Why President Obama and Liberal's in Congress are losing their "MOJO" !

"which of course is the complete opposite of reality, that Obama's losing it."

Well I guess the new reality is the twilight zone!

It is not that Obama has lost control because he was not ever in possession of it!

It is not that Obama has lost control because he was not ever in possession of it!

Finely said..well done Rich..I would vote that up a thousand times if I could.

Thank you AR! It is something that requires no glasses to see....

And, yet, it's the Republicans who are in disarray and panic. Go figure.

Rich-

Probably requires your tin foil hat though.

The only people that think he has lost control are the people that have been hoping he would lose control. Maybe if you didn't check the political climate of America by tuning in to Rush you would realize that.

Disarray?

Well you are certainly correct! I can not remember when the left, right, center, up, down parties have not been.

Both parties have their political heads in the duffel bags! I am not sure if there is enough Vaseline in the world to help pull them out.

JEFFINVA,

If it takes me to have to wear a foil hat so be it. I wore a damn OD helmet for 20 years!

The difference between you and me is that I realize and understand the so called "political climate" is crap. Crap made and stored by both parties to push off on you and me!

I do not nor have I ever wished for him to lose control because that would be like cutting my own throat!

Political control is all dung when the whole planet is aware of the presidents failures and unpredictability and loyalties it is crystal clear. He has never had control to lose and the lack of support from even his own party shows this to be fact.

There is a light at the end of the political tunnel and he will never allow himself to see it!

While you might dismiss him as not having any control, you have to give him some credit for the reason he has lost the parties support. Out of all the mess that is going on he still has seemed to be the only one in Washington from either side that still realizes that compromises need to be made for a deal. The left gives him crap for giving the Republicans an inch and the right gives him crap for not giving a mile. While I don't see why this raise of the debt ceiling is so much more complex than the last 30 times it has been done, I think he has done a decent job of trying to help fix the gridlock we know as Congress.

While I don't see why this raise of the debt ceiling is so much more complex than the last 30 times it has been done, I think he has done a decent job of trying to help fix the gridlock we know as Congress.

Well, when he was part of that gridlock known as Congress, he voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling and called it a "failure of leadership" to even consider it.

What has changed? Apart from the fact that he is now the one wanting more money for spending on his programs...including the massively expensive monstrosity known as Obamacare. But then, when he was running for President he sharply criticized and mocked Hilary Clinton for her healthcare proposal because of the issue of the individual mandate.

"Hope and Change"? Nah...just more of the same, hypocrisy and lies.

The president has acknowledged that he was just a freshman senator who made a mistake -- just like all of the freshmen republicans who are now in congress who simply don't understand the ramifications of what they are doing. Social security is solvent for 25 years and if the government pays back the $4 trillion it owes SS, with the borrowing beginning with dwight david eisenhower to build the road system, we would have 6 trillion in the social security fund and it would out live anyone alive on this planet today except for the odd person who lives to be 150. As to what has changed, he is flexible enough to admit his mistakes, instead of signing a pledge of "no new taxes" to a right wing nutjob named Norquist instead of to the American people and being stuck with that and refusing to back down as the republicans are doing.

He certainly seems to have learned not to trust Republicans any farther than he could throw one. But, I agree, it has taken him a long time to realize the obvious: that Republicans are snakes and can never be trusted.

I agree. He should have started ignoring and rolling over Republicans a long time ago. He let them stymie the recovery and they capitalized on that last year. It's not too late. I hope to see it happen this weekend or next week.

There you go. And the general fund will be unable to honor the I.O.U's when they start coming in in volume.

And you believe that? What other fairy tales do you believe in?

I hope you were being sarcastic.

But BUT the milatary has the big guns.

LOL

Yep, and all the while the Dems were spending like drunken sailors and now that they don't have anymore money and a credit card, they are squealing like pigs... Hey, jackhat, we were told by you to "tighten our belt", now it's time for you to tighten yours! And quit yer whining for Pet's sake...it unbecoming of a President.

Vol, I wish I could vote that up more than once. The government needs to live within our means, not the other way around.

Reps are the one of growing Gov't and spending but not paying for crap. That is a known and truthful fact.

Also we were told that Defict don't matter from the last Rep VP. We also were told that therich would hire people if they get all of the tax breaks and cuts. That too was told by Rep during the last Rep WH Admin.

Now the Reps are all over the place. They are losing their freaking minds. Speaker Bohner doesn't even know if any Debt Ceiling plan will pass the House. Bohner looks so said in his new job. Bohner has no power at all.Cantor, aka THE SPOIL CHILD" is treating everyone like he is the king. This is the same man who told people in a disaster that money will not come to you until we find spending cuts. So while the Pres is speaking, Cantor cuts him off 3 times to say the same crap that was told it wasn't going to work.Then you have McConnell telling the world that he wants to defeat Pres Obama no matter what.

