My questions:

1. why have the Republicans put their selfish interestes ahead of the interests of the country?

2. Why can't the GOPTP learn anything from their election losses in November - such as losses of 5 seats in the House, losses in the senate, and loss of their bid for the White House?

Good question, Amy.

I don't get it either. The polls clearly show the republicans on the losing end of the tax, medicare, social security stick yet they keep repeating the same things that voters rejected November 6.

I knew that didn't look right. tiniest, not tinniest. The Republicans have a tin ear, and not the tiniest bit of concern for how they appear over the fiscal crisis.

The day is nearer.

Republicans reckoning is surely upon them.

True americans will have to make a difference.

Again. Again and again till it is understood.

The political waste must be incinerated. Republicans have done most of the work for us. lol

Amy, because the GOP/TEA HONESTLY DO NOT CARE HOW BAD it makes them look. For this New Radicalized Republican Party it is "WE HATE THE PRESIDENT MORE", so Voters and Country, suck it up.

Grover has told them to use the Debt Ceiling as a bargaining Chip with all the Damage that would do to the "Full Faith and Credit" of the U. S. as well as the World.

The GOP/TEA is NOT INTERESTED IN GOVERNING, it is just OBSTRUCT President Obama's Program PERIOD!

As Paul Ryan, their future Presidential candidate who will never be President stated, the House Republicans got a Mandate Also. Nothing to do with the Fact that the Republicans GERRYMANDERED their Districts.

David Gregory takes a lot of heat for not calling out politicians who tell bald-faced lies. Would you explain why Gregory can't verbally grab them by the throat and say, "Senator or Congressman or Governor so-and-so, that's a damned lie and you know it."

I believe Gregory has to book his own show and he can't risk pissing off prospective guests. Is that the case?

I'm with Walker. Also, why doesn't Gregory or ANY of those moderators stop their guests mid-stream, and DEMAND they reply to the question asked, or cut 'em off until they do? I've seen it time and time again, and so have you- a question is asked, and the response is the same old same old. I don't mean just Repubs, either- this is truly a 'one-size-fits-all' deal.

Criminny- even the participants in the debates get away with it.

ALL of them.

Haven't heard anything about $3000 in ObamaCare taxes; sounds like one of those republican anti-ObamaCare campaign lies. The most anyone would pay is a modest penalty if they don't buy insurance but that only applies to people who can actually afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

Not to mention that the bulk of the ACA doesn't even go into effect until 2014, so it doesn't figure into 2013 taxes. For those interested in the true facts about Obamacare you should really go to the official White House website. Lots of great information.

You mean "Lots of great propaganda" !

Besides, reductions in the amount allowed to be put into a medical reimbursement plan under a cafeteria arrangement DO, IN FACT, go into effect in 2013 and WILL RAISE MY TAXES ! Since my W-2 is well below the $200k/$250k threshhold Obama talks about ... it looks like OBAMA HAS LIED ! Obamacare has raised my taxes and I am in the middle-class by income range.

It will figure into my 2013 taxes so you are wrong !

jim: but Speaker Boehner has already told us that limiting exemptions and deductions is NOT raising your taxes. Obamacare does not raise your taxes, it limits the amount you can put into a tax exempt entity, that is not the same thing.

drip, Typical lib explanation ... it is not an exemption, nor is it a deduction ! It WILL raise my taxes.

Furthermore:

Obamacare DOES raise taxes on the "wealthy" having over $200k/$250k of earned income by adding .9%.

Obamacare DOES raise taxes on the "wealthy" having over $200k/$250 k of investment income by adding 3.8%.

Obamacare raises the AGI floor on medical deductionsfrom 7.5% to 10%.

Obamacare puts a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing over (I believe) $250.

Obamacare even adds a 10% tax on tanning booths.

jim: I'm just giving the explanation that Boehner has already put forth for the increased amount that many people will pay next year. You may complain about it, but you already said you are under the $250K threshold, so most of the Bush tax cuts expiring won't affect you, same with most of the Obamacare taxes you indicated.

If you have income over $250,000 and, even after insurance, you are still spending over 10% of your income on medical issues and you are highly concerned about the 10% tanning booth tax, you have far other issues. BTW, is your real name John and do you represent OHIO ?

