The Benghazi Report is out. The news isn’t good and the RWNJs are giving each other high-fives.

Does anyone remember the truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 during Reagan’s administration? I don’t recall anyone on the Left crowing about Reagan’s failures to provide adequate security. It was a sobering moment as the American public considered the devastating toll of 241 dead U.S. servicemen.

Yet, today’s RWNJs give the strong impression that they could care less about four Americans killed at Benghazi. Oh yes, they express outrage about those who died. But it is false outrage, mere cover for continued vicious attacks against the Obama administration.

Benghazi is the kind of tragedy that could have happened on anyone’s watch. That it has received so much attention is an indication of how little has actually gone wrong on the international front during the four years Obama has been president.

Seriously. We haven’t had a major tragedy on the level of a 9/11 attack. Or a USS Cole. Or a Black Hawk Down. We should be thankful that Benghazi is relatively minor compared to those events.

But the release of the Benghazi Report makes the RWNJs positively gleeful. Giddy. They should be ashamed.

*** LaPierre to appear on “Meet”: Speaking of Newtown, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre is set to appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. This appearance will come after the NRA’s scheduled press conference for tomorrow.

***************

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- A 16-year-old boy fatally shot his friend with a shotgun after the pair argued over a paintball game and playfully wrestled at the boy's home in South Dakota, according to an arrest affidavit
released Wednesday.

The boys, both 16, were classmates at Riggs High School.

I saw a report the other day that stated 500 children die each year from accidental gun incidents.

Another report: There are 10 states who have more deaths from guns yearly than deaths caused by car accidents.

Gun-related fatalities are on pace to surpass deaths from automobile collisions by 2015,
Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

Think Progress: Parents hoping to shield their children from the terrible fate that befell the kids of Newtown are purchasing armored backpack, meant to protect fragile bodies from bullet fire.

Protect Your Kids From Guns: A recent study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns -- 5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as 14 year olds. http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/protect_your_kids_from_guns.php#ixzz2FbN9fojK

Guns are not just in the hands of criminals and mentally unstable. They are also in the hands of children and immature teenagers and young adults.

Children - young children, are finding their parents’ guns and firing them.

When is enough is enough? What is it going to take for people to understand we have a serious serious problem here in America with guns, with so-called responsible gun owners.

Don't talk about the second Amendment. Talk about our fragile and violent culture here in America.

Before we can talk about banning assault rifles, we need to talk about banning verbal assaults. Before we examine access to mental health treatment, we need to examine our own hearts and minds.

JoAnne, superb post. Something has gone terribly wrong here in America with our culture/society.

And because of it, people are dying.

No Need To Worry

There is a big freakout over a possible fiscal cliff deal including the use of something called “chained CPI” to calculate increases in Social Security benefits. Go to Huffington Post, Daily Kos or another “liberal” blog and you will see people who never supported the president in the first place but nonetheless claim to be his “base” lamenting over what a backstabber he is.

The president, as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation offers and counteroffers, has apparently opened the possibility of slightly adjusting the way cost of living increases are calculated for Social Security, by tying it (and all other government accounting) to a “chained CPI” model, a more accurate measure of inflation that accounts for the idea (and fact) that consumers often replace an item with increasing prices with a less expensive substitute. Apparently, this set off more alarm bells on the Left’s media than Pearl Harbor. But as with most hair-on-fire freakouts, there is less here than meets the eye.

What is this Chained CPI thing?

There are no cuts being proposed to social security’s basic benefits. Social Security benefits are currently calculated using a formula that takes into account your income and replaces a certain percentage of it. Here is exactly how that’s done: by determining one’s average monthly income – wage-inflation adjusted – in the 35 best earning years of one’s life, and then applying a “bend point” formula to determine your base benefit (fashionably known as PIA or the “primary insurance amount”). If you retire in 2011 at your normal retirement age, for example, your basic benefit is determined using the following formula:

(a) 90 percent of the first $749 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $749 and through $4,517, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,517.

Again, these “bend points” are adjusted by a formula that has been set in law since 1979, are based on wage-growth, and there is absolutely no changes to that formula in the gang of six plan, and the changes proposed to it in the Fiscal Commission plan actually increases the base benefits for the poorest workers who are also likely to have the least in savings or other retirement income.
A chained CPI measure would also collect more taxes. Tax brackets, like social security benefits, are indexed to inflation, which means that just every so slightly, more people will fall into slightly higher brackets.

Chained CPI is not a cut in baseline benefits in Social Security. Even Paul Krugman – the Professional Left’s greatest self-proclaimed bearded professor – admits that initial benefits are determined by one’s earnings, but that chained CPI would reduce the rate of growth of those benefits by about 0.3%. For every “progressive” who believes that such slowing of the rate of growth is a “benefit cut,” I would like them also to step forward and with a straight face, tell me that cutting the rate of growth of defense spending is a “cut” in defense spending. If you think you’re a liberal, go ahead and try to say that. Out loud. With a straight face. You can’t do it, can you?

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/12/dear-liberals-chained-cpi-is-not-cut-to.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, our President didn't become person of the year if he wasn't putting the interests of Americans 1st unlike ole blue eyes aka the tan man with Eric cantor's knife in his back

Collectively, the GOP is unconscionable - playing the Grinch to steal Christmas from hard working Americans who have to wait to see if their Christmas will be ruined with all the Republican BS

Would you - as one poster did here yesterday - boast about supposedly delivering a "kill shot" to the chest of a possibly unarmed man - in front of your own 10-year-old daughter - and then laughing about it afterwards with the police?

JoAnne,

Powerful post & eloquently written!

However, you did forget to mention the "gators" Rambo spun into his fairy-tale!

That fantasy had more holes in it than a hunch of aged Swiss cheese... unbelievable people actually voted it "up"! lol

Does "B" stand for "Boehner"?

Ben LotsaNumbers,

The very last word of your post proves my point.

JoAnne,

That was a wonderful, caring, thoughtful post. Thanks.

JoAnne, stands and applauds; wonderful post!

"And any actions that we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts."

Jack, well said. It is disgusting to watch the right these days when as you said, when incidents and tragedies occurred prior, this was not the case. The problem that manifested itself in Benghazi stem back to at least 1998 with the embassy bombings and years of underfunding the Dept of State which then meant fewer dollars for security. Even GOP Senator Bob Corker admitted that Congress has some responsibility for failing to properly fund security for our embassies and consulates. I

Dear Beverly, I have seen what you are seeing from supposed Obama supporters. A lot of them are from red states and all they do is sit on the computer throwing insults at anyone who so much as DARE ask that we wait to see what is going to pass in this legislation. Some of them were never on board with Barack Obama to begin with. Some are x-republicans and on and on.

I am one who is a firm believer in letting our president/legislators know when I am not happy about certain legislation they might pass and that they should hear me loud and clear, but I am not a believer in disrespect towards those who actually respect President Obama.

They have been around for years. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

There would have to be something terribly wrong w/you if you communicate with them on a daily basis. They're not worth it.

How funny that photo is up top. Like those in that photo know anything.

Please.

[The Benghazi Report is out. The news isn’t good and the RWNJs are giving each other high-fives.]

I think McCain, Graham, and Ayotte owe Susan Rice an apology...well, maybe not Ayotte. She simply was dragged into this mess by the other two so as not to seem that the men were ganging up on Rice like bullies.

She played the part, and not very well, I might add.

Thanks for an eloquent and inteligent post. Unfortunately, I fear it will fall on deaf ears for the many frightened people who use insults and threats to mask their insecurities.

Dear Mr. President, Please tell Mr. Boehner and his Repug followers to take his Plan "B" and shove it. This is not what we voted for, or the President requested. Typical Repug action. Change horses in mid stream. say one thing then do another, LIE about everything. Poor fools, they still don't believe they lost the election. WAKE UP, YOU LOST, YOUR LOSERS, GET OVER IT. NOW, GET ABOUT THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS.

Or Mr. President, take us over the cliff and see how they like that.

JoAnne in PA

Nicely stated. Reasonable, intelligent people can and should be able to disagree on issues in a civil manner. We all want what's best for the country, we just have different ideas on how to get there. There is no justification for treating each other with disrespect.

I like Newsvine because the discussion here is generally more intelligent than what I see in the other forms of social media. People here are more informed and more articulate...even the liberals :)

Ron-186,

So after delaying any real spending cuts or revenue increases for 16 months your idea is to kick it down the road once again !

Boehner the worst speaker ever..

Boehner the most prolific crying baby ever

Boehner changes facial color the most ever

Boner the most impotent ever

Pat, Boston, well said. Thanks to Iowa's GOP Governor Branstad, it is easier for a felon to be granted a gun permit and to legally purchase a gun than it is for said felon to be granted his/her voting rights after having served a sentence.

Beverly, great information. I understand that President Obama's proposal requires guaranteed protections for social security low earning seniors. I have no doubt that the changes he proposed make sense.

Ben, while the avatar photo you chose is lovely, the words you post too often contradict the image you wish to project.

Pat Boston MA.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- A 16-year-old boy fatally shot his friend with a shotgun after the pair argued over a paintball game and playfully wrestled at the boy's home in South Dakota, according to an arrest affidavit
released Wednesday.

Pat ,

My son said something to me last night I'd night I'd like to share. As a person of the military, it is very difficult for him to get a gun. First he has to go online. Then he shows his gun registration online. After that he gets a live person on base. Then a live person signs him off. He and the live person go to the cache. my son would show his registration. The live person picks the gun. My son and him/her (live person) read the numbers. Finally, he gets the weapon.

I hope I'm saying this correctly the way he told me (I've never been in the service) Anyhow, my point is my son was livid. As a military person and trained killer he must go through all that. Yet, an evil or mentally challenged person can easily get an assault weapon without a background check!!!

House Republicans are charging ahead Thursday with a pair of votes aimed at averting tax hikes scheduled to kick in 12 days from now -- but the move is fraught with tactical risk, as Democrats have effectively boycotted the legislation.

The bills expected to come for a vote by Thursday evening amount to what House Speaker John Boehner is calling a "Plan B." One bill would prevent tax hikes for everyone save for those making more than $1 million. In a late decision, Republicans also introduced a bill that would temporarily replace automatic spending cuts set to hit in January.

But while GOP leaders are gradually winning the support of their rank-and-file, Democrats in both chambers, as well as President Obama, are adamantly opposed. The White House on Wednesday issued a veto threat.

First Thoughts: Is Boehner walking away -- again?.....really

Boehner and Obama had until early this week been engaged in seemingly productive talks toward a compromise package. The move to draft a "Plan B" could be aimed at strengthening Boehner's negotiating position, as he tries to extract more spending cuts and more modest tax rate hikes from the White House as part of any deal. But Democrats were so angered by the new proposal that the future of talks is unclear.

Later in the evening, Democrats boycotted the meeting where lawmakers were setting the terms for debate on Thursday. Democrats, in a written statement, called the process "outrageous and empty," and a "hoax."

Califirnia Tom.

Mr. President, take us over the cliff and see how they like that

I have no doubt , this is what the left and Obama wants, take us over the cliff.

Jody, today's legislators in the GOP are really frightening. Their priorities are dangerous to say the least. Dangerous for all of us, but particularly children.

Beverly, you bring up a point that hopefully Congress will address seriously.

I do worry though. I can't remember the last time Congress paid attention to us.

Lump of Coal

From the article above:

Folks, if they are really this close and not that far away, then it does seem silly they can’t bridge this gap.

And there you have it, the modern day GOP.

Obstructionist, Opportunists, Hypocrites.

The Boehner House is the worst in U.S. History.

American’s are struggling, thanks to John Boehner, and all he offers the American public is a lump of coal.

Truly amazing how low the Republicans have sunk.

Salud.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Ron-186,

So after delaying any real spending cuts or revenue increases for 16 months your idea is to kick it down the road once again !

Don't get me wrong, it's not what I'd really want (which is both sides working together to implement a realistic long-term plan), but I don't see that happening in a 2 week time-frame - and I think it's important to provide some stability for at least the next 6 to 12 months.

Right on the money, JoAnne.

Ben, read JoAnne's post at the top.

There are solutions to our national problems, if people will operate in good faith and do what is best for the country as a whole, even if it means compromising and sacrificing a little.

Are you listening, Mr. Speaker?

First Thoughts: Is Boehner walking away -- again?

The question should be is the Boner drunk again?

Tomas,

Those same comments in 1.30 could also be made of the Democrats. Boehner has offered an alternative and the Democrats have said no (Reid won't even let it come up for a vote). How is that any different than the "obstructionist" tactics of the GOP you complain about?

House GOP leaders will vote on a separate measure today to restore the automatic defense cuts in the sequester and cut an additional $200 billion in spending as a way to get more GOP support.Yet such a move will only further alienate Democrats and the Obama White House.

And why is that? Because Dems and Obama have no intention of making any meaningful cuts in spending. Instead they want to continue deficit spending and debt creation, no end in sight. That is simply not a balanced approach, no matter what spin Mr. Obama wants to put on it. And this all points out the lack of leadership on Mr. Obama's part. He needs to tell H. Reid and N Pelosi that the deficit spending and debt creation have to stop Otherwise the house of cards is going to come tumbling down and mr. Obama will be to blame.

kaybeetoys

Right on the money, JoAnne.

Ben, read JoAnne's post at the top.

There are solutions to our national problems, if people will operate in good faith and do what is best for the country as a whole, even if it means compromising and sacrificing a little.

Are you listening, Mr. Speaker?

I really liked your post up until that last line... To get DC fixed we need BOTH parties to start truly trying to compromise and stop playing their political games. Yes, the GOP is guilty of playing politics with the countries future, but so are the Democrats.

Boehner is doing what needs to be done when the other side is behaving like an little child -- walk away. Obama blinked and he will blink again.

Oh, I think not...

Nearly seven-in-10 Americans disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the fiscal cliff, according to a poll released Tuesday... Only 17 percent of Americans approve of how the GOP is handling negotiations, while 69 percent disapprove, according to a new CBS News poll

Why should Obama blink?

On May 23, 2012 Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to Speaker Boehner, and here is a direct quote.

"Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit."

Now that Boehner is offering exactly what the Democrats said they believe in, they are calling it a "hoax." Negotiating with Democrats is like trying to hit a moving target. What they say they want today changes tomorrow. It is time for Democrats to either mean what they say, or say what they mean. The only games being played are by Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Read the entire Pelosi letter right here: http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press/pelosi-letter-boehner-allow-house-vote-now-permanent-extension-middle-income-tax-cuts

Speaking of a reasonable debate on issues, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for arbitrarily banning certain types of weapons, specifically "assault" rifles. The arguments I hear pretty much center around "why does anyone need an assault rifle?" That alone isn't reason to restrict anyone's rights.

The onus is on those who desire to restrict other's rights to make a compelling argument for doing so. I haven't heard one yet.

Here's the irony of the day (so far).

DingleB says:

Nicely stated. Reasonable, intelligent people can and should be able to disagree on issues in a civil manner. We all want what's best for the country, we just have different ideas on how to get there. There is no justification for treating each other with disrespect.

I like Newsvine because the discussion here is generally more intelligent than what I see in the other forms of social media. People here are more informed and more articulate...even the liberals :)

Followed immediately by

Ben-636050 :

Boo Hoo cry baby CA Tom.

(I guess he said "generally" but still......)

Is Boehner walking away again? Doesn't that depend on what time of the day it is ... Happy Hour and Washingtonian pub crawls? Hey, it's a slow day up here.