REPS ARE EXPLODING AS THEY SEE POLLS AFTER POLL BLAMING THEM FOR THIS CRAP. The problem is that the Tea Party people don't care. That Grover Norquist guy, aka "The Tax Man" doesn't care either as long as the Reps upheld his stupid PLEDGE.

WOW

LIG...not so much:

this -http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

and

this

Might be a good idea for you to read the graphs in your links, volfan. If you notice when the steepest spike in spending begins, it happens to exactly coincide with the onset of George Bush's disastrous presidency. Thank you for reminding us of that. Usually right wingers have complete amnesia and don't seem to remember that name and certainly hate it when it's brought up.

It is only right that the people who are causing the pain should also feel it.

Agreed.

Well, I just saw a bit where Gayle King quotes John Boehner asking the President to define what the mission in Libya is before we commit any more troops and any more money, and the timeframe for said mission.

When I heard Gayle King admit that she was agreeing with John Boehner, I nearly fainted from the shock!!!

So, it's not just the out-of-control spending, the wasteful social programs, it's the unidentified missions in other countries that drain our budget. We can't continue to act like the world police if we don't have the people's house in order.

As for who should feel the pain? Ditto.

Let's cut all Congressional and the Presidents pay, as well as the salaries of all "Management" positions within all departments of the Federal Government and not restore them until such time as our social programs are protected and the budget is used in a mature manner.

You are forgetting that pay increase/decrease proposals originate through Congress. At most, all they do is vote against their cost-of-living raises.

Well we may just have to change a few things. Perhaps pay raises etc. can be proposed by Congress, but should be decided by voters by being placed on the ballot each general election and letting the voters decide. I haven't met very many bosses who allow employees to determine their own rate of pay. They are working for us aren't they?

That may sound silly considering the way things are and have been for a long time. but they don't have to stay that way. All it takes is some guts on the part of voters.

Oh, gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. So tiresome.

Oh, gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. So tiresome.

I thought you lib/progs didn't believe in God? hmmmm

Oh, gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. So tiresome.

nice play on words, Luke...

I don't believe in gods, but I do believe in gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd.
And, sorry, volfan and Luke but we libs first began using taliban word combinations years ago to describe right wing fundamentalist krischuns as "talibornagains." As usual you're late to the party. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and we appreciate your compliment.

Not to mention the psychological projection, a symptom common to schizophrenia.

Who was being personally attacked, greg? Doesn't there have to be a person involved? It is not a violation of the CoH to ridicule a political group, or you'd have been banned a long time ago. Put it back up.

I had no idea where the comment came from and didn't allude to you or any other particular person, therefore no personal attack. Furthermore, my comment didn't even contain an indefinite pronoun so it can't even be seen as referring to a particular group. You seemed to have taken the most general and generic statement rather too personally. I don't think the seeder or author's exaggerated oversensitivity is a valid basis for deleting.

I've taken your advice now, greg. Thanks.

IF by following you mean abusing, check. NV is on it.

Oh, you've been warned before? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

One person's certainly carries more weight than another's.

I'm not surprised by your opinion.

Solvent does not mean there is trillions of dollars horded away in a savings account that can be drawn upon until 2037. Solvent means that all things remaining constant SS can pay its bills.

Without raising the Debt Cap all things do not remain constant therefore SS will not have the money to pay its August paymens because that money will be drawn out to pay other bills. SS has and always will get raided by the General Fund, if congress wa sto lock it then there would be no issue.

Solvent means the bucks are there to cover SS until 2036.

Yes - but the money is in bonds - bonds sold to the U.S., backed by the U.S. It's not cash.

But even though Obama is only saying SS checks may not go out, it is still stirring up a lot of fear among those who rely on those payments. The GOP should increase the debt limit now and the American people must get a firm promise that both sides will tackle spending cuts and revenue increases immediately thereafter, and more than 4 trillion dollars. Such nonsense!

Joanna Caroll - Google QE 1 and II. What you say rings true about the bonds. It is a very weak crutch holding up the bond market and it's quite scary. I'm a little concerned about the ability the government has to tackle spending. After all, they are Career Politicians.

and the American people must get a firm promise that both sides will tackle spending cuts and revenue increases immediately thereafter, and more than 4 trillion dollars.

Joanne...that''s the point!! All we, the American people, get is promises and failed promises that somewhere down the road we are going to be "deficit neutral", that we will "cut spending", etc. and it never happens (although by attrition, the last two temporary extensions under Boehner included immediate cuts). Cuts need to be NOW and not down the road after " the 2012 election" (referenced in above post) because those "cuts" NEVER happen!

go to treas.gov and look at the financial report.

Why? The debt ceiling covers money that has already been spent.

The finacial report I asked to look at explains the dollar to dollar transaction between federal debt and spending.

here's part of what they say

Types of marketable securities:
Bills—Short-term obligations issued with a term of 1 year or less.
Notes—Medium-term obligations issued with a term of at least 1 year, but not more than 10 years.
Bond—Long-term obligations of more than 10 years.
TIPS—Term of more than 5 years.

