By Henry Decker

Boehner Rejects Obama’s Offer To Cut Social Security

April 5, 2013 1:42 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 201 Comments A+ / A-
Boehner Rejects Obama’s Offer To Cut Social Security

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) preemptively rejected President Barack Obama’s upcoming budget proposal Friday, slamming the president’s offer to cut Social Security as “only modest entitlement savings.”

President Obama’s budget plan, which he will send to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, will reportedly seek $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through a combination of new revenues and spending cuts. The most controversial cut is the move to the chained consumer price index (“chained CPI”) for Social Security, which would significantly reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries. President Obama has long suggested that he could support the measure, which would cut federal spending by about $130 billion over the next decade, only if Republicans agree to raise new tax revenues.

To many of the president’s liberal allies, such a proposal has been a non-starter. When he floated the idea in late 2012, many House Democrats warned that they would rather go over the “fiscal cliff” than accept the cut. Similarly, in an exclusive interview with The National Memo in March, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka vowed that America’s largest labor federation would oppose any budget deal that included chained CPI, saying the index is “another example of how Washington creates fancy-sounding phrases to mask stupid policies that only work for the rich.”

The public seems to stand with Trumka; recent polling suggests that Americans strongly oppose any Social Security cuts.

The budget reportedly includes several other cuts, such as $400 billion in health care savings (including additional means-testing for Medicare,) and $200 billion in cuts to farm subsidies, federal employee retirement programs, and unemployment compensation. Obama’s budget also aims to raise $600 billion in new revenues, including an increased cigarette tax, which would be used to finance the president’s proposal for universal pre-K.

“While this is not the president’s ideal deficit-reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan like the CPI change that were key Republican requests and not the president’s preferred approach, this is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands,” a senior Obama administration official told The Hill.

Obama’s offer to meet in the middle has already failed to move House Republicans, however. Not waiting for the full proposal to be released, House Speaker John Boehner quickly released a statement Friday blasting Obama’s plan.

“Despite talk about so-called balance, the president’s last offer was significantly skewed in favor of higher taxes and included only modest entitlement savings,” Boehner said. “In the end, the president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts. At some point we need to solve our spending problem, and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances.”

“If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Boehner added.

Although Boehner’s statement still completely ignores the $2.5 trillion in deficit reductions to which the White House has agreed since 2010, it does at least acknowledge that Obama is offering “entitlement savings” — even if Boehner rejects the compromise out of hand. This is a modest step in the right direction, considering that until this budget, Republicans have consistently denied that Obama has offered them anything at all.

In the end, that subtle shift may end up as the most significant result of Obama’s budget deal. Although the proposal has no real chance of becoming law — as evidenced by Boehner’s immediate rejection — making a highly publicized compromise offer will further expose the Republicans’ intransigence.

In March, President Obama reportedly offered congressional Republicans a choice: accept a deal that raised revenue in exchange for chained CPI and means-testing of Medicare, or walk away with no budget deal at all. In April, it appears that Boehner has made his decision.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Boehner Rejects Obama’s Offer To Cut Social Security Reviewed by on . House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) preemptively rejected President Barack Obama's upcoming budget proposal Friday, slamming the president's offer to cut Social S House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) preemptively rejected President Barack Obama's upcoming budget proposal Friday, slamming the president's offer to cut Social S Rating:

More by Henry Decker

Another Republican Gives Up Obamacare Fight

Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania is the latest Republican to retreat from the Obamacare wars. On Thursday, the federal government approved Governor Corbett’s plan to expand Medicaid in the Keystone State, making it the 27th state in the nation to adopt the controversial provision of the Affordable Care Act. Corbett had initially opposed expanding Medicaid

Read more...

This Week In Crazy: ‘Dr. Chaps’ Ruins The Ice Bucket Challenge, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five: 5. Kimberly Guilfoyle Like many Americans, the hosts of Fox News’ The Five are concerned about ISIS’ violent rampage across the Middle East. Unlike any

Read more...

The Tape Doesn’t Lie: Mitch McConnell Is Serious About Another Shutdown

One week ago, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave an interview vowing that a Republican Senate majority would attach partisan riders to spending bills in an effort to blackmail President Obama into rolling back his agenda — a tactic that would almost certainly lead to another government shutdown — his campaign tried to walk

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Bill

    I’m sick of hearing about cuts to my Social Security to appease the GOP!! The GOP played the President for a chump in 2010 and they are trying to do the same thing again, wake up already, the rich don’t deserve tax breaks at the expense of the middle class and poor. If all the President can do is through Social Security under the bus he will loose my support.

    • Betta

      “I’m sick of hearing about cuts to my Social Security to appease the GOP!! ”

      GOP isn’t asking for SS cuts – OBAMA IS! Did you intentionally get that backward? Are you on medication?

      OBAMA is the one who is calling for SS cuts. Boehner said Hell to the NO! The illegal in the oval office is also trying to take MORE taxes out of our paychecks and Boehner is again saying NO!

      I’m just waiting for the day when BO’s handlers throw him under the bus. What a glorious day that will be.

      • awakenaustin

        I both read and understand the English language. Boehner is saying the cuts are not large enough.

        • EQ4ALL

          He also says to stop spending, something the Dems don’t understand. Both Parties are at fault here. They have successfully created the buzzword “ENTITLEMENTS” Which should be done away with!

          • Independent1

            The Dems don’t understand Stop Spending?? So Obama has reduced spending faster over the past 4 years than any president since WWII (by 1/2 a trillion dollars/yr) because he doesn’t understand Stop Spending!! But the GOP that’s suppose to understand Stop Spending!! Is responsible for more than 90% of our current deficit?? With Reagan and the two Bushes running up close to 15 trillion in deficit spending over 20 years in office!! Boy do you have you facts upside down!!

        • Betta

          Cuts to outrageous SPENDING, awakeinaustin. Such as the MILLIONS spent on multiple yearly vacations. My last vacation was spent at home. Didn’t get to spend it traversing all over the world with a hoard of hangers-on at the taxpayer’s expense.

          • Independent1

            What nonsense!! Obama has taken just about 1/2 the vacation that George Bush took in his 1st term. GWB leads all presidents in history for taking vacation having taken over 240 days at his Texas ranch flying back and forth also spending millions doing that. And Reagan did the same: he took over 180 days flying constantly back and forth to his Calif Ranch also spending millions. Bush Sr took over 150 days and was constantly traveling between Washington and Kennebunkport with his large security enterage spending millions too. Obama has taken less vacation than any of the with about 120 days in his 1st term. So you knowwhat you can do with your nonsense vacation spending comments. Stuff them you know where!!!!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/robert.abrami Robert Abrami

        No Betta. Republicans want to slash our Social Security benefits. Benefits which we ALL worked for.

        • Betta

          No Robert. You are wrong. Obama wants it. Please do your research and stop believing a LIAR.

          • CPAinNewYork

            You’re mistaken. Obama wants to reduce future increases as a sop to the GOP. Boehner wants to reduce present benefits. Big difference. I say tell the Republicans to go to hell and just wait for the elections to erode their base.

          • Independent1

            If there’s anyone intentionally lying here Betta it’s you!! And you know it!!!

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        Obama is trying to play towards the middle ground by offering some very small cuts. I wouldn’t cut SS in any whatsoever.

        But, no matter what Obama does, the Republicans will demonize it. This has been their tactic from the very first day he got elected the first time.

        Watch and see what happens, they’ll stab him in the back like they have been doing all along.

        What bothers me the most about Obama is that we elected this man, a public mandate, to further a liberal progressive agenda. Yes, he has done things as far as being liberal, usually by arm-twisting. But, progressive, not nearly as much as most of us would like.

        In many ways Obama is very much like Carter. A great Statesman, but weak on the politics. He’s not forceful enough, that’s his biggest problem. Maybe there is still time for Obama to turn into the Politician he was meant to be. But, he’s got an uphill battle every which way he turns.

