still similiar to today) enhanced and encouraged growth and didn't tax you for the "social costs" you could avoid or mitigate through appropriate "management" of those costs such as, health care insurance, unemployment taxes.

Back then 80-90% of employers provided health insurance, fairly decent insurance too. Then, the shift of cost to the employee "allowing" the employees to choose NOT to purchase insurance. Meanwhile the average compensation stagnates further depressing ability to purchase health care for the employee but yet passing their used care onto the paying participant or worse the government.

Choice is a wonderful thing.... who benefited the most from the choice?

Ok, that's not "THE" success factor for Wal-mart but what do you think? IF Wal-mart had to earn less in profits so 100% of its workers had at the very least 75% health care coverage would that reduce a "societal" burden? How about if they used full-time employment at a reasonably livable wage (2 x minimum)? They definately would earn less in profits, right? I mean they wouldn't raise their prices? Making mid-town american shops just as attractive?

We have been taught as business people AND it, to the most part, has rung true in our daily business activities that economies of scale will allow us to growth and be more successful. How often in those mergers the "economy of scale" meant layoffs, less benefits, less pay? Who were the winners and the losers?

Those employees, d d definately showed lack of effort didn't they?

The point is that when requiring large "highly profitable" players to meet certain "standards" or NOT get a tax break means those lower paid people in those companies might, just might, actually come off of the welfare roles.

Then you, a purported good emplyer, is rewarded while those highly profitable ones but poor employers are charged with "societal" costs they refuse to be responsible for, actually, to some degree, leveling the playing field for you, and me.

I can't understand why you don't understand that the majority of those in that situation, although ARE providing effort, are NOT rewarded by their employers. Even though some of those workers probalby haven't even heard the term "passive agressive", it is how they then have to proceed to combat the abusivenss of their employers.

Having said that, I also don't understand why we, as a nation, cannot "mandate" maximum welfare "benefits" via UPC requirements and a national identity check via fingerprints/dna to ensure double dipping isn't done. ie I don't like supporting a family that chooses to purchase Dorito chips and soda instead of rice or potatoes so they can help themselves get off of welfare. If you want my assistance, they play by the rules of the game. So that's the same concept I am proposing for the wealthy employers paying poorly as well. If you don't want to pay better with appropriate benefits then I'll have to take it from you, in the form of taxes, so I can take care of those uninevitable layer of less fortunate, because "I" don't want to pay for them either.

So I think there is a balance between both. But when you side with the 1% who is really screwing you (and me) over when we ARE responsible employers I really have to wonder where your head really is.

Inerestingly enough, studies are now showing 7 in 10 (that's 70% in case you needed to use a calculator) millionaires are ok with being taxed at the higher rate. So that really puts you in the minority of the 1%.

Edmund Burke, "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Right now, you will be considered "bad" because you do not fight for those that cannot fight for themselves.

ROY WILSON-336103

"Buffett is being a bit disingenuous when he says his tax rate is lower than his secretary. If much of his income is in the form of dividends, taxed at 15%, then he's not accounting for the 35% tax rate on the corporate income before the remainder can be distributed as dividends. When you add it up, he might actually be paying closer to 50% in taxes on the same income - obviously far more than his secretary's tax rate."

In 2009 $373 billion was taxed at 15%. Only $62 billion was dividends, the rest was all capital asset sales. I think that's right around 17% of income was doubled taxed, so it could be argued that the "combined" rate was closer to 21% (17% x 49% + 83%*.15%). Certainly pretty close to what his secretary is probably paying. There's a reason why he's called the sage of Omaha.

The solution is an 80% dividend deduction for corporations with the remaining 20% subject to credit flowthroughs for "responsible" employment while increasing the investment (yes, I mean interest as well) income tax rate cap at 25-30%. The flow through credits would result in an effective rate of 20-22% for responsible employers while charging the irresponsible employers a little extra to cover for the "societal costs" we all are paying for because they choose to not pay well enough.

Corporate income taxes represent "only" about 8-9% of the overall federal revenue.