Ron-186,

How about the bill that already passed the Senate and is sitting on Boehner’s desk that keeps all tax rates for all income below $200K/$250K the same?

JoAnne, great post.

Someone once said that "money is the root of all evil". I would amend that slightly and say that GREED is the root of most of the evil in this world.

The Greedy corporations who exploit our teens and pre-teens with the realistic mind-numbing violence of "first-person shooter" video games like Modern Warfare and Call of Duty - they don't care if the carnage desensitizes our children to violence and allows a few disturbed individuals to act out their fantasies as long as they make a buck.

The Greedy Hollywood corporations who overwhelm our children with pyrotechnics and explosions and glorify guns and violence - they don't care about setting a bad example as long as they can sell commercials and movie tickets.

The Greedy gun manufacturers who resist all attempts at regulation and safety and mass-market weapons designed to do nothing more than deliver large quantities of lethal ammunition at high volume - they don't care how their product ends up being used as long as they keep selling all they can make.

The Greedy gun dealers or gun owners who will willingly sell any gun to anybody at any time - they dont care if the person they are selling the weapon to is responsible enough to possess it, as long as they pay cash.

Greed is what drives these faceless corporations and unscrupulous individuals to ignore the repercussions of their actions and stoke the fires of the culture of violence that exists today.

Jack in Portsmouth: Even by your standards, the comment above was excellent- right to the point and based on unassailable truths.

Unassailable, that is, to anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the concept of truth. That standard unfortunately excludes many of the Wrong-wingers who post on this page most prolifically, most notably our Ben###, who is simply copying and pasting on every thread this morning some bit of inane reactionary cant that he likely did not compose himself, but is quoting entire and unaltered from the pages of World Net Daily, the Drudge Report, or some other such august journal.

Yet again, we are seeing undeniable proof that today's Republican Party is not loyal to the letter or the spirit of our Constitution. Once more, the Republicans are bending over backwards to prove that their first, best loyalty is to their corporate masters and their billionaire patrons, and that the well- being of regular, workaday Americans from the Productive Class is simply not a consideration for them at all.

Another day, another Republican offensive in the Class War. Once more, their efforts are bent to dividing the productive people against one another for the benefit of the Leisure Class. Once again, they demonstrate their valiant, unswerving commitment to sparing the comfortable, and repairing the damage that their own policies have inflicted on America's once-mighty economy by leaving the entire financial burden to be borne by the elderly, the needy, and the sick or disabled.

Another day, another demonstration by the Republicans that they are far beyond shame, that they have abandoned any pretense of common decency. They have symbolically exhumed the bodies of the four Americans who were murdered in the service of their country in Libya, and are dragging their bodies through the streets of D.C., honking and firing their weapons in the air as they shout, "WE WIN! WE GOT SOMETHING HERE THAT'LL STICK! WHOOHOO!" Four dead Americans- but to the Republican 'patriots', they mean only one thing: Opportunity!

And once again, many millions who cannot see how they're being lied to and used will support their unholy greed and indecent servility to the wealthy.

Sleep tight, those of you who can.

Dennis,

I agree the House should vote on the bill you mentioned in #1.42. If you look at my posts, I am a staunch independent and I'm pretty fed up with the antics of both parties.

Rick,

That $1M plus vote went exactly nowhere with Republicans in May. Why the flip now?

Ron-1861300

Tomas,

Those same comments in 1.30 could also be made of the Democrats.

No Ron, that is just another lame false equivalency that the Right wing media has brain-washed you with.

The reason why we are in this recession is because of REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

The reason why we have high unemployment is because of REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

The reason why it is taking so long to recover from this recession is REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION.

The reason why American's are sick of our government is because the John Boehner House is the worst in US history and and the lowest approval rating in US history.

People who watch Faux, listen to Rush and pray to their messiah Beck are the most uneducated, uniformed, ignorant people in this country and are bringing the nation down.

You should turn over a new leaf this new year and stop being a chump to the RW media.

Salud

President Boehner keeps sticking his hand in the fan blades on this one. Talk about a horrible poker player...

ROY WILSON-336103

Or is Obama walking away -- again?

On the contrary, ROY

President Obama does NOT walk away. He says what he means and means what he says. Did you not see that cold ass stair he gave that idiot , who btw should be working right along side FOX NOISE'S idiot Ed Henry when Jack Tapper asked our President that aSSine question during the WH press briefing yesterday?

Like, our President said take the "me factor" out of it.

SmBusOwnerinNY "That $1M plus vote went exactly nowhere with Republicans in May. Why the flip now?"

If raising taxes on those earning over 1 million per year is what Democrats said they believed in just a few months ago, why the flip flop now? Or were Democrats always just playing games?

Tomas,

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. :-)

Boehner is just trying to keep his job as Speaker, and for that vanity he is prepared to hold the whole nation hostage. Some patriot! Actually, his behavior is closer to TREASON.

Rick,

I can think of one reason: the President won re-election campaigning on the $250K threshold.

Did you miss that?

JoAnne great post and something I definitely need to keep in mind as I respond to those I disagree with. I hope your holidays -as well as everyone else's - are outstanding. And, I hope the New Year brings peace to our country and the ability for all of our elected officials to work together for THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!

JoAnne in Pensylvania...excellent post (#1).

What has happened to parenting...it takes a village (as Hillary says)...but with GOP assault on funding for communty initiatives since Reagan, the society has lost a lot of cohesion. But the GOP always voted for a lot of bailouts to guilty bankers and corporate CEOs to encourage corporate corruption - from which Republican politicians have benefited, remember McCain used to be one of Keating Five of late 1980s. The government will sell its shares of GM to end GM bailout. It looks like the GOVT will lose some money on this bailout after having made about $20 billion in bailing out AIG - BTW, the $150 billion bailout of the AIG is equal to all government help to the poor - time to end corporate welfare.

The country has gone downhill with Reagan and Grover Norquist since 1980s. Superman Clinton and Superman Obama have had successes, but the GopTp has had successes as well in reversing progress.

Dingle B-

Speaking of a reasonable debate on issues, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for arbitrarily banning certain types of weapons, specifically "assault" rifles. The arguments I hear pretty much center around "why does anyone need an assault rifle?" That alone isn't reason to restrict anyone's rights.

I have to disagree with the basis of your question. The Second Amendment guarantees the "right to keep and bear arms", no where does it guarantee the right to whatever type of weapon one desires. Several types of weapons such as automatic weapons, Grenade Launchers, etc. are already illegal.

We implement minimum safety standards and regulate access to almost every other type of potentialy lethal product, from how much fertilizer you can buy to how much cold medicine you can purchase.

In order to own and drive a car you must have a license, registration, title, and prove some competency to operate a vehicle. The vehicle must be equipped with the required safety items like seat belts and air bags, and drivers must obey speed limits and other regulations.

Why are some similar common-sense restrictions on something that is designed solely to kill an infringement on someone's rights?

SmBusOwnerinNY Obama said repeatedly on the campaign trail that "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." Did you miss that? What is very clear is that Republicans cannot get a cohesive answer on what Democrats actually want. This is a moving target with constantly changing demands. Obama and the Democrats should either mean what they say or say what they mean. But the game that Obama and the Democrats are playing seems designed not to get a deal.

So what the plan B is is lowering taxes on pretty much everyone while getting rid of "entitlelments". So how is this fair? The very very rich pay abut 3% more which is something they will not even feel and the poor have tons of stuff taken away? Or the elderly have to wait even longer to get to retire. Now it will be like 70? All so the wealthy don't have to pay 3% more. It's not even a tax increase because the lower rate was never supposed to last forever. Just don't understand the republicans.

We want low taxes and wars, but don't really want to pay for these things...so we will make the poor and middle class pay more and get less.

Rick,

Plan "B" in fact, by allowing several key tax credits to expire –including the expanded Child Tax Credit and a credit that helps with higher education tuition - would raise taxes on 20 million families. Also, allowing the current payroll tax cut to expire will affect every working American. As the Tax Policy Center noted, "Most low income and middle income families with children will see their taxes rise."

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/12/19/toppling-over-the-fiscal-cliff-could-cost-low-income-families-1000-in-reduced-tax-credits/

Millionaires and Billionaires are definitions of net worth not annual income.

Rick,

I don't honestly know what either of them are really proposing. All we get is generalities form both sides. Obama did always say $250K and up. Rhetorically he was saying "Millionaires and Billionaires" because there's no such term for "$250,000-aires."

I'm one of the people who's dying from the uncertainty. I've got until next Friday to decide whether to pay bonuses this year or next. I'd just like to have it resolved. $250K, 400K, even $1M. Whatever.

I think, however, that Obama is offering more with the SS CPI thing, and spending cuts as part of the deal. That sounds better. I don't understand why Republicans think those concessions are worth throwing away. What are they holding out for?

DingleB

..."why does anyone need an assault rifle?" That alone isn't reason to restrict anyone's rights.

The onus is on those who desire to restrict other's rights to make a compelling argument for doing so. I haven't heard one yet.

Why?

Because people use that machine, designed to propel bullets at high velocity, to kill children.

Salud

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "Millionaires and Billionaires are definitions of net worth not annual income."

Dennis knock off your wealth rant this argument is over INCOME tax rates. Besides, reconcile your explanation with what Nancey Pelosi wrote to Speaker Boehner on May 23, 2012 and I quote:

"Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit."

Dennis do you see the word "wealth" in Pelosi's letter, or do you think she is referring to income when she says "those earning over a million dollars a year?" Your argument isn't adding up Dennis, anymore then this constantly moving target by Democrats and Obama.

Read the Pelosi letter for yourself: http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press/pelosi-letter-boehner-allow-house-vote-now-permanent-extension-middle-income-tax-cuts

Dennis,

Is that right? Plan B lets the child tax credit expire?

That a huge deal killer. Giant tax increase on families?

Bonehead,

We voted for the president and his plan for America not your plan and the republicans plan B that only continues to protect the filth and greed of the rich and corporations!

Please folks, take a look at Ben-lotsanumbers avatar. Why, it's Mary adoring the baby Jesus. Christian or loathsome punk. I vote loathsome punk and here's what this contemptible jerk writes:

"Excuses like Jack's on Benghazi is pathetic and cowardly. The Benghazi cover-up and lies stink. Instead of the Boogie Woogie Flu -- Hillary has the Benghazi Flu. Massive mistakes but no blame LMAO!!"

LMAO? Does anyone find something there that's even remotely amusing? Here's some facts that do not penetrate the empty heads of tough-talking cowards like this guy. American embassies and consulates on foreign soil are treated as though they are on American soil. As a practical matter, which is of course lost on a simpleton like ben, protection of these "American" outposts is generally left in the hands of the host country.

While there is an American military presence, ofttimes they are not armed, and when they are, the weapons are not always loaded. Further those contingents cannot possibly handle a massive attack.

Does anyone with a scintilla of gray matter believe that American outposts were not on heightened alert on 9/11? Of course they were, and it was an idiot who produced a movie attacking Muslims that lit the fuse. From that moment on, al-Qaeda or surrogates had all the excuse they needed to attack, and it now appears they had been ready to do so.

Statements immediately following the killings were guarded. Of course they were. This was a scene of incredible chaos, but right-wing zero-intellect punks like ben demand an explanation immediately.

Were there mistakes made? Of course. Humans were involved. But, there's always an element of humor there, even if it's not obvious to most of us. Ben finds it. He's laughing his ass off.

Rick post 1.62

asked and answered in this thread.

You're arguing with yourself. YOU said Obama claimed $M and $B should have taxes raised in YOUR argument that Obama flip-flopped. Make up your mind!

Jp,

Please don't say We want wars. It is the past administration that wanted two lost wars costing $4,000,000,000,000 and involving 7,200 body bags.

Mickey, NY

President Boehner keeps sticking his hand in the fan blades on this one. Talk about a horrible poker player...

ripping your boss off again Sport? I hugged my guns last night and my child.. LMFAO @ YOU PEEWEE....

President Boehner sounds a bit better that Chairman ObaMao though HAHAHAHA. Now im wearing my ass when are you pulling your head out of yours my little horse jockey? Nice of you to bless us with your presesnts in the Proletariat Mob march PeeWee.

how bout you stick to lines like this

You're too much of a pussy to attend something like that, too afraid you'll "catch something", right?...besides, no guns allowed at Burning Man...oh, and no cowards, so you're done.

easy to say that when you have a firewall to hide behind ;o)

*Warning* - The "Plan B" that Boehner is voting on raises taxes on the middle class and benefits mostly the wealthy. This came out today from a non-partisan tax center. Story on NPR this morning.

That is why he wants this passed, to saddle the middle class with the tax burden, despite loosing a national election on this issue.

FR:

Still, one has to be realistic and put themselves in Boehner’s shows and ask just what is the political upside for him to cut a deal? It’s actually not that evident.

Of course, doing what's good for America doesn't even get considered by Boehner. He's a traitor who's willing to destroy the economy for his own political gain. Sadly, the utterly cynical First Read "journalists" don't think doing what's good for the country has anything to do with politics, either.

SmBusOwnerinNY thank you for some honesty. There is really nothing being discussed by either party that actually addresses this nations fiscal crisis. In the end there will be nothing more then another kick of the can, as they truly are not looking out for the best interest of the nation.

The time for standing behind either party is long over. Neither party has any sort of track record for ever solving anything. They play games with numbers, they call a reduction in future growth a cut, and they are dividing the nation not uniting it. Nothing short of term limits for congress, a totally revamped tax code, and a balanced budget amendment has any chance for success. It is way past the time for this country to live within its means.

I wish the NEWS would report what Plan B actually IS instead of just talking about the POLITICS and MACHINATIONS of the House Leadership.

If the public knows what the options were, maybe WE could get behind one of them. (!)

Following Tnsevol' well stated reasoning the reasonable sensible folk (including police chiefs) see the difference between the right to "bear arms" and the "supposed" right for them to bear military style weapons.

According to the Brady organization here is the difference between hunting rifles and the weapon of choice for these massacres.

Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?

A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only "look" scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

These combat features include:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handedshooting;
A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapidfire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle

____

Dingle - As part of comprehensive legislation, improved gun control such as banning these types of weapons, closing loopholes in background checks, limiting magazine capacity and providing more help for parents of the mentally ill we can reduce the amount of these incidents.

Yesterday when I was not being told to Fu%$ off and not being called a racist, I posted an analogy about deficit reduction (spending cuts). If implementing spending cuts will not completely reduce the deficit then why do ANY at all? We do it because it will help with our fiscal situation. By the same token, no gun control bill will completely stop these murderous acts of carnage but they will help. Isn't it worth it to stop just one of these? There is no excuse for do nothing at all.

Rick,

I hate to say it because it's a pretty disturbing statement about our political leaders, but I agree with you in #1.71.

If the President and the Congress simply wish to maintain the status quo through the use of their own imaginings, then leave things as they are. Let us go ahead and flop over the curb or cliff. If, on the other hand, either or both, wish to strengthen our ability to overcome the gwaddamndest economic mess since the great depression, then both have to do all they can collectively to promote full employment. A progressively appropriate tax rate based on income is vital to that end. Upticking wages are vital. Pissy wars and the manufacture of redundant, obsolete war materials have no redeeming value, therefore such costs negate the effects of the wages paid for their manufacture. Problems of a thieving, greedy, yet seemingly untouched Wallstreet must be effectively addressed, and countered. Finally, the untouchable relationship, laughing called trade, with Countries who make our stuff using modern day slaves, ship the stuff back here to sell to us at Wallstreet set prices, whereupon we have no choice other than to buy it, mostly on credit, since we have no jobs, and therefore earn no wealth to pay for the stuff, has to be changed. This trade mess benefits only the wealthy who either own the outsourced entities or provide money for their operation in the way of investments. All other things, including education, and affordable healthcare are attainable only after the accomplishment of the aforementioned. Republican Congresspersons, and many democrats will never go along with any of this unless forced to by some freak of force. Hell, most have little, to no understanding of any of It.