        • Bill

          Changing the cost of living to chained CPI will cost people getting Social Security thousands over time, why doesn’t the Government use chained CPI for their cost of living?

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I know, it’s disgusting………….

        • patuxant

          And the reason is?????Not a good ole white boy!

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            More than likely, you’re right.

          • EQ4ALL

            We were actually doing fine in this discussion , BUT SOMEONE JUST HAD TO BRING UP RACE!

        • Betta

          “…we elected this man…”

          Actually he wasn’t elected. You didn’t get the memo about the voter fraud that took place, which effectively put an illegal alien in the oval office?

          • Sand_Cat

            You have now departed the realm of reality for certain. If you want to come back and have a rational discussion, please do so, but enough already with the lunacy.

        • charleo1

          I agree with your sentiment. I just take a bit of umbrage with the
          Carter analogy. The knock on Carter at the time, was he attempted
          to micromanage every issue. Thus, his overall position on any given
          subject, was hard for the Country at large to parse out. So, he lost,
          what is always a President’s strongest card, the support of the
          electorate. Like Obama, the public generally liked Carter. But unlike
          Obama, at least so far, Carter was one of the most unlucky Presidents
          the Country has ever had. One could argue he should have seen the
          popular uprising that unseated a terminally ill Shaw, might result in
          our embassy there being overrun, and State Dept. employees being
          held hostage. But, he might have been distracted by the severe
          shortages of gasoline, that had a very frustrated public waiting in
          long lines for fuel, and the economy was miserable. Both problems
          he had largely inherited. Both, problems Americans always blame
          on the current President, nonetheless. There was a growing concern
          as election day approached, and the nightly newscasts, all of them,
          reminded the Country, another day had passed, with Americans
          still held in captivity in Iran. Carter’s campaign strategists told him,
          if the hostages were still in Iran on election day, he would lose.
          And so, the Carter Presidency ended, and the Reagan years began,
          in the pitch black desert, a few miles outside of Teheran.
          Obama, on the other hand, as been very fortunate indeed, with these
          make or break decisions. Navy seals rescued a merchant Captain,
          held by Somali pirates on the President’s order. The Bin Laden
          mission, resulted in an ecstatic group of Americans outside the
          White House, waving the American flag, and leading the Country in
          celebration! When was the last time that happened? George Washington was made President? At least as long as it been, since
          the Minority Party has chosen to filibuster every bill considered in
          the Senate. Making Obama’s problem, not so much a Republican
          one. But corralling errant, Conservative Democrats, that ought to
          have been caucusing with the Republicans. Many attacking Obama
          from the Left, fail to see the considerable obstruction coming from
          his own Party. The sad fact is, most of Congress is a wholly owned
          subsidiary of mega-corp, U.S.A. If he’s not as far Left as you would
          have him. Welcome to the club. But, before we criticize too much.
          Or, start using Right Wing talking points about Obama’s leadership,
          or lack of forcefulness, or comparisons with one term Democrats.
          We need to more closely inspect the obstacles he faces from his
          own Party, plus the solid block of a radicalized GOP.

        • marlane

          Did you see the movie: The Road? Money (biils) laying around the ground like dead leaves. Eventually that’s how it will all be for EVERYbody, Repubiclice included. Personally I’d prefer to be at ground zero, so I don’t have to endure this. Got a feeling it might happen in our lifetime.

      • Bill

        It is the GOP that wanted to use chained CPI for raises in Social Security, where have you been. What pisses me off is the President agreed to it and now the GOP said that’s not good enough.

        • patuxant

          guess you don’t see the strategy here…he knew they wouldn’t go for it and it is coming to pass….don’t know what the outcome will be, but it will be interesting to see old blustering Boner (yes I know how to spell) will get what he wants…he won’t

          • Bill

            I hope you are right but its harder to take something back than it is to give it. It was the middle class that reelected him and now he is throwing us under the bus!!!

      • Sand_Cat

        I hope no one’s defending Obama here, but the Republicans have made this mess, and he’s dead-set on getting out of it, even if he has to cave to them on everything.

      • charleo1

        Sooner, or later Betta, you’re going to have to face the truth
        about your Republican Party. It’s not the one you voted for back in
        ’68.

        • lostintheswamp

          ’68?? wow, i probably should have been kinder to him in my response …. i try to be nice to grumpy old men …

          • Betta

            swampmonster, what makes you think I’m a man?

        • Betta

          I’m NOT a Republican nor democrat. I am an independent free thinking common sense American CITIZEN, unlike your “messiah” Barry Soetero or whatever his name is.

      • stcroixcarp

        You are right. The GOP doesn’t want to cut our social security and medicare, it wants to eliminate it forever. Can you imagine the pot of money available to the ultra wealthy if corporations did not have to contribute the employers’ portion of social security to the government? How many trillions of dollars would that generate for “corporations are people my friend”,and their overpaid CEOs. Boehner is a first class ass!

        • patuxant

          Bravo!!!!

        • lostintheswamp

          not to mention everyone being forced to put their money into wall street ..retirement accounts, health care accounts …. all going to wall street

      • RobertCHastings

        Obama does not expect Boehner and the Tea Party to accept his budget proposal, so your assertion that Obama is asking for Social Security is, while semantically correct, philosophically WRONG. Asking for something knowing the other person will not agree is, basically, the equivalent of NOT asking for it. Obama is demonstrating to the public his willingness to compromise, while Boehner and the Tea Party, like Kim Jong Un, are painting themselves into a corner. This will play very well next year when there is another Congressional election.

        • lostintheswamp

          i hope you say this over and over again ….. it’s been my experience that the pres. always tries to do what’s right for the regular person, and i trust him still …. i’m amazed at how quickly dems turn against him – every time – before anything is even on the actual table … i think your take is correct espec. since the pres. is known for playing the long game …

          • Betta

            “and i trust him still”

            Your trust is sorely misplaced. Your screen name says it all.

          • Independent1

            At least today, the Dems have someone to put some trust in; the GOP is a total lost cause no matter what way you look at it. So if there’s anyone here that’s totally clueless Betta, it’s you!!!!!!!!

      • patuxant

        You need a course in reading between the lines….

      • lostintheswamp

        boehner and every republican has been calling for social security cuts for over 30 years ….they most certainly ARE asking for these cuts and are upset that more is not being offered …. maybe check your medication before railing at other people …. maybe check the facts too …

    • http://www.facebook.com/scott.ladd.16 Scott Ladd

      Ok Bill, you’re another of the un educated. You blame the GOP for everything Obama does.

      • whodatbob

        Scott, did you read the frist paragraph? Obviously you did not! Obama offered a compromise and Boehner said not enough cut entitlements (SS) more. All you tea baggers are after is genocide, starve the unclean poor. They are unworthy of saving. Not a very Christian. Very third world.

        • Sand_Cat

          Are you sure Scott can read? Sounds to me like all he can do is repeat what he hears on Fox.

          • whodatbob

            I was trying to play nice before telling him my real thoughts.

      • itsfun

        Can’t say Obama isn’t smart. Somehow he gets the left and the media to blame the GOP for his screw-ups. He loves the blame game, and then when that doesn’t work, he just plays the race card.

        • RobertCHastings

          Obama has, rightly so, blamed our economic condition on the excesses and mistakes of the George W Bush administration. Bush DOUBLED the national debt, left us in two wars which he had never intended ending, left us in the worst Recession this country has seen since the Great Depression, royally screwed up our standing with our allies, etc., etc. There is really no need to enumerate all of it since you would merely say that it is untrue. I can hear it now, “Bush didn’t get us into those wars, that was Bill Clinton’s fault, and the economic thing was due to deregulation during the Clinton administration, and those French fries are lousy allies anyway.” Did I leave anything out? Oh, sorry, I skipped “the race card”. And when did that one show up? Are you living in some alternate universe, or are you just in and out of LSD flashbacks?