Federal debt securities held by the public outside the Government are held by individuals, corporations, State or local governments, FRBs, foreign governments, and central banks. The above table details Government borrowing primarily to finance operations and shows marketable and nonmarketable securities at face value less net unamortized discounts including accrued interest.

Securities that represent Federal debt held by the public are issued primarily by the Treasury and include:

• Interest-bearing marketable securities (bills, notes, bonds, and inflation-protected).
• Interest-bearing nonmarketable securities (government account series held by deposit and fiduciary funds, foreign series, State and local government series, domestic series, and savings bonds).
• Non-interest-bearing marketable and nonmarketable securities (matured and other).

Section 3111 of Title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to use money received from the sale of an obligation and other money in the General Fund of the Treasury to buy, redeem, or refund, at or before maturity, outstanding bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, Treasury bills, or savings certificates of the Government. There were no buyback operations in fiscal years 2010 and 2009.

Gross Federal debt (with some adjustments) is subject to a statutory ceiling (i.e., the debt limit). Prior to 1917, the Congress approved each debt issuance. In 1917, to facilitate planning in World War I, Congress established a dollar ceiling for Federal borrowing. On December 28, 2009, Public Law 111-123 was enacted, which increased the statutory debt limit to $12,394.0 billion. On February 12, 2010, Public Law 111-139 was enacted, which increased the statutory debt limit to $14,294.0 billion. As of September 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively, debt outstanding was $13,510.8 billion and $11,853.1 billion. The debt subject to the limit includes Treasury securities held by the public and Government guaranteed debt of Federal agencies (shown in the table above) and intragovernmental debt holdings (shown in the following table).

courtesy of treas.gov.

Whaaaaaa! What does that have to do with the anything? Yes we do vote on a debt ceiling. Normally Congress pays for what they spend. It is the act of a quality debtor. You think we should default?

What in hell does that mean? Whaaaaa? Is that you crying about something? You asked a question, and I answered it. Is that a problem for you? A quality debtor with kids in charge of the credit cards......indeed.

Wait a minute Borncorn. Are you saying that when a person overextend themselves financially, it is a quality choice for them to increase the amount of debt they already have. Hey Mr. Banker, I can't pay back the money I owe you, so increase my credit limit and stop sending me delinquent notices." Congress isn't paying anything with these debt increases they have been approving for years. All they have accomplished is to make the debt bigger and you and me poorer.

Exactly...how can you defend Obama wanting to raise the debt ceiling NOW, when in 2006 he called it a "failure of leadership"?

He's been in office for over 2 years...and increased our debt out of all proportion with his spending...please, someone explain to me why we can afford to pay for all his and Michelle's vacations and trips abroad if we can't afford to pay our seniors who paid into the program all their lives?

Would YOU go on a vacation trip if you had elderly people depending on you for support and you were facing bankruptcy?

Normally Congress pays for what they spend. It is the act of a quality debtor.

Well, if they had done THAT we wouldn't be where we are today, would we?? That aside:

You mean like Nancy Pelosi saying "no new deficit spending" and she and her cohorts (and some idiot Rep) spend 3 trillion over our revenue in two years (and that doesn't EVEN include Obamacrapcare)?

You mean like PAYGO, that was supposed to be used to bring down the deficit, but they created "emergency" loopholes to spend whatever amount they wanted?

That they do...often after just two years in office.

truth is you can't leave any money laying around the govt..........it will find of way of spending it

I just looked at Sen. Lee's proposals on his web site. Check his info out.

Yep, Viva, that's soooooo true. Makes me wanna puke.

let me paint a visual for both sides to look at

millions of shattered piggy banks that use to hold the taxpayers money.........to be held in trust by the govt.................with trillions of IOU notes with smiley faces left behind...........

Okay, thanks, I just barfed.

que Nasty............( :

truth is you can't leave any money laying around the govt..........it will find of way of spending it

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary!

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000!

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible!

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent!

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed!

i'm depressed now...............

i'm depressed now...............

I am just getting started!

Since many have paid into FICA for years and some are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' ( I have always felt like this is being taxed twice on the same money!) -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

AND MY FAVORITE:

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right!...........Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

So no, I don't trust politicians with my money, and I especially don't trust democrat politicians to do what they say they will do later.

OK, I do feel bad for my mom.......and the rest of my family and friends.

I am a teacher and my retirement is with TRS, so unless they went and did the same, then maybe there will be something there for me........my hubby will have exxon-mobil benefits plus Social Security, so maybe we can afford a nicer cardboard box than others.

Robert, as someone who no doubt just loved those "death panel" and "killing granny" lies the Republicans used constantly I really don't think you should be pontificating about scare tactics.

Why should anybody care what someone who chooses a name that tells us he is flipping us off says or thinks.

digitus

I railed against those exaggerations as well.

I think both parties have lost their way and have resorted to lies, innuendo, distortions and when they are being the most hones "spin" rather than even attempting to use the truth as way to communicate to the American people.

I am an independent and I think both sides deserve my ridicule until they learn to govern rather than campaign 23/7.