My solution would effectively eliminate corporate income taxes on responsible employers (those paying well) and probably reverse some of the jobs going overseas.

Also, that puts investors (thereby board of directors) into a stronger negotiating position with their executives. Either make the money or give it back to me and your options be damned!

Don't you have options where you work? Better to leave the cash in the company, inherently increasing stockholder value, than to distribute it out.

Older long-term vested stock options would be more valuable while the newer ones would force an executive to stay longer and work on "long-term" growth strategies not just the ones that increase value short-term. Those short-term strategies usually means layoffs.

Do you get it now?

Buck Naked Sr

then they need to go work where drug tests are not required.

Congratulations, you managed to both dodge the issue, AND ignore violations of the Constitution all at the same time. Color me astonished...

JayCFO I believe you have too much time on your hands. If you want me to critically read you rants, you would do well to make them more direct and to the point! I believe that lack of effort IS the major reason why many people are not successful. I have no quality that is not shared by most except the ability to accept delayed gratification! As I have told you, I have worked 36 hr shifts and 1 year worked every day of the year except 1. I have worked a temporary nonunion job in a union factory and received chastisement (by the union people) bcause I was running "junk" orders fast enough to make the union people look bad! That is how you become successful, not by blaming your failures on someone else (the wealthy)!

I am an employer and I have seen my share of deadbeats who show up late or never and only work hard enough to keep from being fired (for the record, I have fired 1 employee in almost 30 years). My pay and benefits are good enough that people want to work for me.

Call me "bad" if you like! I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves but I will fight against those who choose not to fight for themselves!!!

I ain't dodging nothing. So the US govt is violating the Constitutuion by conducting drug tests on Soldiers? explain that to us.

JayCFO I believe you have too much time on your hands. If you want me to critically read you rants, you would do well to make them more direct and to the point!

I'm starting to question your 1% status. For one thing the 1%er's I know can read 220wpm or more. That rant took me 1 minute to down and understand. It was very good by the way, thank you Jay. I consider myself in the top 5%, but I inherited my company. Although I still had to work hard to get it. I hold a Bachelors in electrical engineering a masters in network engineering and a Bachelors in Aviation science, which is probably why I read fast.

I know self made billionaires. Typically they are very humble, know where they came from and they know people helped them to get where they are despite their self made status. Think Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk and so on. They all are very down to earth and willing to help the poor. Maybe it's just the crowd I run with, but you don't sound like you wouldn't fit in with that attitude. You must be from the east coast.

you don't sound like you wouldn't

you dont sound like you would.

I said nothing about soldiers, oh dodger extraordinaire, I'm talking private companies empowered by the government to look at a person's bodily fluids before they hire them.

It's an unreasonable search, that costs a lot of money, protects a tiny amount, and really only busts ONE type of user, those who smoke pot, which is arguably safer than any LEGAL intoxicants.

The 'War on Drugs,' FAILING America for over forty years!

Actually, it looks like I am top 1%. Which is a little strange to me. If this is the income for the top 1% than I know lots of people that are in the 1%. So, I guess it wouldn't be that strange. Maybe it's the area I live in that just has more top earners.

My point still stands. If your making 350k+ per year, you are not struggling to get by. I am not advocating being taxed to death, the 35% rate I am supposed to be taxed seems high enough. It's the idea that you should be taxed less, than the struggling poor, or the less intellectually advantaged that bothers me. Everybody should have a chance to live a fair and decent life. Whether they choose to work at Wall-Mart or Goldman sachs. We shouldn't place unfair burdens on those who choose to just get by, while giving a pass to those who choose to be wealthy.

It is a choice. You dedicate your life to being successful, some choose the route of success purely for monetary gain. Some, like me, become wealthy as a function of their chosen profession. I would still do what I do for nothing If I could live a comfortable existence. But some choose to value family over wealth, or they lack the mental capacity to work in a high paying field. Should we punish them for their lack of wisdom? I do believe that we need stricter regulation on welfare recipients. Many do use the system and that is wrong. All people should work for a living.