          • lostintheswamp

            my experience is htat people get very bitter when they’re losing … so ‘itsfun’ isn’t having so much fun …

        • patuxant

          you must have your head where the sun doesn’t shine

        • lostintheswamp

          it’s a change to have a smart pres., no??

      • Bill

        Before you call me uneducated you should check your post, there is no space in uneducated. It would also help if you checked your facts before you attack other people.

        • marlane

          Look out, everybody, the spelling/grammar police have entered the building! Anyone in violation faces life w/o parole.

          • Bill

            I can see you didn’t read the posts so I’ll give you the same respect I give to Scott!!

      • RobertCHastings

        No, Scott dear, we are blaming the GOP for what the GOP is doing. There is a big difference, which you should be able to recognize if you were not so doctrinaire.

    • marlane

      The way things are going with 1 and 1/2″ Duck Dong in N. Korea, we’re all gonna be doin’ ‘SHROOMS in a minute anyway. Know ‘um sayann?

      • EQ4ALL

        no

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        I understand you perfectly. I agree.

    • Barbara Morgan

      Bill let the President know how you feel today by emailing the White House and telling him what you think of his plans for SS and Vet benefits, don’t just post it here.

      • Bill

        I have

        • EQ4ALL

          Great! Now if just 10% of the posters here would do the same and maybe take the time to go and VOTE in the next election, we might just make an impression!

    • EQ4ALL

      “throw” Bill. I wish ALL of Congress and the Prez would learn to “TAKE CARE OF HOME INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SUPPORT THE WORLD! WE CAN’T AFFORD IT ANYMORE! WAKE UP! Charity begins at home.

  • iamom4

    Talk to me about SS cuts when Congress cuts there benefits, perks, outrageous retirement plan, health benefits, automatic raises, etc.

  • wesley rasmussen

    Try an executive order holding Congressional pay until the entire body passes a fair and equitable budget plan. That includes a tax increase on those who have traditionally been sliding – rich people, multi-national companies, etc. Plus, cut the crap on the many medical insurance issues. All that does is extend the problems while they wait for the solution, and increase the cost by waiting.
    Hold back their pay, and see how long they can live and keep their jobs just on Rove money.

    • Betta

      Facebook made $1.1 BILLION dollars last year. because of aqll the freaking loopholes and finagling paid absolutely ZERO tax on that money. This is outrageous. If FB don’t have to pay then neither does anyone else.

    • http://twitter.com/rkief Richard Kiefer

      Good idea, Wesley, but members of Congress get a lot more from special interests than from their government salary, so our “public servants” too often opt for the former.

    • Barbara Morgan

      Most of the members of Congress wouldn’t even notice a cut in their pay or no pay because they are worth millions, that is the main reason that the Republicans want tax cuts for the rich because most of them are rich. Also the President can’t use an executive order to hold their pay until anything is done, according to the Constitution only Congress can vote for no pay until or a pay cut or raise and only Congress can set their pay, benefits and perks. A Constitutional law that needs changing along with an amendment that sets term limits for Congress members, and that lets the voters set their pay, benefits and perks not Congress itself then if they don’t the job they were elected to do they will be replaced when their term limit is up if they aren’t sent packing by voters before their term limits are up.

      • RobertCHastings

        All sound and reasonable proposals. Barbara Morgan for Congress!

  • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

    Maybe Obama should just start offering “executive blow jobs”. After all, he’s fucked all of us already.

    • charleo1

      Either quit drinking, or quit posting.

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        Dont read them if you dont like them, chump.

  • RNPRN

    Try canceling all federal retirement benefits and let employees and members of congress pay for their own retirement 100%. Cut their healthcare benefits, make them have Medicare when they retire, no more flight weekend trips home, you want to serve move to DC like in the olden days. REQUIRE a 40 hour week in congressional work, if no 40 hours of work, cut their pay!!

    • Betta

      Not only that, but stop ALL foreign aid, cut off welfare for all illegals. The list is too numerous to mention here.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gail-Williams/100003643423596 Gail Williams

        Welfare for illegals has already been cut off!

        • EQ4ALL

          Where did you get that idea??????????? Please cite documentation!!!

          • Independent1

            Check my comment to Betta above: Illegals were never authorized to receive welfare or social security benefits legally. Any illegal who is receiving welfare is doing so fraudulently just like thousands of others who are receiving the benefit via fraud. It has nothing to do with them being illegals. See in my comment to Betta the assistance illegals can receive legally (which is virtually all related to emergency type care.)

          • Sand_Cat

            I agree with you, but to be fair, Betta and others are probably confusing the benefits extended to illegal immigrants by several states with Federal assistance. I believe Texas – the crazy red state’s red state – extends in-state tuition to them at state colleges, and many states issue driver licenses and other documents that they probably shouldn’t get, at least technically. I was shocked when Rick Perry gave a rather eloquent defense of this policy during the debates: one of his rare good moments. Now that I think of it, one of the rare good moments in the Republican debates, period.

          • Independent1

            You’re probably right on both counts: they’re confusing benefits illegal immigrants get via some states as being benefitsallowed to all illegals via federal rules (which they’re not); and they’re also typical Republicans – just plain confused about reality in general; most Republicans are so used to hearing one lie after another from the people representing them that they can’t discern the truth when they hear it: the truth sounds to them like an impossible reality.

        • Betta

          No, it hasn’t been cut off. America is a shiny magnate for illegals because they know they can come here and get money, food, medical care and a phone for FREE on a silver platter. If you’re an American Citizen you can’t get these services if you don’t have a bunch of kids and one on the way, but illegals can get it and YOU pay for it. They don’t even need to speak English. I’m SICK of “for English press #1″. This is AMERICA. I should NOT have to press #1 to hear my own language in my own country! It is BS. Where’s the outrage?

          Can’t do this crap in Mexico. They have rules about people coming there and draining their resources. Deport ALL illegals and cut OFF their free money!

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            You are right, though I can’t prove it.

            Yep, talk to any of these foreigners that own a deli, ask them any serious questions, they’ll say; What?, I no understand English.

            Hint: They sure know the value of the dollar bill though.

          • Independent1

            Betta, are you sure you’re full time job isn’t writing the lies and distortion scripts of the GOP candidates during the last election?? Illegals can not legally receive welfare or Social Security payments. Any illegals who are receiving any government benefits beyond those listed below are doing it fraudulently just like thousands of non illegal Americans are fraudulently receiving SS payments; that’s all do to a breakdown in the SS system, it’s got nothing to do with favoring illegals.

            Here’s the assistance that illegals can receive legally:

            - Emergency medical care (which includes emergency labor and delivery)
            - Emergency disaster relief that is provided for the short term and is not a cash payment
            - Limited immunizations and testing, and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases
            - Certain community programs, such as soup kitchens or crisis counseling, as specified by the Attorney General
            - Limited housing or community development assistance to those already receiving it in 1996

            The above are the only circumstances under which illegal immigrants can lawfully receive government assistance. Notably absent from this list is any type of Social Security benefits. To repeat: Illegal immigrants cannot legally receive Social Security benefits, and Congress isn’t about to vote on legislation that would change that. Of course, some immigrants who are here without legal permission do end up receiving Social Security and other benefits, through bureaucratic mistakes or through deliberate fraud. The Government Accountability Office has even called this a “serious problem,” though the GAO also says that “the full extent of benefit fraud is unknown.” This problem draws the ire of conservative commentators and is sometimes distorted in Internet or e-mail postings to imply falsely that such payments are government policy.

      • Sand_Cat

        The foreign aid budget is less than 1% of the budget, and most of it is spent here. Big savings!

        • lostintheswamp

          the foreign aid budget is also used to keep other countries aligned with our interests …. foreign aid to yemen was withheld when yemen refused to support the iraq war … it’s rarely a gift, except, perhaps in natural disasters …

          • EQ4ALL

            Dear lost, it’s working real well with the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, LIBYA ETC…..Isn’t it?? Or is it???

