The Tea Party was engineered by the Koch Brothers to implement an agenda that frees them to pollute, keep us addicted to oil, and put more money in the pocket of the wealthiest, like Mitt Romney, who fancies himself at the top of the food chain, paying less than 15% of his earnings in taxes, while doctors and teachers pay twice that.

I know some folks were bamboozled by the idea that the Tea Party represents protecting our freedom, and small government, but when Cantor and Boehlner both voted for an alternate engine the Airforce emphatically didn't want, but which was made in their districts, you know "fiscal conservative" really means "lots of pork for me, no pork for you."

Tea Party may have started as a movement with a cause. I do believe that some (stressing the word "some" here) people joined it out of frustration with what was going on. That said, the TP rallies were quickly swept by wackos with racists signs, and the Koch brothers' financial backing.

What is the TP known as today? Tea-tanic.

hard-line conservatives spent Monday mounting an eleventh-hour charge against the proposed $1.028 trillion spending level and the amount of time that the plan would take to balance the budget,

In other words: Paul Ryan's plan would take too long to balance the budget because there is NO revenue -- not even an end to loophole tax evasion and corporate-welfare subsidies. Why? Because the hard-line (AKA Teabaggers) and all the GOP who have signed the pledge to Norquist think "starve the beast" cuts in spending--so far below GDP as to cause anarchy--is the only way to balance the budget.

Jon Stewart did a great interview with Norquist, and one can quickly see the lack of logic in the thinking -- Not to mention hyperbole to fear-monger low-information voters. These idiots want anarchy, and plutocrats like Romney are trying to ride to power on Teabagger coattails.

“The battle is part of an underlying war — the presidential campaign — and top Republicans hope to leverage the attention on the 2-year-old law for maximum political effect. In the House, Republicans are bringing up a bill this week to eliminate a cost-control panel created in the law.”

Wow. Reports were just released showing that Romneycare has resulted in lower health care costs in Massachusetts compared to the rest of the nation--yes, it's a success. And Romney is on video from multiple sources saying he envisioned Romneycare being implemented at the federal level. But he has to try to deny all this. What a debate this will be--Romneycare versus the Affordable Health Care Act, not to mention how Teapublicansintend to defend their usual obstruction against a cost-control panel. WTF?

The GOP/TP doubling down on every unpopular thing from their War on Women to Paul Ryan Hood's arse-backward plan to rob from Medicare to give more tax breaks to the rich is a gift to the president and the Dems. Keep up the good work Teapublicans!

And there is nothing our government won't stoop to in order to destroy American as we know it.

Rob in ma-3189632

Hey democrats,

Where is your plan? Where is your budget?

Hey rob, no comment on Ryan's plan rejected by his own people? Even the Republicans think Ryan's plan is piece of garbage. Any comment on that?

Um - Rob, you realize the Republicans didn't even want to bring this to a vote yet, right? The Dems, specifically Pelosi, forced Boehner's hand.

Can you imagine how it's going to look having the GOP get on record, just before the election, screwing over grandma and her grandkids?

This Congress has yet to pass a budget - there really isn't a rush to do so now - now that they are on their way out.

Edit: Just found another First Reed article on just this topic: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10774580-new-gop-budget-puts-presidential-candidates-on-the-spot?chromedomain=firstread

Rob:

The GOP has no responsibility for the budget?

While the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Portman have correctly stated the number of days since a budget passed the Senate, their statements are loaded with a certain amount of hyperbole.

The claim implies that the stalled budget process is the exclusive fault of Senate Democrats and not a function of partisan politics on both sides. It also fails to note that since 1983, the GOP was in control of both houses of Congress in three of the four years that a budget resolution wasn’t approved.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/jun/16/rob-portman/sen-rob-portman-chides-senate-democrats-not-passin/

Given the GOP determination to oppose everything, including budgets, proposed by the Democrats, what do you expect? The party of NO has gotten exactly what it wants: nothing.

