Any proposal that doesn't significantly cut back the department of defense is just politics.

Breaking News: Ryan's budget plan failed in the Senate. House Republicans left scratching their heads and wondering how their brilliant plan was foiled. Stay tuned...more to come.

All of us will be seniors one day.

Actually, Ryan's bill would affect people 50 and over. Ryan's cut off is 55.

Medicare reform is necessary but turning it into a one and done yearly voucher limit is not the way.

Paul: Do you not understand what the Republican plan does? They call it Medicare, but you will get a set amount of dollars to purchase private insurance on the open market. If the insurance you want costs more than the money the government gives you, YOU make up the difference. As we all know, the cost of insurance goes up as we get older, even if you have no negative medical history. Can you afford to purchase private insurance with your "allowance" from the feds? Only time will tell. I suspect it is highly unlikely, though, unless steps are taken to drive down insurance rates.

Paul-440967:

People who are under 55 will one day be over 55 and looking for the benefits that will be in the form of vouchers that aren't enough to pay for sufficient healthcare... Its the future seniors that the bill throws under the bus, not the ones that are already over 55.

Paul, I am 45 yrs old and have worked all my adult life and paid my SSI and Medicare. What do people like me do?? The "vouchers" will NEVER cover all the costs of private insurance. The CBO says it will only pay about a 3rd. So when I am old, who is going to pay the other 2/3 rds of my health care costs, my kids??? I would rather be DEAD than saddle my kids with that kid of financial drain. But the rebulicans even took that off the table, they tried to block death with diginity!!

I have a suggest to reform SSI and Medicare!!! Just remove the cap!! Let those who earn over $106,000 a year continue to pay on every dollar they make!!! Just like all of us who earn under $106,000. I don't see John McCain giving back HIS SSI even though he doesn't need it!! So why should he only pay a small portion!! Chances are he will COST more than he has paid in, but he will still draw on it until the day he dies and then his younger wife, the beer heiress, will draw on it!!

paul-440967 - This bill does not affect people 50 or over. So seniors don't need to worry at all. (but Democrats won't tell you this)

--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm under 50 and will not have this to help in my retirement. Yes, I'm already planning and saving for it and not at the expense of everyone else, but a safety net is always a nice thing to have and that's what Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be! So because it doesn't affect the baby boomer generation, it's ok? HELL NO it's not ok! I've been paying into Medicare and Social Security since I started working almost 25 years ago. I expect the benefits that I've already paid into to be available when I retire. If the services I've already paid into are not going to be available as promised, I want my money back! Will the Tea Baggers be paying those refunds?

Once again...the little people are asked to sacrafice.....

While the Medical insurance companies...

Count thier money...........

GOP....Who Loves Ya....

Mys elf: "All of us will be seniors one day."

Yup...........and it comes faster than any of you "youngsters" will imagine............and if you are of the ilk that "I always took care of myself and will do the same in retirement" Just don't forget that when you become too ill to wipe or feed yourself and you have a voucher to wave at those who laugh at how little it is worth in the real world.

I agree we need to reform SS and Medicare but we could do one he** of a lot and save billions by actually hiring more people to weed out and jail the scammers who play the system

Paul Ryan's budget is NOT about debt and deficit reduction - one estimate says it will add trillions for the next several years. It IS about ideological posturing.

The bill only targets about 12% of the Federal budget, s the president pointed out Wednesday. It argets not only Medicare, Medicaid, and related subjects, but also the Women and Infants Care food supplement program, food stamps, unemployment compensation, funding to implement Health Cae Reform, the EPA, Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Deoartment of Commerce, and much more. These are long-despised programs and departments the ultra-right thinks they can finally eliminate. That's their "dark side" ideology.

The motivation for this push is that the Tea Party and Libertarian members realize they are unlikely to survive the 2012 elections. If they don't get their way now, the long-desired chance of several lifetimes of the right wing may be gone forever.

As the President also said, this is more than just a budget. It is an attempt to change the fundamental American social compact.

The House majority has just put the gun to its head and pulled the trigger.

I'm confused...Republicans now want to change and alter Medicare significantly, but during the health care debate they wanted no changes or fixes to Medicare???

I am tired of people calling these programs entitlements. Last time I checked, money is taken out of my pay each week to fund these programs. So I've been funding them for 20+ years and Ryan wants to take it away... no way. They are our collective investments and should be there for us. But lets give the rich another trillion dollars.

It was Malcolm X who said that when you vote you need to ask youself who is the fox and who is the wolf because we are all sheep. The fox is crafty and we end up in its belly w/o realizing it. The wolf is dangerous but you always know where you stand and you have a fighting chance. As I see it, Ryan is a fox. Wake up sheep!!

Glad Ron Paul voted aganst it.

Why not remove the cap on social security? What's the big deal? How about limits, if you make over a certain about you will be passed over.

All of us will be seniors one day.

Yep and its gonna affect all of us if it ever passes...here is how....

- Upon retirement, I would get a check from the Government for about $70. To be used to discount a $600/MO (double it if you have a spouse) private insurance plan. Now to save up for these extra costs Im going to have to pay (which I wont be able to afford) , I will be reducing my household spending so that I can save for it (assuming I have enough income left over to do so) That will not be good for the economy. Consumer spending would drop. Just look at what happens when gas prices get too high....people stop spending to keep the economy growing.

- Because the Insurance companies don't have to insure everyone, it is possible that I may not be able to get a private insurer to sell e a policy, let alone an affordable one. If the Insurance companies decide to make it affordable for Seniors, then they will just raise everyone else's premiums to make up for it. So we will all pay regardless of age

- And what happens when I have to be in a nursing home and I cant afford the premiums...what happens to me? Do we expect our children to bear that financial burden? I see no other alternative because the GOP is also reducing Medicaid. Fact: 60% of seniors i nursing homes are there because of Medicaid. Take that away, and they are toast

- And the whole premise of exempting the baby boomers (over age 55) that will cost these programs the most dont have any increased cost at all. How is that fair?

THE MEDICARE PART OF THE RYAN PLAN IS A MIDDLE FINGER TO THE MIDDLE CLASS

-

Paul - did it ever occur to you that many Seniors have reached an age where they realize it's not only about them? I not only want the benefits that I have been paying for all my life to be there when I need them, I want them to be there for my kids too. The projected problems with medicare are a result of the costs of health care becoming so high in this country that Medicare can no longer afford to buy them. The President is right. The solution is not making seniors on limited incomes pay more for their health care, the solution is to lower the costs of health care. America pays more for health care than any other country for worse results.

Uhhh Steve, I hate to be the one to deflate your fairy tale life, but everyone gets Medicare at the age of sixty-five. Doesn't matter how rich you are. Also, if you aren't working, Medicare is your primary insurance. No amount of planning will change that. So you can save and save, and save all you want, Medicare is still your insurance at 65.

And if a medical provider is Medicare licensed provider, they HAVE to take your medicare. You can't pay cash.

Entitlement minded sheep all over this blog. You make me sick with your "Take care of me" mentallity. Maybe you depend on social security and medicare to take care of you in your old age, but me, I prefer to do like I always have. Work hard, and take care of myself.

Every older American has had the opportunity to live and thrive, you dumbasses. Those babies in the womb of uneducated mothers that use abortion as birth control have constitutional rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

So I expect you won't be claiming your Social Security or Medicare benefits?

Also, you do understand that Medicare benefits insurance companies, you and me right? If insurance companies had to pay for all the procedures and medication that the elderly require they would either go bankrupt or raise their insurance rates so high it would become impossible to afford. Do you think it's a coincidence that the most at risk demographics for health in our population (the poor and elderly) are covered by the government? It's because the insurance companies don't want to cover them because it'd be too expensive and they wouldn't make money.

The Ryan voucher is to be used to purchase health insurance - an industry that is conveniently exempt form antitrust law. Which means, of course, that Ryan is delivering a huge market to a sector that can fix prices with impunity!

The Ryan bill also contains a nice benefit for those who derive income from stocks and bonds: A total elimination of the capital gains tax. You may want to ask your Republican friends how this helps the middle class or reduces the Federal deficit.

Steve -

A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

How do you think the bottom 90% of us are going to afford to save for retirement? If you have yours all socked away, I'd say you're in that top 10% income bracket.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

@ wallhawg:

I had a stroke at 48, caused by an inoperable blood clot in the brain. By the time they found it and dissolved it, it was too late. I've been on 100% disabilty ever since. My doctor couldn't save me, tell me how YOU would have, answerman.

Sh!t happens that can't be prevented, that's why everybody needs insurance that they can afford. And I paid for that insurance (Medicaid), every day of the 34 working years I had. No only that, I'm STILL paying for it...it's deducted from my disability payments.

Enjoy your life while you still can, yours may come to a halt tomorrow! Then you will see things from the other side, dumbass, and I promise you that you won't like what you see.

Steve 505 i've been paying into ssi for 37 years and because I'm under 55 I'm just suppose to give my money up to the fed. I paid it I want it there when I need it

RealAmericansFirst: How could you ever think like that? Those 90% averaging $31,244.00 might be rich in the future. Do you want them paying high taxes their potential riches? See, we the rich people are for the common folks. We do not want the bad government to tax or take care of you, because you too could be potentially rich and you don't want to pay all that money out in advance for care that you will not need, since you too could be potentially rich like us.

Vote GOP: The good guys looking out for the common folks who might be potentially rich some day!

/sarc

just more partisan politics from the right. this bill is crap , everyone knows that, and will go nowhere. they ran on "where are the jobs" now we're into the forth month of grandstanding, so i have to ask "where are the jobs?"

Oskar, you're a liar. The CBO hasn't even had the President's proposed budget yet to crunch the numbers with yet.

Paul - The "voucher" that seniors will get will only be to purchase the insurance plan....then seniors will have to pay out of pocket and deductibles and reasonable and customary or be denied all together for some procedures. As it stands today, seniors pay their Medicare Part B $97.40 per month and if they have a wrap around supplement that costs another roughly $175.00 per month. That buys them GUARANTEED coverage with nothing further out of pocket. They can go to any doctor, any hospital, have any procedure or test they need and all they pay is their premiums. Seniors will NOT be able to afford this plan. They will go without need medicine, without need procedures or care....in other words this plan will probably kill many of them sooner than they would ordinarily die. Is that what kind of America we all want to live in when we get to be seniors? This plan will never, ever make it to the Presiden'ts desk.

Not to worry...D.O.A. The GOP/Teabaggers are so repugnant and narcissistic...the vast majority of Americans don't want anything remotely close to Ryan's proposal. Better start over Mr.Ryan...Social Security and Medicare are off the table...period! How about a hint where to start? How about GE, Bank of America, Conoco, Exxon, Trump, Koch, Dell, Gates, Buffett, Jobs, Winfrey, CEOs, Walton...are you getting the point Mr. Ryan?

I understand people here don't like Ryan's plan...that's ok...I'm definitely not sold on large parts of it.

But, he has at least offered a reasonably detailed alternative that can be used as a starting point for discussion...that seems like a good thing. Up until now, neither party had anything concrete to discuss. There is the deficit commission proposal, but so far, the leaders have both parties have largely ignored their findings (although I'm hopeful the "gang of 6" will use it as a starting point).

To everyone bashing Ryan's plan for entitlements...that's fine also, but keep in mind if we don't make some significant changes in this country, we're all going to take a huge hit. Right now interest payments are about $500 billion/year and are projected to rise to at least $1 Trillion/year in 10 years - and that's with reasonably optimistic deficit and tax revenue projections. People are kidding themselves if they don't think this will have a significant impact on all of our lives - and the poor and middle class always take the biggest hit because they have less reserves and less options.

The GOP-led House of Representatives: The real "death panel".

See, Bill, Fairfax VA is a good example of where the Tea Party wants to take this country.

"I got mine. If you didn't, too bad, so sad."

Ryan's plan simply robs from the old and middle class to pay for Bush era tax cuts that should never have been made in the first place. It was fiscally irresponsible of Bush to cut taxes and then go on to fight two wars. And if Ryan was so worried about the deficit back then, why didn't he speak up then? Why did he vote for Medicare Part B, which was a giant unfunded piece of legislation?

I really hope all of us who were born after 1959 will remember this giant kick in the face come election time.

Were is your compassion? Dont you realize how much the poor are suffering?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/01/local/la-me-welfare-20100701

More than $12,000 from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was dispensed between the start of 2007 and the end of 2009 at clubs, including Sam's Hofbrau, Star Strip and Seventh Veil, according to officials at the state Department of Social Services.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/local/la-me-welfare-20101004

More than $69 million in California welfare money, meant to help the needy pay their rent and clothe their children, has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami.