Rick,

I'm always honest. It would too hard to keep track of making up lies. That doesn't mean we won't disagree on a LOT of stuff. I think our system is just plain F'ed up that it operates like this. It has to be a confusing rush at the last minute so no one really knows what's going on until it's over. It's a crappy way to run a country. I'd prefer more deliberation, inform the public and get some real opinions from them, then act on what the majority of the country wants.

From what I understand, polls seem to agree with Obama's position that all rates, deductions etc below $250K stay, while over $250K revert to Clinton rates. Pretty simple. Obama conceded SS COLA and $400K to add in Unemployment extension. What's the problem with that? That's sounds much more like good faith than making a separate Plan B with a $1M threshold, while removing the child tax credit on the middle class. Who's protecting the middle class?

And I say go over the cliff... Instead of cobbling a new roof over the Bush era tax structure, bull doze it into a Texas ditch. When the new congress convenes, build a new code that restores equity to the American tax payer. Not only that, it will do away with Grover's no new tax pledge because every income level will require a tax cut. There are many good reasons for letting this happen and wall street will quickly get over it.

The President simply can't govern. He rose to power so quickly he never gained an ounce of experience except for campaigning. Hillary 2016

TNSEVOL

Again, no reasonable argument to arbitrarily ban certain guns. Bans on fully automatic guns, grenade launchers, etc are based upon the fact that those are considerably more deadly than all other weapons. "Assault" weapons are not. They shoot bullets (much smaller ones than most rifles) just like any other gun. It is irrational fear that is driving the call for a ban on assault rifles.

TomasGrande

Why?

Because people use that machine, designed to propel bullets at high velocity, to kill children.

Salud

The same person could use any "machine" to kill children. Again, why the calls to arbitrarily ban certain types? If one really believed that banning guns would reduce gun crime, then wouldn't the logical arguement be to ban ALL guns? If that is indeed the goal, then let's be up front about it.

Ben,

David Walker -- Your pathetic ignorance and hatred is showing. Look in a mirror if you really want to see a loathsome punk coward.

Do you know how to read?

Ben 636050: "Your pathetic ignorance and hatred is showing. Look in a mirror if you really want to see a loathsome punk coward."

Caesar Augustus: " LMFAO @ YOU PEEWEE....easy to say that when you have a firewall to hide behind ;o)"

David Walker :" I vote loathsome punk and here's what this contemptible jerk writes:"

David, I'm normally a big fan. Ben and Caesar, I'll be the first to admit, not so much. But thank you all for proving that I was right when I knew all along that my post at #1 above would be a complete waste of my time and energy and wouldn't accomplish a thing.

But I'm going to keep saying it anyway.

"And any actions that we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts"

Dingle,

No one is going to wheel a wood chipper in to kill children....

...a light, handy weapon that you can shoot 2-3 rounds per second just by squeezing the trigger 30 (or 100) times in a row, that's more dangerous.

Addendum: Momentarily distracted from my post above. Had to address an email that resulted in a loss of several thousand dollars. Oh hell, least It's the Christmas season.

We are becoming, actually seem hellbent, on the establishment of a nation that can only produce poverty. Millions are quite rich in poverty, and all the gwaddamn Congress will talk about is the debt? Fools don't know their ass from a whorehouse doorknob, nor possess the care of the first jackel to bite into the carrion pile. I honestly believe this is what the country has become. Can't sell poverty as most republicans claim, not even to Santa Clause.

Our Presidents lack of experience is showing.

patrick demarco

The President simply can't govern.

Sorry amigo, but President Obama is one of the best President's this nation has ever had.

The only other President since FDR to be re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote.

He has guided this nation out of a huge recession created by Republican policies and and re-established Americas respect around the world.

He is a great father, loving husband, and cares deaply about the children of this country and helping out the poor and middle class.

In short, you should thank God for blessing this nation with an intelligent, courageous leader like President Obama.

Salud

Dingle B -

Assault" weapons are not. They shoot bullets (much smaller ones than most rifles) just like any other gun. It is irrational fear that is driving the call for a ban on assault rifles.

That is not entirely true. See Yellowdog's well-written explanation above.

To add to his points, assault rifles do NOT shoot bullets "like any other gun". They are designed to deliver higher rates of fire and can be equipped with much higher capacity magazines than most "other" guns.

The major difference to me is purpose. The higher rate of fire and higher capacity magazines do not facilitate either target shooting or hunting. The PURPOSE of an assault rifle is clearly to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

The same person could use any "machine" to kill children

I don't disagree, but why make it legal and easy for someone to obtain a weapon DESIGNED to kill people more efficiently than other machines.

I don't think that being afraid of this type of weapon in the wrong hands is an "irrational fear".

If one really believed that banning guns would reduce gun crime, then wouldn't the logical arguement be to ban ALL guns?

Outlawing cars would eliminate all vehicular fatalities, but instead we have chosen to pursue common sense solutions to at least minimize or alleviate some of the potential causes of fatalities by regulating the types of vehicles, legislating traffic laws like speed limits, implementing safety features like seat belts and air bags, and licensing potential drivers.

Why not a similar approach to firearms?

JoAnne

OFF TOPIC - go post where it is on topic.

Just like a progressive/liberal, never let a crisis go to waste to further your agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself.

TomasGrande - Your praise for President Obama could only come from a left wing loon. He doesn't care about any American that doesn't think along the same lines as he does. He is not a leader. A leader works with everybody that they are supposed to represent. Until he start representing everybody he will remain a POS in my mind, not a POTUS.

Yellowdog-Mark D

A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;

Magazines can be switched out in a matter of seconds. High capacity magazines aren't any more dangerous than several low capacity magazines

A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);

Folding stock? Really?

A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handedshooting;

Pistol grip? Really?

A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapidfire;

No gun will overheat after shooting 30 rounds. All rifles have a grip at the barrel.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;

Is night time concealment a huge problem that I'm not aware of? Rifles with flash suppressors still have plenty of recoil.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;

Wrong. It aint like the movies. Suppressed guns still make a lot of noice.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle

Bayonets? Really?

None of that points to assault weapons being more deadly than others. Pistol grips and bayonet lugs are not contributing to a higher gun crime.

Joanne in PA you maybe right and I have to agree with you.

Mickey, hug and makeup? just keep your hands above the waist

LiberalsAreTheWorst

Our Presidents lack of experience is showing.

Wrong.

He's been President for almost FOUR years.

Please, enough of the Right wing psycho talking points.

The election is over. The majority has spoken.

Salud

Now you're going to get them started Tomas!

(To clarify, Obama is the only Democratic president to garner over 50%. A few republicans did that after FDR.)

I don't think Obama is particularly great myself. He keeps caving and selling out his base. He has more mandate than he ever takes advantage if. He also NEVER calls out BS on these guys. He should be out there explaining that Plan B is a ploy. The Media sure isn't doing it.

Tomas,

These were 5-6 year-old kids who were terrified. I could kill more even with my old, 6 shot .45 that must be cocked before each shot. It takes seconds to reload. It takes seconds to cock each time. Banning assault rifles changes nothing. This goofy kid who shot them must have been a terrible shot to only kill 26 or whatever.

I do not own an assault rifle and have no desire to own one. But I have shot them on occasion. I am more accurate with my handgun actually. A lot of people say the same thing.

So be honest: Banning assault rifles is just the first piece of banning all guns. Because banning assault rifles will not stop these tragedies.

wje37fcsm

And I say go over the cliff... Instead of cobbling a new roof over the Bush era tax structure, bull doze it into a Texas ditch. When the new congress convenes, build a new code that restores equity to the American tax payer. Not only that, it will do away with Grover's no new tax pledge because every income level will require a tax cut. There are many good reasons for letting this happen and wall street will quickly get over it.

I still find this fiscal cliff sham to be particularly fascinating. In 2011 we basically set a plan in motion to reduce our spending and reduce our debt, with the full intent that somewhere in the next 16 months, that our leadership would somehow compromise and avoid this. The Budget Control Act of 2011 was another "kick the can down the road" idea in that it was never expected to be fully followed. At this rate I'm surprised they didn't put other bogus legislation in like free cotton candy Fridays.

Now here we are, 15 months later, with the same people complaining about a situation they created roughly 15 months ago. At this point, if they agreed 15 months ago that this would help solve our budget problems, why not go through with it? Let's be fair, no one at all wants their taxes to go up, but if this was the solution we made 15 months ago why did we bother making one that would be so harsh and punitive to the citizenry if members of Congress couldn't get along? If you fail to get along, we get the shaft? No wonder your approval rating is barely in the double digits.

I absolutely fail to understand why our leadership across the Legislative Branch decided it was a good idea to write a law that will punish us when they fail to get along, and I absolutely fail to understand how the Executive Branch could be in support of it. The whole thing reeks of political theatre to me rather than an actual plan. If this plan was good enough that everyone agreed on it, but only as something that would force them to compromise at a later date it makes me really wonder if they are even going to pretend to have our best interests at stake.

Its okay to be critical. Not really psycho talking points. Just a reminder that we elected a man who lacks a lot of leadership skills. Twice.

JoAnne, PA - No, your post was well worth the effort and energy. Keep doing what you do! By the way, I have to admit that my own heated political passions have been stoked by this conversation. I never did see the passage about "starting the change inside our homes and hearts", thanks for pointing that out for me.

Dingle - Magazines can be switched out in a matter of seconds. And in that matter of time it is often when a brave soul can charge and disarm the coward spraying his victims.

You do not have to believe it sir, but, I am pointing to the Brady organization showing their differences why a rifle is more dangerous than an assault rifle.

Any comment on my analogy? If a measure/bill etc. doesn't completely solve the issue, then no action is required? I am not willing to shrug my shoulders and walk away from this problem.

Rick-3416939 "If raising taxes on those earning over 1 million per year is what Democrats said they believed in just a few months ago, why the flip flop now? Or were Democrats always just playing games?"

Don't ask embarrassing questions - The Liberal press certainly won't.

It's amazing that the media almost never asks Obama any tough questions, but then when they do (like yesterday), Obama acts insulted and dodges the question. The 'Slobbering Love Affair' between Obama and the Liberal media is the reason that Obama thinks he can get away with anything and doesn't have to REALLY compromise on anything - they always blame the Republicans, even though the Republicans are passing the very bill they said they wanted a few months ago - no strings attached.

And what's the media's response - they ask "Is Boehner walking away -- again?"

PS - Boehner is calling Obama's bluff. Will Obama REALLY walk away from a tax cut for 99% of American families just to get his way?

I would like to know how the GOP got Republican voters to think that Social Security is an entitlement when people pay money into it every month for most of their adult working life? So Boehner wants to cut Social Security benefits, but I bet he's not going to cut the payments we make into it each month. How about Congress cutting the amount they "borrow" from the Social Security trust fund every year? In 2011, Congress took $70,000,000,000.00 from Social Security to spend on the true entitlement class of the USA - the wealthy! The more than $4,000,000,000,000,00 Congress owes the Social Security trust fund (and if they ever do pay it back, it will not be with interest) is not included in our national debt - it is like free money to them and the wealthy. So again, we are seeing the wealthy get what they want as they take from the middle class and the poor; Boehner is like an anti Robin Hood - rob from the poor and give to the rich!

SmBusOwnerinNY

Dingle,

No one is going to wheel a wood chipper in to kill children....

...a light, handy weapon that you can shoot 2-3 rounds per second just by squeezing the trigger 30 (or 100) times in a row, that's more dangerous.

Your post still ignores the illogical nature of arbitrarily banning certain types of guns "that can shoot 2-3 rounds per second just by squeezing the trigger 30 (or 100) times in a row" Assault rifles are not the only guns capable of doing so.

TNSEVOL

The major difference to me is purpose.

The purpose of the gun isn't sufficient reason to deny anybody's right to own one.

If somebody could magically guarantee that no more children would have to die like this if everybody turned in their assault rifles, I would be among the first to do so. But that is fantasy. The truth is that prior assault weapons bans have done nothing to reduce gun violence, and neither will any future bans.

Eric Holder is on his way to Newtown, CT this afternoon to meet with police and others after meeting with VP Biden this morning.

Pigotry

But if the GOP insists on holding America hostage, then, the GOP majority will be further trimmed in Nov. 2014. Time to bring back Speaker Nancy.

Give me a break. The republicans have caved MUCH more than the Preisdent so why is it only the repubs who are "holding America hostage"? Have you libs somehow forgotten that the President hand picked a commitee to solve our debt issue? Have you forgotten that his very own commision recommended 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases?? And yet the President won't even give us 1 to 1. So who is really holding us, and our childrens futures, hostage???

The only other President since FDR to be re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote

Sorry compadre simply not true, don't have to go back that far, try W and then Ronald Reagan.

You seem to be too emotionally invested. The President spent his first years pushing healthcare instead of fixing the economy. He miscalculated that the economy would recover. Hillary would have never made that mistake. Fix the economy then work on reform.

Does the plan b have the threshold of $1 mill on capital gains as well? If not Dems should reject that outright because plan b also does not include unemployment benefits and does nothing to address the sequester.

On Benghazi, the reports also state that the embassies were poorly funded. Hmmm, remind me again which party was it that denied funds to properly fund embassy business then Hillary Clinton asked for a few years ago?? Who was that again?

And even on fox entertainment yesterday Kraughammer had the nerve to criticise Clinton for having the "Benghazi disease" ...you try having the kind of air travel schedule Mrs. Clinton has had for the last 4 yrs and see if you don't come down with something...

DingleB-

The same person could use any "machine" to kill children. Again, why the calls to arbitrarily ban certain types?

Stop it. The issue is that Guns Kill Children, and NOT another type of machine.

The onus is on those who desire to restrict other's rights to make a compelling argument for doing so. I haven't heard one yet.

No it’s not.

This is a nationwide crisis. The ban isn’t arbitrary. There is massive abuse and irresponsibility on the side of SOME gun owners. They bear a great deal of blame for the crazy gun culture America has become.

Gun owners need to suck it up and take responsibility for buying into all of the NRA’s propaganda that they have been spewing for years.

It’s real simple. Having a ‘right’ to ANYTHING doesn’t mean you should be ALLOWED to if you have mental health issues, if you are irresponsible, if you abuse that right.

I feel RESPONSIBLE gun owners, those who learn how to fire a weapon, those who register their weapons, those who practice safety and keep their weapons locked up and bullets secure, should be doing EVERY thing possible to weed out the irresponsible and idiot gun owners in this country because if you don’t, then yes, Americans, especially the women in this country, who are royally pissed NOW, will come and take your guns if gun owners don’t speak up and help out and elliminate bad gun owners and bad gun practices.

Salud

Bobster,

You make me sick.

Yes, YOU could probably kill 20 5-year old children with a hammer more efficiently than Lanza with his AR-15. But sure, Lanza should be free to have his AR-15.

