Mainly, they don’t Obama to succeed in ANYTHING!!

The poor/middle class that vote Republican are deceived by the Republican Party believing that they will care for them because they share the same ‘values’ when the Party only cares about getting their ‘vote’ in order to benefit the rich and are voting ‘against’ their best interest… the poor/middle class (women, gays, seniors and immigrants) voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. The only people who benefit by voting REPUBLICAN are the rich and powerful.

And just where did you here the news about these supposed GOP congresspeople who asked the president why he wouldn’t compromise?? Faux News??? I don’t believe that Obama ever responded that way to such a question for a minute. You’re just as gullible as every other right-wing lover who believes every thing they hear on that lying full of distortions news outlets: and that includes Rush Limbagger too..

SS would be solvent if the General fund would stop raiding it and start paying back what it has already taken. Social Security should be off the table in these talks.

Mike, the only way Social Security would go bankrupt is if the government could not collect taxes or if no American tax payer was working. It is a stupid thing to say and is nothing more than empty Republican rhetoric and a result of them signing the Norquist “no more taxes pledge”; I personally am very bothered by law makers who sign a pledge to a private citizen about how they will respond to taxing policies before they are even in office. I call that being bought and a conflict of interest. The truth is there are many things that can be done to stabilize and extend all the Social Insurance programs without destroying them. I know that my payroll taxes were increased three times during my career, to ensure that the program would be here when I retired. I paid my way, it is time for the younger generation to pay their’s. Once more, anyone who would suggest using any budget of Bush the younger is pretty much living in a dream world, especially considering that it was his policies that destroyed the booming economy he inherited when he was voted into office by the Supreme Court.

IF!!!!! The United States actually honored the IOU’s for Social Security, there would be no problem with funding.

Remember, those funds were “BORROWED” from Social Security in order to “balance” budgets for the last 30 years or more.

A more logical solution would be to lift the cap on the amount subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes. At least that way, the people who benefited the most from the tax cuts that got us into this mess in the first place would actually have a hand in providing the funds that were borrowed in order to fund those tax cuts.

To start with to the ones of us that paid into SS 40 or more years SS is not an entitlement, an entitlement is the welfare money rich companies and corporations get every year while not paying any taxes, the free cars that Congress gets while in office, the airfare that the taxpayers pay for the members of Congress to fly home and back once or more times a week, since most of them don’t bring their families with them to DC anymore and the money for airfare for Congressional members to fly from DC or from their homes to campaign for a party member in another state. Medicare is not an entitlement seniors pay an insurance premium every month for the health insurance,when you pay for something each month then that is not an entitlement. Another fact about SS and babyboomers is that starting in1981, we paid 2/3 more in SS because according to Reagan it help the fund when there be fewer people working to pay into SS and give us a better retirement because that 2/3% increase was suppose to be for us only. It is not our fault that Reagan turned around put Social Security in the general funds and used it and other money from SS to make his trickle look like it was working. Also it is not our fault of that every president and members of Congress has treat the SS fund like their own personal piggy bank, taking money out, leaving an IOU for some pork project and never paying the money back. Collect from the government the money owned to the Social Security fund and there would no shortage of funds. Cut or stop the money that we give to other countries as foreign aide. Why are we giving Israel $300,000,ooo.oo a year in the way of money and weapons when their economic situation is better than ours? If we combined departments that whose duties are similar or the same we would cut spending, instead of each branch of the military buying their office supplies and other stuff separately,combine all buying of supplies to one central purchasing unit and get bids from different companies for the supplies ect instead awarding contracts to what company is owed a favor by some member of Congress.

Mike, I’m with you on balancing the budget. The question is how? We HAVE been subjected to massive entitlement spending, however that’s not what it’s been called in the corporate media. We’re talking about two unfunded wars and all of the grants to the military industrial complex (over ten years worth). We’re talking about “Free Trade,” policies that have paid corporations to take jobs overseas. Allowing for tax reductions for capital gains. Tax refunds to the most profitable corporations in the history of the world. Entitlements to banks and financial institutions that were too big to fail (bail outs), while they handed themselves massive bonuses to reward their failure. On and on it goes… Crop subsidies, corporate jets, yachts, reductions and elimination of regulations meant to protect our health and children… all the while moaning about supports that working people have contributed to all of their working lives.
We are the least mobile of the advanced nations. The middle and working classes are exhausted. They have given and sacraficed for 30 years, and yet we continue to be vilified in the corporate media. Our wages have been squeezed or reduced or eliminated. Our voting rights are under attack. Our voices in the workplace are being suppressed… all the while, the rich and corporations (represented best by the GOP), continue to have it better and better.
Even the Supreme Court is not in full agreement as to just what is constitutional and what is not. What are you referring to when you are talking about sticking to the constitution?
Do you really think that the 1%’s continued grab of wealth and power is good for the country? Only in America could people who are concerned with fairness, and sticking to the constitution be thought of as “extremists.”
A strong democracy needs and healthy and dynamic middle class.

Move to Amend!

Nobody disagrees with the need to balance the budget, stop borrowing, and stop accumulating debt. Where we disagree is on the best approach to achieve those goals.
The problem with the sequester, which at first glance appear benign if you think it is limited to a 2.4% reduction, is that since it exempts Social Security and MEDiCAID, it is more in the neighborhood of 7%. Even if its immediate impact is relatively benign, its long term impact on the ability of our government to invest in infrastructure, R&D, new technologies, and education are far from being inconsequential.
The saddest part is that it did not have to happen. After 3 years of continuous demands for spending cuts in lieu of tax increases for the wealthy, the GOP took advantage of the ceiling debt fiasco in 2011 to demand concessions in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. That gave birth to the sequester approach. A few weeks ago, what was unthinkable in 2011, became a reality when the GOP refused to close loopholes and terminate unnecessary subsidies. They used the sequested as a wedge issue to get more concessions on social program spending reductions from the administration. When those concessions did not materialize, the sequester became a reality.
A game of brinkmanship influenced by partisanship and ideology backfired and we are now dealing with a problem that is likely to dwarf the recent fiscal cliff fiasco. The basic problem is the intransigence, fueled by political considerations, that prevents our lawmakers from pursuing what they know is best for our country.

Woodward was threatened. The WH made him take it back

The jobs act for Vets was a Republican member of the House idea and who pushed it for it to be passed. It wasn’t pass because the Republicans thought by helping vets get jobs the President would look good so they voted against a Republican member’s bill.

You need to do a little more research. Here are the facts:

There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the “unified budget.”

While the Tax Rate was increased during Reagan to solve the issue of the eighties, it still does not solve the issue of today. What is the solution? Increasing taxes or changing eligibility ages? What if we went back to the original concept of the OASDI was all about?