I notice you are quite partisan so I am sure youl will disagree and that is okay.

People are smarter than politicians give them credit for and most see them for the jaded hypocrites that they are, unfortunately they are also too lazy to vote and do something about it.

And contrary to owlsview's comment above I think your moniker fits your comments generally.

> Robert, I find it intellectually and politically lazy for people to just tut-tut about both sides of our politics being the same and walk away. This "pox on all your houses" thing does nothing to advance or change the situation. While both sides often do behave awfully at times, there are clear differences in which way the two major parties want to take us and decide which one you prefer and get involved. If the teabag wing of the Republican party is too extreme for you but the basic ideas of Republicans is more agreeable to you then get involved and take that power away from those extremist elements...they are, after all, still a minority (we're told) of Republicans--maybe only 50-60 true fanatics in the House who seem to have cowed nearly everyone else. I'm feeling conflicted giving a conservative this advice since I'd like nothing better for the teabaggers to continue to destroy the Republican Party and force all the reasonable ones out altogether. I have my own problems with some elements of the Democratic party who I feel are far too much under the control of corporate interests and have forgotten the traditional values of the party. But, to me, it's still a far better alternative to what the right has to offer. IOW, politics is never going to be smooth and pretty. Make your choice and continue to work for what you believe in instead of kibbitzing from the sidelines.

digitus

I am an independent, a centrist if you will.

I am not politically lazy, in fact it is much more work for me to be involved because I am following and researching all sides of the issues and all the candidates rather than those of a single party.

I support Democrats (who I guess would be called Blue Dogs) and I support moderate Republicans who are less socially conservative than the far right and I support independents affiliated with neither party. I have never actively supported a Libertarian or member of another party, but would not rule it out in the future.

I worked forked for the campaign and voted for Pres Clinton and though he did things I was ashamed of, I still feel he was a good President for the country and set the example of how to lead divided government successfully. John Kerry and Al Gore both scared me and I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. I worked hard for Hillary in 2008 and was terribly disappointed when she was not the nominee, as I feel distant to many of Obama's policies and his agenda (though I do admire what he has accomplished and think he is trying to do what he thinks is right). I will not be supporting or voting for President Obama in 2012, though I have not found my candidate on the right or in the middle as yet (I still day dream about a primary challenge from Hillary but that is likely fantasy).

I have not, do not and will not vote for a party - - - I vote for candidates regardless of party based on their views and my views. I am also involved in local government, participate in town halls at the state, county and local levls regularly and work for candidates of both parties at those levels.

I think that unions, corporations, industries and even foriegn countries have far too much influence inour government and long for lobbying reform and accountability of government.

I disagree with those who blindly vote for and support a party, but respect their right to do so and their reasoning for doing so and would expect the same respect for my approach, but have learned to largely live without that respect from many people.

I agree with you that their are loons on the far right of the Republicans (in the House and elsewhere) that IMHO have no place in governing the nation, but I feel the same way about some progressives elsewhere in the building.

We have the remedy in our system, the lelection process and in 2012 we will once again hear from the people and I will once again look at each race and choose the candidate (from whichever or neither party) that I think will best serve me and the nation.

It is imperative and in fact is the duty of citizens to call out the shortcomings of the elected officials of both parties and demand changes and actions in the best interest of the country.

I thank you for the feedback and for your perspective,

If you voted for Bush twice, Robert, I have a hard time understanding how you can't take some responsibility for how badly things turned out with him. It's not like his incompetence wasn't well known even before his first selection to office.

It didn't take hindsight. It took looking at Bush's miserable life record from washed-out ANG pilot to failed businessman to inept governor. And this:

Didn't see any complaints from Liberals, the first 4 years of a Bush Presidency.

Really? The liberals who fought his warmongering and tried to stop the irresponsible tax cuts and called him on his lying about war, torture time after time after time? And the liberals who pointed out correctly how he ignored the terrorist threats that were basically screaming at him in the Summer of 2001? What planet were you living on between 2001-2004?

Unless you're in the "habit" of looking into things that don't exist, I'd recommend moving on. Again, I think a lot of people have confused Bush with President Obama for some reason.

read is the key word here.............

Gee digitusmedia, It was in Obama's book. You didn't read it, did you.

Again, the Bush confusion. I know you desperately want to pretend he didn't exist or that he was a Dem but it just aintagonna work.

digitus

As I said the lesser of two evils and yes I do feel some responsibility for the mess as I believe all Republicans feel some level of responsibility for the fiscal mess and as I believe many Democrats should as well, but that is another argument.

As to the incompetence being know before the end of the first term, that same argument will be made next year

Digitus: it was well covered that his confessional regarding his admitted "cocaine use" was debated plentifully prior to the election Mr. Obama won.

It's not news. He admitted it.

Heck, here ya go--on video... It doesn't get any clearer than this.

Have you fellas read this:

COCAINE:
According to a new book, three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward. (In another new book, reporter Bill Minutaglio, writes that the year of community service was arranged by the Governor's father, ex-president Bush, after he caught Bush Jr. driving drunk.)