          • Sand_Cat

            It seems you are the one who is lost in the jungle of Faux News claims. Despite what you hear there, our president is not a member of the Muslim brotherhood, and he didn’t secretly arrange for the murder of our consulate personnel in Libya. And – as shown below – you have no idea how much foreign aid the U.S. pays out.

          • EQ4ALL

            And where did you see that I said he was a Muslim?? And did you see that I said he had anyone killed? NOT! But now that you bring it up, HE did absolutely NOTHING to help them either! I also think some of you kids need to go to bed, it’s a school day tomorrow and with a little luck you may just learn something.

          • Sand_Cat

            I didn’t either, if you want to split hairs. You made your idiotic statements about the Muslim Brotherhood and Libya; I merely responded.

          • Independent1

            I’m sure EQ4ALL isn’t aware that our foreign aid is less than 1% of our budget and as a percent of our gross national income (GNI) is only about .21%; whereas the British governments foreign aid and that of several other European nations generally aveages about .5% of their GNI. So although we provide a lot of bucks, as a percent of our GNI it appears to many foreign countries as if we’re being stingy.

          • Independent1

            You really do need to stop listening to Faux News. Do you even realize that the four years under Obama were the safest four years for Americans in consulates and embassies in over 40 years? Do you even begin to understand the hypocracy of the GOP in making such a spectacle out of Benghazi?? Here, let me show you just how much of a disaster the last 3 GOP presidencies have been not only for our embassies and consulates overseas but also for America itself. During the last 4 GOP presidencies there have been more than 35 attacks on Americans at home and abroad. And believe it or not, 3 of the 12 attacks that occurred during the Bush disaster occurred in 1 consulate, the consulate in Karachi, Pakistan – and after each attack, the Bus administration did nothing to beef up security for that consulate. Why didn’t McCain, Graham of one of the other huge GOP hypocrites raise a question about that??? Because they’re nothing but HYPOCRITES!!!

            Here – look at this list and then question Benghazi!!!

            Embassy attacks during Bush years and other presidents

            -Under Obama, there were 2 attacks with 4 killed, 3 Americans including one Ambassador

            Bush Years there were 12 attacks with more than 3,300 deaths including more than 3,000 Americans:

            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 Americans killed
            . 2002- US Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.
            2003 – International Compound,Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .
            2003 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 2 killed.
            2004 – US Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.
            2004 – US Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.
            2006 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including US diplomat.
            2006 – US Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and13 wounded.
            2007 – Grenade launched into the US Embassyin Athens.
            2008 – US Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.
            2008 – US Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.
            2008 – US Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

            Also:
            -Under Clinton, there were six attacks including World Trade Center and USS Cole killing 304, including more than 50 Americans.
            – Under George HW Bush, there were 12 Embassy attacks with 60 being killed.
            – Under Reagan, there were 7 Embassies attacked with 31
            being killed including 17 Americans; not to mention 241 Marines killed in their barracks in Beirut Lebanon .
            – Under
            Carter there were 2 attacks with 2 deaths.
            – Under Nixon, 3 Embassies were attacked with 3
            killed.

            GOP total for last 4 presidents: 35 attacks on the homeland and abroad with more than 3,535 killed: including more than 3,300 Americans, and that doesn’t include more than 5,000 Americans killed in Afghanistan
            and Iraq. Many deaths that quite possibly could have been prevented if Bush and Cheney hadn’t totally ignored the CIA’s 7 warnings that an al Qaeda attack on the homeland was imminent ; and had they not started the Iraq war based on liesand distortions.

          • Betta

            Pay a country to do the right thing? I think not.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            We been paying off countries forever in the hope they will be our “friends”.

          • Independent1

            Why are you all getting into foreign aid being a ‘Pay Off”?? Providing foreign aid is not only the right thing to do, it helps our national security and a study a few years back showed that America gets about $4 in economic benefit for ever $1 we provide in foreign aid: so it’s also a good investment: Here’s an excerpt from an article you may find enlightening:

            The US is one of the big spenders on official development assistance in gross dollar terms, but when measured according to donors’ national income (GNI), it comes across as stingy. According to OECD figures from 2009, Britain’s development assistance was about 0.5% of GNI while in the US it was at 0.21%.

            Cutting the aid budget, as many of the more conservative Republicans in the house would like to do, is wrong for many reasons. There is the obvious moral issue, but such cuts also threaten Washington’s reputation abroad, undermine foreign policy objectives and defeat the very fiscal objectives Republicans seek to achieve.

            The Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates put it in simple terms last week: “The 1% we spend on aid for the poorest not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing economies – which means it has an impact on our economy.”

            President George W Bush saw the value of foreign assistance and launched the biggest programme to combat Aids and malaria. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, has also been a champion of foreign assistance, urging Congress to sustain civilian-led aid programmes, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

            Gates’s message, and that of many of the military brass, is that cutting aid jeopardises US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.

            There are tensions over the use of national security logic to justify development assistance, especially within the US NGO community. The Obama administration has aligned the millennium development goals (MDGs) as “America’s goal”, and this focus on poverty and vulnerable populations is reflected in a new official development policy – the first government-wide development strategy since the Kennedy administration. To ward off cuts, groups defending foreign assistance use three frames: national security, the economy and compassion.

          • Sand_Cat

            It’s not always the right thing we pay them to do. All too often, it’s the opposite.

          • jgsoliveira

            Here we go! They didn’t go for these weapons of mass destruction that never did materialized, so we punish them under the “aligned with our interests”. Under that premise we overturned democratic elected governments (Iran, Columbia, you name it!). Our interests are called BIG OIL! And now “our interests” seem to be invade Iran. (Read again: BIG OIL). The fact that thousands of USA troops die is besides the matter, I guess.

          • lostintheswamp

            i agree with you completely …..’aligned with our interests’ was my feeble attempt at being diplomatic … i don’t think it’s just big oil either … i think of precious metals and the debacle caused by the u.s. in the republic of congo all those years ago … money and power are always the motivators …

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I agree with you completely.

        • Betta

          Even if it were half of a percent of the budget, it gets cut to smitherines. Oh, and Facebook needs to pay the taxes on the $1.1 BILLION the company made last year. Did you see the report where FB paid no taxes on that much money? Meanwhile Americans are taking home $40/week less than last year. Obama raised the payroll taxes on the middle class who can ill afford it. You see nothing wrong with this picture? I sure do.

          • Dennis Knebel

            Betta…..Obama simply requested those payroll taxes be CUT by 2% to help your sorry ass. When it was done it was known by everyone (except you) that it was a temporary move only.

          • Independent1

            Dennis, Obama wanted to extend those cuts for one more year but Boehner insisted that the cuts be recinded for the middle class if he was going to lower his demand that recinding the tax cuts for the wealthy be lowered from only affecting those earning over $1,000,000 down to $400,000. Eliminating the SS tax breaks WAS NOT what Obama wanted to do- he allowed it as a compromise to Boehner to get something passed.

          • Sand_Cat

            I couldn’t agree more that those who escape taxation on huge amounts of income should be forced to pay. Unfortunately, you apparently don’t realize that “Obama” didn’t raise payroll taxes on anybody: the Republicans refused to extend the payroll tax holiday Obama got passed for the middle class. Not that such gestures helped Social Security’s solvency.

          • Independent1

            You’re absolutely right – Obama wanted to continue the SS tax breaks for one more year but Boehner insisted if he was going to agree to the tax cut being recinded for those earning over $400,000.