Oh drip, No one is "highly concerned" over tanning booth taxes .... but thanks for the distortion.

The "Bush Tax Cuts" expiring affects everyone who pays taxes. You are laboring under the false assumption that Obama intends to extend the tax cuts for the other 98%. But thanks for playing ... effective 2013, my taxes are going up as indicated and just because you attempt to gloss this over the reality. "Most" does not mean all.

Don't worry jim: don't forget, from 1945 until about 1980, the top tax rates were well above 70%. What is really amazing is, the country prospered under those "burdensome" tax rates; "job creators" actually created jobs, in THIS country; workers worked and bought products, MADE IN THE USA; and the middle class grew.

Correlation or causation ? We do know, according to the congressional research service, that reducing the top tax rates has had NO impact on the economy or job creation, even if Congressional GOP members try to quash the report.

...as a follow up, if Speaker Boehner is not Speaker of the House for the 113th Congress, who is?

I don't know if it will happen but Eric Cantor is waiting in the wings. Tea pottys at their finest.

IN the wings ? Cantor's been busy sharpening his knife for two years.

What would the impact be, good and bad, to filibuster rules reform?

a) It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

b) Who cuts taxes while waging two wars? Republicans.

c) Why was universal healthcare a good idea for Massachusetts under Governor Romney, but not for the rest of the country under a President Romney?

CA, I understand that both parties set this cliff deadline/reform when we had the debt limit (crisis) dealings. I agree that both parties just kicked the can in order to get the limit raised. I believe both parties will be hurt if this happens, Obama for his stance on "no tax increases for those under $250k" and republicans for the Norquist pledge of no tax increases period.

Both sides should own up to the fact that both parties were involved, and both need to get realistic on reducing spending, balancing the budget.

As for insults, I save those for my enemies, not my fellow americans!

A) who cares

B) both parties (prove me wrong)

C) Tell me what was the ruling on Obamacare again? Tell me what makes up the united states, hint there is 50.

you and a lot in here are the reason why this country is Ill Amy. Go back to the DDI and enjoy your virtural reality. I didnt expect my question to be taken serious in here and you proved it with your 'reasoning'.

Seriously, you can't blame both parties for the fiscal disaster created by the GOP from 2001 through 2006; they had the House, the Senate and the White House. Democrats (their votes weren't needed) were irrelevant to the GOP passing unfunded everything including the massive tax cuts that took us from a budget surplus to $1 trillion deficit in less than one year, two unfunded wars and an unfunded Rx Plan for Medicare (which shortened the life of medicare).

As for the sequestration, once again we owe the biggest share of the blame to the GOP since they could not and would not agree to any increased revenues as part of the deal. I, for one, never dreamed the GOP would be stupid enough to agree to automatic massive defense cuts as part of the debt deal just to protect the tax rates on the upper 2%. While democrats aren't perfect, they offered reasonable compromises including on entitlements--yet the GOP refused to accept those offers to protect millionaires and billionaires tax rates. Arrogance combined with rigid, ideological ignorance is a dangerous mix, set to explode at various times in the next weeks and months.

C.A. is wrong and always will be. He uses Fox facts to argue his point. The truth is Republicans not Democrats are the borrow and spend party. When democrats spend they pay for it. When Republicans spend it isn't for the people but it is tax breaks for those that need it least and they don't pay for it.

CA: the Democratic party should rule by decree because Republicans fail to use their limited cerebral abilities. That is self evident in the fact they are Republicans.

The Democratic Party, and in particular, President Obama, have already said they know what happened in the last negotiations. He has already said words to the effect of "we won't be fooled again."

battleboy John, if im so wrong, I'm sure you have the time to prove it. and dont come back with the condescending (you and jody and amy already proved my point) that because you say so its gospel. you FR hard lefties are arrogant crap bags.

Hey Dirp if you want one party Rule, by all means you can move to DPRK. Here in the USA we have a checks and balance and it was never intended to be ruled by Decree. Since Libs are so magnanimous and benevolent Im sure Harry Reid would love to produce a budget and Kerry will donate his and his wife's wealth. Pelosi can finally drain that swamp starting with the 'moral' and 'ethical' Charlie Rangle.

drip, A 3% margin of victory does not mean you can decree Barack as KING .... simply because you don't like the Constitution ... nor is he to be a dictator ! The setup of our Constitution was made "PURPOSEFULLY DIFFICULT" to require "Consensus" for laws to be passed. It was designed to prevent any one individual from having too much power.