JoAnne in PA:

I read your post and support your sentiments. However, for far too long, we have approached many situations as though there is a reasonable person on the other side of the negotiating/compromise table. Evidence has now passed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, and I'm not buying into the Kumbaya, let's all feel good, and can't we all just get along stuff any more.

They aren't going to kick me, my friends, and my neighbors any longer without reprisal. Ben got one thing right. My hatred is showing. Yes, JoAnne, it's hatred. I've seen all the LMAO and the HAHAHA I can stand. I've had it with the mindless bens and caesars and Albany Joes. The idiot gun lovers who dismiss a carnage as an inconvenience that might threaten their arsenals. I've had it with the right-wingers feigning concern about Benghazi, when it's merely an excuse to trash the President and an excuse for ben to laugh his ass off.

I've had it with Republicans who propose a solution and the moment it's accepted by that dark guy in the White House, they disavow it. I've had it with a mentality that approves of attacks on Rice and Holder without any substantiation to back up charges.

I've had it when these punks go after my friends. It is not my place to tell anyone of the extent of Jack's combat experience, but he's seen more horror than these tough-talking punks whose only experience comes courtesy of a video game controller.

No JoAnne, they want a fight. They shall have it I'll leave it to you to reason with people like the insane, beyond insensitive, and hopelessly stupid bobster.

Joanne, what a wonderful post to start off the day. Particularly in this season, we need to take these words to heart.

Thank you! And Merry Christmas!

Yellowdog.

Not sure why guns are being discussed in this thread, but your list is laughable.

head on down the to gun range with one of those alleged "assault weapons" and try shooting "from the hip" and "one handed" and see how that goes.

The part about "standard" hunting rifles coming with 3 or 4 round magazines is also pointless, there are many hunting rifles that can accept 20 round or more magazines. That quote is like saying "most new printers come with only partially full ink tanks."

You think someone using a gun with a silencer to "assassinate" someone is going down to the local gun store to buy it?

When was the last time someone used a bayonet in one of these shootings? I sure can't think of any time.

LMAFO @ JoAnne! LOL!

Yes, I was the guy who shot the subhuman who was going to attack my daughter and I. I forgot about you liberals. You are more concerned about the poor, violent thug who was going to harm / kill 2 innocent people because he probably supported your idiot-in-chief. When I described this 270 lb guy to police, they pretty much knew who he was. They were ecstatic that I plugged this guy who probably killed and raped before.

But go ahead and shed your liberal tears for this subhuman. I for one, celebrate everyday that I killed this guy and saved innocent lives! Yay!

TheKhanKubla

So Boehner wants to cut Social Security benefits, but I bet he's not going to cut the payments we make into it each month

They've already done that. Maybe you should pay attention to what's going on if you're going to comment on it.

Congress owes the Social Security trust fund (and if they ever do pay it back, it will not be with interest) is not included in our national debt - it is like free money to them and the wealthy

You think the "wealthy" are dipping into the SS fund? Perhaps paying attention isn't your problem, maybe you just don't understand how anything works.

TomasGrande

DingleB-

The same person could use any "machine" to kill children. Again, why the calls to arbitrarily ban certain types?

Stop it. The issue is that Guns Kill Children, and NOT another type of machine.

You misunderstood me. I know that guns are the tool of choice for murderers, but banning one type of gun based on its looks or what people call it is irrational.

I feel RESPONSIBLE gun owners...should be doing EVERY thing possible to weed out the irresponsible and idiot gun owners

I would support holding gun owners responsible for taking reasonable precautions to keep their guns from falling into the wrong hands. I would love to see a debate about how to keep any guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unstable.

Let's drop the ridiculous idea that banning a certain type of gun would have any affect on gun crime and focus on meaningful, well though out action, not knee-jerk, emotional, illogical action.

TheKhanKubla "I would like to know how the GOP got Republican voters to think that Social Security is an entitlement when people pay money into it every month for most of their adult working life?"

I would like to know why Obama threatened to stop repaying the 'Trust Fund' borrowings from Social Security recipients for their monthly checks during the last 'Debt Limit' talks. Payments on the money borrowed from Millions of American retirees should have priority over making interest payments to the Chinese.

Obama should be ashamed for trying to hold Retiree benefits hostage just to get his way.

Bobster,

Yep, you're sick. You must be proud.

patrick demarco

The only other President since FDR to be re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote

Sorry compadre simply not true, don't have to go back that far, try George W. and then Ronald Reagan.

You are correct. I should have typed "only other DEMOCRAT President".

You seem to be too emotionally invested. The President spent his first years pushing healthcare instead of fixing the economy. He miscalculated that the economy would recover. Hillary would have never made that mistake. Fix the economy then work on reform

I'm sure you know that the escallating costs of health care was literally destroying American's lives, by bankrupting them and leaving them un-covered.

That is a national disgrace for the richest nation in the world to do. Discussions about having a national health care system goes all the way back to Richard Nixon. President Obama used Governor Romneys system as a blueprint for his, and it was also recomended by the Heritage Foundation.

If the John Boehner House had followed throught with their campaign promise in 2010 about "Jobs Jobs Jobs", the nation would have a lower unemployment rate now.

You mis-direction to put blame on the President instead of on the Republicans is disingenuous and gives your posts no credibility.

I am very emotionally invested because I have seen how the Bush years has seriously disrupted millions of peoples lives in this country and has had huge economic implications for people to provide for their families and plan for retirement.

The Bush years has take 10 years away from Americans to better their lives and plan for a better future for themselves and their children.

Salud

Wow David (Feisty 4) LOL! You must be the toughest internet guy ever! LOL! You threaten others from the safety of your PC screen. LOL!

Since fat Al Gore invented the internet, I think you are by far the toughest internet guy ever! LOL!

patrick: The President spent his first years pushing healthcare instead of fixing the economy

Health care IS the economy. It is one of our nation's largest expenditures. It is also vitally important because it affects all other parts of the economy.

Roy

Check the exit polls and every poll after that. Even republicans think that Obama has a mandate to raise taxes on income above $250k because he campaigned on it! Don't try to rewrite history bro. The election is over and the polls were correct all along. Except Rassmusen which had the worst poll results and was also sited by fox as if it was the bible. Hell, they are still using them as a legitimate polling organization which tells you right there that they are ENTERTAINMENT.

On the question of assault rifles: The major reasons such weapons have high capacity clips and a high rate of fire is so they can be used to pin an enemy down who is under cover and often armored to allow movement for our own troops - this action is known as providing covering fire.

These weapons as used at the Connecticut school shooting, was done on children who were wearing no armor and had no cover (places to hide). Instead these children were grouped together in their class rooms, sitting at their desks, side-by-side and in rows. The hich capacity clip and high rate of fire meant maximum kill on children and teachers who were not prepared for a combat situation and who were not grouped in a manner of maximum protection against gunfire. Their side-by-side and column formations made it easy for the shooter to pan his gun over the area these kids were sitting, again providing him with a maximum kill. Even worse, before police showed up, I remember some teachers telling the kids to all group together and huddle in a corner which if the shooter came into those rooms, he would have only had to concentrate on one small kill area.

Hunting rifles and sports rifles concentrate on one shot at a time for maximum accuracy on one target. Assault rifles have high capacity clips and fire multiple rounds quickly for maximum number of hits and kills on multiple targets.

Enough of the sugar coating about assault rifles. Their purpose is to provide maximum killing power against human targets to a single human wielder.

i find it amusing all of the hate-filled rhetoric this site generates from its devoted, biased liberal folks about Speaker Boehner.

If we think back just a couple of years ago to the amazing repudiation of the democrat majority House and the subsequent firing of Speaker Pelosi to now when the opposition party refuses to roll-over to the dictates of the current occupant of the oval office we see our historic experiment in representative government working as the brilliant founding fathers imagined.

DingleB

Magazines can be switched out in a matter of seconds. High capacity magazines aren't any more dangerous than several low capacity magazines

A matter of seconds have been enough time for a teacher in Sandy Hook to tackle the gunman. It's mystifies me how the conservatives now worship these weapons whose only use is mass murder. Their demigod Ronald Reagan was in favor of bans on assault weapons. Having been shot in an assassination attempt may have had something to do with his aversion to guns.

Roy,

I would like to know why Obama threatened to stop repaying the 'Trust Fund' borrowings from Social Security recipients for their monthly checks during the last 'Debt Limit' talks. Payments on the money borrowed from Millions of American retirees should have priority over making interest payments to the Chinese.

Just a matter of the law that says who gets paid first. It wasn't an "Obama" choice.

TheKhanKubla " The more than $4,000,000,000,000,00 Congress owes the Social Security trust fund (and if they ever do pay it back, it will not be with interest) is not included in our national debt".

Actually, it is closer to $2.7 Trillion, but it is indeed included in the $16.4 Trillion National Debt - up from only $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008.

@ beverly

what you do bev is go to the armory after roll call, then show your orders of the day, than you check the serial number on the weapon, count your rounds and sign the weapon and rounds out. the end of the duty day, you return said weapon and rounds back into the armory, where the rounds are counted again, and the weapon serial number verified upon return

now its different for personal weapons, if you live in the barracks, you have to keep your personal weapons in the armory not in your barracks room. you can sign them out of the armory to use them at will, if you go to the range or are going hunting.

if you live in off base housing, or on base housing for married couples you are allowed to keep your personal weapons at home.

at least that is how it has always been for me, 20 years retired airforce.

billybob-6210632

If we think back just a couple of years ago to the amazing repudiation of the democrat majority House and the subsequent firing of Speaker Pelosi to now when the opposition party refuses to roll-over to the dictates of the current occupant of the oval office we see our historic experiment in representative government working as the brilliant founding fathers imagined.

The founding fathers didn't know about gerrymandering, which is the only reason that the nut job Republicons still control the House of Representatives despite having lost the popular vote.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Now you're going to get them started Tomas.

It's just too easy.

And fun.

(wink)

Salud

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy said , 'I would like to know why Obama threatened to stop repaying the 'Trust Fund' borrowings from Social Security recipients for their monthly checks during the last 'Debt Limit' talks. Payments on the money borrowed from Millions of American retirees should have priority over making interest payments to the Chinese.'...........Just a matter of the law that says who gets paid first. It wasn't an "Obama" choice."

I do not believe that is correct - can you quote a specific 'law' that says that payments on borrowings from the Social Security Trust Funds are subordinate to payments on borrowing from the Chinese?

Houston!

A matter of seconds have been enough time for a teacher in Sandy Hook to tackle the gunman

Now we're really grasping at straws to make our point. If we're talking about enabling the teachers to intervene in situations like this, I can think of a much better way than merely limiting magazine capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

i find it amusing all of the hate-filled rhetoric this site generates from its devoted, biased liberal folks

Sure, Billibob, it's all one way.

Please see Roy, Bobster, Rick, and especially Ben 636

I don't know the law Roy, but as I recall from the summer of 2011, the explanation was that creditors were higher on the list to pay than internal payments back to the government itself.

Paying back the Trust Fund is an internal payment, in contrast to repaying T-Bills out in the market. Not paying a T-Bill is default on sovereign debt. That would be a big deal.

"The Chinese" aren't a lender to the US govt. They buy T-Bills just like everybody else. They own a lot because they need somewhere to use all of the dollars we send their way buying all the crap they sell us. American investors, European investors, everybody would have been defaulted on.

Planned ‘Plan B’ House vote puzzles many, MSNBC Headline

Plan B addresses government spending which is the true issue at stake. Yet the Democrats and their loyal press ignore the reality facing us all. Everyone of us owes roughly $40,000 towards the current debt...$160,000 per household - more than the average home these households live in if they are lucky. This debt doesn't just disappear! It has to be paid for...and just wait till 2020, it explodes! Pay attention to the facts folks not the political spin.

Obama and his followers are ignoring this truth cause they can't handle the ramifications of this truth - they no longer can buy votes with their favors. Plan B starts to address the ugly situation... So forcing a vote forces the Democrats to formally take the position of ignoring the issues...not good for them in this debate and more importantly the future of their party and ideology.

So MSNBC and the liberal throng act confused - kinda like your kid who has been caught doing something wrong. They look dumb and act confused...this is the current state of our leadership in Washington.

ROY,

[I would like to know why Obama threatened to stop repaying the 'Trust Fund' borrowings from Social Security recipients for their monthly checks during the last 'Debt Limit' talks.]

What our President said was that he could not guarantee that the Social Security checks would go out on time. He followed up, saying that all SS payments would be made but might be late.

Mr Walker, if you don't like one side not agreeing to something they promoted in the past you won't like any party. Obama promoted last year to cut 1.2 Trillion from loopholes and we could leave alone the tax rates. Thats 50% MORE than what Boehner proposed at 800 Billion. But when Boehner proposed it Obama said the math doesn't work and you can't feasibly get 800 Billion. So last year he said it was feasible to cut 1.2 Trillion in loopholes, but now its not feasible to find 800 Billion in loopholes??? Hmmmm. What changed in the tax code??? (nothing)

Obama also proposed in 2009 and 2010 that rasing taxes on businesses was the wrong thing to do with a bad economy and 3% gdp. Now he wants much more in taxes, MORE than the Clinton rates is his proposal, while the economy still sucks and GDP is HALF of what it was then at around 1.5%. You can't have it both ways.

His campaign proposal was about 800 billion in taxes. Boehner proposed 800 Billion. And Boehners proposal does it all from personal income loopholes, which avoids doing it through the marginal rates which avoids taxing businesses. Raising personal rates as the president wants affects approx. 1 million businesses that file SubS and LLC pass throughs.

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights! Now let's add to it Wasted Votes on Wasted Bills. The republicans continue to live up to their "Do Nothing Name!"

TO: Ben-636050 who wrote:

".... Boehner is doing what needs to be done ... walk away."

You've got a point there, it's just too bad the rest of the Republicans don't follow him out the door, and stay away.

Get Real,

Plan A addresses all of those problems better my friend. You do realize that Obama's plan pulls in more revenue and improves the deficit problem more, don't you?

Debt explosion is due to the boomer population bubble. It's no secret they were going to cost a lot. SS withholding was changed in 1983 to accommodate it. That's the reason for the giant trust fund. A full 25% of our national debt is OWED TO OURSELVES--to the SS Trust fund.

I am racist: blue and red!!! You all are monsters, horrible excuses for humans who supposedly care about the people, what you care about is: your people, F the rest

TheKhanKubla

Hunting rifles and sports rifles concentrate on one shot at a time for maximum accuracy on one target. Assault rifles have high capacity clips and fire multiple rounds quickly for maximum number of hits and kills on multiple targets.

Enough of the sugar coating about assault rifles.

Nobody is sugar coating them. They do exactly as you say they do. My point = so does a 9mm, .40, .45, 10-22, 38, .357, .380, etc, etc. A $300 shot gun from Big-5 could do even more damage at close range. Even a revolver can be reloaded very quickly. All guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. Banning a certain type fails any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

Conservatives are the worst, Republicans are the worst,

Forget about lack of experience! Your lack of a brain is showing! Maybe you forget that the president won the election because people agreed with what he has done and what he said he was going to do. Not the do Nothing republicans.

SmBusOwnerinNY "I don't know the law Roy, but as I recall from the summer of 2011, the explanation was that creditors were higher on the list to pay than internal payments back to the government itself........."The Chinese" aren't a lender to the US govt.... They buy T-Bills just like everybody else."