State-issued aid cards have been used at hotels, shops, restaurants, ATMs and other places in 49 other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, according to data obtained by The Times from the California Department of Social Services. Las Vegas drew $11.8 million of the cash benefits, far more than any other destination. The money was accessed from January 2007 through May 2010.

Regardless of what the libs/progs say here its all scare tactics. Im an independent and I currently live on the center to right side. They know that they have nothing with out us Independents and are all out using every tactic they can to scare everyone they can. I voted for 3 democratic presidents, however this current group of Liberals I can not support.

So you are saying I shouldn't get any of my money back from a system I have paid into for 45 years? That's brilliant.

Well, you might be jolly and laughing all the way to the bank, but I guarantee most Americans are not in your shoes.

These pretty much sum it up:

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

The Numbers: What are the federal government’s sources of revenue?

Critics still wrong on what's driving deficits

Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities

It's the Inequality, Stupid

jollyoldsoul1 - All scare tactics you say??? Not so. It's the facts sir. Seniors will never be able to pay for the plan that Rep. Ryan has in store for them. It's a hardship for some to pay the Medicare Part B and supplimental insurance premiums now. Even if you are 50 years old and have 15 years to prepare, it's statistically impossible for a middle income person retiring at 65 who lives another 30 years after retirement to save enough on his/her own to live an additional 30 years. Now add on a huge increase in the cost for a senior for their medical care and you have a serious problem in this country. NO Medicare must be preserved as it is so that our elderly can get the care they need when they need it. It's immoral to allow the elderly sick to suffer with no means to get medical help. Shame on all of you here and shame on the Republicans in Congress for caring only about the wealthiest among us.

The Monster Paul Ryan must not want to be re-elected in 2012. I sure hope the people of Wisconsin kick the Monster Paul Ryan and the Fuhrer Scott Walker out of office!!!

Hey People, it's either cut backs now, or have NOTHING in the future. You think this Ride you've been on for the past 6 years of Speding without accountability can continue? You're wrong!

Ryan claims his privatization plan won't affect anyone 55 or older. Has he signed an oath to that, had it certified and notarized? What happens in 2 years when the GOP decides they need to rethink and change it to 60 or 62 or 65? And they will do this, bet on it.

I am tired of medicare and social security recipients being referred to in a derogatory manner. Those who do so are ignorant and selfish repeaters of the right-wing spin of the last 30 years--the right has successfully convinced people to vote against what is in their interest and support the interests of those who could not care less about them, least of all in their old age.

We are "entitled" to these benefits because we pay into medicare and social security through payroll taxes during our working years; employers also contribute to the system. Medicare is the same as a "private health care savings account" except the money remains there and it is never taken from us because we did not spend the money (as is the case with those private health savings accounts). It is not voluntary in order to ensure the safety net. Social Security is a retirement savings account to which we invest a small portion of our pay as does the employer. If we are lucky to earn a good living, we also save money on our own--but many workers do not have that luxury.

Medicare Part A covers hospital or nursing facilities, home health care, hospice care and medicines administered to inpatients--nothing more. If a person paid enough Medicare taxes, there is no monthly premium for seniors who take only Part A. Medicare Part B helps pay doctor and outpatient services, rehab therapy, lab tests, etc. and $115.40 per month (2011) is deducted from senior citizens Social Security checks as a premium.

Medicare and social security are not free, they are not handouts to the elderly and those who claim otherwise are, to put it simply, stupid. These "entitlements" are benefits earned and paid for by seniors during their working years. They are safety nets to protect the elderly against the unknowns of recession, stock market crashes, great depression, catastrophic illness and that means safety nets for rich, poor, and in between--safety nets for republicans, libertarians, liberals, democrats, independents, reform, Green and all other parties.

The Government doesn't care how sick you are or who you voted for, the safety nets you paid into are your guarantee to some reasonable quality of life in your golden years, sick or well, poor or rich alike--something private insurance would never do unless forced by law.

I, as well as everyone else, did all our planning based on the expectation that the Medicare and Social Security we have been paying for through payroll taxes our entire working life would be there when we needed them. If they are going to turn around now and take that away then they need to give back all of those tax dollars people paid, with interest. This is not a typical entitlement program like welfare, this is essentially a government run insurance and retirement program that workers are forced to participate in. How would you feel if the company that has your IRA or 401(k) decided that they changed their mind and were not going to give you back that money in installments when you retire. You be furious and charge them with theft. How is this any different. I am not some lefty liberal, I am a registered Republican, but what is right is right. There do need to be some changes made to keep the system solvent, but this voucher system is definitely not the solution. Having spent two years paying COBRA rates for my health insurance, I can tell you that private insurance is unaffordable for most people. COBRA rates for a decent insurance plan for a couple (no children) range around $1500/month, and this does not even take into consideration the co-pays. Most people could not afford this, even with the government giving them a voucher that covers 1/3 of it.

If you eliminate all of the fraud in the Medicare system and start allowing doctors to make decisions about care without having to go through ridiculous approval processes, things would get much better financially. Treatment delays caused by all the hoops Medicare makes the doctors jump through to get treatmentapproval costs the system billions of dollars a year. This is because while they are waiting for the approval the patient's condition worsens and what could have been cured with a quick, easy treatment turns into a major problem. You also need to look at the cost added to the system by all of those layers of review as well as the appeals process that all of these reviews makes necessary. Medicare also forces doctors to try all of these alternative treatments, even when the doctor knows they won't work, just because they are cheaper than the treatment the doctor proposes. This wastes even more money and time in getting the patient the needed treatment. This is the exact same garbage many HMOs pull. If you want to save Medicare, put the care back in the hands of the doctors. Eliminating all the costs which are driven by someone who has never met the patient sitting in an office somewhere making the decisions on care, and you will save billions.

The final thing is to stop all the ridiculous law suits. Doctors these days are so afraid of being sued that they literally spend billions of dollars on unneeded tests each year just to cover their a$$. Jury awards in malpractice suits have gotten absurd. Juries will award some blue collar person who never made more than $50,000 /year in his entire life tens of millions of dollars in damages because they ended up disabled to to an unforeseen and often unforeseeable medical complication. Because of these types of suits, doctors order tests for every possible cause of a problem, even when the chances of some of those causes being the case are less than .01% just so they do not get sued. This type of defensive medicine is costing the health care system billions in unneeded testing every year. I do not doubt that some doctors commit malpractice and deserve to get sued. However, when the problem arises due to a cause that the doctor could not reasonably be expected to anticipate the awards need to be limited to actual damages. Juries hand out huge punitive damage awards because they see the money as coming from the big, bad insurance company and because they feel sorry for the person who was injured - not because the person really deserves the money.

As for Social Security, if it is in such bad shape, why was the employee portion of the Social Security tax was REDUCED this year by this administration from 6.2% to 4.2%. If Social Security is so broke, why did they LOWER the tax. They need to put the tax back where it was and remove the current income limit on the tax so that you pay social security tax on all income. This will only affect those making over $106,800 a year, so it will not impact anyone who can not afford it. If you look at all these multi-million dollar CEO salaries, where most of it is not taxable as far as Social Security is concerned, you can see where this would raise large sums from the people that can afford it the most. Adding 6.2% of all incomes over $106,800 would go a long way towards reducing our debt and would definitely shore up Social Security. I also do not see a problem with slowly raising the retirement age from 67 to 70. People are living much longer, healthier lives. If you move up the retirement age for those who are under 35 now (born in 1976 or later) up from 67 to 70 in 2 month increments (e.g. born in 1976, retire at 67 and 2 months, born in 1977, retire at 67 and 4 months, etc.) it will allow plenty of time for people to plan for the adjustment. It will also increase the retirement age as the life expectancy goes up.

Once again the Politicians (All Parties) fail to see the obvious.

1. Get the Insurance Corporations out of the Medical Profession, this automatically decreases the cost of Medical Treatment Costs by 80%. Then recreate the President FDR Universal Health Care For All US Citizens, the last vestige of this successful program is what US Congress gets for $42 (unlimited Medical Treatments). This is what Senator Kennedy wanted all US Citizens to have.

"Decreases cost 80%" Doctor David Ores, New York.1:45

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5247963n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

2. Medicare does need reform, Medicare like Social Security is NOT an "Entitlement", these are US Citizen Contribution Funds, as deducted from each Paycheck and separate from Income Tax Withholding. The US Politicians (All Parties) claim that this is an Entitlement so that they do not have to payback any Funds that they robbed from the US Citizens that contributed to these US Citizen Contribution Funds, so that the US Politicians could use the money for anything including their own Automatic Pay Raises.

The Reform needed is that Medicare also needs to have the Insurance Corporations that manage Medicare eliminated. As stated by President Obama on Face the Nation, September 20, 2009, the Insurance Corporations managing Medicare pad their costs to increase their profits to $17 Billion to $18 Billion per year. A real US Government Agency (outlined in another Newsvine Forum) would be responsible for the management of Medicare, and would be responsible to the US Citizens. So instead of Insurance Adjusters determining Medical Treatments, real Doctors would determine Medical Treatments.

Instead of Real Health Care Reform like successful President FDR's Universal Health Care for All US Citizens, we got in the Health Care Reform Law (Act), in the Source of New Revenues section: $67 Billion to the Insurance Industry, $20 Billion to the Medical Device Industry, $23 Billion to the Pharmaceutical Industry, with the US Citizens getting the Bill for $1.7 Trillion USDs (not adjusted for Inflation). This was for Payback for Campaign Contributions:

Unlikely ally of health care reform: business
Insurers, drug companies came on board early and may profit from it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35989945/ns/business-us_business/

Also PBS Frontline, "Obama's Deal"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/

The Interrelated issues: 1. The Elimination of the Glass Steagall Acts that made Legal the Causes of the 1907 Depression, 1929-1939 Great Depression, and the current 60-100 Trillion USDs "Global Economic Crisis" consisting of the "Mortgage Crisis", "Wall Street Crisis", "Banking Crisis", "Financial Crisis", "Credit Crisis", etc.. And if nothing is done to reinstate the Glass Steagall Acts, the next "Crisis" of 54.6 Trillion USDs that will destroy the US with a Depression worse than the Great Depression. 2. The Required Elimination of the Free Trade Agreements and Amendments that Legalized "Outsourcing" of US Jobs, US Manufacturing, US Technology. 3. Illegal Aliens (Loyal Citizens of another Nation) as a National Security Threat, as stated by President Eisenhower's successful Operation Wetback, stated in California Proposition 187, stated in President Bush's 2006 Illegal Alien Act, stated by Intelligence Agencies, etc.. 4. US Involvement with UN Missions, NATO, Foreign Aid, etc., as UN Missions Iraq (UN Nation Building), Afghanistan (UN Nation Building), Libya (No Fly Zones, NOT Illegal Overthrow, as there is no US Law like H.R.4655 stating Overthrow an Established Government), NATO is the US as Supreme Allied Commander Europe is USN Admiral and majority of military equipment paid for by US Citizens is US. Giving US Aid money to anyone that are potential US enemies is criminal (Bribing them has proven NOT to work, as considered as "Corrupt" by their own people (bought by the US).). The US must get out of the UN, unless the Chinese and Russian Federation, etc. support UN Missions on the side of the US. 5. Elimination of the hundred million US Civilians employed by the US Military as direct and indirect support of the US Military, as a real US Defense Budget Cut of about 50%, these positions would be filled once again like before with cheaper US Military Personnel. Change of US Military Forces from Cold War Era Conventional Warfare Forces to the Current and Future Asymmetric Wars. 6. US Government Reform, US Congressional Representatives selected at Random like Jury Duty (end of multi million-billion USDs Campaigns, and Congress prostituting themselves and selling US Citizens out for Campaign Contributions), details at my other posts (other topic); lobbyists and special interest groups 100% Illegal as a crime against the Citizens and Government of the US; one for one voting on all issues; elmination of the Electoral College; etc.. 7. etc. My other posts.

The final thing is to stop all the ridiculous law suits.

Gotta tell you, JS, they instituted medical tort reform in Texas several years back, and my rates have not gone down whatsoever; on the contrary. All that happens now is that if someone is left totally disabled by medical malpractice, the doctor's insurance company only picks up costs up to the cap, which about $400,000 I believe. Who gets to pick up the rest of the tab and take care of these poor people? Oh, that's right -- the taxpayers.