Now that is exactly what you left-wing extremists desire .... unlimited power for your chosen one.

jim: but I thought in 2008 you Republicons had declared him to be the "messiah." Now you want to say you were wrong ? Oh, I'm so dissappointed. Oh well, in four years we can put in the person we should have voted for:

Hillary 2016 :)

[Hey Dirp if you want one party Rule, by all means you can move to DPRK.]

So,you're comparing one-party rule here in the U.S. to a communist country's government? You can't possibly be this stupid, can you Pizza Boy?

Wait...don't answer that...we already know.

Oh, how far you have fallen Oh Big-Brained One...

speaking of stupid hows it hanging Mickey. I said one party rule not necessarily the democrat party. But tell me what the advantages of one party rule is Mickey? would you prefer Junta? Come on Mickey you can do it. you have Wikipedia member? I can cite a myriad of examples of how bad one party rule is, but im sure you see the advantages of it dont you layabout leech.

Mickey I may have fallen but where have you gotten in life? Dont answer I dont care I wouldnt believe it anyways.

Stand up for your values behind the computer screen Mickey. Rocky says Hi *popcorn

You have discovered the strategy laid out by Tom Delay (and others.) Tom Delay rigged the Texas legislature to gain control right before the last census. Since Congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures, in order to control the House, you need to control the legislatures. Once that is done, you generally are able to keep control for a period of at least 20 years. After that, the districts tend to look so much like snakes who have swallowed little pockets of republicans that courts routinely reject the districts.

I asked this because during his presidency it was quite clear that President Bush was the leader of his party and when President Clinton was in office it was quite clear that Speaker Gingrich was the leader of his party. Right now, even with Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell, can you look at any single elected Republican and call them a "LEADER"?

Excellent distinction, Da Noid.

Great point, DaNoid.

I'll add that the GOP doesn't seem to have embraced Mitt Romney as the head of their party; they seem to want him to disappear completely. McCain was, although grudgingly, given the honorary head of the GOP despite his loss.

Is this ironic, or what? Only 47% of Americans approve of Romney and Ryan.

Romney, who is not expected to seek national office again, received a 47 percent favorability rating among poll respondents, higher than any other Republican except for Ryan, who is also viewed favorably by 47 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558193-10391739/poll-republicans-lack-a-leader/

Amy B: I want to see their tax returns to see if they are "makers or takers." :)

Da Noid, you state that Bush was the leader. I beg to differ. It was really Cheney and, to some degree, Karl Rove. Bush couldn't lead a puppy from one side of a kennel to the other. He has a history of failure at everything he has done.

Adler,

Go back to my original statement...we are defining "LEADER" of the party as the most influential elected official from his/her party in Washington.

Now, it certainly wasn't Mr. Rove because we didn't elect him. You can argue Vice President Cheney but he wasn't the mouthpiece for the White House's position the way President Bush was.

I stand by the premise of my question.

Al, I think you're not factoring in another option which is to change the payment structure of Medicare - rather than "services," pay for "wellness."

Al... At what point do we finally STOP raising taxes?

Sure, your scenario only sees a 1.1% increase on taxes.... but that means EVERY working person in the country has 1.1% less spending power. And when you add that up that is MILLIONS of dollars that now go from helping the economy recover to the government coffers.....

How does that help anyone? Maybe if we ACTUALLY fix health insurance..... Get government out of the picture, allow for interstate commerce, cap lawsuits.... These things alone would drastically lower the cost of health care in this country.In turn that would lower the amount of money being spent by medicare

Larry, can you tell me a fair settlement for a child lost because of malpractice? What's your right arm worth, or your wife's eyesight?

Health insurance IS the problem - we pay higher and higher premiums and still struggle to afford the deductibles and co-pays. You sound like a conservative guy, so why are you willing to support 'middle-man' insurance whose sole purpose is to make money off the health industry. The government may be a bureaucratic nightmare but it's not paying dividends to its stockholders based on how many sick people they can kick off their enrollment.

