GOPer Offers Alternative, Dems Pounce; Pelosi: ‘Here They Go Again’

MAkes sense and if you read the preliminary CBO assessment they make one important statement “Federal spending for Social Security would be slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection period, but the system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline.”
The present system is not sustainable and what Pelosi, Obama, Reid, & Coharts (PORC) are proposing is not sustainable.

Pelosi, what the Senate proposes in the HCR bill is dissolving Medicare so please explain what the difference between the Dem’s HCR bill and what Senator Ryan’s proposal? Secondly, for years, Congress has ROBBED social security and NOW there is NO money in SS for all the people that PAID into this gov’t agency. So, please explain to me, Ms. Botox Pelosi, why illegals get social security and why congress has been robbing SS?

How much did you spend Pelosi joyriding to Copenhagen? You should be deemed unfit to serve.

We should all want our country to get out of this recession, create jobs, and trust in our lawmakers. What we have is a republican party that will not cooperate in any way to come to a compromise. If tax cuts were the answer we would all be doing great right now. If cutting all the social programs is the answer then cut out Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Republicans have been against these programs for years. We will just let corporations get their way. We will continue to allow Wall Street to gamble with our money. We will only listen to Fox News for the one way ideas. We can see how fast we will zoome to being just like a third world nation where there are some rich and the rest are poor or poorer. Keep your heads in the sand republicans while nothing gets done because republicans are opposed to it.

The nerve of that Ryan guy offering up at least something. How dare he!Social security is not and should not be a political football and as various articles state this week that social security is really broke…now. If you don’t gradually increase the retirement age, reduce some of the benefits and grow the return on the money put in, the only other solution is to raise taxes (which is basically all a democrat knows to do) to the people who will need it most and that is the working class people of the country.
The “Heckle and Jeckles” that repeat this old and tired “failed policy of the Bush years” are not going to be in office very long as we, the people that really pay the bills are tired of mouthy do nothing politicians. And Nancy dear that goes for you too!
By the way how are the snacks and beverages for your family and other assorted posse members on the jet that we furnish you with? How was Davos? $2200 a nigt room comfortable? Did you get a mint on your pillow?

JOACHAM – Let me direct you to a paragraph above that you obviously did not read and comprehend.
““Privatizes Social Security” — The Roadmap provides seniors with the option either to stay in the traditional government-run system or to enter a system of guaranteed personal accounts. Neither option is privatized. In the personal-accounts system, the accounts are managed and overseen by a government board — not a stockbroker or private investment firm. People choosing the reformed system select from a handful of low-risk, government-regulated options — just as Members of Congress and federal employees do.”
This is not the traeament of Social Security that you expouse.
Here is what the CBO said about the Social Security portion of the proposal. “Federal spending for Social Security would be slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection period, but the system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline.”
Sustainable? That word doesn’t mean a thing to Pelosi and it should as it means the proposal will pay for itself in time not continue to use borrowed money.

Well the dems only want to spend money we don’t have and have our children pay for them.
Shame on you dems!

JOACHAM – Obviously you still need some proding. Google TSP and take a look at what members of Congress and federal employees have. From the way TSP works and this article reads it should be almost the same program but available to all who work.

The system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline.” Read: As cost of living increases and benefits are more and more expensive, seniors will get less and less until revenues equal expenses. —- The alternative is less appealing to the GOP: Pay down the debt, both foreign and domestic, as well as Intra-government holdings Debt to reinstate Social programs sustainability by: Having a solid tax revenue from all groups that live over the poverty line, scrap tax havens and fiscal evasion, add a consumer tax “VAT”, aggressively pursue “PORK” and air it out in public and on the internet, in a YOUTUBE monthly TV SHOW: THIS WEEK IN PORK with photos of the PIG-Farmers on it, cut military spending by 30% by closing military bases in most of the 39 countries where they are, (and avoiding getting into stupid ideological wars)scrapping worthless new planes development and bringing a team of auditors in the Pentagon to look for the “900$ toilet seat” type expenses, cut all other non-defense unnecessary programs excluding R&D and new energy, cancel all subsidies to AGRIBUSINESS AND OIL AND GAS, keep PAY-GO by passing it for 30 years (Let’s have the GOP try to repel it and see what happens!)As soon as there is enough surpluses to insure DEBT payment on a 25-year horizon, any additional surplus will be balanced by a VAT decrease to 0, followed by income and corporate tax reductions (in that order) down to budget balance – including debt reimbursement.