According to the CBO, malpractice claims and premiums only account for about 2% of the overall healthcare costs in this country.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm

Once again all we get is partisan bickering instead of common sense and a dose of reality.

FACT 1: For decades, WE as a country have been making promises to our citizens that we cannot afford to pay for!

FACT 2: Everyone agrees that the commitments made to SOMEONE ELSE are the ones that should be cut (just don't touch mine).

FACT 3: We end up in a 2-sided fight, each side demonizing the other for trying to screw over the constituents of the other side.

FACT 4: This is a circular argument that goes NOWHERE until EVERYONE in the US gets screwed over by the creditors that we owe 14 TRILLION DOLLARS to. Our inability to act will force the issue to all of our detriments.

SOME OF THE SOLUTION FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION:

1) END THE BICKERING - No more debating about who gets screwed and who gets to keep what they have been promised. Instead, BUDGET CUT OF 25% ACROSS THE BOARD. ALL PROGRAMS. NOTHING IS SPARED. No govenment employee is allowed to lose a position as a result of the cuts, but salaries may be reduced by up to 25% (if you don't like it then trade your "secure" government job for one in th eprivate sector where we all live with the threat of losing our employment at a moment's notice). We can all make due with a little less (hell, I've seen my income drop by more than 50% compared to the average from 2000-2008 and I'm still here). It ain't pleasant, but its reality. DEAL WITH IT!

2) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY - Americans once again take responsibility for taking care oif themselves instead of looking for the government to do it for them. If that means you cant buy your brand new Corvette today because you need to put away for your future then DEAL WITH IT! We have become a society of whiners that expect instant gratification and laying the costs on the backs of other

3) RESTRUCTURE THE TAX CODE - Right now nearly 50% of the population pays ZERO federal income tax. In fact, many of these people even get refunds from the government even though they didn't pay anything! Meanwhile we have the uber-wealthy able to hide income and use creative deductions to minimize what they pay (mind you, I personally am paying nealy 60% of my gross take-home pay in Federal, FICA, State and City taxes, not counting property taxes in that either). INSTEAD why dont we just have everyone pay from the first dollar with very limited deductions available. Why should people who pay nothing into the system be able to get benefits out of it? Why should people at the very high end of the curve be able to avoid paying the same percentage on all of their earnings. Make it fair to all. No one gets away paying nothing. No one gets away sheltering anything.

BUT IF WE KEEP SENDING THE SAME OLD PEOPLE, WHO ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE STAKEHOLDERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT WE WILL JUST GET MORE OR THE SAME UNTIL ALL OF US GET SCREWED BY OUR CREDITORS.

The one good thing that came out of the 9/11 attack was that for about 5-6 weeks we put aside our arguments and acted for the common good. As a country. We haven't done so since. It's time to get back to everyone sacrificing together to make this work (some spending cuts involving sacred cows and some tax increases for everyone) or our best days are truly behind us.

NUFF SAID

Ok Laurie and the rest of you libs......Heres where your going to understand. I have a blind son and a 100% disabled wife. I deal with Insurance and the government on a DAILY basis. I pay for everything through insurance and supplementals. I planned and made sure that I could take care of my own. Liberals hate me, because I did what people are supposed to do, be responsible for their families. I'm not rich, I came from a family of 5 children and a single mom who worked 4 jobs to keep off welfare. I joined the military in 1968 and have moved forward since then. I am 58 years old, my wife has a genetic bone disease. She has bilateral hip and knee replacements. I work to make sure my family is secure and safe. Its my responsibility to do that. I would never trust that to any one else.

Steve-505729,we people are not planning on the GOV taking care of us,If you were as smart as you think you are ,you would know that we pay medicare taxes every check,I have been doing so for 40 years,thinking that is just the same as investing for my old age.And if this is not going to be the case ,give me my money back and let me not pay another dime.You my friend are most likely one that has never paid in or works for cash or has a rich daddy,

End all loop holes, flat tax (I can already hear all the whining of those who what to complain and have others pay their portion), have no income limit that stops payment of SS taxes or let some opt out of SS taxes and be excluded from getting Medicare or medicaid.

American greenback will become WORTHLESS, we will see inflation, interest rates will increase and with this pain, many Americans will then realize you cannot spend what you do not have. The clock is ticking to the day of reckoning- Account Overdrawn.

Ron (1.37)...I think we are all aware that we ALL need to take some kind of a "hit" in this time of budget crisis. The problem is that word "ALL". This issue will exacerbate for eons if the wealthy pay taxes in a 25% bracket. Trickle down does not work! It never did and it never will. Ronald Reagan's failed experiment was just that...failed! Every noted economist on earth, domestic and foreign promotes the wealthiest 5% of the US wage earners, not should, but must contribute much more (anywhere from 39%-45% bracket) for the economy to even begin to recover. Those who think that the fixed income elderly and disadvantaged can survive on a voucher system for medical care just need to run the numbers. Its not the least bit realistic! The hospital emergency rooms will be inundated for eternity and the cost will be passed back to the advantaged wage earners eventually. Thats the facts Jack!

This bill does not affect people 50 or over. So seniors don't need to worry at all.

No, it doesn't ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YET! The first step is always the most difficult one and Ryan's Raiders have taken it. Do you honestly think that a fifteen year cushion (or grandfathering) will be permitted by conservatives Hell bent on destroying every social program in America? Some are as gullible as you ~ that God, it is only a small number. Medicare, then Medicaid, then Social Security ~ ~ in that order, and with certainty.

All this whining about the voucher program killing old folks is exactly what Obama said he didn't want anyone to do when these programs were tackled in the budget. Yet, he and Pelosi, and Reid are the band leaders complaining about old folks getting the ax. Of course what they aren't telling you is that the voucher program that is in the Ryan budget is very similar to the plan that Congress and the President and many other federal employees enjoy. Hmmmm... it's odd that I don't see Pelosi dropping dead because she can't get insurance through the voucher program. Same for Reid. Obama, not so much since he isn't at the senior citizen level yet.

The other thing that the Dems won;t tell you is that they blocked out of Obamacare two key pieces that would have actually lowered the cost of insurance.

1. Tort Reform. The bain of the existance of all the ambulance chasing lawyers since it would reduce the amounts of maney they can earn from lawsuits.

2. An actual open and free market to buy insurance. As it stands now, you can only buy insurance from comapnies that do business (have offices) in your state of residence or employment. If I can buy almost anything in one state and bring it back to my state, why can't I do the same thing with insurance?

Bad mistake. IF the elderly can't afford health insurance...... where do you think these folks will end up? Clogging up the emergency rooms. And guess who is going to pay for these expensive visits? Everyone. Everyone's health insurance will just go up!

Funny how the right fights limits on bank fees. Because their theory is banks will just pass those costs on to consumers somewhere else.

But it's fine to take health coverage away from people. Because they evidently just evaporate when they get sick with no coverage.

When I retire, I'd like to live in a financially solvent country even if benefits for the elderly are cut back. I'd rather start the painful recovery process the financial insanity of our government now.

I'd even agree to going back to the tax rates in the year before the Bush rate cuts as long as the current budget goes back to the actual spending level in the same year prior to the Bush rate cuts plus adjustments for inflation and population growth.

Any attempt the repubes make to molest my children will be dealt with equally criminal.

My favorite part to all this outrage of Medicare reform is it's EXACLTY WHAT OBAMACARE DOES TO EVERYONE. You get X amount of money to get insurance, if that doesn't cover it, you pay the difference, don't have insurance, you get fined. But HEY, since it's a Republican making these provisions, you all scream bloody murder. You libs love your hypocrisy lately.

This is really simple . . .

For those supporting Ryan's plan, you will get a voucher. That voucher will increase in value at a rate of 3.1% However, medical costs increase at a minimum of 3.9%.

Now, I know most Republicans did not go to college, but this is simple high school math.

Your voucher increases at 3.1%

Your bills increase at 3.9%

That means the voucher will never cover your medical costs. So what happens when you can't afford it? What do you do when you don't have the money? Shall we just put those people "out to pasture"?

Everyone on here is so quick to point out that one day we will all be over 55 and this voucher may not cover our insurance. Guess what? At the rate we are going with the current medicare program there won't be any money for any of us when we turn 55. With the huge number of baby-boomers coming into retirement age, the current plan will not be able to stand on its own. At least Ryan is sticking his neck out there and addressing that a problem exists.

obx ron ... you wouldnt need to pay those employees just give them a % of the money they save

Thoughts from Cali

That means the voucher will never cover your medical costs. So what happens when you can't afford it? What do you do when you don't have the money? Shall we just put those people "out to pasture"?

I think Ryan's grand plan includes "ambulance service" that takes the sick and elderly for a ride out in the country, where they "get to go live on a nice farm". Can't have those pesky, whiny sick people sapping the wealth potential of the master race - I mean, wealthy.

DRK-1183578 - If you read what I wrote, you will see that I am blaming the bulk of the costs on the defensive medicine the law suits cause the doctors to practice, not the awards themselves. These unneeded tests that doctors have done to protect themselves from lawsuits add billions to the cost of medical care in this country. This has a significant impact on Medicare costs and everyones' insurance premiums.

It is time to start thinking for our self and planning ahead, if the death panel of Obamacare don't kill you if you are republican, because you are too expensive for the government , the Ryan's plan will do to democrats , because the government won't give you inaugh money. Hither way we lose.

I think that business might think this voucher idea is good. Maybe our 401ks can be paid with a voucher too ?

see:

"9 Things the Rich Don't Want You to Know About Taxes"

Cali,

Yes, or they go to a free clinic ran by a religious organization or charity organization, you know compassionate care.

Circle this date: April 15, 2011

The day the GOP/TP committed political suicide. They have now become a Southern, regional party.

It sounds like the Democrats' "fear campaign" is working on you....

Fly Over

That be “W” in 2008.

Actually, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

Ron...

Weren't people like you saying exactly the same thing after President Obama was elected in 2008?

Then came the 2010 midterms...

lol, Nostradamus.

FlyOverMe:

TARP was a Bush program put together by Henry Paulson. Please learn you recent history.

@FlyOverMe

You mean the Bush bailout?

Ummm, Flyover, TARP was done under BUSH, so WHO is lying?? Yes, it was a mass transfer of money to the Uber Wealthy, however, perhaps you should read up about it a little bit more, so your ideology does not get in the way of facts. The Fed had to actually report on their Discount Window loans recently by Supreme Court order and Rolling Stone has an excellent article on that here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411

And remember, the Fed is controlled by all of those "Too-Big-To-Fail" banks that are the primary funders of the Repubs and TPers. Contrary to popular belief, The Federal reserve is NOT a part of the Government and pretty well does what it wants.

FlyOverMe,

The TARP program is George Bush's plan, not Obama's

The TARP was Bush's thing, you know that right?

Question now is, will reid sit on it until the debt limit requires a vote or will he be smart enough to go item by item to say yes, yes, no (but I will change it to a yes if such and such is done), etc. The house and senate should find common ground and proceed.

It will also be interesting to see what the senates bipartisan gang of 6 comes up with as an alternative.

TARP was a bush thing and it's what saved the country from a depression not the messiah

FLY Over

Fact Check Please.

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

Flyoverme:

Completely wrong!!!! The biggest transfer of wealth has been occuring since the 1930's when we adopted a Central Bank called the Federal Reserve. They print tne money then lend it to us. They have nothing to do with the federal government. They have all of our nations gold. For every dollar we borrow we have to pay back 1.25. That means we can never come out of debt. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE TOTALLY AGANST A CENTRAL BANK. IT WAS ONE OF THE IDEALS THEY FOUGHT AGANST IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

OHHH... and their membership is kept totally secret. If you control a countrys currency, you control that country. Think about all of the countries being bailed out by the euro. Another central bank that has secret membership and no oversight... privately owned. So i guess that means those countries are now privately owned....

It sounds like the Democrats' "fear campaign" is working on you....

You mean like that GOP fear-mongering 'Obama is slashing medicare', bulls&^t you Teafreaks pulled in the HCR debate? Whats funny about that is the Medicare cuts you were fear mongering over to scare seniors is included in Ryan's plan. (chuckle)

OHHH... and their membership is kept totally secret. If you control a countrys currency, you control that country.

Look out, the Black helicopters are coming to get you, man (lol)

Dontcha love people like Rob.

"That TARP giveaway that Obama signed was the worst thing that ever happened to this country."

Oh, that was our bill and Bush signed it?