So you admit there is no 'Law' that requires that payments to foreigners on borrowings take precedence over payments on borrowings from Social Security retirees' Trust Accounts.... Are you REALLY saying that when the Chinese buy T-Bills, it is not loaning money to the US govt?

Wow, that's a new one on me. Explain how that works from a practical perspective.

houston -- your response makes no sense. gerrymandering has a history:

"In 1788, Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist party drew the boundaries of Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District to try to keep James Madison from winning a seat in Congress.
The fact is that in virtually every country that elects representatives by districts, if those districts are drawn by the elected officials, they will be gerrymandered. Studies have placed the United States near the top as being one of the most gerrymandered democracies."

gerrymandering is not a republican-only activity so your assertion again makes no sense as i am certain when democrats control the process they do things to favor demcrats.

you need to understand, as the current occupant of the oval office is fond of saying, that elections have consequences and the shellacking given democrats in 2010 is still alive and well.

Bobster-

So be honest: Banning assault rifles is just the first piece of banning all guns.

Bob, that is an NRA right wing talking point. Guns have been around since this nation was created. If we take away your assult rifles, you can always purchase a musket.

Because banning assault rifles will not stop these tragedies.

You bet it will. It may not stop all the carnage from crazed gun wackos, but it will most certainly cut down on the number of attacks.

Since fat Al Gore invented the internet, I think you are by far the toughest internet guy ever! LOL!

Oh for gods sake. Yet another talking point.

Boy, for someone who is such an advocate about rights and freedom, you sure are a slave to right-wing talking points.

Salud

Houston, magizine capacity won't solve this issue. So now some guy takes 3 or 4 guns instead of 2. His mental state was the problem but hardly anyone mentions that. You can't legislate 100% behavior.

Dingle,

What's wrong with the Canadian model for gun control? Waiting periods, strict registration, possession licensing? Hardly anybody kills anybody with guns up there.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "What our President said was that he could not guarantee that the Social Security checks would go out on time."

He could just as easily said that he 'could not guarantee' that checks to the Chinese would 'go out on time'. To threaten Social Security recipients who depend on their monthly checks for food and shelter was a SHAMEFUL political stunt.

@Roy - Your numbers reflect the amount of money that is currently in the Social Security trust fund and NOT the amount that Congress has borrowed from it since Lyndon B. Johnson was president.

forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

Dingle said - Banning a certain type fails any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

What is the cost/benefit analysis of saving a life? We are not Vulcans here, cost benefit analysis is discussed when addressing monetary issues not life and safety issues.

You don't seem to be answering my questions either. One last try, what is your idea, just hope it doesn't happen again?

Oh well, I guess we are not seeing eye to eye on this one. I'm not going to change your mind. I'm out.

DingleB(erry): Your laughable 'response' to Yellowdog put me in mind of the good old days of the Cold War. I was thinking specifically of the uproar over our basing 'tactical' Pershing II SRBM (Short-Range Ballistic Missiles) in West Germany.

We were treated to the revolting spectacle of the slimy, loathsome Eliot Abrams and Paul Nitze, among others, trying to convince us and the Germans! that so-called 'battlefield' nuclear weapons were actually less destructive than tanks, bombers and massed artillery.

The Germans, being a people who have had considerable experience of war at close range, responded with a gallows joke:
Q: What is the definition of a 'tactical' nuclear weapon?
A: One that explodes in Germany.

For you to respond to a clearly and provably factual statement by Yellowdog Mark-D by saying, "Pistol grip? Really? Folding stock? Really?" does not even rise to the level of a retort. In the past, I've read some comments by you on this page that were damn near common- sensical, but your attempt to defend the notion that these types of weapons have any conceivable function other than mass, rapid killing, or that they are functionally equivalent to my old bolt-action British Standard Arms .303, is worse than callous or misleading; it's just plain imbecilic.

Sorry, man, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

David Walker (with heartfelt apologies to our own Jo Anne, who is as fine a lady as any ever born to the Keystone State): Sir, I am in accord with your call to arms. If it's gonna be just me and you taking arms against a sea of idiots, and by opposing, at least scaring some goddamned sense into them, I'm ready to charge. Apparently these sissies who get their notions of heroism from video games and from draft-dodging yellow- bellied swine like Blimpaugh and Darth Cheney have forgotten a few historical facts:

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Harry Truman was an artillery officer in the Great War. Senator John Kerry fought the Viet Cong at eyeball range; Senator Bob Kerry at knife-fighting range (and gave up a perfectly good leg while serving his country).

You gutless chicken-hawks want a fight? We'll give you all the fight you can handle!

billybob-6210632 "houston -- your response makes no sense. gerrymandering has a history:....gerrymandering is not a republican-only activity so your assertion again makes no sense as i am certain when democrats control the process they do things to favor demcrats."

A perfect example is Democratically controlled California - While only about 43% of Californians are registered as Democrats, they have gerrymandered the districts so that they control 68% of the State Legislature and Senate, which gives them the 2/3 majority to pass tax increases whenever they wish.

@ dingle

there is a big difference between an AR-15 in .223, then a Winchester bolt varmint rifle in .223. dingle what other type of gun can fire of 30-100 rounds as fast as a .223 AR-15 or AK similar style weapon. i can tell you that none. no hand gun can, no hunting style rifle can. guess what if you find one that does, it needs to be banned as well. oh and yes after 30 rounds the barrel sure does heat up, i have shot enough of them to know, most cases it only takes 5 rounds for it to heat up. lol, grab that barrel buddy and its third degree burns. the people that have answered you have made some fairly good arguments about why they should be banned.

let me tell you something else. the people that say we cant ban them because or our government might take all our freedoms are full of crock. when i went in the military we had to take an oath to protect our citizens, do you really not trust our people in the military, do you really think our enlisted personal would let the govt take away our citizens freedoms, so that we would become a dictatorship? i don't think so.

people would still be free to own guns, not just ones that where designed for military and police use. i have no problems with this as an avid shooter, gun owner and hunter, and retired veteran.

Roy,

I'm not the idiot here.

I didn't say there wasn't a law, I just said I didn't know which one it was. What I remember, is that was what they were saying in 2011.

I never said we don't borrow money from the Chinese. Where did I say that?

Our government owes repayment to anyone who owns a T-Bill that's due to be paid. It doesn't matter who owns it. If we don't pay, that's default. The Chinese buy T-Bills. We owe that money, just like we do to anyone else. We can't pick THEM out to not pay.

Bohener is waisting his time giving concesions to the radicals in the WH , does not matter what they offer Obama want his way , the Unions way, the far left way, the socialist way or take us down to the cliff, symple like that.

Mickey, NY

[The Benghazi Report is out. The news isn’t good and the RWNJs are giving each other high-fives.]

I think McCain, Graham, and Ayotte owe Susan Rice an apology

The Benghazy report do not mention Rice lies because it doesn't matter to the report, Susan Rice comments were political statements to mislead Americans, nothing to do with the actual events in Benghazi which is the report., she is guilty , intentionally or not . No apologies.

ROY,

It was not political … it was an answer to a direct question about Social Security checks.

I’m sure if the question about payment to China or any creditor the answer would have been the same.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Dingle,

What's wrong with the Canadian model for gun control? Waiting periods, strict registration? Hardly anybody kills anybody with guns up there.

I don't know much about Canadian gun laws, but I do know that a large segment of the Canadian population believes there is something wrong with the gun regs up there.

If there are aspects of foreign gun laws for which a causal relationship to a reduction in crime exists, then by all means, let's look at them.

JoAnne ....

I'm late to the FT party as usual, but thoroughly enjoyed your post. It seems to me that there is more nastiness on the boards as of late due to the talk being about guns (never a good subject!), religion (was God there or wasn't he), and the fact that our Congress is puttering along at their usual pace. I think people are fed up and venting and the ugliness is showing.

SmBusiness, our debt in October was 120 Billion for one month. It's not remotely feasible to make hardly a dent in our deficit with just taxes. Maybe 50 to 80 Billion a year. We are looking at around a 1.2 trillion deficit this fiscal year. So best case, taxes make it a 1.12 Trillion deficit?? It astounds me how people beat the drums as if raising taxes will cure all ills. It is a drop in the bucket.

And that assumes raising taxes allways gives you more revenue. It doesn't. The more you tax of something the less you get. It is a sliding scale as it will affect behavior.

Also, before people want to feed the govt more money wouldn't you like to see them be efficient first? If you had a daughter blowing $100 a month allowance by the 15th and wanting more, would you not want to know she was spending it right before you gave her more? I would.

If i knew for 100% increased taxes would go for our debt i would do it. But the problem is increased taxes NEVER do. And it wouldn't now.

on a side not from post 1.149, people in this country really need to admit that unlimited abortion is also a form of mass murder. abortion should be illegal except for rape, and if the mother will be in danger for carrying the child to term. there is no reason with all the birth control out there for someone to have an unwanted pregnancy. take the pill, use and iud, wrap that shaft, if you use all of the above at the same time, you will never get pregnant. the why should i be forced to give birth arguments is just a cop out for not being responsible. so i say lets make a new amendment called the sanctity of life amendment, that outlaws assault rifles while at the same time outlaws abortion.

@DingleB - I don't really know how this became a discussion on assault rifles, but after reading so many inaccurate posts concerning them, I thought I would lay out exactly what those weapons were made for and bluntly state how they were used and why they were so effective for one person to kill so many others.

Guns are not really the root reason why all these killings take place. It is the state of mind, mental health and maturity of the people who own and or use these weapons. This shooter showed you don't have to own the weapons or acquire them legally to be able to get them.

The types of guns people own and the amount of guns they own is kind of a reflection on their mentality and maturity in a way. Do they want a gun for sport shooting, hunting or protection, or are they gun choices just plain crazy?

I like target shooting and I like to hunt occasionally, but not with the high-powered scope weapons most people own who sit in a tree waiting for their game to come by - I call those guys couch hunters. I own two guns myself, a 1894 model lever action Marlin with the octagonal barrel and a Colt style single action revolver, both use the .45 Colt rounds.

TheKhanKubla "@Roy - Your numbers reflect the amount of money that is currently in the Social Security trust fund and NOT the amount that Congress has borrowed from it since Lyndon B. Johnson was president."

They should be the same - and the 'link' that you posted basically agrees with my figure of about $2.7 Trillion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Most of the rest of the 'borrowings' are likely from Medicare Trust Funds, which will likely run out within 10 years - see my next link.

You may be referring to the total of $4.799 Billion in 'Intragovernmental Holdings' which are likely government borrowings from various 'Trust Funds', only about half of which are from Social Security Trust Funds.

BigATC,

The result of increased tax on the high income earners
FY2013 ($ Billions)
Budget = $3803 {Proposed}
Income = $2902 {Estimated}
Deficit = $901
% Deficit Spending = 23.7% and in 2010 it was 41.8% which is where we began to say that 41¢ of every dollar in spending was borrowed money.

The additional tax on income above $200K/$250K will fund our Government for only 8 days which is 2.7% of our annual budget and covers 9.3% ($83.4 Billion) of our deficit. (Some Republican Senators says 11 days, 11 days would be 3.0% and $114.6 Billion not borrowed)

According to many, taxing the high income earners won't do anything to help reduce our deficit and/or address out debt and spending problems. Does that thinking mean a reduction of over $80 Billion a year in borrowing is meaningless?

In a compromise effort John Boehner has said he would agree on a tax increase for incomes above $1 Million. This would reduce the additional tax revenue from just over $80 Billion to just under $50 Billion. President Obama's counter offer to increase taxes on incomes above $400K would split the difference and generate about $65 Billion a year.

Even if there was a subordination the Administration doesn't mind with them anyway. They let a govt loan to Solyndra suborndinate to other debt, which isn't legal. They paid UNSECURED union creditors over SECURED bond holders in the GM bailout. Thats never been done before in bankruptcy.

What's the REAL problem with the Debt?

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years. These figures include the implementation of Obamacare.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but it's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $75 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

Of course, we could save an estimated $4.7 Trillion over 10 years by cutting spending by only 10% each year (We have increased spending by 27% over 2008 levels). There are several ways that we could address the Debt problem – all we need is the political will.

By the way – The proposed increase in taxes on the 'rich' would raise less than 6% of the revenues needed to overcome the Deficits (and would likely curtail job creation because it would primarily affect small businesses), so obviously something else needs to be considered. And the proposed EPA regulations will cause consumer utility bills to spike at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet.

I welcome any comments.

dennis -- here is the question and the quote from 2011 where obama threatened social security recipients while playing politics with the economy of our great country:

President Barack Obama told CBS News' Scott Pelley Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out as planned if Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling by August 2.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said in an interview on the CBS Evening News Tuesday evening.

Yellowdog-Mark D

Dingle said - Banning a certain type fails any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

What is the cost/benefit analysis of saving a life? We are not Vulcans here, cost benefit analysis is discussed when addressing monetary issues not life and safety issues.

Well that's the point being debated: whether or not a single life would be saved by an arbitrary ban on a certain type of weapon. History has shown that it won't.

You don't seem to be answering my questions either. One last try, what is your idea, just hope it doesn't happen again?

Let's focus the debate on how to keep ALL guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

FoxTrotsky

For you to respond to a clearly and provably factual statement by Yellowdog Mark-D by saying, "Pistol grip? Really? Folding stock? Really?" does not even rise to the level of a retort.

Pointing to pistol grips and folding stocks as a reason to ban them did not rise to the level of retort, hence my comments.

In the past, I've read some comments by you on this page that were damn near common- sensical,

Sorry, I won't let it happen again.

but your attempt to defend the notion that these types of weapons have any conceivable function other than mass, rapid killing, or that they are functionally equivalent to my old bolt-action British Standard Arms .303, is worse than callous or misleading; it's just plain imbecilic.

Ah, you have misunderstood me. Big difference in bolt-action and semi-auto. Not so much between various types of semi-autos. I whole heartedly disagree with banning all semi-autos, but it would be much more logical to call for such a ban than to single out certain ones.

eric1964

there is a big difference between an AR-15 in .223, then a Winchester bolt varmint rifle in .223. dingle what other type of gun can fire of 30-100 rounds as fast as a .223 AR-15 or AK similar style weapon. i can tell you that none. no hand gun can, no hunting style rifle can. guess what if you find one that does, it needs to be banned as well.

See above comment.

oh and yes after 30 rounds the barrel sure does heat up, i have shot enough of them to know, most cases it only takes 5 rounds for it to heat up. lol, grab that barrel buddy and its third degree burns.

Yes they get hot, but having a shroud on an assault rifle is hardly an advantage to a grip on a standard rifle.

the people that have answered you have made some fairly good arguments about why they should be banned.

I disagree. It has not been proved, nor can it be proved that our society would be any safer without assault weapons.

Layton-3733410

I think people are fed up and venting and the ugliness is showing.

So true.

Not to mention, longs lines at the store, the goofy office parties, the inevitable yearly visit to the "other cousins" house that always ends in disaster, and the general feeling of gloom and sadness from Newtown.

Other than that, I'm as chipper as a elf.

Welcome to the party, my friend!!!

Salud

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "Does that thinking mean a reduction of over $80 Billion a year in borrowing is meaningless?"

Does that mean that removing $80 Billion a year from consumer's pockets will help promote economic/job growth?

That's the real argument between the Republicans and Obama, isn't it?

The Republicans argue that taking money out of consumer's pockets (mostly business owners) will result in less economic growth/jobs.