That year certainly is out of character with the rest of Bush Jr.'s life. Before and after 1972, he was a rich, hard drinking playboy. Suddenly, and only that one time in his life, he worked for a liberal charity in an inner city ghetto. As soon as the year was over, he resumed his previous pattern and has done no charity work since.

The author of this book, J. H. Thompson, has some interesting scandals of his own. Of course, his own flaws don't disprove what Bush did or didn't do, but the way Thompson has responded certainly undercuts his credibility. First, he admitted to a reporter from Slate Magazine that he made up at least one detail, that one of his informants spat tobacco into a styrofoam cup during their (phone!) interview.

Then, reporters -- or perhaps Bush campaign operatives -- found that the author apparently is an ex-convict, on parole for hiring a hit man to kill a former boss. That doesn't mean he can't research, of course, but Thompson's credibility suffered greatly as he claimed it was someone else, despite incredible similarities between his resume -- including unexplained job gaps during the prison years -- and confirmation from his parole officer that indeed, the author named J. H. Thompson is the one who did time.

Bush Jr.'s Evasive Responses:

Bush has essentially admitted that he used cocaine in his Clintonesque, carefully worded partial denials. He won't deny using cocaine or marijuana, though under persistent questioning he said that he hadn't used cocaine in the last 7 years. Most newspapers report that he denies using cocaine since 1974, but that's not exactly true.

That is the most favorable interpretation of what Bush said, but since Bush and his campaign have already made Clintonesque denials on other issues, we need to look at his words carefully.

What Bush actually said was ""I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices.

Since Bush Sr.'s presidency began in January 1989, reporters assumed that Jr. was denying drug use for 15 years before that, to 1974. But that is not at all clear. His only direct statement was for seven years before today. He could easily have been denying drug use only for 15 years before today, based on 7 or 10 years dating back from the END of his dad's term. 10 years before 1993, the end of Bush Sr.'s term, is pretty close to 15 years before today.

I get what you are saying I think then. Because Bush used cocaine then Obama didn't even though he said he did, right?

Sometimes it is hard to think progressive but I am trying :)

No, I'm saying the President is honest and Bush was criminal. That's all.

digitus

Interesting version of honest you have and I think you forgot to use the phrase "alleged criminal" unless he was convicted os something during my round of golf this morning

That has never stopped right wingers, but, you're right, Robert. I shouldn't be like right wingers. I'm going to say "likely criminal."

digitus

Compromise is a wonderful thing, you moved off your position and I am satisfied without getting you to change to mine

Ain't this a woncerful country

And it's wonderful, too ;>)) (I keed, I keed)

Explain the simple part. GOP solvent??? On what?

JJM: It's right there in black and white in my comment....."entitlement programs"

They're called "entitlements" since people pay into them and are entitled to get the benefits that were promised on that basis--not because they're automatically entitled by birth, for example, as the wealthy think. Insurance is slightly different, but don't you feel entitled to get insurance to cover the things you pay premiums for, lisaed? If not, you're being fleeced by your insurance company.

P.S. It's due to REpublican profligacy over the past decade and refusal to raise enough revenue to cover their massive deficit spending from 01-09 that is threatening the solvency of this country, lisaed. No matter how much you wish it were otherwise and pretend it isn't, that is the brutal fact of the matter. It was the same when Reagan did it and tripled the national debt and it was even worse under Bush, whose policies were "Reagan on meth" by comparison.

It is a retirement fund that has to get its money from the general fund when it cashes it's IOUs. Then it could be said to be paid out of the general fund the percentage that it had to cash in. So then it would be funded as an entitlement fund. Of course the general fund in a few years won't have enough money to honor the IOU's so the amount that goes out is dependant on what the government can afford; just like an entitlement fund.

Hmmm.... I guess it is both depending on what you want to call it :) You can call it a retirement fund if you accept that the money in there isn't yours and the government can decide when and how much you can have back at any time :)

That second link is a pure lie. The President offered a $2.4 TRILLION (over ten years) package with just $400 BILLION in increased tax revenues (mostly cutting corporate subsidies, closing loopholes and taking away the hedge fund traders' ability to pay capital gains rates on their income which are fees). I think even arithmetic challenge people would be able to figure out that that's $240 BILLION annually. People really should not ever read, much less link to, Murdoch owned papers. It's always going to end badly.

BTW, the President's early budget proposal called for a $4 TRILLION reduction over 10 years but that wasn't good enough for Republicans so now we have 0.

Between February and May, it was clear the Republicans in the House were not going to take it up so that budget was no longer an offer from the President. Dems were fine killing it as was the President. It was a simple agenda clearing procedural vote. It had no meaning whatsoever except for right wingers who'll try to use anything no matter how irrelevant to bolster their worthless case.

This year, greg. Two thousand and eleven.