I have always liked the idea of community living centers. Places where people will farm for food, work on roads and maintain the system in exchange for government housing. Those who choose to live off the government should work for it, and they should be living a healthy life style. We also shouldn't reward people for having too many children. The world is over populating. It is said that the planet has a 9 billion person carrying capacity. If we all decided to have 4 or 5 kids we would breach that capacity in less than one generation. It should be a hard and thoughtful decision not one made for a decrease in tax rate or out of a desire for extra assistance.

So perhaps we can meet in the middle at some point. Maybe you folks can look more favorably on the poor and see them for who they are. And maybe we can tighten our belts and work toward a more prosperous tomorrow.

FlyingEnergy I am, whether you believe it or not, in the top 1% of earners (not top 1% in wealth)! This is the internet so you have no way to tell if I am telling the truth. What would be my motivation for lying to you!? Despite all of my flaws and faults, I am not a liar. Everything I have said I believe to be true (except opinions and I have a right to those as you do).

I have no idea what my reading speed or even my IQ is and it really doesn't matter. I have almost 15 years of school and training beyond high school and I excelled at every level (high school, undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate levels). This includes many national standardized tests and remember not one where I scored in less than the 99th percentile!

I doubt that you "know self made billionaires" although as you know there is no way to prove that. You may know OF self made billoinaires.

I would have loved to compete with you in class because I would have eaten you alive!!!

My other job is in the private sector and we test for drugs. Ask the family of the girl I killed while stoned how safe pot is.

I would have loved to compete with you in class because I would have eaten you alive!!!

Since I went to school to learn and not compete, I'm sure you would. Doesn't really matter. I don't know gangs of billionaires. I do know some however, it's just the nature of the business I'm in. But you don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1%. I live and work in an area with a great deal of silicon valley and silicon forest millionaires. They are my neighbors, check it out, Bend Oregon. I personally only know three billionaires. Phil knight, Richard Branson and Bill Gates the later not so well.

I could compete with you in life and eat you alive as well!! If you think you have a chance, you are delusional!!!

FlyingEnergy You will find no post where I have said that 47% pay no taxes!! You are putting words in my mouth!! I said "47% paid no federal income taxes"!! This is fact. You try to confuse the arguement by introducing your own intrepretation.

TES -2640989

Jan Look at the numbers! "and everyone else is paying far more"!??!! How can you say everyone when 47% pay none!?

#1.74 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:46 PM PST

If this was a competition I would already be winning.

I could compete with you in life and eat you alive as well!! If you think you have a chance, you are delusional!!!

I do very well as is. I am happy with my own success. As I have said before, I do what I do not to make a fortune but because I love the occupation. My company has grown year after year. We have long term government contracts with the US and Great Britain. We also service a great many private aircraft manufacturers. We are essentially at the peak of our industry. I have no competition, so I have no need to compete. My only need is to deliver what I promise with a high level of reliability and perfection.

Good luck with your ventures, I hope that attitude serves you well.

#1.1 restored it's a miracle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed.

Is this yet another misguided attempt at "balance"? Whoever wrote this piece should grow some cajones. Everything does NOT have to be bad for the Democrats. There is no reason to pretend a clear win by the Dems is actually a mixed blessing.

Our media is so terrified of Republicans calling them liberal that they are afraid to write the truth. Man up!

Yes, Nathan you are right. It's all there in black and white. The article simply states that the Republicans are going to do what the President has been trying to get them to do but somehow that's supposed to put the democrats in a tough position. What a moronic way of thinking (as usual).

If the Republicans try to pass it with no funding and just add it to the debt, the Democrats will be all over it and hammer on it constantly. Thanks Republicans!

Nathan,

You MAY be right, but most likely there will be "ifs" and "ands" and "buts" to make the bill unpalatable for the Democrats. That way Boehner can criticize them for not voting for the tax cuts. It's the only game he knows. I think they've forgotten how to write a real bill and then seriously negotiate it's passage.