Obama argues that the money can be used to reduce the Deficit - but in reality, he proposes another 'stimulus' spending bill, with no net reduction in the Deficit.

Bye - gotta go to work now - getting ready to move my family to Costa Rica next month, but for those who say 'Hooray' I have to pint out that I will have Internet access there.

Dennis, those numbers assume you get that much more in taxes when raising taxes.

Didn't happen when cap gains was raised in 1987.

Didn't happen with the luxury boat tax hike in 1991 i think. Got LESS revenue than before.

Oregon and Illinois both had big tax increases, and now their debt are even larger.

New taxes on Medical device industry in Obamacare is already having a detrimental effect on that industry. Same as it did to the boat industry in the early 90's. Cook medical in Indiana canceled plans to build 5 new plants because of it. How many permanent jobs lost? Construction jobs lost? Taxes lost? Support busnesses lost?

People assume everything just cruises along as is when you raise taxes. France just raised rates quite a bit and an actor living there just renounced his citizenship and left because of it. Several have. Businesses left Mass. and Illinois because of tax increases. Money is pouring into tax free muni bonds at a staggering rate now.

BigATC

It astounds me how people beat the drums as if raising taxes will cure all ills. It is a drop in the bucket.

And yet the irony of it all, is that the Bush tax cuts are partly responsible for our nations debt. So perhaps, if we go back to the rates BEFORE the Bush tax cuts, then we will not accumulate debt from tax cuts.

One of the things that makes you go Hmmmmmm.

Salud

The problem with the Chained-CPI proposal is that it is just another coffin nail that furthers the continuing growth in income inequality that has existed since Ronald Reagan was in office.

The Republicans have consistently opposed Democrat attempts to raise the US minimum wage and as a result the minimum wage today has less than 60% of the buying power that it did in the mid-1970s, which in-turn has lowered contributions to Social Security and Medicare. Every employee (before the payroll tax cut) contributed 7.65% of their income to fund both programs, up to an income ceiling that moves based on our heavily-doctored inflation rate which has excluded the costs of food and fuel also due to Republican opposition to their inclusion.

Suppose that the CPI and the minimum wage were entirely based on the retail cost of fuel? In 1973 a gallon of retail regular gasoline was between 35 and 40 cents (diesel was even less), and the minimum wage was then $1.60/hour. The cost of fuel is important as a portion of the cost of every raw material or farm product is partially based on the cost of fuel, as is every food and consumer product, as well as part of the cost of every form of public transportation too. Today in Denver I can buy gas for $3.00 per gallon, or 8 times what gas cost in 1973. So, shouldn't the minimum wage be 8 times $1.60, or $12.80/hour? But wait, wasn't gas just $4.00 per gallon 3 months ago too, which would have resulted in a 1000% minimum wage increase to $16.00/hour?

Today the ever-rising cost of healthcare is no longer included in figuring the CPI either, and we have also changed our bankruptcy laws in a manner which heavily disfavors working class and middle-class Americans too, both because of our Republicans too, and now the Republicans want to drive another coffin nail and again doctor the CPI formula using a theory that says that as prices rise while income doesn't that affected consumers will substitute less-expensive products and services to make ends meet.

So the Republican Chained-CPI formula is based on the continuing degradation of living standards for the vast majority of us while the wealthiest Americans continue to see their spending power rise substantially! Remember that the bottom 70% of Americans in terms of annual income lost 40% of their spending power between 1980 and 2010, while the top 5% saw their spending power explode by 400% both adjusted for inflation too (adjusted for our doctored inflation rate which excludes the rising costs of food, fuel, and now healthcare too).

The way that I see it, the Republican insistence that we allow them to offshore as many American jobs as is possible, in order to create lower-cost competition that keeps wages down at home, combined with their continuing opposition to raising the minimum wage, their insistence the CPI not measure true gross inflation, combined with several other Republican pogroms highly unfavorable to the vast majority of Americans but very favorable to wealthy Americans, such as huge tax cuts on our highest incomes and capital gains, is the main reason for our growing wage and wealth inequality, as well as the position that both Social Security and Medicare are in today too.

For instance, the income ceiling subject to Social Security taxation only rises when the heavily-doctored CPI says it should rise, not when true gross inflation rises far more heavily. Today the income ceiling subject to Social Security taxation would be over $170K if true gross inflation had been used to figure the rate of increase since Jimmy Carter was in office. Instead, today the income ceiling is just over $110K using the heavily-doctored exclusionary CPI that Republicans so favor, which is one of the several main reasons that Social Security and Medicare are in such trouble.

And now the Republicans want to further erode our standard of living in retirement, a standard already barely livable, on the grounds that we might substitute less-expensive products or perhaps forgo expensive medical procedures when faced with an increasing income shortage, after all that they have done over the last 30 years to destroy American income security and the standard of living that the vast majority of us used to enjoy?

Plan Boehner is just another Republican attempt to further gut the standard of living of most of us while heavily favoring wealthy Americans and the corporations that they run, and continues our full defense budget without any meaningful cuts and huge Federal subsidies to the most-profitable industry in the history of the world too. Why does our oil industry need huge Federal subsidies when the vast majority of the rest of us are slowly going bankrupt?

Plan Boehner is just another attempt by the Republicans to force the wishes of the minority onto those of us who voted with the majority, and it stands no chance of becoming law either. As such, it is just an immense waste of the little time remaining before the automatic cuts kick-in, cuts which the Republicans agreed to back in 2011. Remember when Boehner walked away from an agreement with the President in the summer of 2011 that would have been less onerous? Why did he walk away from that agreement? Because of the Tea Party.

So now we know who to blame when the fiscal cliff kicks-in just 11 days from now. John Boehner and anyone who voted for the Tea Party are to blame for this mess, along with House redistricting that favors rural House districts over urban districts that represent far more voters. If House Districts each contained roughly the same amount of population, the Democrats would have handily won the House this last election too. So how long do you want this continuing ruinous gridlock in Washington DC to go on for? We will have one more chance to get rid of Boehner and his wealthy friends in less than 2 more years, and maybe then we can work together on getting America back on the right track, on a track favorable to the vast majority of us instead of heavily-weighted to the greedy interests of so few of us.

In the meantime, write your Senators and let them know that you do not favor giving another huge break to wealthy Americans and to our defense industry and paying for it by reaming the bottom 95% of us but good.

ROY,

That small income being removed from their income above $200K/$250K will not affect the economy … they will continue to spend as they have before the tax increase.

Remember the increase is only on income above that level and the tax rate on the first $200K/$250K remains the same as it is today.

Total spending cuts proposed by our President as of now total $1.2 Trillion not counting the $1 Trillion already agreed to in Aug 2011 which is considered part of the whole "cliff" deal.

I'm getting tired of the 1 sided piece that NBC brings and the postings here, the republican ARE NOT stoping the deal because of the 250,000 or 400,000 level for tax increases its THE SPENDING CUTS that now need to be looked at. If I am not mistaken if the fiscal cliff is averted by a tax increase on those that make 250,000 or more, and the Obama proposed spending cuts, Washington still will have a deficit of over 1 TRILLION every year for the next 4.

It is time to look at entitlements, and OBAMACARE, Obamacare does take money from Medicare Not a good Idea as the Baby Boomers continue to retire. Most of us have paid in for our entire working lifes and I don't like the idea of not getting any of my money back. You You make the choices, tough decisions NOW or NO ChOICE later.

@ dingle

actually the shroudis a big difference over the standard stock model. with a shroud it allows you to hold the weapon in a different grip to keep the muzzle down more on the kick, while avoiding getting burned. holding the weapon like this allows you to get more shots off faster, in a more controlled manner so that you can hit the target more often. don't forget dingle i am a 20 year vet, i really know the difference in the functionality of the design for these style of weapons over that average hunting gun.

the semi- autos that you carry for hunting all the clips you find for them only hold 4 rounds, and the assault rifle clips being a different design wont fit in there receivers, also that few seconds your talking about on reload, can really be a difference for someone getting shot at. they can reach cover in that time, run behind a corner, jump out a window etc..

Mr. President, stay your course. If the Republicans want to continue this childish game they are playing, then the consequences that they will face will be humiliating. I am just an avergae wage earner living in the Midwest, but if the Speaker does not want to comprimise, then I say "Take me over the Cliff". I will adjust the family finances and go with the increase in taxes. If something gets done down the road to lessen our burden, great, if not, I will bask in the GREAT feeling that the top 2% are paying their fair percentage share. Cannot remember, does this knock out the Capital Gains Tax loophole that they have been enjoying for some time. Any time Unearned Income is taxed at a lower rate then Earned Income, any time Money earning Income is valued higher than the hard labor that I put in to receive my Income, then that is when there is something seriously screwed up with the system.

Tomas, it wasn't necessarily the rates that helped the deficit. Look at the spending then. Do you know when the lowest SPENDING/GDP we have had in the last 40 years was? The late 90's. According to St Louis Fed 1950-1976 averaged 17.6 revenue/GDP. 1977-2010 averaged 18.3.What that tell us is no matter the rate we are going to get somewhere in the ballpark of 18% revenue/GDP. Higher and lower but it will average that. You spend over 19% of revenue/GDP you will get deficits. Obama is spending 24%. Was 25%. No way we can support that at any rate.

Rates were all over the place from the 90% range in the 1950's all the way down to 28% and back up but the average has been about the same for over 60 years.

OK, DingleB: First of all, excuse my tasteless play on your handle (above). I am man enough to see and admit when I've been bested, or at least outmaneuvered, in a debate.

"Pointing to pistol grips and folding stocks as a reason to ban them did not rise to the level of retort, hence my comments." I could reply that you're splitting semantic hairs, but factually there's no answer to that. Point: Dingle.

"Sorry, I won't let it happen again." For Heaven's sake, don't quit on my account. Even if we're immutably on opposite sides of this particular issue, don't deny me the enjoyment of sparring with a conservative who can and does defend his positions with logic, instead of insults and slander.

"Ah, you have misunderstood me. Big difference in bolt-action and semi-auto." Yes, there damn sure is, so clearly I did.

I still state that you are completely in the wrong in asserting that one can do just as much damage with (for example) six five-round clips as with one thirty-round clip. You obviously have far too much common sense to actually believe that.

Finally, the argument that only by having assault-style weapons in the hands of civilians is a guarantee against tyranny is pretty thin soup too.

Big ATC stated, "Money is pouring into municipal bonds at a staggering rate now".

Good. Municiple bonds are used to finance capital projects to improve our cities infrastructure. That creates jobs. Better than the rich throwing it down tax shelter ratholes, buying nonsensical tax writeoffs that repay them with a 10:1 tax writeoff.

Seems to me if we go over the fiscal cliff both sides win.

Republicans get their cuts to entitlements, democrats get their tax increases and military budget cuts.

Why should either side compromise? Both win, and Americans lose.

Since when have our politicians ever carred about Americans? Election time, why, that's over. Which is why they kicked this can down the road til now. Everyone has two years til the next Congressional election to forget and move on.

Tomas, do you think a 10% luxury tax on boats would be beneficial in raising more money for our govt? Anyone?

CPO, that is a tax shelter for the rich, as it is TAX FREE muni bonds. Why do you think the rich are putting their money there? BO is proposing raising dividends from 15% to 43.3% Again, its a behavior thing with raising and lowering taxes.

The above should have said 10% ABOVE $100K.

eric1964

I'm a vet as well and I've shot thousands of rounds through an M-16. Never once, while in semi-auto, did I need to grip the rifle from above the barrel to shoot it accurately. While in full-auto I have, although it didn't seem to help with the accuracy :)

These differences (pistol grip, bayonet lug, shroud, etc) are insignificant.

BigATC

Tomas, do you think a 10% luxury tax on boats would be beneficial in raising more money for our govt? Anyone?

It's the wrong argument.

Government is not the problem, as you Reaganites love to preach.

The problem is we need to create JOBS.

The problem is the middle class needs higher wages and salaries.

The problem is corporate America.

The problem is the banks and Wall Street.

Spending is not the problem. That's a talking point.

Here's an idea.

How about we, as in We The People, take back all the tax cuts the rich got in the last 10 years, take back all the bail-outs given to Wall Street and the Bankers, take back all the Corporate Welfare given to Exxon and the mega Agribusinesses, and throw all those bastards in jail.

Salud

JoAnn: Are you married? If so, your husband/partner is a remarkably lucky person. If not, someone is missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime. Give yourself the credit you are due. It is becoming more and more difficult to be a fully functional human among the primal hoards.

As far as the 'responses' go - at low tide the scum and trash make an appearance far from shore, they don't want be close enough to identify, or be dealt with. Such is the nature of scum and trash.

roy -- we are headed to belize in 2014 so we will be neighbors

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Ron-186,

How about the bill that already passed the Senate and is sitting on Boehner's desk that keeps all tax rates for all income below $200K/$250K the same?

I don't know Mr Boehner personally or speak on his behalf, but perhaps Mr Boehner may bring that bill up in the House when Mr Reid brings up all the bills passed by the House over the past 2 years that are sitting on his desk at the Senate.

As far as the fiscal cliff goes, I say let's go over it, as far as the Bush tax cuts go, let them expire on EVERYONE. They helped cause the deficit problem in the first place. Everyone who got a "stimulus" check from the Retard in chief Bush and spent it, instead of returning it needs to pay it back. That money was borrowed from China and not 1 person complained about that. The deficit has been shrinking since 2008 so that is on the right projectory, now we need revenue and that has to be shared by EVERYONE! Those that don't want to sacrifice get your sorry a$$es out of this country! I didn't even vote for Bush and now I am saddled with his deficts when my guy (Clinton) had a surplus... Screw you republicans you ruin everything you touch!

FoxTrotsky

OK, DingleB: First of all, excuse my tasteless play on your handle (above)

No apologies necessary. That's what it stands for. It's a tribute to my father who, like me has the last name Berry. He used to race cars, and he thought it witty of himself to paint "Dingle Berry Racing" on the side of his car trailer, until someone told him what a dingle berry actually was. He then also realized it wasn't a nice thing to call your kids when they were doing something dumb.

PLAN B - "...while TWO (2) MILLION Americans would lose unemployment insurance", on December 29th, 2012.

Through no fault of their own, I know of 2 million Americans and their families, (now read 6-8 MILLION Americans effected), who will not be having a "Merry Christmas" if this gets passed as advertised.

Americans did not elect a Republican majority of Representatives to the House so that they would vote for tax and spend. They are there for the purpose expected of them. The President, to be successful, must reach far enough to the right to get about 25 Republican votes. What we see now is Democrats in the House wavering in their support of a Democratic President trying for the magic concessions.

What do you mean its the wrong argument? It's the exact argument you are making! Raise taxes. Do you think having a 10% luxury tax on boat sales above 100k would help raise revenue? Anyone from the raise taxes crowd? Anyone? Yes or no.

And yes the govt is a problem. We have a set amount to work with, historically 18% of our GDP for the last 60+ years is what we have to spend. Thats not a talking point, that is historical average. We are spending at an astounding 24-25% now. How can you look at that and say spending isn't a problem?

Lets say you raise taxes and get 50Billion extra. Now the govt spends an extra 100 Billion. That is a huge problem and that is what is done.

The only way to get out of this massive hole is to grow our way out of it. As you said correctly....jobs. That should be the main focus. We should make the environment as friendly as we can to promote business growth. I fail to see how raising taxes on 1 million businesses makes them want to grow????? Thats what will happen if the top rates go up.