Umm, no. The final piece of the FY2011 budget was signed back in April as a "continuing resolution" since Republicans blocked final passage of that budget before the end of the calendar year and had to take it up again when the took control of the House in Jan. This was how they wanted to play it demanding no final budget be voted on in a lame duck session. Don't you remember all the Republican posturing on demanding an immediate $100 BN spending cut and it went back and forth for weeks (sound familiar) until Repubs finally accepted a $38 BN cut. Jeezix, greg, if I have to tell you this how can you be pretending to know anything about what's going on. Your little Republicans have been @!$%#ing over the country now for months and wasting time trying to tear the President down instead of doing what they promised voters in Nov. 2010--create jobs. And, greg, please don't pretend you don't know that Repubs in the Senate have set filibustering records now for four straight years since they lost control of that body in 2007. They've blocked more than they ever got done.

digitus

And the $38 Billion in cuts ended up being an illusion (can you say lie) from the Democrats that actually ended up costing the country money right?

The same thing happened to Bush the elder when he made a tax and spending cuts deal with the Democrats.

Does this pattern explain why the Republicans have a slight feeling of mistrust of their Democratic colleagues?

Maybe so

It's true, the Republicans got snookered, apparently, with the deal they agreed to in April. Is it the President's fault that the Republicans didn't understand what they were agreeing to? The only way you can claim this was unfair or the Dems cheated in some way is to admit the Republicans are impaired. Republicans just aren't very bright, Robert. This whole debt thing is a great example. They've put themselves into this vice and they're actually the ones tightening it. You even heard Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker saying this past week that maybe they shouldn't have made the debt ceiling such a big deal. Ya think?

Sorry about the double post. When I tried to post the first time NV told me it couldn't be posted and to try again.

It's true, the Republicans got snookered, apparently, with the deal they agreed to in April. Is it the President's fault that the Republicans didn't understand what they were agreeing to? The only way you can claim this was unfair or the Dems cheated in some way is to admit the Republicans are impaired. Republicans just aren't very bright, Robert. This whole debt thing is a great example. They've put themselves into this vice and they're actually the ones tightening it.

digitus

I do not think the Republicans are impaired or not, but you seem th be saying that if they were that it is okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak (how very Democratic).

I merely pointed out that the Democrats have mis-represented (lied) about spending cuts in the pas ton more than one occasion an that leads to some skepticism from the Republicans.

So, Robert, you're claiming Republicans are not smart enough to understand what they're signing on to and too weak to do anything about it when they do discover their negligence? They all get to look at the same numbers and both sides are free to have all their experts advise them. Tell me again why you trust these clowns enough to vote for them, then.

digitus

I said nothing even resembling that and you know it.

I am saying that they accepted things on faith and the word of respected legislators and were duped by the outcome, quite different from not being smart enough.

So maybe I am saying that the Democrats who perpetrated the falsehood are without honor, but good politicians. Maybe that is it and maybe the Republicans shuld not trust them

I have voted for Democrats and Republicans that have turned out to be clowns and incompetents, so it is not a party affliction.

But then you're saying they're incompetent. You're saying the Dems lied to the Republicans? If so, then let's have some valid data to support that, because I've never heard Boehner claim that. If there is no data for that, then just what do you base this "duping" on? Like I said, the Republicans have access to all the information that the Dems have. In fact, as the majority in the House, they have nearly unlimited power and access to information and can have any expert in or out of government to advise them. I believe your contention that the Reps were duped has got to be about the weakest excuse I've ever heard offered for their bumbling. I remember a similar excuse being offered for why Reagan had no guilt for the Iran-Contra scandal in order to claim he didn't lie about it. It was that he didn't know. So ignorance/incompetence was his trump card. I still am amazed that this is how it was played. Was he lying or just a lousy president? We'll take no. 2, say the Republicans.

digitus

You read but you do not comprehend

I am not making an excuse for bumbling (as yu put it), I am merely saying that having been misled (or outfoxed if you like it better) by the Democrats on the 2011 budget and its related spending cuts (I use the term loosely), that the Republicans are less inclined to trust anything the Democrats say until it is in writing and the Democrats have offered nothing so far in writing.

I too find it a little hard to believe that Reagan wa totally unaware of the goings on back then.

Again, when and how did Republicans receive untrustworthy information form the President or any other Democrat? Because Republicans ended up getting a deal they didn't like means the Dems are untrustworthy? It's not up to the Dems to make sure the Repubs are happy, is it? Keerist.

digitus

I feel like I am talking with a bucket on my head so I will bow out and agree to disagree with you on this point

See you around the vine

You can't even come up with one example of how Dems supposedly tricked Republicans into agreeing to something they later came to find out they didn't like?

How about this digitusmedius? I want to see transparency in spending. We have the technology to post the copy of the checks on line, and I want to see them. Congress over the years has promised to cut spending in return for a higher debt ceiling. In the past, there was no way in real time to watch what they were doing and no consequence for not keeping their promise. If you were a politician, would you agree to the terms of that kind of transparency today?