Pelosi is the hypocrite here by spending money we don’t have and ruining the economy. Wake up, people. Keep putting forth sensible ideas, Senator Ryan, some people are listening. We can’t spend our way out of a recession.

the democrats are getting just absolutely rediculous. All obama, pelosi, reid, etc want to do is say “the GOP is not bringing ideas” – when what they really means is “the GOP needs to come to us and regurgitate the bad ideas that WE want to do – otherwise we are going to say they aren’t bringing us any ideas”. LOSERS – all of them.

PLEASE PLEASE I DONT BELIEVE MY HEART CAN WITHSTAND ANY MORE PICTURES OF PELOSI. IT SENDS A CHILL UP ME BUT ITS NOT MY LEG.

Thanks to the author for the a rare fair story on Rep. Ryan’s proposal.

What is Senate bill 2799? — Harry Reid passed the bill that would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Cut off a country’s gas? That leads to war! — Is Obama going to save his Presidency, and keep Dems from being booted from congress by pulling the “War Card”. One journalist said it would make a “dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue”. — by ordering the U.S. military to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, would Obama get Americans to support the attack today and “rally around the flag”

OK Pelosi, every GOP plan is horrible!!! — That is why when the Dems took over congress and the white house, they keep the plans put in place by Bush!! —- Patriot Act?? — how many times did we hear from the left that Bush was usurping freedom, OH, but Obama extended it!! — War in Iraq and Afghanistan?? — You would have done exactly the opposite, UNTIL you took over and followed Bush’s plan to the letter!!! — You can call the GOP the “party of no”, but the Dems are the “party without an original idea”!!!

You can call the GOP the “party of no”, but the Dems are the “party without an original idea”!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition**************Disagree. These parties have different ideas you just lean more right and diasagree with the left period!

Why would anyone want to work with Pelosi? That wicked witch would just turn it against you. Best approach is to just to wait until Nov. and let the voters sweep them out!

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The same tired old class warfare lies spew out of the Marxists running the Democratic party. Instead of learning from their mistakes, the Democrats are redoubling their efforts to expand Obama’s Failed Policies. Read Ryan’s proposal, it’s not 2000 pages long. It’s a common sense plan. The Democrats have ZERO credibility left! “Health Care Reform” proved to the country that the only thing Pelosi, Reid and Obama do well is lie, lie, lie.

Proposing to raise the retirement age to 70.
This is how you will identify a SERIOUS politician who cares about the solvency of the United States.

Republicans do best when they are on the outside and can snipe. When they have to have to come up with ideas they are as tiresome as ever….Both parties are a joke..

Pelosi: ‘Here They Go Again’
Funny that is what I thought when I read about Pelosi taking her buds to Copenhagen on our dime. This woman is a national treasure. We need Ron Paul to teach her about fiscal responsibility and respect for the taxpayers.

Typical Democrat response. A Republican offers a proposal and Pelosi rips it. Pelosi shows just how partisan she is. Ryan makes some recommendations, explains them and Pelosi doesn’t want to hear it. So so much for th Demcrats yelling the Republicans are the party of no. It seems the Democrats are the party of no. No changes to entitlement programs, no change to how to appraoch taxation unless it is more, no new ideas, no listening to the other side, no compromise. This is where we are going with the Dems in charge.

Response to Carol in Alabama and others like you: “We can’t keep spending money we don’t have”. Do you people realize what the GOP and conservatives are doing to you? They have created a sense of panic with “deficit fear mongering”. It has become a key part to their strategy. Do you realize that the large deficit we are currently running has more to do with our economic crisis than spending? What has the crisis done to us? It has lowered tax receipts, required bailouts of the financial instituions who took ridiculous risks, and created a high, high rate of unemployment. And it is noy too hard to understand that if the unemployment rate stays at this level, how are tax recepts ever going to rise to take care of the deficit. The Republicans/conservatives know this and they want to make sure that the “misery index” of unemployment stays high so the can get back in power. If anything we should now be increasing the deficit with “job creation” to get people back working. Otjherwise, how are snmall businesses ever going to sell their services and products. They aren’t hiring because they have no one to sell too or they can get by with a skeleton staff. But here is the KICKER, Carol (and others). Our deficit will never come down in the long run as long as nothing is done to reform health care. The costs from that are simply too great. So instead of you and your friends allowing yourselves to get up in the Republican Propaganda Deficit Fear Frenzy, communicate with them and tell them to work with the administration to solve these huge problems confronting us as a nation – and quit playing “hysteria politics”.

If SS had been left to wall street (privation like the Reps want) we would be in one H- – - of a mess. Grandma & Grandpa would be begging on the side of the streets….but that’s okay cause the big $$ men would have made more money. After all, those big $$ men are the ones that represent the Greedy Old Party.