Obama has barely moved from his pledge to tax those, including small business owners must pay 5% more Federal Income tax (3.9% + 1% Medicare), moving from $250,000 to $400,000.

He did move on offering 2.5 x spending cuts for ever $1.00 revenue raised in the form of taxes. He moved to a .4% reduction in cuts for ever $1.00 raised. (Since his plan only reduces the annual amount we can't cover by 10%, leaving 90% of what we spend annually unfunded.....)

The Republicans have moved from a 2.5 x spending to an even $1.00 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in tax increases

and moving from ZERO tax increases to Taxing every Millionaire and Billionaire (not that this is where they earn their money.......).

So.......What exactly is Obama compromising? Please just be honest and say not much. He is only pandering to the ignorant that tell us to raise someone else's taxes, don't touch my unfunded benefits and life will be great.

At least be honest about it.

Tomas,

"Oh for gods sake. Yet another talking point."

And yet you didn't scold the left-wing guy who was threatening others over the internet. LOLOL!

Talk about a slave! LMFAO! A left-wing slave!

Bobster - your lunatic post yesterday about kiling a man said all there is to say about you. Bragging about an imaginary happening is one thing but to relish talking about your imagined killing of someone is totally sick. It says everything about you. You are one of those people others need to look out for because you appear to like the idea of killing someone soooo much you've made up the details in your mind.

You need serious help and, if you actually have a daughter, my hope is that she is kept far away from you!

I love the liberal biased media constantly blaming Congress for the fiscal cliff. Why not blame the Senate? Has Obama has offered any compromises at all. $250,000 is joke, $400,000 is a joke as those people already pay at least 35%. $250,000 nets $162,000 BEFORE other taxes, benefits, etc... is taken out. That's not the so-called wealthy, sorry. $1,000,000 per year would get you there; but in the overall scheme of things do any of you liberals think this is going to do anything? Seriously? You can tax everyone earning over $250K a year 75% and it won't amount to a rounding error. This is nothing more than the liberals political posturing so they can say, you see we stuck it to those horrible wealthy people. Now remember that in four years when you vote. In the mean time, Obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution once again to use his executive powers to start rubbing out the 2nd Amendment.

In actuality, he is hoping we do go over the fiscal cliff. This way the rich, the middle class, and the poor will have to pay more taxes; he gets more revenue. He and the media will blame it on the GOP and some of those pathetic liberal Senators running for re-election will use that as their campaign platform.

WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.

Obama spends more in a week then the total revenue he will generate by taxing those horrible rich people.

And he has yet to get specific on what he will cut.

I'm confused...

Exactly why is it a good thing for not just "the wealthy" to go back to the Clinton era tax rates but for everyone else as well?

The Democrats have nothing to offer except class warfare. Nothing. And the democrat sheeple are too stupid to understand that President Obama "promising" to make vague, undefined cuts next year while demanding tax increases now as a "negotiation" is just absolutely absurd.

Let me put it to you another way....would any of you accept an offer from your mortgage company to increase your mortgage payment permanently if they promise to give you a "gift" next year but wouldn't tell you what it was, how much it was worth or whether you'd even like it? I know I wouldn't...and that's exactly what Obama is asking the GOP to do.

Obama is the person holding up a deal on the "fiscal cliff" while standing in front of a microphone blaming "the other guy". Democrat sheeple are so stupid that they just gobble it up...like the idiots they are.

This is the White House take on Plan Boehner:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151174561516545&set=a.131018881544.111603.23790541544&type=1&theater

Why can't Boehner just have a stroke, heart attack, anything that takes him permanently out of the game. The rest of America needs to move forward and this guy keeps throwing a monkey wrench into things just for the sake of slowing them down, and playing power games.

The only highly significant problem holding us back right now it Boehner. Move over jerk and let the rest of the country get on with the business of living and working!

I read here That @ThomasGrande doesn't think spending is the problem, IT IS when 40% or more goes to paying you INTEREST ON THAT DEBT and refuse to cut spening, but continue to spend. I think have a 19 or 20 TRILLION dollar debt is very bad. if interest starts to go up, the US will be digging a hole it may not be able to get out of.

J R Browenstein

I'm confused...

Enough said.

Salud

Jack,

you don't know jack.

35% tax rate at $250K isn't 35% on $250K.

Up to $250K, you pay 10%, then $15%, then 25%, then 28%, then 31%, then 33%, then 35% on tha various brackets of your taxable income.

The net Federal Income tax paid if you make $250K is something like 20%.

JR,

I'm for letting all the Clinton rates return.

The only tweak I'd put in there is to ratchet back up to those rates over 5 years so it's not as much of a tax "cliff." 20% a year. Add a couple switchbacks to that cliff we have to climb.

To be sure, we're spending more than we're taking in. The question is how to close that gap. What kind of country do we want? One that pays, or one that shirks and backs out of what we've promised? If we're going to pay for what we promised (I'd say that's the American way), we're all going to have to pay.

There is so much drivel about Boehner walking away and being an obstructionist. Where is all of the vitriol for obama since it is his law that he signed that drove us to the cliff? Now he is trying to foist it onto Boehner to save us from going over the cliff. If Boehner does nothing it will be obama's fault that we go over since he signed it into law.

obama says that we are so close and it would be silly to not be able to bridge such a small gap. Yet he won't concede on one of his basic issues - his endless spending even though Boehner has relented on his issue of taxing the rich.

If obama's plan was implemented taxing the top 2% of the rich at 100% rate it would only fund obama's plan for 91 days - 3 MONTHS. Who is left to fund the rest of obama's plan - the middle class. It is the very ones that he is supposedly trying to help. Without curtailing his spending the middle class will only be further F'd by obama. The GOP is just trying to force him to close the checkbook when the funds run out. He thinks because he has checks he has money to spend.

First, the only serious bill is already sitting on boner's desk and has been passed by the Senate. If there is no action on that, then off the cliff with them! Boner's plan b is a tax hike on most Americans. Nothing more, nothing less. It is going nowhere.

All firearms that can hold more than 10 rounds should be classified as assault weapons. They have no use in a civilized society.

The worst part about this is it was never supposed to be anything more that a simple vote to raise the debt ceiling and prevent completely avoidable financial collapse. Our incompetent government has made a laughing stock out of our politics by turning what SHOULD HAVE BEEN A ROUTINE THING into a joke and political stage.

The equivalent of not doing this routine vote would be an individual choosing to go into bankruptcy when they have a good enough credit rating to take out a loan for their very successful business.

It makes no sense. But our government has turned what should have been a routine thing into a hostage situation for political agenda on both sides of the party line. It started with the GOP, who needed leverage on something because they had no majority except in the house. They took the country, it's functionality (or what's left of it) of government, and it's economy hostage over political agenda. And the Democrats were not much better. In the name of compromise, they did the equivalent of, "Take my wallet, take my credit card, take my house, and while you're at it take my dog." Meanwhile, the GOP decided to press for more and more, not budging for anything while the date of economic ruin fast approached. In the end, the Democrats didn't give the GOP absolutely everything (although they did mostly) they wanted (like a victim at gunpoint) to the GOP. And since the GOP wasn't allowed complete control of the government by the Democrats, they still refused to budge on the debt ceiling (self made) crisis. The solution by both parties:

Since CONGRESS CAN'T EVEN FUNCTION let alone get this done, we'll assign a bipartisan "committee" to fail on it. And let's put in STUPID and destructive cuts THAT NOBODY WANTS to automatically kick in if we fail to figure this out in time as a motivator to get this done by the deadline.

And the solution of the "committee" was:

WE GIVE UP!

Obviously, they couldn't automatically do their job just because the group was smaller. The same bipartisan issues occurred. There was just less useless people in the group to waste space. With the deadline fast approaching (even more so) and the "committee" not working out. So our incompetent government had to do something. Otherwise we might face, like, completely avoidable financial ruin. And they may be, like, voted out of the cozy jobs they don't do in the first place. The solution for both parties:

LET'S PUT IT OFF UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION!

Wonderful! Now we can have a government where nothing passes until after the election because apparently we can't run a government during campaigning season. AKA: The second two years of a four year presidential term, or HALF OF IT! NOT THAT WE COULD RUN IT ANYWAY! Now it is after the election, and we voted to keep everything largely the same. More or less, we have the same government. Yeah, a few Republicans and Tea Party goers bit the dust. But many didn't. The bottom line:

We voted to have the same president, the same Democratic majority in the senate, and the same Republican minority in the house. THE SAME EXACT COMBINATION OF PARTY MIX THAT COULDN'T GET ANYTHING DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!

The priorities of most of our esteemed politicians in both parties are now once again:

1. Self

2. Party

3. Country (If there's anything left over for that. Often there isn't.)

We would vote other people into office, but we tried that and most of them didn't know how to do their jobs. The old ones just chose not to do their jobs most of the time, but at least they knew how.

Is it any wonder we get nothing done?

Both parties are to blame. At this point, just get something done. Enough blaming the other parties for the incompetence of an entire government. Enough excuses, enough posturing, enough stalling, enough finger pointing, and enough political agenda. Just ignore it all and vote to raise the debt ceiling. You can argue over taxes and all that bull** later!

Tomas, seems like raising taxes is right in your wheelhouse since it would solve our problems. Raising taxes on luxury boat sales by 10% over $100k would seem like a no brainer to you since it only affects the wealthy right? More money for our govt to spend right? I'm not getting any takers on that idea so everyone must be against it?

SmBus: I didn't want to get so granular; and you're wrong about the combined rate. I know because I pay up to my current income level which is 3 times the $250K. It's 28% up to the first $178K; jumps to 33% between $178K and $388K; then 35% for all income exceeding the $388K. That's well above your 20%. I do pay myself dividends and have capital gains, which is taxed at 15%, the same rate for everyone.

But, the point is; do you actually think the total revenue generated by raising taxes is going to do anything. Read and do research. The most they can possibly obtain would amount to 4-5 days of spending. That's it. What are you liberals screaming about so loudly? It's nothing more than the psychological, class warfare our President initiated four years ago. Can finally say, I stuck it to those horrible, demons who make alot of money, employ plenty people, pay great wages, employees get to purchase houses, cars, have medical benefits, 401K, etc...

Do you know who is going to pay for most of this. Your jobs. Many small business owners who have to pay an extra $75,000 in taxes will just eliminate a few positions or make some full-time workers part-time. Obama won't explain this to you though. I can change my Cadillac medical plan that currently requires NO deductible to a plan that has much lower rates but the coverage is terrible. Many ways to skin this cat.

We pay a rediculous low historical interest rate on our debt now of something like 1.7 or 1.8% By the end of BO's term we will have well passed 20 Trillion in debt. If rates go back to historical averages (say Clinton era in the 4's), and they will at some point, just the interest on that debt will be close to a TRILLION a year. Then what do we do boys and girls? We can either get it under control now with a little pain to all the programs, or when we get back to normal (or higher) rates we won't be able to fund squat. The programs for the poor will be decimated.

It's not just entitlements, i don't think people realize how the interest RATE on our debt is going to kick our butts big time when the rate goes up. And will be compounded by higher rates from downgrades and what foreign investors will want.

Its amazing reading from both sides of the debates with taxing and spending. Conservatives bring facts and links. Liberals bring things like speaker Boner, retard in chief Bush.

Sorry if the name is insulting but it's the truth.

Granular, Jack? It's all granular. It's all details. We're only talking about a few percent here or there. 0.3% of the SS COLA. All of these little numbers matter.

You go to your 1040 and tell me what your tax rate is. Tax, line 46, divided by AGI, line 22. If that's anywhere near 35%, I'll send you a dollar.

I've never made 3x $250K, but I have made close to $250K, and I paid less than 20%.

The rest, an argument could take all day.

Again the hypocrites are out in full force today.

I thought the president said we need the million and billionaires to pay their fair share.

The Rups said NO to all taxes.

So the Repus compromise and say people that make a million can have their taxes raised. The dems moved the target.

The president said we need to get the deficit in order and now says the money raised is going to go to unemployment insurance. So no deficit reduction?

We need to get more gun control, yet we kill thousands before they are allowed to be born.

The President and Left are masters of moving the target!

Jack - well said, my guess the left will ignore your post and continue with their irrational posts.

Why - Because they are hypocrites!

NEWS FLASH: there is no cliff. the worst that can happen is we go back to using the same tax table as we did in 1999. Clinton was the president and the Economy was great with gas under 2.00. maybe this imaginary cliff is a blessing in disguise. just ask yourself. what was your personal economic status in 1999? MINE WAS GREAT.

SmBussiness, it will be higher than the Clinton rates if it goes to 39.6 as he has already taxed the rich on a couple of taxes in Obamacare. So the effective rate will be HIGHER than the Clinton rates.

Anyone realize there is about 400 Billion in new taxes already in Obamacare? And that 75% of that affects EVERYONE? All income brackets. Such as people claiming medical deductions on all medical bills over 7.5% of your Adjusted gross income. These are the ones that need it most. So what did Obama do in Obamacare, he raised that threshold so now you can only deduct medical bills over 10% of your AGI. Nice. Lets get money for Obamacare by increasing the threshold 25% for deductions for the most sick.

@Roy Wilson#1.139: First, really look at our trade shenanigan with China. Next look at and consider China's GDP is about 80% exports. Some 70% of those are explicitly to and for the US. Next, look at their currency valuation. It's pegged, actually entangled, to the US dollar at China's measured valuation. Now, consider, China often, both lowers and raises that valuation on their domestic sales and production of goods, and additionally does so with other countries it happens to be doing business with, generally with an eye toward the measured value of the US dollar at that particular time, generally lower to nations like Germany, and higher to nations like Brazil or Iran. We pay China for these imports with T bill credits, generally, especially now, with little or no interest accural, and the Chinese love it, since the more they hold, the better their ability to peg their currency value. China, in turn is a heavy borrower from the World bank, again credits, with the US being the largest Depositor of credits to that institution. Borrowers from that Bank are indeed assessed interest. Then we have the actual money American investors have in various enterprises in China. These returns are most often paid by converted US T bill credits from China's account, which in turn reduces their T bill balances. All this is somewhat complex, but not as much as it appears here. Many revealing articles by such as "Minxin Pei" and "Bret Stephens" to name two. However, one can find many Authors, economists, political scientist's and generalists who support my considered contention, that, as of today, the proportionate debt to borrower between China and the US leaves the US more the creditor and China more the borrower, than vice versa. Course arguments to the contrary abound, and some are legitimate, but, I contend, the time period, trade activity amount, and with whom are the most accurate indicators of contrary legitimacy. Not meant to insult you, or to be a smart ass. Regards

All, who on interested in the debate for and against Gun Control.

all you gave to do is go to the bushmaster website and see for yourself the type of weapons this mfg makes.

These weapons are intended for a primary purpose and that's to kill...a small section is dedicated to sharp shooters and competition.

These are ready made assault rifles of military grade and reliability and the bushmaster points that out itself; they skirt the rules by having them made "semi-automatic"

....but I will say Jack, that 3-4 days of spending that is paid for with collected taxes, is better than borrowing.

Sorry Jack but Sm Business is correct. No matter what tax level you are at, you receive the benefits of the lower rates as you work your way up the scale. As for the small business owner who has to pay another $75,000 in taxes. Well in my book, that is not a small business owner. $75,000 divided by the increased marginal rate of 3% equals a Taxable Income of $2,500,000. (easy math). Maybe in New York City a Taxable Income of $2,500,000 is a small business owner, but here in the Midwest, that's pretty damn rich and a pretty good sized business.