You're also claiming the Republicans didn't know what they signed on to? They can get and give all the transparency they want--they own the House of Representatives right now. This is all about trying to blame someone else for the Republicans having lousy ideas and poor strategy.

digitusmedius - I really wanted to gauge your seriousness in this matter or if you just wanted to simply continue with argument for arguments sake. I never "claimed" anything, those are your words. I only mentioned "Congress". I see that you do not want to have adult dialog. Have a good day.

What more transparency do you want? The budget proposals are available to read and they're complex but not invisible. What you're really asking for is simplification but that's much more difficult to come by. You don't want a serious conversation either by the looks of it.

Always gotta have the last word, huh? I no longer care what you think.

Runner.........run fast and press ignore button........( :

Like I said, no real interest in a discussion. You only want to carp. I'd take VIVA's advice he/she/it knows better than to engage.

I don't care.

And Runner's post are? Okay, greg, I'll bite. It's just possible I might not have seen or remember your question, so what question is burning in your soul to be answered?

Digitus: Start at 23.3--the question is there.

I answered both, immediately: 23.4 and 1.15. I posted a more detailed answer to that question in another seed, I'll find it and repost it right after I send this. (Interesting note today: the Dems are running an ad today that features St. Reagan making the exact point that President Obama did when Congress was threatening not raising his debt ceiling in 1987). The answer to his rhetorical question in 23.3 is that the President's proposal was obsolete by May and even he didn't want it considered. It's interesting now that his current deficit reduction proposal in answer to the Republican ploy on the debt ceiling contains the exact same amounts for spending cuts and revenue increases as did his budget proposal in February. So, greg, even though the Senate voted not to consider it, it's still quite alive. And if he doesn't get it again now it will be his campaign's economic and fiscal plan in 2012. The public supports it by a 2:1 margin.

Here's one article on why someone's not going to be paid should the debt ceiling not be raised as it always has been by every Congress who ever had to do so:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt-ceiling-What-happens-if-cnnm-359093306.html?x=0

Here's another one:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2011/07/10/in-default-who-would-get-paid.html

Even Larry Kudlow, who's nobody's idea of a Dem or Obama pal is pushing not just for raising the ceiling to avoid catastrophe but thinks the President's deal, or something very close to it, is the only thing that will now satisfy the credit rating agencies:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272101/igoodi-debt-ceiling-deal-larry-kudlow
and
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/13/larry-kudlow-pending-catastrophe-u-s-default/

Are the National Review and Daily Caller now socialist?

You're really mixed up again, greg. SocSec is currently solvent, and will remain so until 2037, and much longer if slight changes to the FICA rates are made. I wrote that elsewhere on this seed. No one is lying (breaking the CoH again, eh, greg--calling me a liar without evidence and all). You're question in #23.3 is no more focused than my answer. That issue seems to mean something to you but it doesn't in the real world. The vote tally is as irrelevant as what King George was wearing on July 4, 1776.

greg, didn't you listen to your president back in 2005 when he explained to the country that there weren't drawers full of cash over at the SocSec building? It was a profound discovery for him, if I recall. Here's a little primer (no, not the first coat of paint, but a basic explanation) of where SocSec money goes. First, FICA taxes are collected by the treasury every month out of paychecks and that money goes into what's called the "general fund" and monthly payments to SocSec recipients are paid by the treasury out of that general fund. Have you seen a SocSec check? It says "U.S.Treasury" on it, not "Social Security Trust Fund." What's left over, if anything, then goes to the Soc Sec Trust Fund where it is invested immediately in U.S. treasury notes to begin earning interest immediately. These bills have maturity dates of various lengths so you never want to trade them in before that date or you do not get the full amount of the interest due. At the end of the fiscal year, the SocSec Trustees sell those mature notes and reimburse the Treasury for its outlay. We already know that there will be more owed by the Treasury in August than the expected revenues coming in so someone is not going to get paid if the country defaults come Aug. 2. The President did not say explicitly that SocSoc beneficiaries would not be paid but that he couldn't guarantee that they would be. The main reason is that he doesn't get to decide. Treasury officials, under the the Secy of the T., will make that decision as they and only they have that authority (you wouldn't want any president to have it, would you?). It is possible that after making payments that must be made that there will not be enough left to pay everyone, including possibly those people expecting SocSec checks. I've already now posted multiple links to people including right wing financial gurus and economic experts who have confirmed that the President's words are accurate. President Reagan made the identical case back in 1987. Maybe you're not old enough to remember Reagan, but he was not a socialist (he was however a confirmed liar in many of his other statements while president but this appears to be one of those instances when he was truthful.) So the President did not lie about the risk to SocSec payments and I did not lie about SocSec solvency. (BTW, he did not say "social security coffers" but simply "coffers" meaning the general fund). Despite what you claim you've been reassured by NV moderators, calling someone a liar when they're not lying is a violation of the CoH. You haven't had a particularly successful track record with me on NV issues, have you.

greg, no matter how much you wish it to be there, there is no connection between the debt ceiling and SocSec solvency. They are two entirely separate subjects and I explained in some detail how SocSec payments could be in jeopardy and the solvency of SocSec is completely unaffected by that. It couldn't be plainer than that. It really would do you a world of good just to learn how things work if you'd allow yourself to learn. I've also pointed out elsewhere on a similar seed that both Boehner and McConnell have echoed the President's warning on not being able to guarantee who gets paid should there be a default. Gee, greg, at some point don't even you think you have to accept the truth?