          • Independent1

            Sorry again Betta, but it was not Obama that raised taxes on the middle class it was Boehner!! Boehner only agreed to Obama’s demand that the Bush tax cuts be recinded on those earning over $400,000, if Obama would agree to give up the Social Security tax breaks he was pushing to keep in place (Boehner had wanted the Bush Tax cuts to only be recinded for those earning over $1,000,000 while Obama had wanted it recinded for those earning over $250,000.) So if you’re not pleased that the Social Security tax breaks were also recinded, send Boehner a nasty note.
            You seem to be pressing awfully hard to support the GOP, when the GOP has probably done absolutely nothing that would benefit you in the past 100 years, unless of course you’re in the 1-2% of the wealthiest Americans. Aside from Eisenhower pushing for the interstate highway system, the GOP has done absolutely nothing that favors America the country since Teddy Roosevelt was in office in the early 1900s. I defy you to come up with one truely beneficial thing they’ve done aside from passing a gratus tax cut for you while they were in the process of passing tax cuts that were a huge benefit for the already wealthy.
            Just think, if the GOP had had it’s way over the past 100 years, America would have had more recessions (the GOP dominates in recessions caused over the past 100 years including one Big Depression and one Great Recession). And if a GOP president had been in office the whole time, there probably wouldn’t even be a 1-2% of the wealthy, because the stock market performance during the 40 years the GOP has been in power since the big depression has a cumulutive investment rate of .4%: do you know what that means? If 10,000 had been invested in the stock market right after the market crash the GOP manufactured in 1929, that 10,000 over those 40 years would have grown to the astounding amount of $11,700. How many rich people do you think that dysmal investment rate would have created?
            And just think, had the GOP been in office the past 100 years, there would be no Social Security, No Medicare, no 401K investment vehicle, no companies would have ever offered pensions because the GOP would have outlawed unions as they’re doing in many states today and it was Unions that pushed companies to offer pensions. So had the GoP been in power over the past 100 years, America would look today like a 3rd world nation; in fact Germany may well be today what America is, because America would not have had the money or abilit to have fought the 2nd world war. There would be milions more homeless without the guarantees of Social Security payments, pensions and 401K retirement accounts and Americans would be dying younger because they would have limited access to healthcare. The GoP would have created one disaster after another for America. So once again Betta, tell me all these wonderful things the GOP has done for BETTA!!!

        • EQ4ALL

          Do you have any sources for your claim?????

          • Sand_Cat

            If you aren’t aware of the facts, or you dispute them, look it up yourself: surveys consistently show that those complaining about excessive foreign aid who are asked what a reasonable level would be almost always name figures that are 3-4 times as high as the actual level. Those who aren’t troglodytes who think we should cut ourselves off completely.

          • EQ4ALL

            I believe its YOUR obligation to substantiate your wild claims!

          • Sand_Cat

            I have made no “wild claims,” and I have no obligation to the willfully ignorant.

        • jgsoliveira

          It’s a start. And they ould not be using our tax $ to finance the killing of Palestinians or support dictatorships, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

      • EQ4ALL

        That’s the BEST suggestion I’ve heard in this whole blog!!! You’ve got MY vote!! Betta for Prez!

        • Betta

          I really do wish they would let me run things for 90 days. There would be sweeping changes all for the good of We The People! I have a “Go to jail and do not pass go” list to start the party off right. Guess who tops the list?

          Obamaphones get turned off next and all the extra money YOU had to pay so illegals and leeches could get a phone, you would get that money back. Not as a credit, but a real check. Where would the money come from? From the thieves, liars and whores in CONgress when I confiscate ALL their bank accounts, pensions, homes, cars, etc and any other money they got. They get to live on Main street with the rest of us.

          The Goal: Return to Our Constitutional Republic and all that it entails.

          Oh, by the way. I sent for my birth certificate and received it yesterday. I can PROVE I’m an American Citizen as are BOTH of my parents.

          Lets put BO’s birth certificate next to mine and see where the rubber meets the road. HINT: Mine ain’t photoshopped.

          • lostintheswamp

            obamaphones were started by ronald reagan … and no one with a brain gives a damn about birth certificates, particularly not yours….

          • Independent1

            I don’t think America would survive for two weeks with you trying to run it: forget about 90 days.

          • Sand_Cat

            Maybe the Republicans would be driven to seek “Second Amendment solutions” :-)

          • Independent1

            Yeah! Betta as president probably would constitute the need for the states to mobilize their militas and maybe fullfill the fears of some during Madison’s time that in desperation the states may have to fight for their everloving continued existence. :-)

      • Independent1

        Betta, you may be surprised to learn from the following excerpt from a news article in the British newspaper The Gaurdian, that George Bush was a big proponent of foreign aid. Aside from the potential economic benefit to the U.S. of getting about $4 back for each $1 of aid we provide, this article may give posters here a little different viewpoint on providing foreign aid:

        The US is one of the big spenders on official development assistance in gross dollar terms, but when measured according to donors’ national income (GNI), it comes across as stingy. According to OECD figures from 2009, Britain’s development assistance was about 0.5% of GNI while in the US it was at 0.21%.

        Cutting the aid budget, as many of the more conservative Republicans in the house would like to do, is wrong for many reasons. There is the obvious moral issue, but such cuts also threaten Washington’s reputation abroad, undermine foreign policy objectives and defeat the very fiscal objectives Republicans seek to achieve.

        The Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates put it in simple terms last week: “The 1% we spend on aid for the poorest not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing economies – which means it has an impact on our economy.”

        President George W Bush saw the value of foreign assistance and launched the biggest programme to combat Aids and malaria. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, has also been a champion of foreign assistance, urging Congress to sustain civilian-led aid programmes, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

        Gates’s message, and that of many of the military brass, is that cutting aid jeopardises US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.

        There are tensions over the use of national security logic to justify development assistance, especially within the US NGO community. The Obama administration has aligned the millennium development goals (MDGs) as “America’s goal”, and this focus on poverty and vulnerable populations is reflected in a new official development policy – the first government-wide development strategy since the Kennedy administration. To ward off cuts, groups defending foreign assistance use three frames: national security, the economy and compassion.

    • Justin Napolitano

      Congress pays into Social Security and Medicare and has been since 1983. Try to get current.

      • Sand_Cat

        Yeah, but by the time they get through, none of them will actually need it.

      • Bill

        Congress doesn’t care that much about Social Security because they will get their pay for life as a pension, but they will still apply for it.

      • DurdyDawg

        So what your saying is that Dubya gets a lifetime pension from (1) being govner of tex ass, (2) being prez of the u s of a AND receive social security in order to pay off what ever his medicare doesn’t cover.. Wow, you don’t have to be a corrupt dildo to get into politics but it certainly doesn’t hurt. I’m wondering if he also filed for unemployment when he was finally booted out..

      • Anna Drake

        NO they don’t pay into SS. They have life time Congressional income. They don’t have same health plan as most of us do or have through employer and your own pay. WE PAY. Presidents do not collect SS either. They have a lifetime Presidential pay with adjustments. Look it up and get educated.

        NOW U people voted for these idiots (both parties live with it. You bought their BS you got it. WH become a nursing home for most of them. It’s time to retire ALL of them and the TEA Baggers who are taking us back to 14 th Century civilization. Obviously most of you have the mInnessota and Kentucky syndrome – voted for Bachmann and MCConnel a like or some like Rick Perry, Scott Walker (Wisconsin is on the bottom pole now and so is NJ with fat boy that people still buy his BS and think he is doing it all for them (yeah the rich one). Most of people just gullible and money is power, lack of eduction and understanding words make them win every time because NOBODY wants to take time to read, comprehend or they just vote party line.
        Republicans would crucify Jesus for his liberal views. Help the poor – their motto Help the rich and discard the poor.
        Next time vote with brain. Use it wisely what God gave you.

        • Independent1

          Sorry Anna, but members of congress do pay into Social Security. When they retire they can choose one of 4 retirement plans. Their seleclion of plans is dependent on when they were first voted into Congress. Here’s what they are required to pay from the Congressional CSR Reports:

          Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($97,500 in 2007). Members covered by FERS also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $97,500 of salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

          Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

          As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

    • Barbara Morgan

      Unfortunely the only ones that can do what most of us would like to see done about pay, benefits and so on are the members of Congress due to the way the Constitution is written. All we can do is to work on getting that law changed by an amendment to the Constitution and getting an amendment passed to set term limits for Congress like there is for the President and have it include that Congress does not get any pay raises, benefits and perks unless voted on and approved by the voters of the Country and not Congress.We can’t even cancel their pension deal where they can draw a pension for life if they only service 5 years in Congress when everyone else has to work in private jobs for at least 20 or more years to draw a pension if the company you work offers one.. The voters can’t even stop the spending of our tax money on their fights back and forth to DC twice a week nor paying for their trips to go to other states to campaign for other party members nor their use of military planes(which cost us more) instead of commerical flights when they make these trips.