I too thought that was funny Tom. We heard "millionaires and Billionaires" until i was hearing it in my sleep. Boehner put the proposal for 1 million, which Pelosi, Schumer and others have proposed, and he says... well, uhh, err, ...... He doesn't want a deal. He WANTS all taxes on everyone to go up but would never say that in public.

@ LiberalsAreTheWorst,

Don't pretend like Republican are innocent. For the record, I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I'm an Independent who believes party bias is tearing our country apart. And let me just say that both parties are to blame, and both parties who post here have rational and irrational posts. Republicans name call and finger point just as much as anyone else.

I read a lot of those comments that you claim are backed up by links and facts. Many leave links that are irrelevant. Many relevant links are made to support a logically flawed argument. A story came out awhile back on how many accounts with numbers at the end are paid to leave comments on this site. It is many (not all) of those who leave warped logic and questionable links who I suspect are paid.

There are also liberal posts who bring logic and facts that are legit. I'm not taking sides in the argument. Personally, I think it is idiotic to get hung up on taxes at this point with everything at stake. It is clear the two parties will NEVER agree on that. But don't pretend like only one side of the political isle is to blame or has questionable points and comments. And you are not the only one who does this for either party, but I see you do this on almost every post. The truth is that Republicans are by no means innocent. So quit being the pot calling the kettle black and helping to tear our country apart with your blind, hypocritical party bias.

Liberals are worst....

Smoke some facts here:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

There's a citation for you. I dare you to refute the facts there, all supported with confirmable government numbers.

CR ROC,

Damn straight.

Thank you for the support.

BigATC,

I remember Obama saying "raise taxes on those making over $250K" all through the campaign. That's all he ever said.

SB, you never heard the term "millionaires and billionaires" from Obama? Seriously? It was in almost every speech i heard. He did indeed have the 250k threshold, but his common mantra was millionaires and Billionaires need to pay their fair share.

ATC,

I think it was just rhetorical. It sounds dumb to say "$250,000-aires", plus anybody making that kind of money is probably a millionaire. Mixing worth and income is cost of making sense in a speech.

It's dishonest so say he was being dishonest. He was clear. It was $250K.

[ripping your boss off again Sport?]

Nahh, I got fences to mend and bridges to build, but I also got TONS of vacay time to use up before the end of the year, or I lose it...well, I don't actually lose it, I just get a big fat check. I'd rather take the time off. Besides, I'll need it due to the fact that I was asked to delay retirement for another five years.

And you?

[Mickey, hug and makeup? just keep your hands above the waist]

Sure, but you know I'm gonna grab what's left of your ass just one more time...

[I hugged my guns last night and my child]

Good for you...I hope you switched the order around, though.

First time i heard "pay your fair share" was in the luxury boat tax in 1990 i was trying to get people to agree (or disagree) to earlier. It is a classic study on taxing the rich. I urge the tax the rich folk to go look this up.

It was passed in Nov 1990 and had a 10% luxury boat tax on sales above 100k. They estimated 31 Billion in total revenue. Got half that and less the next year. 7600 people in the boat industry lost their jobs. Also other industries that supported all the fancy things that went with it.

Estimated 24.2 million in lost funds from paying unemployment insurance and lost local, state and federal tax dollars. Decimated the industry and was overturned in 1993 with a very broad bipartisan vote. Same thing is starting to happen in the Medical device industry that BO taxed in Obamacare.

It's not as simple as "raise taxes 10% and you'll get 10% more"

Again with the (what should be embarrassing) mouthpiece "journalism by First Read. Boehner didn't walk away from the deal the first time, much less "again".

Eighteen months ago he and the President had a deal in place. At the very last second Obama walked away from the deal by demanding 50% more in tax hikes than they had agreed to. Boehner was the one who left the deal on the table and stood by it, not Obama. Obama walked away from it and that's why we're in the mess we are in today.

Now a year and a half later Boehner still stood by the deal they were hours away from agreeing to. Problem is that Obama's initial offer this time was for TWICE as much in tax hikes than he originally agreed to and only 1/8th of the amount of slowed spending expansion that he agreed to (after all we're not talking actual spending cuts here). He has moved only a little since, now asking for tax hikes 70% higher than he originally agreed to and 1/4 of the amount of slowed spending expansion he originally agreed to.

Boehner continues to stand by the original agreement. It's Obama who not only walked away from what had been agreed to, but walked away, got into a truck and ran over it a few times to make sure it was dead.

BigATC

SB, you never heard the term "millionaires and billionaires" from Obama? Seriously? It was in almost every speech i heard. He did indeed have the 250k threshold, but his common mantra was millionaires and Billionaires need to pay their fair share.

For me this is a logical conclusion with a small logical pitfall. If you make $250k a year I would expect with time if you are able to save and have managed your investments wisely, you are likely a millionare or on the path to being one. I don't know of too many people who make $250,000+ that are financially illiterate outside of athletes.

The hard part is that when you suggest that you are targetting millionaires and billionaires we are not targetting based on net worth. We are targetting based on gross wages earned in a year minus deductions. The suggestion that people are making that he was saying he would only target millionaires and billionaires seems to me either be an oversight as we do not tax on total assets or that they are choosing a part of the argument to attack rather than the message as a whole.

In a sense it comes down to someone making $250,000 a year has the capacity to be a millionaire in the future, but since they make pay where they could possibly become a millionaire within time, they will be taxed as one.

I didn't say he was being dishonest. It does sound better than 250k-aires. LOL Good term. Doesn't flow from the tongue well.

250k in Indiana is good money. In NY, probably not. I would think he would be happy to get that from the Republicans. Many Democrats support 1 million as the target. Either way it won't do much at all.

Some CNBC nerd projected if we grew at 4% GDP it would add 4 to 5 Trillion over 10 years. As opposed to our measley 1.5% now. Much more to the coffers than taxes being raised. Much more upside to growth than trying to tax our way out.

Repo, it's all in your spending habits. I know and see many that make a 250k income that spend like they make 300k. Mercedes, 5000 sq ft house, etc. Allen Iverson made probably a couple of hundred million and is about broke. My neighbor pulls down low 6 figures with 2 kids (midwest) and lives paycheck to paycheck.

Mike, you are correct nobody mentions the deal they had agreed to in private. BO had that meeting same night, didn't invite Pelosi though for whatever reason, and they talked him out of it. BO pulled out the next day and everyone blamed the Republicans. Didn't quite understand that. Well i guess with the media i can understand it. Just like the title to this article. Never the Presidents fault, never the Dem Senate fault, always the Rep house fault. BO was indeed the one that walked from an agreed to deal last time.

TO: redvirginia who wrote:

Bohener offer in good faith, increases taxes to millionaires and billionaires, the real ones that make over 1 million ... Pelosi agree with that, but Reid and Obama continue with the game of NO..."

We all agree with that, but that's NOT the whole deal.

Still have parts missing before it's a "done" deal.

BigATC

Repo, it's all in your spending habits. I know and see many that make a 250k income that spend like they make 300k. Mercedes, 5000 sq ft house, etc. Allen Iverson made probably a couple of hundred million and is about broke. My neighbor pulls down low 6 figures with 2 kids (midwest) and lives paycheck to paycheck.

I will not disagree with a single part of that. The expectation should be that if you are making that amount of money you are expected to be more responsible from the perspective of our tax code. It is likely to be an unfair expectation as in most cases those who tend to make more money tend to have less financial issues that are going against them. In comparison you could consider the overused situation of lower income and fixed income people such as having to decide between medicine and electricity. While that may not be the exact bills in question it is often that you hear people have to decide on put off paying a bill to keep food on the table.

I believe we are both aware that money doesn't equal responsibility but often those who have more money have an easier time making more money. I don't know of many lower income bracket people who are able to save enough to contribute as well to their net worth as the annual-income wealthy are. The difference in taxes for a 3% for a person on a 35,000 a year income will be felt much more than an increase of 3% on someone in the $250,000 a year bracket.

Allen Iverson is a classic example of money gone wrong and we seem to have far too many of those. My early post mentioned athletes specifically but it was likely unfair to omit several other ridiculous income financially illiterate individuals involved in the entertainment industry.

Thank you for your reply.

BigATC,

Maybe it wasn't you that complained about Obama's moving goalposts, but someone did claim he was somehow dishonest about Dem's $1M proposal from last spring. Obama has always said $250K. He's said he's ready to sign the stand-alone under $250K Bush tax cut extension from the Senate.

He negotiated to $400K and included SS COLA change. Those are BIG deals for him to move on. Then he gets blamed for not negotiating. THAT's dishonest.

I'm just depressed that we went from almost there to not nearly there at all.

I was hoping not to have to work next week. Now it looks like I'm going to have to make decisions, move money around and pay people in the blind, not knowing what the heck is going to happen the following week.

What am I to do about it? Complain to my Congressman?

"Maybe it wasn't you that complained about Obama's moving goalposts, but someone did claim he was somehow dishonest about Dem's $1M proposal from last spring. Obama has always said $250K." - SmBusOwnerinNY

What is dishonest is having a deal in place 18 months ago, pulling the rug out at the very last second and then blaming the Republicans for it. Obama's goal posts absolutely have changed. What he agreed to with Boehner 18 months ago was $800 billion in tax hikes and $3.2 trillion in reduced spending growth (after all, we're not actually talking spending cuts you know). At the very last minute, Obama walked away from that deal and demanded 50% more in tax hikes to $1.2 trillion. A year and a half later he was demanding $1.6 trillion in tax hikes and slashed the reductions to the exploding increase in spending to a measly $400 billion. So how is that NOT moving the goal posts???

Boehner has continued to stand by the deal they struck 18 months ago. What is dishonest is not admitting that Obama moved the goal posts far, far down the field from there.

BigATC

Mr Walker, if you don't like one side not agreeing to something they promoted in the past you won't like any party. Obama promoted last year to cut 1.2 Trillion from loopholes and we could leave alone the tax rates. Thats 50% MORE than what Boehner proposed at 800 Billion. But when Boehner proposed it Obama said the math doesn't work and you can't feasibly get 800 Billion. So last year he said it was feasible to cut 1.2 Trillion in loopholes, but now its not feasible to find 800 Billion in loopholes??? Hmmmm. What changed in the tax code??? (nothing)

Actually, Obama wanted $1.2 trillion in revenues that would have come from loopholes AND the elimination of tax breaks for those making over $250,000. Since the elimination of tax breaks brings in $800 billion, Obama said that getting $1.2 trillion loopholes without hurting the middle class is impossible.

Obama also proposed in 2009 and 2010 that rasing taxes on businesses was the wrong thing to do with a bad economy and 3% gdp. Now he wants much more in taxes, MORE than the Clinton rates is his proposal, while the economy still sucks and GDP is HALF of what it was then at around 1.5%. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, the reason why Obama said that raising taxes on businesses was bad was because the Republicans refused to let the top portion of the Bush tax cuts sunset in 2010. Knowing that he got defeated but unwilling to concede it, he decided to say that raising taxes was wrong in order to cover his defeat.

His campaign proposal was about 800 billion in taxes. Boehner proposed 800 Billion. And Boehners proposal does it all from personal income loopholes, which avoids doing it through the marginal rates which avoids taxing businesses. Raising personal rates as the president wants affects approx. 1 million businesses that file SubS and LLC pass throughs.

Actually, Obama proposed at least $1 trillion in revenues, mainly from the sunset of the Bush tax cuts on top earners. He only campaigned on that because it's far simpler to say "let tax breaks end for folks like me" and to say "let's let the tax breaks for folks like me end and then we can fiddle through the tax code."

When I heard on CNN on that heated day in August 2011 that Boehner walked away from the debt ceiling deal, I was disheartened. What also disheartened me was the fact that the Dow dived nearly 2200 points of something as meaningless as spending cuts. The Republicans willingly held the American economy over the edge, not only threatening the public welfare but the credibility of our system of government in the eyes of the world, just so they could cut spending for education, healthcare, and R&D. Spending cuts are meaningless; they are just a ribbon handed out to congressmen, who can them tell their brainless constituents that they got the government out of their lives by x amount. The next person who says that America has a spending problem and only a spending problem is an idiot to the nth degree. America does not a have spending problem; yes, we are spending 24-25% of GDP (well over the 21-22% average), but that is because (A) we are in a recession and (B) our population is getting older, plus our healthcare system is as obsolete as the musket. We only have a spending problem if you think that government should only defend the nation and enforce laws or, if you're more rational, if we have spending too much on wars and on an inefficient healthcare system. We have a fiscal problem, a problem where the government has earned too little (revenues are far below the 18-19% average) and has spent too much over the long-term. In the short-term, we are fine; while spending is high, are revenues are low, that is mostly because of the recession. But in the long run, spending and revenues drift off as the cost of the Bush taxes and that of our inefficient healthcare system grows.

For any rational-minded person, this would mean that we have to raise taxes and cut spending in order to solve our problems; due to our economic predicament, deficit reduction ought to be stretched over the long term, with spending cuts and tax increases stretched out over several years and a short-term economic boost (via demand-side tax cuts and spending increases). Unfortunately, today's society is filled with self-proclaimed economic geniuses that claim that we must pay for our government's excesses via immediate austerity, and they also demand that we do so with steep spending cuts to social programs and tax cuts, which will eventually "pay for themselves." Rational people would argue that that would suck demand out of the economy and cause a deep and painful recession, a lesson that our European cousins learned the hard way. Unfortunately, these economic "geniuses" claim that the rich will save our economy if we cut their taxes and gut social programs, since the rich apparently control the economy.

If we really want to do something about our deficit and debt, and about our economy as a whole, we must sweep away these half-brained idiots that currently control the House of Representatives and the Republican Party. Those idiots "elected" Bush in 2001, turned the surplus into a deficit, and gave money to the rich while putting the cost on the rest of us. And these idiots are the same people that the president and the Democrats are currently negotiating a deal with. If I were the President, recently re-elected and armed with the biggest bargaining chip that I have ever possessed, I would propose the following deficit plan:

• Sunset of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 immediately as of 2013, and the eventual expiration of the tax cuts for everyone by 2015: $2.9 trillion.
• Phasing out the mortgage interest and high-cost healthcare coverage exemptions: $524.1 billion.
• Extend corporate depreciation: $241.4 billion.
• Modify spending cuts to $800 billion in targeted defense reductions and $450 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts. Establish commission of generals and defense experts to find defense savings.
• Increase Social Security payroll cap to 90% of earned income: $456.7 billion.
• Implement progressive price-indexing: $84.6 billion.
• Raise Medicare payroll tax by 1.5%: $976.2 billion.
• Change cost-sharing structures for Medigap:$92.5 billion.
• Increase Medicare Part D premium cost-sharing to 35%: $241.2 billion.
• Drug Manufacturing Rebate for Medicare Part D: $112 billion.
• Bundle Medicare provider payments into pay-for-performance system by 2025.

Total Savings: $6.9 trillion over 10 years.

That's not what happened Mike.

Boehner's caucus wouldn't pass the Grand Bargain (or whatever it was called) that Boehner and Obama negotiated. It wasn't Obama that walked away. Boehner couldn't get it done.

That's when we got the "Plan B" of the time, the "sequester" we're dealing with now.

Looks like the same thing is happening to Boehner now. He knows he's getting undermined by Cantor, who only wan't to pass the current Plan B which has no chance of becoming law. What a waste of time.