"Yeah, that's what saved the economy from another Depression and created all these new jobs!"

Ron:

You continue to push that notion to no avail. You said that in 2008 along with your minions and look what happened in 2010. The country is divided 45-45 with 10% confused.

There is no way in hell America will ever become a total Liberal country. I know you would prefer that but it only a pipe dream. I have heard this Liberal argument my entire adult lifetime and it hasn't happened yet.

Since when did you become an adult, ITM? Remember, it was you who wanted to beat me up to prove how smart you were.

Actually, from overall historical voting patterns, this country has always been center left. Three factors help to contradict that fact with a false impression: 1) the electoral college has put the person who received the fewest popular votes in office 5 times, 2) population distribution distorts the perception when entire populations are grouped together and looked at as a homogeneous entity rather than as a collection of individuals and, 3) the outsized bullhorn that has been bought by people like the Koch brothers that influence fools like you who fall for their lies, hook, line and sinker and repeat their false message.

Read it an weep folks - this was the wealth trasfer - the others were paid back or are in process of being paid back. Its OBAMA'S changes that sunk it all:

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (That would be Obama's Secretary) announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The major stock market indexes in the United States rallied on the day of the announcement rising by over six percent with the shares of bank stocks leading the way.^[25] P-PIP has two primary programs. The Legacy Loans Program will attempt to buy residential loans from bank's balance sheets. The FDIC will provide non-recourse loan guarantees for up to 85 percent of the purchase price of legacy loans. Private sector asset managers and the U.S. Treasury will provide the remaining assets. The second program is called the legacy securities program, which will buy residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) that were originally rated AAA and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) which are rated AAA. The funds will come in many instances in equal parts from the U.S. Treasury's TARP monies, private investors, and from loans from the Federal Reserve's Term Asset Lending Facility (TALF). The initial size of the Public Private Investment Partnership is projected to be $500 billion.^[26] Economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has been very critical of this program arguing the non-recourse loans lead to a hidden subsidy that will be split by asset managers, banks' shareholders and creditors.

As I said - Obama made the largest wealth transfer in US history from the middle class to the wealthy. Who is the moron here?

Just a reminder to those who jumped on flyoverme about TARP. Don't leave out the fact that then Senator Obama voted for TARP and also it was President Elect Obama who asked President Bush to leave at least half of it for him to use after being sworn in. I was against TARP however, Obama and most liberals claim it saved the United States economy, so I guess Bush should get the credit or at least half of it. The people are to quick to blame the president for the good and the bad, without placing most of the blame where it belongs, with Congress and the courts. Remember there are 3 co-equal branches of government.

Mixed...... I dont know whether its better to let them know ahead of time or let them all jump off the bridge in 2012. They just dont realize they are the Minority. Every Independent I know (and I know a lot) are firmly in the center to right camp! But I know this summer is going to be nasty. They know how to make a lot of noise and create trouble in this country. I remember them well when I came home from South East Asia in 1970. loud vile screaming people tossing blood on returning vets. Its not going to be a good summer.

FlyOverMe - the only thing I'm weeping over is your lack of education and reliance on old links to outdated news.

The PPI-P program (not P-PIP) was enacted as a part of the TARP bill. (Implemented, but not enacted, by Tim Geithner.)

And it's ended up being a MONEY-MAKER for the government:

PPIP Funds Surge 36% in First Year, Treasury Says;

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. government program aimed at reviving the mortgage-backed securities market returned more than triple what stocks or bonds gained in the past year.

The eight funds created under the Public-Private Investment Program, or PPIP, reported net internal rates of return averaging 36 percent through Sept. 30, the Treasury Department said in a report this week. That compares with the 10 percent return for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and 8.2 percent for the BarCap U.S. Aggregate Total Return Index of bonds.

“The first year has been out of the ballpark,” Jeffrey S. Phlegar, who heads the PPIP fund run by New York-based money manager AllianceBernstein LP, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

The Treasury is an equal equity partner in each of the funds and provided debt financing for the $29.4 billion program. The government has gotten $215 million of interest, dividend and other payments, and the funds have more than $1.5 billion in unrealized gains. Under the wider Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurers, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Listen up Wall Hawg, Lanikai Ron and Bill/Fairfax,

How about if we take those Bush tax cuts away from the rich? How about that? It's one thing to stick it to the middle class but no tax hikes for the rich? How can anyone in their right mind agree to that?

My spouse became ill at around age 38 and has a terminal illness. We have nothing but doom to look forward to. We both work hard, spouse is almost at the point of disability. We have always paid our taxes and tried to save but the drugs and screwing we get every month from the Healthcare costs put us in the position of living paycheck to paycheck. The drugs after insurance pays cost us almost $800 per month. NOw Ryan and his rich friends want to make it even harder for people like us. My spouse's illness wil probably end up bankrupting us so then we can experience the real poverty Ryan and his cohorts are counting on. Unless you have experienced serious health issues, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

And, jolly, the Vietnam war ended 36 years ago. A lot of those people are retired now.

You might get a certain satisfaction out of stepping on them with Ryan's budget, but you shouldn't be getting vengeance on the rest of us for your treatment back then.

@ReakAmericans: What part of Toxic Assets purchases don't you understand? Your data is old and not accepted by most economists anymore. The value of these toxic assets is nothing - as in Zero. We, the taxpayers, paid banks for the asset and for the lost face value difference on the foreclosure. That means we have a pocket full of worthless IOUS - the banks have a pocket full of our cash. Returns? Nope.

nwnative, my heartfelt condolences to you and your spouse. Know that there are those of us who do not have your problems but who understand them and will fight to help you and yours. Just because I am lucky enough to have a well paid job, good health benefits and will soon have a lot of money from a business deal, I will never succumb to the IGMFY syndrome. Hang in there, we are trying to help all of our fellow citizens, not just the top 1%.

Oh, and for you idiots supporting the Ryan plan, check out this link:

http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/04/economic-effects-of-ryan-plan-assuming.html

Interesting. TARP bailed out the banks, the rich Wall Street institutions, the brokers, the millionaires and billionaires who made risky investments (yes, I didn't like it either BUT it was necessary to prevent a Great Depression and every bank in the country collapsing). Conservatives here talk about how awful it was, that horrible TARP and claim it was Obama's, and in the next breath challenge the mere mention of taxing those banks and fat cats on Wall Street who caused the near total financial collapse and WE taxpayers saved their butts, another 4.9% on their incomes--and boom, they'll defend those fat cats until pigs fly. Then conservatives wonder why liberals call them hypocrits.

Obama doubled the TARP money given to his Wall St buddies. Obama's social medicine removes half of medicare's budget. I'm close to getting my SSI, but something's got to change. Ryan's budget (if you bothered to read it!) doesn't touch SSI, and medicare is completely screwed up. My wife works billing for a podiatrist, and he refuses to take medicare because of the fraud with the system.

We're going broke, congress has got to stop the spending. Ryan's budget slows the growth of spending. Not one dumbocrat has come up with a way to cut the debt. Vilify the rich, yeah that really works. 5% of the population pays 40% of the tax bill!!

Liberals; give me, give me, give me. JFK would be sickened by his party!

who paid their TARP loans back (hint: starts with a B and end with a K)?

who bailed out the US auto company, please hold your breath until we get that taxpayer money back? I find it interesting with all the posting about TARP and how the evil banks got all the money, that only a few of you mentioned that they are the only group that has paid it back- it really shows your true color= your comments are all about class warfare, little thought applied, a lot of emotional opinion and whining, partisan politics, all having little to no value.

It does makes for a good laugh and is an indication of American intelligence.

This is exactly why most of you (All Political Parties) do not get it.

If you draw out a simple timeline, you will get part of what happened.

And Congress NOT the President Controls the Purse Strings.

The Billion USDs Bailouts were for only one thing.

The motive: The Billion USDs Bailouts were passed by Demoncraptic Party Controlled US Congress November December 2008 as "Time Sensitive" (no Public Scrutiny) just in time to buy the January 2009 Electoral College Votes. Your "Popular" Votes do NOT determine the US President and Vice President, example: after the Electoral College Votes the US Supreme Court verified the Electoral College Votes determining President Bush's second term, the Electoral College does NOT have to vote the same as the "Popular" Votes. This is my reason that the Electoral College MUST be Eliminated.

The Bailouts were pushed by "Mr. Corporate America". Do the research and you will figure out who "Mr. Corporate America" is. His Major Campaign Contributors and Constituents are (the same as the Bailout Babies, not a coincidence), I warned you about him before:

(My List from 2005) Delaware: Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Bank of America, Wilmington Trust, First USA / Bank One / JPMorgan Chase, AIG, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays plc, GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ISDA, and those States with Corporations Incorporated at Delaware.

Over 50% of US publicly-traded corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware;[1] the state's attractiveness as a corporate haven is largely due to its business-friendly corporation law. Franchise taxes on Delaware corporations supply about one-fifth of its state revenue.[2]

1. Delaware Division of Corporations
2. Delaware Fiscal Notebook - State General Fund Revenues by Category

Hints as to who "Mr. Corporate America" is: 1. Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court, 2010, on "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions", his arguement being that if the US Supreme Court disallows "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions, the 2008-2009 Elections will become Illegal/Invalid. For his admitted receiving prior to the 2008-2009 Elections nearly a Billion USDs from each Corporation in 2011 he was fined (slapped on the wrist) $200,000.00 for violations of the McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Law (Act). 2. Previous Senator of Pennsylvania, after losing his Presidential Campaigns he figured out that Delaware is the "Key to Corporate America", Unlimited Campaign Contributions, so he became the Senator for Delaware.

The Billion USD Bailouts had nothing to do with paying back the 60-100 Trillion USDs of the "Global Economic Crisis" (think about Billions versus Trillions). And did nothing to stop any Depressions as the Laws (research Glass Steagall Acts) that made Illegal the Causes of the Depressions were previously removed.

Did Bush (43) get anything out of the Billion USD Bailouts as the outgoing US President the answer is yes, only for Texas; the rest went to States that were known to have Electoral College Voting for the Demoncraptic Candidate:

List from Businessweek:

8. University Park, Texas
Share population in finance and real estate: 18.83%
Nearest large city: Dallas
Population: 24,582
Median Household Income: $110,976

BHonest -

Why do liberals constantly spout about how the Wall Street guys back republicans? Here's a list of the top 20 campaign contributors from 1989 - 2010. Read it and weep:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

LEGEND: Republican Democrat On the fence

= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)

RankOrganizationTotal '89-'10Dem %Repub %Tilt

1
ActBlue
$51,124,846
99%
0%

2
AT&T Inc
$46,292,670
44%
55%

3
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
$43,477,361
98%
1%

4
National Assn of Realtors
$38,721,441
49%
50%

5
Goldman Sachs
$33,387,252
61%
37%

6
American Assn for Justice
$33,143,279
90%
8%

7
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$33,056,216
97%
2%

8
National Education Assn
$32,024,610
93%
6%

9
Laborers Union
$30,292,050
92%
7%

10
Teamsters Union
$29,319,982
93%
6%

11
Carpenters & Joiners Union
$29,265,808
89%
10%

12
Service Employees International Union
$29,140,232
95%
3%

13
American Federation of Teachers
$28,733,991
98%
0%

14
Communications Workers of America
$28,376,306
98%
0%

15
Citigroup Inc
$28,065,874
50%
49%

16
American Medical Assn
$27,597,820
40%
59%

17
United Auto Workers
$27,134,252
98%
0%

18
National Auto Dealers Assn
$26,311,758
32%
67%

19
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union
$26,229,477
98%
0%

20
United Parcel Service
$25,290,039
36%
62%

21
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
$25,226,733
98%
1%

22
Altria Group
$24,643,651
27%
72%

23
American Bankers Assn
$24,048,220
40%
59%

24
National Assn of Home Builders
$23,461,905
35%
64%

25
EMILY's List
$23,391,763
99%
0%

Take a really close look at Goldman Sachs. Look at the amount of money contributed and look who got the lions share. Also, out of the top 25, 14 are labor unions. That's a staggering amount of money. Now - who's in whos pocket?

Because it's nothing compared to what the rich and big corps are dumping into propaganda. Look at the current batch of repugs they put it office. They're all a bunch of rich people corp lacky suck-ups who don't give a rats patooty about anyone but themselves and their rich friends. AND WHAT HAVE THESE REPUG LACKEYS DONE TO HELP JOBS AND THE ECONOMY??? NOTHING EXCEPT TRY TO RUIN THE GOOD JOBS THAT EXIST!!! SICK OF THEM!!

skelmcb - You don't even have a way to figure what the Koch Bros. have poured in.