The Medicare Part-D equivalent of unemployment benefits.

Huray for unfunded liabilities! I don't know about you guys, but I haven't tired of being fed the same thing since 2000!

So true Nathan. I read that line and shook my head. Either there is no senior editor at MSNBC or he is as incompetent as his reporters. I will garantee you it will be a fight to even get enough Republican congressmen to pass it without every Democrat voting for it. If it fails the Dems can once again call them obstructionists and if it passes the Dems can claim the victory. Yep, real tough position for them.

And replace them with whom? My representative comes from a gerrymandered district...HE HAS NO COMPETITION! He's been in office for almost as long as I've been alive! And on the rare occasion that someone runs against him, he has buku-$$$ in support that he can drum up at a moment's notice to run attack ads until the cows come home!

I fear just how much extra 'support' he'll have after the Citizens United decision.

Herein lies the main problem. There nust be campaign finance reform. Since the CURRENT (GW Bush) sumpreme court pased the pac law it has only gotten worse.

Just listen to it all, for you can't shut Karl Rove up( boy I wish I could).

Seriously? - "And replace them with whom?" To me that says you have lost sight of it does not matter who we replace them with. How could they be much worse?

My interpretation of most posts is we all have lost sight of what is good for America. Who cares what the political ramifications are for any decision. And why do we blog posters spend 95% of our energy focused upon the political spin. We should focus 95% of our energy on if decisions are good for America.

In the case of the SS cut, no one should consider it good policy to manage SS in two month increments. The approaches from both political sides to this issue were irresponsible. Just as it was irresponsible to abdicate balancing last years budget from the Congressional Chambers where it has resided for the past two hundred plus years to some super committee of 12. If that was the right approach we should only be electing 12 members to Congress. Then to confirm the inability of Congress to govern, it accepted failure by the Super Committee.

Since our current politicians appear to only think of the political ramifications and re-election strategies, I think inPS has a workable approach.

Please do not buy into the concept that the next guy will be worse than the incumbent. What has that strategy gotten us over the past two decades? And also please do not buy into we have to re-elect the new guy or gal. If we replace every incumbent through multiple election cycles, that should be a step towards breaking the current system. When we finally get political leaders that actually tackle tough issues and develop workable solutions, then we can again vote for incumbents.

In short, when politicians start to govern instead of run for re-election we can start returning them to office. Until then, all should be removed from office.

In my opinion, un-electing incumbents is actually the relatively easy part. Maybe the harder step is we posters on blogs need to accept that we share this country with our fellow Americans (and bloggers). Given that fact, the only path which does not lead to dire consequences requires us to stop ripping each other and begin a search for common ground. Most people have some good concepts (including both the liberals and conservatives). So maybe we should start a quest to take the best from each and built a path toward a workable future for all of us.

We live in a democracy, which means the majority should prevail. Whether that is the preferred path for each of us individually or not. I know that is not always fun. I would love to be King as much as the next guy, but that is not a principal this country is built upon. So we need to respect our democracy and our fellow Americans.

Remember, the Democrats wanted to pay for this with a tax increase on $1M+ incomes, so that there would be no impact on SS funding.

Now the Republicans want to pass it without paying for it....

Re-Elect Obama 2012

Now the Republicans want to pass it without paying for it....

That's because they are running on the fiscal-responsibility ticket.

Don't you increase your spending without figuring out whether you can pay for it?!

The social security is based on what you gross every year, not what you pay in.

But Communists make the best business partners!

Where else are you going to get 500% profit from commissioning hand-severing, 80hr+/week child-labor?!

Won't somebody please think of the profits?!

Too bad it's the collective approval rating. These morons and criminals have plenty of support in their little gerrymandered districts back home.

You can't vote these people out! It's amazing! As soon as I was old enough to care about politics, I learned about how rigged this whole political game really is!

I think that there should be a nationwide push for a nationwide formulaic redistricting that DOESN'T INVOLVE INPUT FROM PEOPLE!