    • lostintheswamp

      agreed,…. if they were paid what they’re worth, we’d save a bundle …

  • RNPRN

    Obama is throwing retirees under the bus. F*ck the Republicans.

    • http://www.facebook.com/scott.ladd.16 Scott Ladd

      As I look at your statement, I often wonder what you people know. I guess nothing!

      • Sand_Cat

        We know you’re a moron troll who is more responsible for the problem than “Barry,” since you voted for the creeps who force him to offer the concessions.

  • leadvillexp

    I am a Republican and don’t know where to go. The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor. There is no one for the middle class. We need a new party. Both parties are in bed together. We can spend billions in other countries but not at home. In New York they cut mental health aid and breast cancer screening aid to build a luxury box in a Buffalo stadium and bring the Late Night Show to NYC. A real laugh is they will give all famlies with a child $350 in 2014, an election year. That money is being raised by a tax on our energy bills. It is all smoke and mirrors. Now they want to cut Social Security. That was supposed to finance it self until the government started stealing from it. The whole lot should be fired and replaced by farmers. They can keep a farm running on almost nothing and are true Americans. Only problem is they most likely wouldn’t take the job.

    • whodatbob

      As a middle class American I agree neither party has our interest in focus. My take for what it is worth is both want to take my money, taxes. I would to keep my money, but it isn’t going to happen. I’ll pay my fair share. The republicans want to give my money to those who have more then I, the rich, so they do not have to pay their fair share. The democrates want to give my money to those less forturenate then I, the poor, to relieve some of burdon. I still would prefer to keep my money, ain’t gona’ happen. But helping the poor seems better then helping the rich.

      • RobertCHastings

        It IS better, and much more in keeping with the teachings of both Christ AND Muhammed.

      • lostintheswamp

        please see response to leadvillxp, above …. your last sentence is the truth …

    • lostintheswamp

      to be fair, farms get millions in subsidies …..
      but, if you are having problems of not knowing whether to pick the party for the rich or the party for the poor .. pick the party of the poor ….. you may not be happy in an earthly way, but you will feel a divine righteousness that cannot be duplicated …. picking the party for the rich will only have you feeling like a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle …. you could get queasy, and for sure you’ll be stuck for eternity in that uncompromising position ….
      if i haven’t convinced you yet, please know that the party for the poor, knows what really counts in life, and that is having cocktails and cookies and gladly sharing them with anyone who cannot afford them ….. that, my friend makes for a happy life ..

      • whodatbob

        Well said!

  • http://www.facebook.com/walker.pierson.5 Walker Pierson

    I AGREE. STOP CALLING IT AN ENTITLEMENT AND WHAT IT REALLY IS AN EARNED BENEFIT.

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      Yes, it is an “earned” Entitlement!

      We earned it. We are Entitled to it, lock, stock and barrel.

      Actually, we the people, are entitled to every single thing we can get out of the government by right of birth and/or citizenship because if we the people didn’t support it in one way or the other, sometimes with our lives, we the people wouldn’t have a government in the first place and we certainly wouldn’t have this country.

      Case closed!

    • Independent1

      It appears from the fact that you got 27 thumbs up that there are a lot of posters on the National Memo that don’t realize that Social Security and Medicare are Entitlements as Michael K described for you. The confusion is created by the GOP purposely using the term ‘Entitlements’ when they talk about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI and other free benefits – when the truth is that Medicaid, SSI and other free benefits are WELFARE not ENTITLEMENTS!! They’re WELFARE because they’re free. We have to pay to get the benefit of entitlements.

  • http://www.facebook.com/johnnie.dorman Johnnie Dorman

    Boehner needs a good sock in the face. The idiots ruined our economy, now all they do is get in the way of fixing it. I absolutely abhor these right wing, bought and paid for by the rich, un-American trash pigs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/scott.ladd.16 Scott Ladd

      Do any of you assholes know how to read. Obama wants to cut SS, nor the GOP.

      • awakenaustin

        I bothe read and understand the English language. Boehner does not beleive the cuts are large enough. Does you momma know you have such a potty mouth?

      • whodatbob

        Read first paragraph! Bonghole wants more. You are the asshole!

      • Barbara Morgan

        We read and know that the President is making this offer in order to get the Republicans to start comprising which they will never do and is why they all need to be voted out of office. In a way it is a smart move on the President ‘s part because it really shows that the Republicans aren’t interested in cutting spending they just want to keep on giving tax cuts and making more tax loopholes for the rich and to hell with everything else. Boehmner has admitted several times on different Sunday news programs that we do not have a debt problem now and that spending cuts can wait so what does the Republicans want, they want tax cuts for their rich selves and rich other halfs and all their their rich friends and backer so they never pay taxes and that the 98% of us pay for needs of the Country while they set back and enjoy the protection and everything else that the rest of us pay for.

      • Sand_Cat

        You have your head up yours, friend.

      • http://www.facebook.com/charles.richardson.3939 Charles Richardson

        So the GOP do not want to cut ss ?No they want to cut more than Obama idiot.It takes an asshole to know an asshole that’s the point

      • RobertCHastings

        Do YOU know how to read, asshole? What does the fucking article say, or was it in some language you don’t understand? Obama did not MAKE the cuts to Social Security, he merely include it in his budget PROPOSAL,which is not law. Since Boehner (and your apparent BFF’s the Tea Party) have refused it out of hand it WILL NOT become law, and will thus not happen. Brush up on your comprehension skills, shit brain.

      • DurdyDawg

        That’s right Laddy boy, as a last gesture of cooperation Obama himself has offered to do some hacking on a program that no one who re-elected him wants touched and yet, Boner and the Rethugs say, “THAT’S STILL NOT ENOUGH!!”.. In short, these assholes (as you brought it up) wants one thing and one thing only.. They want it to be a ‘White’ house again..

      • raptorh56

        I don’t think they know how..

      • CPAinNewYork

        No, dum dum. Obama wants to reduce future increases. Boehner wants to reduce or eliminate present benefits in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Got it?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Genevieve-Vanasco/1113502687 Genevieve Vanasco

        Fox talking heads are filling you with their misinformation. Who is passinng the bills? Who is blocking all the bills? Education is important. So are the facts. The President is trying to get anything passed. He is giving up part of his income to help those that are being hurt but the GOP lack of action. The GOP make 175,000 with full benefits, what are they doing to help our vets for example?.

      • ococoob

        Excuse me?! You are you calling asshole here?!!

      • tobyspeeks

        Pot-kettle

      • Jill49

        Yes we can read – Boehner wants to cut it more.

      • Archie’s Boy

        At first glance it *looked* like Obama was caving to the right wing. I believe he took a hell of a risky gamble by offering the SS cut, pretty much knowing that the right wing wouldn’t accept it, not wanting to be blamed for it. After all, they don’t want to be voted out of office in the next election cycle.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeanne.rossi.940 Jeanne Rossi

      Agee with you Johnnie and all the liberals’ comments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.ladd.16 Scott Ladd

    After reading the comments here, I can see why we are in trouble. Barry is destroying our country, and you fools are too blind to see it, soooo you blame the GOP. when Barry is done with us, we’ll be lucky to be able to eat. Being ignorant, you’ll still blame the GOP.

    • http://www.facebook.com/omgamike1789 Michael Whitehead

      Yep, you’re right. I will always blame the GOP. Obama put that “concession” out knowing that it would be rejected, as it wouldn’t have a chance of passing the Senate. You would make a lousy chess player.