Because all of their corporations are private and answer to no one but themselves.

And since the Citizens United ruling, they can shuffle all the cash they want through "advocacy groups" and don't have to account for diddly-squat.

At least the donors you list are upfront about it.

Vieteravet, did you not read the link I posted? Ryan's budget is a sham, a lie and an attack on your finances unless you are in the top 2%. If you read it and came up with what you posted, you really do not understand economics.

Under the Ryan plan, your taxes will go up while the top 2% will go down and, if you aren't already in the Medicare system, you will be forced to try and find health care in the private sector with a voucher that will not cover all of your premiums, if you can even find coverage. A person over 67 is not considered a good health risk by insurance companies who are trying to make a profit.

And skelmcb, your post is very disingenuous since your numbers lump individual donations in with the corporate and union donations. Here is an example of what I mean: I gave money to President Obama's election campaign as an individual. The company I work for did not, however since I gave and work for that company, my donation is listed by people like you as coming from the company I worked for. Statistics mean nothing when taken out of context.

funny that Atlas, Warren Buffet knows we are in the midst of a class war in America. his quote goes I believe... "There is class warfare, but it is my class, the rich class that is making war and we are winning." third most wealthy individual in the world... but hell, what does that idiot know.

it does make for a good laugh and is an indication of the propaganda machines influence in America.

FlyOverMe

As I said - Obama made the largest wealth transfer in US history from the middle class to the wealthy. Who is the moron here?

The largest wealth transfer in US history began in 1981, when Saint Ronald Reagan began to implement supply-side economics and broad-scale deregulation in this country. The 2008 crash is one legacy of that failed policy. Compare tax and regulatory policy leading up to the 1929 crash: awfully similar to where we were as the bubble built, and burst. That's not a coincidence.

As to the question you've asked at the end of the above quote: since you don't seem terribly interested in precedent and history.... got a mirror?

Well said, Rorschach-558483. Have you read any of these four books? "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips, "The Return of Depression Economics' by Paul Krugman, 'The Myth of the Rational Market' by Justin Fox or 'Tear Down This Myth' by Will Bunch? They all speak to your last post.

A number of the Ryan's Hope plan projections are based on optimistic assumptions. As I understand it, he also presumes a housing market more robust than the bubble we just had. How that is supposed to happen, I can't tell.

Are you serious JCfromIA? There is only one way to go for the housing market at this point.

Really, BillJenkins? Which way is that, now?

Frankly, I suspect that a lot of people who can afford a home will stay out of the market until they feel assured that taking out a mortgage is safe again. And, I think that assurance is still a long way off.

Dennis: You are correct. Assumptions generally come back to bite us in the ass.

The reality is that all of these discussions about the deficit miss (or ignore) one fundamental point: in part we have a huge deficit because we have extra spending in an attempt to break the back of the recession. We need to get people back to work, which will raise revenue even if nothing else is done, and then we can look at cutting spending. But the first priority is to get the economy stabilized. We do many, many, many things wrong in this county, but it is worse to lose our focus on fundamentals and go off half cocked. This is the choice the tea party has chosen, and the republicans have latched on.

JC of ia - the housing market is bumping along at the bottom now in most markets, the only direction it can go is up, assuming of course that we don't allow our national debt to continue upward.

Dennis - when one projects into the future, assumptions have to be made. I would like to see how obamas plans, as he presented them earlier this week would look. What assumptions did he use?

Regardless of whatever plan is implimented, I don't think that anyone will be happy. We have to learn to live with less until we have a sustainable debt level. I don't like the thought of carrying our current debt level into the next recession (2015 - 2021 based on historical occurances).

The theory behind Ryan's health plan is that if individuals have to pay for their health care, they will shop carefully and drive down costs. But health is an unusual economic good and is unlikely to follow the usual market pattern. (Look at higher education: consumers pay for a large share of the total, and costs still rise at three times inflation every year.) In health care, a huge part of the expense relates to a small percentage of sick patients and to the last year of life (and those two categories overlap). 85% percent of Medicare costs are generated by just 25% of patients. Even in the most conservative health care plan, the health savings account, people buy catastrophic insurance. Well, that sick 25% of the patient population would have catastrophic insurance, which would still explode the Medicare budget.

american, the housing market is no where near the bottom. Let us hope we never see it get near the bottom.

Now, by what rationale do you proclaim that it is near the bottom now, exactly?

Dennis - point taken, as well as the need to reform it. If, as you say 85% of costs are generated by only 25%, then why wouldn't the voucher system still be viable? Your argument seems to rest on the need for those over 65 to have catastrophic insurance regardless of whether government provides a voucher system or continues with its present system.

Obamas plan of wanting to cap medical expenses doesn't appear to be viable either unless he wants us to return to state run hospitals to care for our elders. I see no easy solutions. Obama likes the status quo and ryan is looking at a fundamental change.

JC - I agree, housing can probably drop even further, depending on market area and national economic policies. The rational I use comes from government data concerning new housing starts, permits issued, existing home sales, etc. It also is based on market analysts view on what that data means. Perhaps I am optimistic in thinking that current values have "bottomed" out as in not experiencing consistant declines or upswings to date. Real estate values are strongly dependent on location.

It has never ceased to amaze me that my humble abode in Iowa would be worth in excess of $250000 in southern california.

True, but the longest journey begins with a single step -

even if many do not like its direction.

Anna,

Now let's see if they can defend it against public opinion -- and against the moral highground.

Pretty Freudian post.

So the Dems aren't concerned about coming up with a real plan of there own to debate - to counter .....just attack and demagogue the other guys.

Funny, you couldn't even come up with a plan, pass a budget when you had control of all three branches. Pathetic. Still can't come up with one. Pathetic.

Having no honest intention of solving / addressing problems - just demagogue the other guys,,,,,, pricelessly pathetic.

Actually, what is priceless ,,,, thinking you have the "moral highground."

... even if many do not like its direction..........

Really1? how many so.... is that really his direction? or the person himself " a couch la verite' "

Bob,

Sounds like you haven't gotten the memo that the Democrats under President Obama do have a budget plan. I guess stripping our seniors of medicare while lowering the highest tax rate again is an acceptable solution. Only one problem...it does nothing to reduce the deficit. This plan does not work plain and simple. Actually Bob you are the one who is priceless and pathetic.

Uh, bob, the POTUS just outlined the plan from the Dems a couple of days ago. How ever did you miss it? It was in all the papers.

Oh, and another gentle reminder to avoid TeaBagger talking points: The Dems have not "controlled" the Senate in recent memory. The closest they have come was 60 in their caucus, and two of them were sick and dying with two more not part of the party.

So, at a time of unprecedented abuse of the filibuster rule, they needed a 60 vote minimum to proceed to a vote about what to have for lunch, and never had a reliable 60. That is not "controlling" the Senate.

Then, again, the Senate isn't even a separate "branch" of the government. Your post suggests that the Dems also "control" the judiciary; when did that happen, exactly?

bobby:

Actually, what is priceless ,,,, thinking you have the "moral highground."

LoL I don't think it. I know it.

How's THAT for Freudian, bobby?

And funny, seems I did hear the President present a plan. You obviously just don't like it, so you've decided to ignore it.

Or maybe you slept through it. You really should have that checked out.

Anyway. Bitter and accusatory, as always, bobby. I expect nothing more.

J C from I A

you are so right. Thank you for bringing that 60 vote (crap) up. There are very few people even understand what the fillabuster is. They have no idea what the Dem's went through trying to get any thing passed in the first 2 years of President Obama presidency.

JC,

Good catch.

Side note: Feisty there was your chance! I told you I would mess up and get sloppy one day.

Anyway ...my bad.

But back to you and the genius above, Obama doesn't have a plan. It was a simple campaign speech to stem any good from the Ryan plan - nothing more than the regular demogoguery and platitudes. You may recall ..... "it was in the papers" and on TV that Obama said he was forming a "group" (guess he got tired of using the word committee like he did last time) to develop a plan. Said the guy sitting in the front row ......SOUND ASLEEP.....would be in charge. But again - Obama has no plan.

And btw - control is usually associated and understood to mean majority - not super majority. I know this is a lot of information to take in so quickly, but try to remember that the Repubs took back control of the House - (they don't have a super majority).

Other genius,

Seniors, or those over 55 are not touched by it. Tax rates do not equate to tax revenue. Broadening the tax base, eliminating loopholes will increase revenue. It was also the recommendation of Obama's prized study group, committee of experts.

Sheez ...... there is another one. None of guys even a clue about what "control" of the House or Senate means ........ really? No idea how things make to the floor, etc?

There is this new thing called google .....

Hey Bob,

Remember how you touted Cheney's patriotism? When it was his time to serve he did this

When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments.^[17][18] In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."^[19] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft

So you are a LIAR by ignorance or on purpose, what ever, by the way I did my tours in Vietnam AH

JC - when can we see the cbo projections on obamas plan? Wonder if the healthcare providers will agree to a cap on their pay and expenses as they treat our seniors, the poor and the disabled.

Anna - Anyone trying to take the "moral highgound" on addressing our national debt is kicking the can down the street until "moral highground" is just a woulda, coulda, shoulda phrase.

Why not use the "moral highground" argument for the victims of muggers, rapists, thieves and murderers as well??

What could we do with the money saved by having significantly lower interest payments on our debt?

Consider this as well, business and all smart taxpayers are going to look at our mounting debt and realize that someday, someone is going to have to pay, and pay bigtime. Economic collapse, tax hikes for all, big cuts for all, whatever.

I would rather stay ahead of the curve and have private parties pick up any slack in helping the poor, disabled or elderly.

Well, american, the CBO has only had about two days, I expect they'll get around to it soon. What you are talking about regarding health care providers, I cannot imagine. Although, it sounds like a question to ask Mr. Ryan, certainly.

bob, I appreciate your attempt to redefine "control" to benefit your argument, but, unfortunately, it flies in the face of history as recent as last autumn.

Surely you remember, the Republicans were DEMANDING that further discussions about the budget be postponed until they assumed power in the House in January, and that they threatened to hold their breath until they turned bluer and block ANYTHING from passing if they didn't get their way on extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

You know, reality?

Geez Bob, take your medication. Cheney had his chance to serve, he did the coward thing, while me and my brothers volunteered and bore the wounds of war. that's why I don't respect him and his President, who daddy put first in line ahead of all the other little rich kids in Texas for servie in the National Guard.

Since you're soooo smart, tell mehow many National guard units were sent to Vietnam during W's period of "service(lol)" oh yes the swift boaters really knew their man.

Like most republicans you're all balls to the wall when it comes to sending other people to war.

Bob1805084

My oldest brother did two tours of Vietnam and finally came home on a stretcher and he's never fully recovered to this day. Bush Whacker hid out, Cheney is a disgusting coward who made money off the blood of our soldiers and you need to be quiet.

I will love the day B. Hussein Obama leaves DC!

Is the US capitol moving to Hawaii ?

Google what, bob? Will "bob control senate definition" get me any hits, do you think?

I'm guessing not so much. Maybe, I should try "Three Branches of US Government".

BTW, reality called for you, bob: They were wondering why you haven't shown up for so long.

Steve,

If you call me a liar, you better be right or you're going to get the Jackass and imbecile stuff.

I don't blame you for your feelings about Bush and Cheney, that's fine. Feel the same way about Johnson and Clinton? How about Gore, yea his daddy got him an assignment poppin pics in safe areas - he ever pop off 5.56 in the bush? How do you feel Obama, he did a tour at both Harvard and Columbia. They wouldn't let ROTC on campus. How do you feel about him subordinating the military to the Arab League and UN before consulting with Congress and going on vacation with out bothering mention the war to the American people.

You mention the Swiftees. Read Tour of Duty - Kerry's book. You read that POS book and tell me you believe it, his accounts. If you are as surprised as I was, how much that just did not make any sense or was unbelievable, then read the Unfit For Command. I can't believe that someone that over there would buy Kerry's bull@!$%#.

Regardless of politics ........ I do thank you for your service.

Have a good weekend Steve.

JC of ia - A healthcare provider is the nurse, doctor, technicians, clinics and hospitals that you would go to seeking medical treatment. they are the ones that determine what the cost of care would be.

Insurance providers use actuarial charts and other hard data to determine what your insurance will cost. The older one gets, statistics says that you will become more prone for sickness or longer periods of sickness.