Go by geography, socioeconomic boundaries, population densities and growth rates (among other characteristics as well).

Such a redistricting should happen every 20 years to account for sufficiently wide shifts.

Just look at the incumbency rate in the House! For a segment of government with such low approval, its amazing how handily many of them stay put without much of a fight!

But I guess when many people say that they can't stand Congress, they mean to say that they can't stand YOUR Congressman...but theirs is great!

dirp101

SS and Medicare being broke is another scare tactic by the GOP which is designed to be fought over another day.

To be fair, the reason why those funds won't go "broke" is because the Babyboomers will sufficiently raise the required payouts of the subsequent generations to support the largesse and underfunding of said funds over the previous 30+ years!

I think the term "fund" is misleading. They're not so much funds as they are writs of indentured servitude. The degree to which your pay is to go towards supporting them will be determined by how much these funds are utilized today to make expenditures that the establish don't want to pay for, balanced against what date you plan on dying, or retiring, whichever happens first.

b dune: when have the GOPTP ever done what they have promised ? Maybe the "offsettings" will take place in January 2013 when the GOPTP lose control of the House and the Democratic Senate majority uses the "nuclear" option to eliminate the GOP's ability to filibuster.

another SNL skit I see.

They're coming from a base of like ... nothing .... about twenty years ago. They can't sustain that indefinitely. The U.S. economy grew like that back in the frontier days, except during the time of the "panics", which were brutal as there was no welfare, no unemployment insurance, etc. Far from government taking the lead, there was so low of a level of it Ron Paul would have been comfortable.

Do you seriously think that they have those things in China or Vietnam now? Once they have developed a lot more, then they will. They won't have seven or eight percent annual growth anymore, but they shouldn't have people starving on the streets either, so it's the trade-off we in the West made decades ago.

Dave: It turns out the GOP really are liberals in disguise! hahahahahahahaaha The next thing we'll hear from them is "Hey, the GOP is the real liberal party. Let us tell you what we've done for the welfare program and health care!!!" hahahahaha

Aside from a little thing called the Constitution, can you seriously read the comments here and think that you want people who can't even begin to spell "legislation" voting on it?

Because most people aren't educated. Like yourself.

Revenues skyrocketed in Reagan's time, as they did in JFK's. Spending just increased more. At some point, which we seem to have reached, more cuts don't result in more revenues. If lower marginal tax rates and lower interest rates were the only way to create jobs we'd be living in full-employment paradise by now.

If House Republicans pass it with no funding then it is Republicans that are at fault. Besides, it still has to pass the Senate..

@ john-3927694

I hope you take into account that the Republicans fought to have a multi-trillion $$$ spending package known as the Bush tax cuts which have no conceivable way of being paid for while still operating the government and our wars even at a skeleton crew.

Nationwide healthcare could be paid for if we would actually tackle taxes and loopholes...funny how the GOP sidesteps it at every turn...in fact, they've voted down proposals to stem the flow of outsourcing...I do hope you're paying attention to that as well!

President Obama did not take anything from Social Security. There was a right wing lie going around that he was taking funds from Medicare which was never the case. Eventually Medicare Advantage will end and all those funds will go back into Medicare. That is the $500 million that was bandied about by those who spread fear. So the GOP just scared more people about something that was not going to happen.

More lies by DUM F*X news and the Karl Rove machine!

There's never been anything "in Social Security" to begin with, as it was always invested in government bonds. How could it be done any other way, other than with individual accounts? Look how politicized the investment process has become in some states (California, New York, Illinois among others) for just the state employee pension funds. Picture if there were a group administring a fund hundreds of times bigger charged with picking the companies whose stocks and bonds the social security funds were to be invested in. Things like Solyndra would look like rounding errors.

Ahh, now there's the rub.

I would like for it to be paid for. But if House Republicans would rather add it to the debt rather than pay for it, they will have to answer to the voters on that in November.

Jeff.....its a site! Not what you use your eyes for.

cite, sight, site

How do they work?

^_^