      • Bill

        Trouble is if they do come to an agreement it will still be there. First I have the GOP going after my benefits and now the President agrees with them!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gail-Williams/100003643423596 Gail Williams

      Pitiful ! Study what they have done!

    • Barbara Morgan

      I will always blame the Republicans because I have already been a victim of their economic policies twice.First time was when I got laid off from work because of Reagan’s trickle down policy and the big tax cut he gave the rich to help create jobs instead people were laid off and all the rich did was get rich. I was laid off after Bush 2′s second round of tax cuts, little ones for the working people and big ones for the rich. I used all my retirement savings, unemployment benefits and still didn’t have another job 18 months later because no one was hiring they were either sending jobs overseas, shutting down permantley or laying off workers everyday, I finally had to apply for disability like my doctor had been trying to get me to do for 6 years and until it was approved would have been homeless, starving and without medical care if it hadn’t been for my siblings helping as much as they could and who through they told not to I paid them back the money that they gave me to survive and have a roof over my head., We are not the ones that are ignorant you are if you think the Republicans give a flip about you and anyother person that isn’t worth a millon or more dollars. The only time they care is on election and after you have voted for them you no longer exist as far as they are concerned. If the Republicans cared about anyone but the rich they would help close the tax loopholes that allow Big Companies pay to no taxes yet get tax refund checks from the IRS each year, they would stop Coporate welfare for businesses that don’t need it instead they fight tooth ans nail to keep the loopholes and to keep the welfare going to big businessess that don’t create jobs with all this extra money instead they use part of it to pay hugh salaries and bonuses to the CEO’s and upper management.

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        They couldnt have done it without democRAT support.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alfred.sonnenstrahl Alfred Sonnenstrahl

    Are Boehner and his friends harboring money cartels?

  • http://www.facebook.com/szymanski1994 Ronald Szymanski

    they want to save money stop sending it to all these oter amn countries!! time for the rich to feel some pain like the poor, there is no such thing as middle class anymore, i don’t who they are trying to fool. its about time both parties pull togther and fix the united states and screw these other countries!! i think they all should be voted out and put some poor peoplein there they will show them jerks how to save money.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Denis-Winkle/100003193604251 Denis Winkle

    Why isn’t Ohio recalling this corporate fascist and bought politician. I’m surprised he hasn’t sold his mother to china for cheap labor. Much less his children and grand children. I wonder if he steals his mothers’ S.S check in order to pay Grover Norquist back? In the money he borrow from him. But I guess it is easier to deny his constitutional oath. In signing a Pledge laid against “We the People”. Awaiting a high paid job when we leaves!

    • http://twitter.com/rkief Richard Kiefer

      “Corporate Fascist” is right, Dennis, and that definition could fit many of our (mostly Republican) legislators, as well as many of our Supremely Corporate Court justices.

  • patuxant

    f-u Boner! You want your wealthy pals to ride the tide of riches on the backs of those who put you there! ? Go to hell!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000090722626 Mary Oyewole

    OK, there are other ways, first, SS is not an entitlement, if it is, then pay back all that was deducted from my check while working, Deduct same amount from the Congress members, stop congressional housing, transport, meals, medical, entertainment. I struggle to maintain mortgage, congresspersons have at least 2 abodes, paid for by government. Go figure. Boehner is going to oppose ANYTHING from the President, that’s the GOP agenda. They are punishing the President for winning a first and second term. But they forget, they have constituents who will suffer. Why is John Boehner still on this planet. Think about the masses, not your hatred of the President! Can’t understand why SS is an item anyway when there are so many other projects which can/should be abolished. WHY??

    • Sand_Cat

      They haven’t forgotten that their constituents would suffer; they never cared about any but the rich ones who won’t suffer in the first place!

    • http://www.facebook.com/ann.crownover Ann Crownover

      Because the GOP have wanted to do away with SS from the day it was created. Apparently they don’t like programs that also benefit the poor and middle class.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alfred.sonnenstrahl Alfred Sonnenstrahl

    Republicans who harbor money addicts would disagree any Obama’s comment even if he claims that water is wet.

  • marlane

    It IS an entitlement…I put it there and now I’m ENTITLED to have it back. Imagine all the interest the government has made off our money that we WON’T get back. But YA know…they’re “entitled” to it. uh huh..

  • gahoof

    I’ve just about had it with the GOP crowd, and I’m a registered Republican. I have a feeling that a lot of moderates (what’s left of us, anyway) are feeling the same way.

    I’d say Boehner and company are digging their own grave.

    • charleo1

      Well, there you go! If more Republicans would get on board, we could
      jerk a knot in some of the Democrat’s tails, that are helping the GOP to
      screw 99% of the Country. You know, we don’t demand 100% purity of
      our Dems. But, I think a lot of us expect them to support the Party platform.
      Which does include raising the cap on SS, not cutting the benefits.
      And leaving Medicare a guaranteed benefits program. And not a private
      for profit, government subsidized, program they could easily defund.
      Can you imagine being 75, and the health plan the private market would
      offer?

    • RobertCHastings

      My father passed away in 1991, a born and bred lifetime Republican. My former father in law passed away two years ago, another born and bred lifetime Republican, but he changed his party affiliation about five years before he passed away. The husband of my wife’s cousin was also a born and bred lifetime Republican, who also changed his affiliation about five years ago. It’s hard to reconcile that I know at least two people who voted for Ronald Reagan AND Barack Obama. Where do you think that came from? The Republican party is not your father’s Republican party. Had my father not passed in 1991, I have no doubt he, also, would have supported Obama.

    • CPAinNewYork

      I’m also a registered Republican and I’m fed up with the extremists who have taken over the party. I hope that Boehner and company are digging their graves, because I hope they get voted out of office.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5UJAV2WHSCEZAS53GMI6HQYADU Valerie A

    The repukes are for robbing all the programs that benefit the poor. I lost one pension and the state of Illinois is teying to steal the other one. All I need is for Onbama to give away my SS. 55 years working and now you want to take what was promised to me? I think not. I just wish I was still young enough for combat because I would do my best to start a revolution over this one. Fuck em all the long and the short and the tall fuck em all.

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      They couldnt have done it without democRAT support.

  • Master Blaster

    The real problem is the congress borrowed trillions from SS and now they want to cut benefits to avoid paying back what they wasted of OUR MONEY pay up you deadbeats !

  • adriancrutch

    This Harvard Law School educated President is playing a dangerous game! S.S. is solvent for the next 20 years and longer if they’d put the money back that Reagan stole!

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      He couldnt have stolen it without democRAT support.

      • Sand_Cat

        He also wasn’t the only one. Unfortunately, I think it’s been “borrowed” on a bipartisan basis, at least since Reagan.

  • jstsyn

    F Boner

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      F obama.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.cofrancesco.7 Richard Cofrancesco

    Cut his retirement !

  • ralphkr

    I would like to point out that calling SS an entitlement was first done by Democrats meaning that people who pay into SS are entitled to collect but the Republicans have jumped on the term ‘entitlement’ to make it into a dirty word meaning ‘welfare’.

    Since SS is a trust fund it should not even be remotely involved in annual federal budgeting other than to force the government to return money to the SS fund.

    I started paying into SS in the 1940s but I do not qualify for SS or Medicare because of too many years wasted in the military, LEO, and other exempt jobs. I would add that I hope to never collect SS because my current pension is set up to be reduced by over $2 for every $1 of SS benefits. They claim that this is to protect SS funds but they do not give the money to SS but keep it for them selves.

  • Sand_Cat

    Good reason to support neither of them!