You're wrong. Ryan's bill passed.

(typical Democrats-- with bad information)

I don't think that was meant to be a factual statement.

Ryan's bill passed the Republican House of representatives, it did not pass through the Senate. Where did you get your "understanding" of civics, Eric Cantor's kitchen table?

scott, lol! There's a lot of that going around!

Not to confuse anyone...my comment was FARCE!

Probably always best to put (sarcasm) in parentheses or something, Ursula. Many people are remarkably literal-minded.

Yuk Yuk YuK gesus can you be any more ummmm never mind.

@commonsense

That's what they called themselves originally. Don't you remember that idiot on Fox News saying teabag the whitehouse before they teabag you... they brought the title upon themselves... and incidentally I am obsessed with teabagging, but only in Halo

Very Pathetic Commonsense Texan...apparently you know what it is so you must like it too!! Typical Republican calling you gay when their friends are around and being all over a man when they are not!! LOL

Texan,

Very intelligent remark. Go get an education.

At some point we have to eliminate medicare, and social security as well. This ridiculous illusion that big brother will take care of us at retirement age gives too many Americans a false sense of security. Why do you think there are so many seniors living below the poverty level? Because our wonderful government let them believe that they would take care of everything and these people didn't make retirement plans for themselves.

Let the systems die, take care of the people that are already depending on them but make it clear to all others that they will not be available. Maybe eventually we will get back to a point when people make arrangements to take care of themselves.

t.marino -- you forget that in Texas it is impossible to get an education as they've rewritten all their text books with stories from fantasyland!

@NYmomwhatever

Uh, no we don't. There is no way that most people can pay out of pocket for private insurance when they are elderly. The costs would be outrageous, big brother is all of us taking care of each other. I'm 26 and I pay into Medicare to take care of the elderly so when I'm older I can be taken care of. It's not charity. SS is the money we pay in anyway and isn't related to the deficit by law. Maybe what you said wasn't meant to be a factual statement.

Wake'd another liberal obsessed with Teabagging.. what's wrong Wake'd not as good at it as your boyfriend...

Yeah, I just call it what it really is...TeaBuggery

NYmom and polideth - without reform SS, medicare and medicaid will die.

t some point we have to eliminate medicare, and social security as well. This ridiculous illusion that big brother will take care of us at retirement age gives too many Americans a false sense of security.

Average American household income = $52, 209

Amount needed to save from age 30 to replace the 80% of that income = 2.8 Million dollars

Fact: Wages continue to move downward

Fact: Medical Costs inflation running at 17% per year

Fact: Employers hiring more part time to avoid paying benefits

Fact: Companies cutting back on 401 K contributions and pensions

Fact: Private Insurance Plans for 65+ START @ about $600/Mo per person

Fact: Structural employment of outsourced industries providing less jobs in the future

Fact: Investing in Stock Market has risk. You could do well, or you could get wiped out. No security.

Fact: Employers tend not to hire anyone after age 62 or so (although some industries do) . Yet the average stay at an employer is 4 years. After I turn 55, I will likley have to be hired 3 or 4 times and pray my wages aren't LESS.

Fact: Number of Americans that can afford to retire WITH Social Security and Medicare as a supplemental income source : 20%. That means 80% wont make it. What would that number rise to without SS and Medicare?...I'm not sure I want to know

Now, thats what we would be facing without Medicare and Social Security. What do you think my chances are?

You Tea Buggerers have NO CLUE about the ramifications or of your chainsaw massacre.

Ryan, enjoy your moment because that is all that it is! Your legislation to protect the rich and place the tax burden onto the working class will not fly! Guaranteed!

@Polideath-

You're delusional if you think you will ever see a penny of social security. For those of us that are the younger generations we are paying so the older generations can survive, but the system will be long since bankrupt before we ever get to collect. It is like charity because we are paying that money everyweek and will never see a penny. Have you ever considered how much better off you will be if you took that 6.2% you pay in social security and what you pay in medicare tax and saved for your own retirement?

What do you think people did before social security and medicare came along? They made plans to take care of themselves. Social security and medicare isn't enough, and as long as they still exist people will continue to make ignorant decisions about their own future.

What did people do before medicare and social security you ask, they saved for nothing they were totally broke from medical bills and survival, you would not save that 6.5 percent you would spend it.

NYworkingmom1

What do you think people did before social security and medicare came along?

They lived short lives in misery and pain and stood in bread lines. Why do you think Roosevelt pushed the SS program and Johnson pushed Medicare? Please get the history of things correct before you go off with the BS.

@JOEB JITZU

Before SS and medicaide people worked until they died on the factory floor.

We owe our Elders some respect and dignity in their retirement. We need to stop the attacks on the people who can least afford the loss of these programs programs.

What good is a fiscally sound but morally bankrupt country anyway?

Nymom: They had their own farms, when older lived with their children. Worked for small amount of earnings, and died young (compared to today's standard) And then along came the great depression. And the government tried to save the elderly, but than again, along came another government

Average American household income = $52, 209 Me $135,000

Amount needed to save from age 30 to replace the 80% of that income = 2.8 Million dollars I have about 3.2 million

Fact: Wages continue to move downward My salary has increased by 22%

Fact: Medical Costs inflation running at 17 % per year This I will agree on 22%

Fact: Employers hiring more part time to avoid paying benefits My corp has picked up 10% more this year

Fact: Companies cutting back on 401 K contributions and pensions doubled ours

Fact: Private Insurance Plans for 65+ START @ about $600/Mo per person Im 58 its not unreasonable

Fact: Structural employment of outsourced industries providing less jobs in the future We hired 1500 high level engineers in the past 2 months

Fact: Investing in Stock Market has risk. You could do well, or you could get wiped out. No security. I watched my investments and moved them to Canada, 22% interest in the past 2 years you should try it.

Fact: Employers tend not to hire anyone after age 62 or so (although some industries do) . Yet the average stay at an employer is 4 years. After I turn 55, I will likley have to be hired 3 or 4 times and pray my wages aren't LESS. We hired 62% experienced older people.

Fact: Number of Americans that can afford to retire WITH Social Security and Medicare as a supplemental income source : 20%. That means 80% wont make it. What would that number rise to without SS and Medicare?...I'm not sure I want to know Im retiring in less than 5 years with no need for Social Security,

Now, thats what we would be facing without Medicare and Social Security. What do you think my chances are? If you planned not that bad, obviously you didnt!

You Tea Buggerers have NO CLUE about the ramifications or of your chainsaw massacre.

Flyoverme,

Are you on drugs? You must be, it was George W who gave away our taxpayer money to the banks. Why do you keep up with this lie?

Obama TARP wealth transfer?????????????????????????????? Paulson/Bush/Cheney is what you meant.

FLY Over,

Fact check please

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

James, what do you think of obama cutting $500 billion from medicare. Nice of him wasn't it?

Flyoverme,

You have selective memory. Obama's Tarp money has to be paid back with interest and much of it has been. The money Bush gave away to his rich buddies on WAll Street while he was heading out the back door to the farm in Texas to cut brush, never has to be paid back and he made sure of that. If you think I'm BS'ing you go check it out. Bush gave away us taxpayers money to these bags of $hit. Very generous he was with our money wasn't he?

nwnative - perhaps links to your proof would be appropriate. The loans used for the TARP bailout has mostly been paid back by wall st with interest. They were never given with no intent without requiringpayback. TARP made $$$ for America, however the auto bailouts of chrysler, GM, loan companies fannie and freddie probably won't. Why not blame these on bush as well?

Wallstreet, AIG, and the troubled Banks were able to pay back large portions of their government loans because the Federal Reserve made $4 TTTTTrillion in interest free loans to them so that they could play the rise in the stock market. To date, they have only returned $2.1 TTTrillion of the Federal Reserve's money. If the Federal Reserve bank had extended the same courtesy to Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie, they could have done much the same thing.

so, what's the Democrats's solution? Increase taxes? Hahaha

Democrats don't have any solutions. (obama didn't even do a budget last year... total bums)

The democrats' solution? Raise taxes on the "rich".

When that isn't enough, change the classification of "rich" to include more people.

When that isn't enough, raise taxes on the middle class.

When that isn't enough, start nationalizing industries.

When people protest that, use government propaganda and call the people "terrorists" and "nut-cases" and use force to subdue them.

When that isn't enough, confiscate the citizens' guns so they can't fight back.

When that's not enough and the nation is broke, merge the Dollar into foreign currencies to "stabilize" markets. (Some Republicans guilty of working on this one too).

Then merge the U.S. into a one-world-government ruled by the super-wealthy and use populations as economic slaves, and leave them nowhere on Earth left to escape to.

Redistribution and confiscation of land, property and wealth can now proceed unimpeded.

Mission accomplished.

Obama did do a budget last year he submitted it in Feb 2010 for the 2011 year (last year). House deemed it approved not passed therefore continuing resolutions kept the government running up until last Friday's agreement.

The 2011 budget $38 billion deal will be a done deal once Obama signs.

On a different matter, The 2012 budget was approved by the GOP dominated House and will now probably be voted down in the Senate.

Of personal interest, First read I wonder why Ron Paul voted against the 2012 budget? Was it because it was too little in cuts?

If we increase taxes on everyone who is making over $300,000 a year, it will never effect you adversly. What's your complaint?

Everyone puts communism down, but when a chinese official cuts corners and puts lead into the paint on children's toys, he is promptly taken out back and shot. We need that sort of justice for the Wal Street Crin\minals who ripped off the country and the teapartiers who are siding with them. The cuts are carried on the backs of the less fortunate in society while the Wall Streeters hand out ever bigger bonuses for putting the knife into the backs of the middle class.

YellowDog...

Ron Paul believes in a balanced budget ammendment and has voted 'no' on every single budget that encompasses deficit spending.

I don't think he's voted 'yes' to any budgets save one or two budgets in the Clinton administration.

tenkisha - Thanks I thought at much. Can't support him on nearly any of his economic policies but it seems he is consistent.

Or, here's a thought; get rid of the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250,000 a year. And do away with the income cap on paying into Social Security while you're at it. Those would be fiscally prudent things to do, and would not screw every nonmillionaire from age 52 on down. Given that the tax rates before those were still less than we were paying in the Reagan era, I'd think the economy would do just fine.

Machinehead - looks like you get the picture loud and clear. Obamas IPAB commision didn't escape your notice, did it?

technishaw - nothing wrong with a balanced budget at the state and local level. To many economic (local and global) variables. Now amendments for term limits would be nice.

Greetings yellowdog!

paul-440967

Democrats don't have any solutions. (obama didn't even do a budget last year... total bums)

You must get what passes for information in your world from "Fox & Friends". Like this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-anchor-falsely-reports-that-president-obama-did-not-submit-a-budget/

You should try legitimate news sometime. Just about any source other than Fox would help you. Heck, try Weekly World News. They can't be any more intentionally wrong than Fox, and they will keep you up to date on the latest UFO landings.

Obama's 2011 budget was submitted 2/1/2010.

Try this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02budget.html?_r=1

rorschach - you are referencing obama plan 1.0 proposing $1.1 trillion in cuts. seems that obama presented his 2.0 plan earlier this week. I would say $1.1 trillion in cuts is different than $4.4 trillion in cuts. We have access to ryans plan, how about access to obamas latest?

Regardless, we have only the debt commissions and ryans written plans to compare to obamas campaign speech. Perhaps pbama has submitted a written plan based on his speech earlier this week?

american-2051576

rorschach - you are referencing obama plan 1.0 proposing $1.1 trillion in cuts. seems that obama presented his 2.0 plan earlier this week.

paul-440967

Democrats don't have any solutions. (obama didn't even do a budget last year... total bums)

So which Republican talking point is it going to be? The story seems to change depending on immediate rhetorical need.

Why is it that people insist on acting like they know what they're talking about when they obviously don't? Budgets are not the problem of the President. They are handled by Congress. When people say "they should have passed it 7 months ago", they are referring to congress, not Obama. Obama's only say in the matter is Pelosi and Reid running to him to tell him to veto it if it should make it past them.

Bottom line, Democrats either dropped the ball to save face during the elections, or they knew they could try to spin this against the Republicans when they tried to play politics with the entire government. Neither worked.

what the heck is a voucher ?, man that can be defined any way the R's want it to be

However it would be defined, I'm sure it's not going to cover the vast majority of then-senior's medical costs....especially for those who are the oldest and sickest and really depend on medicare to keep them ALIVE! I can imagine it being like the $1 off coupons at Denny's or something!