Ever hear of the People's Budget? Or how about the president's proposal for the coming year that is not far off from Paul Ryan's plan with spending at only 18% of GDP, but there is a small tax increase on the rich so Medicare doesn't have to be ended as we know it? Personally, I love Jan Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act.

These things have been mentioned multiple times in this forum, and discussed on the news (real news, not FAUX News). But Rob, you'll ask this same stupid question again tomorrow, won't you?

Rob: like all good minorirty party politicians, the House Democratic's can't put forth a plan, the majority won't let it even be introduced.

However, the Democrats will dutifully discuss how the Republican's will be joyfully able to finally start the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, two major programs that have kept millions of Americans out of poverty for over 80 and 50 years, respectively. And we need not discuss how Republicans have been trying for as long as the laws have been in existence, to eliminate them.

Under the latest attempt, your grandparents who are on social security now won't have to worry, but if you have more than 9 years to go, you're thrown over a cliff by the republicans. The GOP is good at putting things over a cliff, the economy, women, veterans, the poor, the middle class, minorities, the list goes on and on. The will only stop when the US becomes a corporate fuedal society.

Nobody is eliminating Social Security and Medicare, and it is this sort of ridiculous sensationalism that prevents average Americans from thinking things through for themselves and reaching logical conclusions. Within both Social Security and Medicare, there are massive abuses of the benefits and system which need to be corrected. I have seen some of it first hand with aging parents and illness.....Drs prescribing ridiculous tests, because Medicare will pay for it rather than it being important for that individual's health and well-being....My mother, as a patient, questioned these tests and why they should be necessary, and was actually told by more than one Dr "Why are you worried, Medicare will pay for it all?" There are participants who are receiving benefit of these programs without eligibility for the programs. There was a simple mathematical formula posted recently that showed how much money would be in a savings account for retirement if people put the FICA deductions along with the contribution of employers to Social Security aside....then they computed it with bare minimal interest over the average workers lifetime until retirement....then they showed what would happen if these monies were invested in safe, slower growth investment vehicles such as CD's, government bonds, etc.....Simple common sense means that every working American could reasonably put aside sufficient savings to cover 20-30 years of retirement without the actual withholdings changing at all......Our government is collected and supposedly investing on a much grander scale, and as such should be able to expect larger returns due to sheer volume, but yet they manage to lose money with the very same resources....that says that there is something wrong with the administration of the program and it is time to overhaul it, so it can serve those it was intended to serve. Get rid of the waste, the scamming, and stop dipping into the reserves set aside for these programs for any purpose other than the original purpose of collecting the funds is a far cry from getting rid of the programs.

Sue:

There was a simple mathematical formula posted recently that showed how much money would be in a savings account for retirement if people put the FICA deductions along with the contribution of employers to Social Security aside..

Source?

Get rid of the waste, the scamming, and stop dipping into the reserves set aside for these programs for any purpose other than the original purpose of collecting the funds is a far cry from getting rid of the programs.

Surely you do not believe that private insurance is fraud free....?

Our government is collected and supposedly investing on a much grander scale, and as such should be able to expect larger returns due to sheer volume, but yet they manage to lose money with the very same resources...

Your source please to demonstrate that social security is losing money. Your description of it losing money does not seem to be accurate:

The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office show that the program will remain fully solvent through the year 2038. The program will continue to pay a substantial benefit – about 80 percent of the full benefit—from 2039 onward, even if no changes are made to the program.