  • Barbara Morgan

    Everyone let your representive and senators know that we know why they are calling Social Security and Medicare entitlements now because they can no longer use these funds as their own personal piggy banks like they have ever since the programs was started. Also let them know that even if they don’t realize it that between seniors, Vets and the disable on SS and their families we have a lot of votes and will use them against them in 2014 if anything is done that takes money away from us to try and get the Republicans to comprise on anything amd will be used to get every Republican out of office we can in 2014. They aren’t going to do it, they would rather see this Country destoried than do anything that will help the Country and make the President look good. I have seen a lot of politicans in the years gone by but I have never before 2009 seen such uncaring, coldhearted hating, and willing to destory this Country to get their way than this batch of today’s Republican-Tea Party politicans both on the Federal and state level government. Everyday they show how much they hate the majority of the people in this Country by their words and actions .

  • José Raymond Herrera

    Boehner got finally the message. It was time. And Obama… Ah!…better stop bending and caving. It’s also time.

    • Sand_Cat

      For Obama: way, way past time!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeanne.rossi.940 Jeanne Rossi

    This guy Boehner is a disgrace and all his cronies are, too. Let’s start a campaign to tell people what these guys stand for and get them the h— out of office in 2014. A lot of people believe the bull—- these guys are slinging. Soooo many people just do not understand and vote against their own interests. They either don’t know or don’t care where this country is heading. The republications are only acting this way because they lost the election and just cannot stand that a black man beat them. It is all racist. There is no other way to explain their attitude, but they will pay a price for their actions.
    .

  • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

    Perhaps it is time that we demand our money back with interest, AT GUN POINT.

  • patuxant

    A whole lot of shakin’ goin’ on here. I think Obama’s proposal is an attempt to call the bastards’ bluff. We all know ( anyone in their right mind ) that SS is NOT (heard me???NOT) a frigging entitlement. I put money into the system for over 45 years. I won’t live long enough to get most of it back. Shouldn’t somebody be asking to have the funds taken out of it to repay it back for Jeebus’ sake? Come on people! Don’t you see what these a-holes are doing to us? All their offshore accounts and big- for-profits laughing all the way? Greasing palms is what it is all about. In the end they will suffer and live in torment because they are screwing their fellow man.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ann.popeguy Ann Pope Guy

    John Boehner hate of the President is causing the America’s economy to fall and hurting the American people, but he does not care as long as he get his way. Remember what he said “I got what I wanted”. About the Sequester last year when it was put in place. I will be glad when the 2014′s election come I and a lot of other Americans are going to raise up and go to the polls and vote Boehner out or take away his power of stopping Congress from doing it’s job. John Boehner could not make President Obama a one term President so now he intend to stop our goverment from doing the people business.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    President Obama should have known better. The GOP goal is not to curtail Social Security benefit increases by tying them to inflation, but to privatize the program. The same goes for MEDICARE, their goal is not modest cuts, but to dismantle the program in its entirety.

  • Gary Parsons

    Republicans are pure Anti-American! They say that Dems cannot compromise, Obama is doing just that, But these arseholes say its NOT enough???? and deeper SS cuts are needed?
    I hope the seniors in Ohio wake up very soon and vote this arsehole out of government or they will be voting themselves out onto the streets! Seniors and disabled cannot afford any further cuts just so the ubber wealthy can have more cuts!
    Republican philosophy – To create jobs you gotta throw mama and papa under the bus and give all their money to the ubber wealthy. Only one major problem with that. You take that much spending power away from the people, no one spends…what happens? Further job LOSSES and more jobs just offshore to other countries..They won’t be hurting at all.
    Timed to put he death nail into the republican party of traitors!

  • Gary Parsons

    If North Korea don’t start WW-III. The Republicans definitely will!! Obama only wants to make “modest” cuts to Medicare and SS, But the Arsehole Republicans want more?!
    Go ahead you idiot republicans, cut out our seniors to the point of the streets and you’ll bring WW-III here to the USA yourselves, we won’t need NK, Iran or any of those terrorist organizations around the world to do it.
    You republicans are doing it just fine , on your own!…America already has TWO terrorist organizations / parties trying to destroy america. They are called the Tea Party and the Republican Party!

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    What the Emperor Norquist and his buddies in the GOP really want is to get their syrupy mitts on ALL SS, Medicare and Medicaid funds we pay out of EVERY pay period. Do they have this right? You bet not. What’s the answer? If they try to take deductions from paychecks with no valid purpose other than to confiscate it, they are guilty of malfeasance of government funds. They owe you every dime you EVER paid into SS.

    The real reason the GOP has hated SS since FDR created it is simple. Piles of money the GOP sees would be in far better hands of the Wall Street Madoffers. Those regular payroll deductions would make it a Worry Free Wall Street for everyone but those losing their payroll tax deductions. You have no guarantee, as people did before the Crash of 1929, that the GOP would make good with any sense of honor on the payroll deductions you’ve paid. You earned it. You have to fight for what really belongs to you…not the government.

    All the GOP has ever wanted was to get rid of SS and replace it with privatized accounts in the hands of Wall Street Madoffers. They know why…their little game is about to crumble now that those offshore accounts in the Caymans, Cook Islands and even in Manchuria are about to be investigated. Huge loss of their moolah..so now…they want yours.

  • agnessue

    no matter what the President proposes the Republicans will be against it. Pure obstruction.

  • CPAinNewYork

    The battle lines are drawn. Let’s wait until subsequent elections and wash the Republicans out of office.

  • robertbenefiel@att.net

    Does anyone believe if we had a vote to create Social Security today, that the bill would pass Congress today. No, the Republicans would fillibuster, Social Securty, Medicare, Medicad, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Health Care, Highway System, Hoover Dam, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights, repeal of slavery, etc., etc.

  • jgsoliveira

    The same people who criticize Congress for not getting along are the same people who insult each other.

  • labman57

    The Republican concept of compromise — a key component of any meaningful negotiation — is for the opposition to discard their own beliefs and completely embrace the conservative point of view.

    Case in point — Congressional Republicans demand that Democrats accept a fiscal component that conservatives regard as essential and progressives oppose (namely, significantly modifying or eliminating Medicare and/or Social Security) while simultaneously insisting that Democrats completely abandon an economic tenet that progressives (and virtually all nonpartisan economists) deem essential to any long-term budget plan (i.e., increasing revenues through eliminating corporate tax breaks and loopholes and raising taxes on investment income of the wealthiest Americans).

  • Pamby50

    Stop trying for the grand bargain. It is never going to happen. The republicans will never agree to revenue at all. Why should we give up everything for nothing. Just stop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/omgamike1789 Michael Whitehead

    The only way we will be able to stop these people and their idiotic ideas, is through grass roots activism. We need to band together like the black people did during the civil rights era. Take to the streets and make our voices heard. Change from the bottom up!

  • docb

    If President Obama proposes , using reverse psychology, he can be assured that the repub baggers will oppose! Even when it was their idea..but they had not the guts to put it out there!

    It is amusing watching these gutless repub wonders twist on the fish hook of their own making..if it were not so pitiful and anti-American.

  • option31

    Why is SS/Medicare even being discussed? People were required to pay into it and should get their money back – that was a promise made by the government, LOL as if the government never lied before and this is the only time… Their are other places to cut, quit buying billions of rounds of ammo, invading foreign countries, droning them, stop buying foreign leaders off, quit bailing out banks that make bad decisions, stop all foreign aid and take care of our own.

  • Jill49

    I just can’t stand Boehner and because of him, I probably will never vote for a Republican again. I wonder why from 2001 when U.S. started war in Afghanastan and then 2003 started war in Iraq – all those years and there was never a word from Boehner and his kind with concern about paying for these wars. Just how do they think war gets paid for – he ignored that and then stomps and screams and slams his fist 10 years later when war has racked up 11 trillion in debt. Perhaps next time Congress wants war, they should only do so if they impose a war tax on all so that everyone will know the costs of war and not just those who actually serve in war.

  • Archie’s Boy

    Looks like Oby’s risky chess gambit paid off: Boehner blinked…

  • julia john

    I read your blogs
    regularly. Your humoristic way is amusing, continue the good work!

    vivint reviews

scroll to top