2 trillion in cuts and two trillion in tax increases (once again; spending problem not taxing problem) to reduce projected borrowing increases to the debt; not reduction of debt. That fixes nothing. By that time we need to be done borrowing and begin reversing it by paying on the debt. That wasn't a solution; that was a token gesture.

That's a total of $2.4T in deficit reduction, only 1/6th of it ($400Bn) from increased revenues. Where do you get $2T and $2T? I'll bet your one of those people who claim we never had revenue surpluses under Clinton either, no matter how many times you're shown the numbers. Cutting spending any fast will crash our economy pronto. Just look at Britain if you want to see the result of conservative "austerity" measures--they're basically back in recession after less than a year of Tory leadership.

Who the hell cares about deficit reduction in projected borrowing in 10 more years? The main goal should be debt reduction; not deficit reduction. Of course we had revenue surplus under Clinton. The conservatives in congress demanded it. And unlike our current POTUS, Clinton compromised and displayed leadership putting his foot down with the statists in his party.

Never thought I would be elevating Slick Willy as much as I do anymore :)

Cutting spending too fast will crash our economy? Really? I would like to place a bet on that. Lets elect a fiscally conservative senate and white house in 2012 to go along with the house and put that to the test.

trying to type a bit too fast: that should be "you're one of those, etc...." and "faster will crash, etc.."

And this: "The conservatives in congress demanded it" is just hilariously wrong. Conservatives predicted the whole economy would collapse when taxes got raised in 1993. Just the opposite happened. I'm sorry, Lib, but you and your Republican allies have lost what little credibility you might ever have had on how to manage an economy and be fiscally sound at the same time. You sat back silently for 8 years of profligate Republican spending and ruinous tax cuts and tried to blame poor people for the inevitable disaster that happened in 2008. We just don't listen to you anymore. You've never been right in theory and you've been disaster in practice.

Just to elaborate on that "conservatives demanded it" howler:

In proposing a plan [in 1993] to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[48] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[49]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[50] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[51] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1998 budget, which was the first balanced budget since 1969.[1][52] The surplus money was used to pay down the public debt by $452 billion, though the gross federal debt continued to increase.[2] The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history, which began during George H. W. Bush's presidency.[53][54][55]

Furthermore, Republicans campaigned so savagely on that tax increase that they were able to get back control of Congress in '94.

and:

I would like to place a bet on that. Lets elect a fiscally conservative senate and white house in 2012 to go along with the house and put that to the test.

been there, done that---disaster. I'd bet on my earlier statement but since Britain has already done the experiment for us, there's no need to. No, betting on nags is your thing, Lib.

You are correct; republicans did fight the increase in taxes. But why were they all sitting down at the balanced budget table to begin with? Remember who drove that issue? And who knows, if the tax increases wouldn't have been a part of it the increased revenue from added growth could have even produced a larger surplus.

Britain has already done the socialist experiment for us to so we have no need as well :)

Clinton is who drove the issue with his proposed budget; that's who drove the issue. They weren't "all" sitting around the "balanced budget table." Republicans never came to the table. They saw tax increases and walked away. And this:

And who knows, if the tax increases wouldn't have been a part of it the increased revenue from added growth could have even produced a larger surplus.

is downright hilarious. After that "job killing, economy suffocating" tax increase the country created 22 million jobs and had the longest sustained period of economic growth in our history and you're claiming it could have been bigger without the tax increase. If we've learned nothing else over the past ten years is that tax cuts do not create economic growth or any kind of record job growth. This has been true all throughout our history since the income tax came into existence. You cannot find one time in our economic history where tax increases hurt an economy or tax reductions created any record high growth. That's right wing economic voodoo mythology and we're living with the devastating results at this moment. And, as for the UK, after the last year of disastrous Tory economic austerity I think Britain would be more than happy to have its booming "socialism" back.

"Booming socialism" is an oxymoron. Socialism is a failed experiment. We are seeing the final grades getting passed out now. The system dooms itself with the creation of an entitlement society combined with reducing the innovation and efficiency of industry. Common sense tells us that once the producers are outnumbered by takers the countdown to failure begins. Free enterprise is the best economic model ever produced; the freer the better. It could be argued that socialism is actually less viable then a state controlled communism. At least that model lasted longer :)

Well, of course it is. It was irony, Lib. The U.K. is, of course, not a socialist nation. Every economy that doesn't fit your feudal model is not socialist just because of that.

LOL

funnnnny and sooooo snarky...........I give you two snarky stars, KYPIAKOC

Thanks! That makes my time on the 'Vine today worth it:)