I'm amazed how the GOP'ers defend this plan by constantly repeating the line that this won't affect anyone over 55. So....they're only TOTALLY screwing over everyone UNDER 55!!

You now have reps driving a wedge between Grandparents and their children. So much for family values

4moreyears

what the heck is a voucher ?

You didn't know? Vouchers fix anything! Education, health insurance... they cure the common cold and are about 97.275% effective on herpes.

They don't seem to work so well on unnatural orange skin coloring, though. Boehner's been taking vouchers six times a day for years and he's still orange.

rorschach - thanks, then the voucher idea is great for our country !

Al in Visalia - Good point. Also, why is it that we all should have to buy auto insurance? Is that illegal? And why should the taxpaers pay for the people who go to the ER and get free treatment. Why don't they buy insurance.

"Do they really believe the voters are stupid enough to go along with this?" Yes, and yes they will!!!

mom,can you show me where the voters HAVEN'T been stupid in the past 30 years?

Exhibit A for the defense, the 2004 election.

Yes, they really do. And almost 33% of voters really are that stupid.

You're really in the dark, aren't you? We have a budget crisis. Medicare is going bankrupt.

Democrats prefer to just raise taxes.. the lazy way out.

Republicans prefer to get to the root of problems and actually solve them.

The government's "one-size-fits-all" entitlements have broken the backs of the huge middle class., they can't afford it anymore.

Reforming Medicare is necessary. Means-testing for instance so that rich people don't automatically

get Medicare if they don't need it. Its called common-sense reform.

No, the Republican tax breaks for the wealthy broke the backs of the middle class.

Paul: Democrats prefer to just raise taxes.. the lazy way out.

Not true. The President's plan also includes cuts and redistributing funds.

Paul: Republicans prefer to get to the root of problems and actually solve them.

Also not true. The Republicans just defund without any substitute. That's not a solution. The Republican plan calls for vouchers based on today's values which won't be worth the same in 10 years.

And the ever increasing costs of health care are causing Medicare to be unable to buy what it used to be abel to buy with the same amount of money. The solution is not to make seniors pay more, it is to lower the costs of health care.

paul, your means testing will not work. A person who pays taxes for a service that they are later excluded from would be found unconstitutional or the taxes would have to be refunded to them. Which leads to the next argument which is - that is the goal all along. Affluent Americans just want their grimy hands on that money. They want to lower their taxes knowing that they will be well-off in their old age with plenty of money to care for themselves and just don't care about the rest of the population.

The Republican plan doesn't immediately start fixing the budget or deficit either. But it does immediately give more tax breaks to the wealthy.

Well, Charctine, that is their base after all. The haves and have mores.

Do you realize the entire budget not including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security amounts to 1.04 Trillion dollars, the Deficit for this year is 1.65 TRILLION dollars. So that means if we cut all spending, that is everything BUT Medicare, Medicaid and SS, then we would still run a DEFICIT of 600 BILLION dollars. That means very simply, those programs will HAVE to be changed, or this country will not be able to pay it's debts, and will become a third world nation due to default and high interest rates. This isn't something we can fix by slashing a few billion dollars, because the DEBT increases around 4 Billion dollars a DAY, and all the hype about cutting 40 Billion dollars amounts to 10 days of deficit spending, leaving another 355 days left to deal with..

Most people have no clue how badly we are in debt, or what it will really take to fix it. You all want your cut, when we have promised way beyond what could be covered, simply because politicians are always promising with other people's money.

got a treasure buried somewhere?

Hmm, let's see, Obozo makes sure that GE doesn't pay taxes... gives GM bondholders the shaft... tell me again who's giving entitlements to corporations???

@Fedup...

The GOP and the dems, but the GOP by so much more in droves. Obama actually has been suggesting closing tax loop holes for corp. so they pay their fair share, but the GOP won't have any part in making corporate america pay their fair share... so no, Obama isn't 'making sure' they don't pay taxes, he's been trying to incorperate the opposite. that makes you a liar.

TARP was started by Hank Paulson during the BUSH/CHENEY administration. Why do you keep trying to pin that on Obama? RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans.......................

The tax laws that allowed GE to pay zero income taxes were in place well before Obama was in the White House. It's not a Republican or Democrat issue, its a ruling elite versus the common people issue. They all give entitlements to corporations because the average person is too focused on blaming their political opponents.

FLY over,

That statement you are making is a total lie. That is the problem with you Republicans -Tea Baggers.

You never check your facts. It's pretty easy to look up.

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

Flyover's repetitive false assertion beautifully demonstrates the problem with the Teapublicans. They latch on to a fallacy that they think proves their point and they won't let it go no matter how many times they are exposed to the facts.

The Republicans are shameless. The help to create the problem. Their fix for the problem is an even bigger problem. And then they blame it all on the guy that tries to fix the fix.

Heartlight,

Exactly correct. This is exactly what Ryan and the Republicans do and they do it well. Just listen to that machine Scott Walker talk. He just repeats the same crap over and over like he's on drugs. You would think he could put some expression into it once in awhile. It's almost hypnotic.

Yeah, compare that bit of fiction with the reality of the dollar plummeting to 1/20 it's current value because the current Socialist regime has set us on a spending-$1.8Trillins-more-than-we-take-in death spiral... wake up idiot...

I'm 52 and I feel the same.

What really makes me sick is knowing that if they get their way and we move to a 'voucher' system, the costs of medical care will simply rise to swallow the voucher and force us to pay for medical costs out of our savings (if they haven't already stolen that from us too).

mingpeke, you do know that Medicare won't cover all you bills? You will need to buy supplemental insurance.

One question, they are taking YOUR money and giving it to the RICH? or are some just plain taking from others?

I understand the concept of getting back what you gave in, but I don't understand how people think they deserve money others have worked for.

How do you (people)have the right to take what I worked for? I don't care how much money I make nobody has the right to take it. It is my decision to decide how much I help others out.

Main Entry: vouch·er

Pronunciation: 'vau-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French, summoning of a person to guarantee title, from voucher to summon
1 : a documentary record of a business transaction
2 : a written affidavit or authorization
3 : a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditure

Tom: How do those who invest by playing the wall street slot machine earn money other than by taking it from those of us who actually produce work product? IF there is thievery going on, I would follow the money. Those of us in the middle and lower income brackets have lost 70% of our purchasing power since Reagan while the top 3% now have over 10,000% more purchasing power in the same time period.

Would you now like to restate your welfare lies?

Tom, what do you think happens when you pay for car insurance or home insurance and something happens and you make a claim? Whose money do you think is paying your claim? Yours? What if you have paid in $500 a year for 5 years and your house burns down and you get a $25,000 settlement? Whose $22,500 do you think you are getting?

daryl - So are you saying you want the government to legally steal money from others, because you have somehow been wronged?

I grew up in the 80's with a mom on food stamps and other government programs, so I know what it is like to have very little food and no luxuries in life. But I worked my butt off to get a college degree and have a pretty good job. Now a bunch of lazy people are bitching they want more then their I-phone with unlimited text and data, internet, cable tv, and latest MP4 players.

FYI - we can take all the money from everybody that has at least a million dollars of some sort of savings and we still will spend more money next year then we take in next year.

We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem. So quit blaming the earners in this county and blame the non-earners (the lazy and all the Politicians)

Heartlight3 - Whose $22,500 do you think you are getting?

I am not sure were you are going with this? I said I understand the concept I didn't say I agreed with it. Also are you comparing Medicare with Home or Car insurance? If I pay into car insurance my whole life and never file a claim I don't get that back when I stop driving?

Heartlight3

Tom: I grew up in the 80's with a mom on food stamps and other government programs

So, Tom, you have ALREADY used other peoples' money! That alone should discredit your statement above! And you're complaining about how YOUR money is spent?!

Do you also protest putting out fires in other people's homes just because it isn't YOUR home? Do you protest paying other people's insurance just because YOUR house wasn't robbed?

Unbelieveable!

Tom:

How do you think your family would have survived in the 80's if the Republicans had already gotten rid of federal assistance such as the Food Stamps your family used?

The bill is not expected to pass in the Senate.

Unless the gutless Democrats cave in like they usually do.

mingpeke - you should be mad about it as I am about Social Security. They want to cut that. I worked for over 50 years and paid into it and I think I should get it. If you think the insurance premiums are high and always go up every year, just imagine what a major illness costs. My husband's initial cancer treatment cost $30,000 and ongoing it is in the vicinity of 5 to 6 thousand a year. He has private insurance and was denied the best treatment because insurance wouldn't pay for it. His oncologist also diagnosed with the same kind of cancer at the same time thought his fancy insurance would pay for brachytherapy (the latest treatment) and went ahead. His private insurance wouldn't pay and he had to pay over $30,000 out of pocket and leave the state to have the treatment.

who are all these lazy people I keep reading about ? Last I looked most Americans are so busy with work and family that they are far from lazy

4more years - Ryan's plan would eliminate Pell grants for education. I am an officer in an internation women's organization that focuses on scholarships for women in need so I'm in a position to see a lot of women in the position. We try to keep as many of our funds in our area. The so called lazy slugs talked about in these posts are largely young women who have children. Their husbands have left them to fend for themselves. These women are going to college and work, some with two jobs to support themselves. They need the Pell grants so they will not fall victim to food stamps and welfare. We scholarship them in such a way that they can use the money for child care, gas, food, milk for baby, in addition to college expenses. I don't think these young women are what you call lazy slugs. From what I've observed they just need a chance.

Summer, thanks for the info. America is the land of opportunity, still. And we all should be given a chance to earn enough money to take care of our families. Education is one way to get there. The word lazy here is an angry persons effort to make himself feel superior and justify hate. In the long run, maybe some will find difficult roads ahead where they might benefit from accepting some help.

He's trying to find a group of people that will take a balanced approach, dominated by a shared interest in what is best for all Americans. For some people that translates to just giving the rich and powerful more money and power, and taking it from others (like the supporters of Rep. Ryan's proposal). That's not an acceptable starting point for anyone who's allowed in the rooom to work on a serious plan. We need people to work on this who want to do the most good and the least harm for the entire nation, not people who have some kind of lifelong desire to dismantle public retirement and healthcare programs.

Modern Healthcare-

People like Democrat and founding Chair of the CBO Alice Rivlin, and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) (both of whom served on and voted for the Plan submitted by the President's FIRST debt commission), didn't want to "work on this" or "do the most good and the least harm for the entire nation..."?

Are you joking...?

MB - What on earth is President Obama doing?

Mixed Bag, believe me I share your frustration. I'm not sure what the President did with the Wed. speech. It seems as if it was just another appointment of a new commission.

Although I can appreciate him saying what he wouldn't cut, I would much have rathered him saying, "this is what I support". He could have said, I like these points from the debt commission but this is where I differ. Regarding Ryan's plan, I think he would have no common ground with the exception of reducing gov. waste and redundancy (which would vary greatly amongst the two men). However, at no point did Obama specifically say this is what I would do.

I wanted him to say I agree with the (DC) to increase the retirement age gradually, increase cap on social security taxes and eliminate all of the Bush/Obama tax cut extensions.

Apparently Obama agrees with the DC that tax rates should lower and loophole and deductions be removed. As a liberal I would rather see deductions and loopholes removed and rates stay at the low Bush/Obama rates (highest pays 35% in lieu of 25%) like the DC.

I can't stomach the Ryan plan, can take a few parts of the DC. Perhaps have been harsh on the Obama plan, but outside of his original budget proposal don't know the specifics of his 4/13/11 iteration. Now I will look to see what the bipartisan gang of six comes up with.

Mark-

The President may feel that Wednesday's speech helped him with his base, and that ultimately, it'll help him be re-elected.

But, he accomplished nothing by assaulting Paul Ryan without endorsing the Plan of his own debt commission or offering a detailed alternative of his own.

He may achieve being re-elected in November 2012, but he'll still face the responsibility of dealing with the nation's debt crisis in any event...and even that assumes that there'll be no collapse in the sales of U.S. debt in world financial markets before Election Day in 2012.

Remember...Obama debt commission co-chair, Democrat, and former Clinton White House Chief-Of-Staff Erskine Bowles told the Senate Budget Committee only last month that the United States has only two years, and maybe less, to institute a serious plan to address the nations's debt.

The clock is ticking, and I'm not sure President Obama can...or even wants to hear it.

yea right, this is just the beginning

We can only hope so!

Nobody "earned" their riches in an economic vacuum. Very few, if any of us are self made millionaires.