Characterizing Social Security as a program on the brink of insolvency as a basis for reform is a misrepresentation of fact. As a Congressman, it is important that your public statements on this be as accurate as possible. If you would like any additional background on Social Security, I would be happy to assist you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/social-security-solvency-ceprs-dean-baker-takes-on-rep-jason-chaffetz/2011/11/15/gIQAqjKuON_blog.html

If you read through the entirety of the health care bill, many of the elderly which you are presuming to champion are going to be given "end of life counseling" and little more. We won't have to worry about them being out on the street, just where to bury them....our government has already decided, and our POTUS has publicly indicated the "hard choices" needed to make medical care accessible for all Americans....No they won't pull the plug on Grandma, but they won't do anything to alleviate the normal conditions that are treatable and come with aging. If you want to live in a world where the government decides that once you are eligible for Social Security and Medicare and no longer producing tax revenue, you aren't going to be treated either. I am serious, read through this stuff, because until you do, you are spouting liberal propoganda and catch phrases, sounding so high minded and public spirited and caring for the underdog, while you are authorizing our government to eliminate all that they feel is a drag on society. And it might not bother you personally, until it is your turn to become one of the elderly, or somebody in your family is affected, but trust me, as it stand now, with the words clearly written, not read by any of our representatives, and signed into law by our POTUS, we are all expendable.

Sue:

If you read through the entirety of the health care bill, many of the elderly which you are presuming to champion are going to be given "end of life counseling" and little more.

I presume you have read the entire bill? I have. If you need to refresh your memory, here's the link to the final version as passed and signed into law:

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Please show me the section of the law that shows that the elderly are going to be given "end of life" counseling and little else.

I'll wait patiently for your proof, but frankly, it's not there.

And that's not the only thing you made up in your post.

Sue gets her information from Limbaugh, Beck, and the voices in her head.

The really funny part of the whole "end-of-life counselling" debate, it this law allows doctors to be paid for what should be a normal part of their practice. No one is complaining about doctors slipping in a quick one to get more money.

Instead they still believe a lying statement from the 1/2 term governor, 3 years after she quit.

I agree phine - Say what people will -whether you like Ryan's budget or not, at least he is willing to take a concrete stance in a risky political situation. It is far better,politically, to offer vague concepts and fuzzy reassurances - but he is stepping forward. He is willing to be attacked by his own people and the opposition - it's a no win. But he is not being a coward by laying his cards on the table.

@Amy,

Christie defunded public TV (channel 39) in New Jersey in his first months in office. The GOP can't handle fair and balanced. Thankfully another PBS station in Philadelphia is seeing that Jersey continues to get quality programming, but with little content for NJ. It's a shame, but they had the only news program that didn't originate in Philly or NYC, and they helped NJ acquire their own sense of identity. The GOP is bad for the states and the country. It's a rich man's party that lets poor folks vote for the good of the rich.

By quality programming, do you mean only a liberal viewpoint, only something that complains and bickers about how unfair everything is? I don't think that public radio or TV should be funded by government at any level, because that can cause them to be a tool of government and lose the definition of public. Private foundations, private citizens with pledges should keep public radio and TV a part of the public voice.

I want real examples of how this is going to cut the legs out from under seniors....My mother worked her entire life, and her total monthly entitlement under Social Security wasw just over $1000/mo and from that she had to make her payments for Medicare and the supplemental Medicare coverage, and the Part D prescription package......do the math and what does that leave? It has been suggested over and over again, that rather than penalizing seniors who continue to work by choice after retirement age, by deducting from their benefits, what they would pay normally as their FICA deductions would more than replenish the outgo for the program....Yet we have people who are not citizens, have not paid into the system for decades, and yet are receiving much more generous benefits under Social Security than that....Cutting abuses will help the seniors who are struggling, not make it worse, by insuring that Social Security has the funds to make appropriate cost of living increases to the benefits. And then there are all the side programs, that while good and important, have been taken out of this supposedly sacrosanct Social Security barrel for retirement.....aid for dependent children, dependent spouses, medical and mental disability cases....doesn't it disturb anyone to hear the infomercials telling people that for a fee, an attorney group will make sure that you get your disability payments from social security????? People who would normally resume their lives, perhaps taking on a different occupation, or reduced physical labor for a desk type of job, instead are staying home and watching the Oprah network courtesy of social security. While there are those who simply are unable to do any sort of work due to illness, infirmity.....I am sure that is a much smaller percentage than the total number of recipients in these programs.