Larry, federal taxes right now are at the lowest rates in generations. While they will go up on 1-1-13, they still will be at historical lows. How many old people do we need to throw under the bus? Why should we ask people in their middle 60's already burdened by skyrocketing health insurance costs to pay premiums for a few more years? Why should we turn the program into a voucher program just to pay for deficit busting tax cuts that are unsustainable? I am willing to pay higher taxes out of my pocket so that this does not happen.

As for fixing health insurance? How about eliminating it entirely? Whether it is by an increased tax or an increased insurance premium, a dollar raised from either source is a dollar I have less to spend. I am agnostic to the notion that getting gouged by the private sector is preferable to getting gouged by the government. Personally, I would like to see a single payer, paid by increasing the payroll taxes to the point where it covers everybody, with a surtax on investment income and passive income so that those who make their money by not working don't get a free ride. Then we can eliminate health insurance and let insurance companies do what they do best, cover against rare but catastrophic events.

We already pay among the LOWEST tax rates of all the industrial nations on this planet. Frankly we should look for a better way to beef up Social Security and Medicare without having them be either tax payer funded or controlled by private industry. It is supposed to be like an insurance policy. You pay your entire life and then in your senior years that money should be available for you when you need it. That was much of the original intent but it got messed up. (Greed is not good no matter what the neocons think)

Ursula, Good point!

OK, so your contention is, because doing one thing won't solve all of the fiscal issues of the country we should do nothing, right ?

Nooo.....

My contention is that we should lower the operational budget of EVERY government agency by a minimum of 10% (retroactive to Oct. 1, 2012). Take the money from that and pay down our debt.

In 6 months if Congress and the President have yet to come up with a balanced budget (at a minimum -- they should be operating with a "surplus" to help pay off the debt) the budgets of every federal agency shold be reduced by an additional 5% (and so on and so forth).

Maybe then both parties will actually come together and decided what is needed spending.

Larry, we're talking about a fiscal cliff because tax rates will revert to pre-Bush and some spending will be reduced - but not anywhere NEAR 10%. Jeez-louise, that'd put us into a depression for sure! But I guess Washington isn't beating a path to your door for advice...

What excessive debate over health care ? That was Democrats debating with other Democrats as back-room deals were cut to "BUY" the needed votes of a few who sold out.

If you consider Obama's constant campaigning while he failed at leading ... it was as impressive as a turd in a punch bowl.

Probably due to the fact that the administration and the man hide things so as not to be proved wrong and disenchant his voting minions.

Case in point, today it was released (by digging into ACA a little deeper) that all employers will be required to pay a fee of $63 per year per employee for three years starting in 2014 to help insurance companies defer some of the costs they will incur by covering preexisting conditions. And we weren't going to have to pay for everyone else. BS.

Amy, that's happened to me before. Did you make sure to save your changes in your account? I want to see Santa Obamaclaus! LOL

Watch it girls. That is what Limbaugh called Obama a couple of weeks ago and caught all kinds of grief from you liberal/progressives. He was implying that that was one of the reasons he got reelected. He gives free stuff.

Thanks, but anyone who knows better knows that Rush Limbaugh is a sick and demented pig who will say whatever it takes to rile up his low IQ audience base. He is mean and spiteful. Obviously when I use the term "Obamaclaus" it is said with fun and the intention of it being the holiday season. Anyone believing that the president is handing out free stuff should really have a mental evaluation, but the Right believes what the Right wants to believe.

Obamaclaus where's my Obamaphone?

Love it, Amy!

Hey, Thinking, I take it you are low income and need a phone? You should check with your public assistance counselor for assistance in obtaining a low cost cell phone. In case you were unaware, the low income cell phone assistance plan started oh, about 10 years ago and individual cell phone providers and even cable companies that offer cell phone service do provide assistance to those on UI and public assistance. Let's see, 10 years ago. Was Barack Obama president at that time? Or even a senator? I seem to recall that, yes I think this is so, that a republican had something to do with this free to low cost cell phone service for those that qualify. You're welcome.

Alaska, the Republicans on this board have memory issues. You are so kind to remind them the free cell phone program did not begin with Obama. Of course, you know, they will forget again....

Well, I feel it is our civic duty to help those with a memory deficit!