IDIOTS?? Steal what I have paid into and I'll show you more than just idiot. I'll show you that nasty side of me that was trained in the Special Forces. And I'll bring the trouble to THEM.

Earn? If they earn that money shouldn't they pay income taxes on it rather than dividend and capital gains which are much lower rates? And doesn't one earn by doing something in return for money? I don't see how most investment income can be thought of as being earned. That would be like a rapist claiming he was "making love."

TrueConman: And which redneck rebel force were you trained in "the Special Forces" for? Do the other three guys know what you were training each other for?

daryl-2183015 - You do understand that Clinton lowered the capital gains tax the first time and revenues from that went WAY up. I believe Bush lowered them further and revenues did start to go down a bit. So feel to raise them however high you want but know for a fact at some point less money will start coming in.

Paul - "Nobody "earned" their riches in an economic vacuum.",

So they are somehow required to give their money to government to redistribute to the ones that give the politicians the most stuff (lobbyist). The government has tried redistributed hundreds of billion of dollars and % poor people always says the same.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/does-welfare-diminish-poverty/

Tom: Complete fabrication. Both Nixon(in 1969) and Ford (in 1976) raised the capital gains taxes for the first times since 1942 when it was set on a sliding schedule based on number of years invested.

The first series of CG tax breaks came under Carter (in 1978) Reagan (in 1981), who advocated totally removing taxes on capital gains until he realized his tax cuts had hurt the economy and started raising taxes for the rest of his presidency. However, Reagan then raised the CG rate in 1986 when the entire tax system was revised. Bush Sr raised the CG rates again in 1991 Clinton fiddled with some of the time frames for CG, but not the rates, in 1993. In 1997 Clinton fiddled one more time with the rates for 18 month and 5 year CGs as a small part of the Taxpayer Relief Act (forced on him by a Republican congress still under the delusion that tax breaks for the rich equate to anything besides more money hoarded by those who produce the least in our economy).

I see nothing in the statistics to show that any of these changes had any effect on total amount of money invested in the US or in the total revenues of the federal government.

Your perspective is false, but it was based on the "trickle down" theory that turned into today's "trickle on" economics. But if you can find a source that shows otherwise, not including Fox, Drudge or Rassmussen, I'm willing to learn.

http://adamsmith.org/files/capital-gains-tax.pdf

The pattern shows that every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital
gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been
raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen. The following are some clear
examples:
• In 1968, real capital gains tax receipts were $34 billion at a 25 percent
tax rate. Over the next eight years the tax rate was raised four times, to
a high of 35 percent. But with the tax rate almost 10 percentage points
higher in 1972 than in 1968, real capital gains tax revenues were only
$27 billion — 21 percent below the 1968 level.
• In 1978, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent, $28 billion in
capital gains taxes were collected. By 1984, after the tax had been cut to
20 percent, revenues from the lower tax rate were $41 billion — 46
percent above the 1978 level.
• In 1986, the tax rate increased by 40 percent, from 20 to 28 percent. Tax
revenues did not climb by 40 percent. Rather the opposite occurred. In
1990, the US government took in 13 percent less revenue at the 28
percent rate than it did in 1985 at the 20 percent rate. In 1991 (and
again in 1992), the government collected more than 15 percent less
revenue than it did in 1985.
• In 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28 to 20
percent, net capital gains on assets sold were roughly $335 billion. A
year later, capital gains had leapt to $459 billion. (The tax cut was
retroactive to May 1997.) In 1996 the Treasury collected roughly $85
billion in capital gains revenues. In 1997 those tax payments jumped to
$100 billion.
• After the 2003 capital gains cut, federal revenues increased in four
years by $740 billion. CGT revenues grew from $55 billion in 2002 to
$110 billion in 2006. Every indicator demonstrates that the 2003 CGT
cut helped increase growth, share values and federal tax revenues

daryl-2183015.... Actually I was assigned to the 5th Cub Scouts of America. 18 delta and all four of us redneck scouts earned our merit badges for specializing in roasting marshmallows. Along with things like setting rabbit traps shooting our little bows and arrows. We even learned how to carve and chop wood.

The irony is, I haven't forgotten how to roast those marshmallows.

I didn't vote in SS or Medicare - before my time. BUT, I sure have paid and paid and paid.

Now, trouble budget brewing and some of you have the unmitigated gall to say I am freeloading if I expect to actually get something from a program I had nothing to do with but participated in like it or not?!?

And meanwhile, people earning over $250K per year get a tax break? Made permanent? And the *REALLY* rich who earn their income from capital gains pay 15% or less?!?

What a crock of sh*t..

Tom - Plymouth - You use the Adam Smith Institute as an "unbiased" information source? They're not even American, you know:

In their own words:

The Adam Smith Institute pioneered privatisation both in Britain and around the world. It helped to develop many of the techniques which have set the standard for transforming state operations into private business. The ASI was in the vanguard of replacing central planning and state controls buy incentives, market opportunities and an entrepreneurial culture. A series of ASI research reports led to cuts in the top rates of taxation to stimulate economic growth and create a business-friendly climate.

TOTAL tax revenues DON'T rise when capital gains taxes are cut. And payroll taxes are 36% of those total tax revenues.

I have a better chart for you:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/9-27-06tax-f3-rev.jpg

Full article here, if you want more than just the chart:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

How about we just end Paul Ryan.... There you go. Problem solved.

"We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark. "Well, unfortunately Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo with regard to Medicare, you are on the side of the elimination of Medicare as we know it."

TrueConservatist, if you would please refrain from your vitriolic rhetoric. That is reserved for those of us on the right. LOL!

The only way Medicare is going "bankrupt" is through taxpayers not paying their Medicare taxes and that is highly unlikely. Mismanagement occurs in every local, state, and federal department unfortunately, but fear should not replace common sense by the common citizen.

If President Obama's original health care plan were enacted, possibly we would not have so much debate regarding health costs. However, many wealthy political party members have directly and indirectly stated providing quality and affordable health care to millions would not be in their better interest. President Obama then got another lesson in modern politics 'change' cannot help alter.

It was easy to place fear in the hearts and minds of conservatives across America by the GOP, because the GOP was against any kind of progressive health care reform originally. Why would very wealthy men reform a system that keeps them rich?

The problem here is clear. We have too many politicians that refuse to work together for the betterment of America. We have wealth, greed, and power controlling what can and cannot be done in politics. This is a direct problem once again and we need President Obama to be strong, still, and structure in what he will not barging with.

President Obama bargained with health care reform. He cannot continue to bargain away all that he believes America can be. If must show a strong and decisive president no matter who gives a poor review. Show the American people you can stand behind your words and beliefs if you feel they are what are best for America.

Condemn those who want what is worst for America publicly, while allowing the American people the decision makers in your actions.

mitch j,

In this country we have elections and, hopefully, not wars! So, see you at the ballot box in 2012! God save us from those who would sell us to the highest corporate bidder(s)!

Your opponent,

Not so Anonymous

Not so anonymous

God, said the GREED was the ROOT of all EVIL!! He will NOT bless a country which puts they greedy needs of the few over the welfare of the many!! The TEA PARTY and their love of wealth and power WILL corupt and destroy this country! The BIBLE tells me so!!

What planet are you from son??

General Lee is dead as a door nail and so is slavery...at least until the Koch Brothers can influence enough "hair brain States" to enable legislation for the creation of "WAGE SLAVES".

You should write a book...call it "In Search Of Davey Crockett In The 21st Century" and a small text describing how to make your own "lye soap".

-mitchj AAAH??? anonymous??

blood of patriot and tyrrants, blah blah blah --You freak!

Let me guess, Gun Show patron? Can we get a back ground check please?

Outnumbered more than 3:1, BUT WERE A CONSERVATIVE COUNTRY!

I'm starting to think succession is a good idea. Let the poor, stupid, red staters go. We'll keep HI, CA, NY, MA, OR, WA, ME, NH, VT, WI, etc. You can have FL, AZ, TX, MS, AL, NC, SC, GA, OH, etc. You get the states that get more Fed $$s than they pay in, the Bible literalist young flat Earthers, the mouth breathing knuckle draggers, and the fat "catsup's is a vegetable" Wal-mart lovin', roadkill cookin' Fascists ...

...and WE'LL take the four-eyed techi-nerds, property value raising queers, the unlubricated beaches, the Asian and Indian professionals, Mexican farmers, the hippy Vegans, the Atheists and Socialists.

Good bye, good riddance and GOOD LUCK!

Having a bad day, are we, Headstrong?

I'm glad to see working Americans standing up for themselves on the posts of this article. It's something that is lacking everywhere.

Tell your Republican supporter friends that the Repubs don't care about us, the working Americans. They already took our money, now they want to take our worker rights and the social programs WE pay for, so that we have to scrounge for the crumbs and beg the corporate overlords for compassion.

WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!!

The Federal government took all the money out of SS & Medicare when there were fewer people collecting from the programs compared to the amount of people that were putting money in. They knew the funny math would catch up when the baby boomers began to retire. Well here we are and the Represenatives have decided to screw the public once again and they have pitted the people against each other with the two party system. Divide and conquer. Rember divided we beg, united we stand. Send emails to your congressman, speak up, be herd. Our children's future and quality of life depends what we let happen. We have more power to change things than we realize. Start the emails to your representavies, and continue to be informed about what is really going on. It is often not what they are telling you, but what they are not telling you.

Not to mention everyone under 55.

Did I miss something here? What happened to working hard and planning for retirement? What about being responsible and saving money so you don't have to rely on the government to survive? Just because we turn 65 or whatever it is, we now magically get government assistance? Bullcrap. All of you who support Medicare are idiots. In case you forgot, we have a HUGE deficit, therefore we have NO MONEY in Medicare and you all are planning on that as your retirement?? Ridiculous. I know that we pay in and pay in and when I finally come "of age" everything I paid in will be gone. It already is gone. As for crossing the elderly...you are probably going to die a lot sooner than me and I have to work MY BUTT OFF so you can sit on yours in retirement, awesome.

To "what??-2660469": I have saved money. I could have saved even more if I haven't had to have paid all these SS and Medicare taxes all these years. Yes, I feel pretty incensed about the idea "we pay in and pay in and when I finally come "of age" everything I paid in will be gone." That's a bunch of crap. I feel no different about our government pulling this crap than I would if the GE, who I am paying for a long term health contract, said all of a sudden, "so sorry, we went broke and your contract is no good - too bad." The government has an obligation to it has to fulfill for all us "idiots" who have been paying in all these years. If this comes to pass, expect a class action lawsuit on my part against the government.

What happened was that American companies decided it is more profitable for them to amass $1 trillion in cash from record corporate profits instead of sharing it with their ever-more-productive workers in the form of a living wage.

A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

How do you think the bottom 90% of us are going to afford to save for retirement? If you have yours all socked away, I'd say you're in that top 10% income bracket.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

All of you who support Medicare are idiots.

So...you think it's okay to collect money for medicare from our paychecks but then we shouldn't expect medicare when we're 65 (or whatever age it kicks in)?

Tell me, what part of getting what we paid for is stupid?

Wow...seems there are some on this board who do not quite realize how much receiving basic healthcare WILL cost them when they reach a certain age. It's quite naive of someone to think saving for their entire life will allow them to pay for ALL or even most of their healthcare coverage. In fact I almost pity people who believe that to be true. The fact of the matter is that healthcare is EXTREMELY expensive and can easily wipe out savings in a matter of DAYS.

Case in point: I had to visit the ER for small chest palpitations (due to being dehydrated, anxious from my pathology and microbiology exams, and stressed). As part of my work up I received a chest-X ray, gave blood, and was monitored for 5 hours. Guess how much simple procedures and analyses associated with a CP workup came to?.......over $2500. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what procedures and care senior citizens receive for their various ailments on a regular basis. We might as well not even broach the topic of surgery.

I for one would like to see changes made to both social security and or medicare; however, Ryan's approach only demonstrates his gross negligence.

If we ABSOLUTELY had to get rid of medicare or social security I would definitely cut social security before even thinking about cutting medicare.

If we ABSOLUTELY had to get rid of medicare or social security I would definitely cut social security before even thinking about cutting medicare.

The whole reason why Medicare was conceived is that after a certain age people basically become uninsurable because the probability that something will happen to them approaches 1.

We made Medicare so that the elderly had an insurer when no one else would insure them at any price.

But hey, let's conveniently forget that and cut their benefit, what's the worst that can happen?