Let’s give the reigns to the Party that voted with Bush 95% of the time! Yes, it’s true, we all should be voting with the party that though Bush/Cheney are the GREATEST LEADERS of modern history. PS- I’m being very sarcastic! Some morons may not have caught that.

David: “We spent billions in IRAQ , but the Republicans kept quiet- no protests.” To all you loons that keep saying the wars were Bush’s. I will try to educate you, even though I don’t expect you yo understand. Presidents don’t declare war, congress does. Look at the votes for both wars. OVERWHELMING support from both parties. Once we got in though the usual woosy Dems wanted to declare a loss and run. THANK GOD Bush and the GOP believed in keeping this country safe. Good use of money I would say, better than redistribution of MY MONEY. And the one TRILLION dollar porkulus is a great example of why the Dems will be losing again in 2010. Wasteful, tax and spend, loony liberals aren’t built for the long haul.

Silly Americans. You thought there were TWO parties… Tsk, tsk. Now only the majority party counts. And they dictate with the White House what we the people must live under. Wether we support it or overwhelmingly OPPOSE it!
You in the MAJORITY of America actually have the unmitigated GALL to think that your opinion should matter to the political elites of either party? FOR SHAME! I am embarrased for your naievete…
Wake up America. YOU don’t mean shitte! YOU don’t matter! You never did! All they want to know is that you keep paying your taxes and fund their lavish lifestyle and bankroll their family members and cronies in perpetuity! Don’t you get it by NOW! Open your eyes, get mad, DO something! Or forever shut the hell UP! And take it… like the sheep that you are.

More Scare Tactics from the
Clueless Democrats!
End Medicare as we know it?
I don’t think so!
In case Pelosi and her Democrat
colleagues have been living in caves
for the past decade Medicare is
Going Bankrupt you Fools!
At least Ryan and the Republicans are
trying to fix the problem!
All Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can come
up with is spend and print More Money!

Hank Paulson (President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasure) defined the GOP best in his speech on “morale hazard”. For the record per Hank Paulson, the catechism of “moral hazard” is, “if you bail someone out of a problem they themselves caused what incentive do they have the next time not to make the same mistake.” America ask yourself, who in their right mind would vote for the group that drove the country into the ditch for eight (8) years, and now two (2) years later they still have “no new ideas”? ….Simple! Simple! Simple! Just remember what Paulson said about the catechism of “moral hazard”.
BEWARE! BEWARE! BEWARE!…….In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that: There is no realistic way for “Trickle-Down” economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of “Trickle-Down” economics were fully aware of this and that “Trickle-Down” has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing “Trickle-Down or Supply-side theory” was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans. “Trickle-Down” hasn’t failed, as many modern economists have suggested, it has succeeded in its goals, which is the increase of economic inequality and the shift of a greater portion of America’s wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans. And too there were tax increases in the “Trickle Down”, these increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn’t call these taxes. They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, “user fees” and “revenue-enhancers.” The tax increases were to help minimize the any budget deficit.

The only pro for privatizing Social Security is so that the government can stop taking money from that pool, which they’ve been doing since these wars started. I would prefer they pass a law that simply doesn’t allow that money to be touched by ANYONE, period.
As for raising the age of retirement, are they kidding me? We need to LOWER it. Most people are going to be working themselves to death if it goes to 70. How is that bettering ANYONES happiness in their life? The problem is these people make enough that they never have to worry about retiring at a certain age. Most people can’t even walk when they’re 70, let alone work!

jschmidt…I’ll tell you right now what is wrong with your “tax cut” theory. Who gets the richest when this occurs and who suffers most? And why should our economy have to have “bubbles” if it is regulated soundly and properly? Not to kill business. Just to keep the “over the line risk takers” in tow that “create those “bubbles” such as the last financial one” that just about destroyed us. To me, you sound like an apologist for the extreme wealthy. Any self-interest there?

Sandcrab1612 | Feb 5, 2010 10:26:41 PM: It’s about previsibility, not profitability. The DOW is back at the 1999 level, that’s 0% yield over 11 years! The less people in the SS trust fund, the less pressure on government to keep it solvent. My guess is that the poorer people would stay, the richer would go for these GOVERNMENT-chosen, GOVERNMENT-managed funds, as they better can withstand the market risks. How is one to assume that the current scenario with SS is not to repeat itself with these funds? Please tell me where I went wrong in my assumption that people who don’t really need SS are the least affected if the fund they invested in hits a low point or is mis-managed by the agency responsible for it, as so many GOP claim is the case for everything GOVERNMENT! BTW, Isn’t the GOP against GOVERNMENT intervention? — It is not about choice, it is about bringing trillions of dollars more into the stock market, out of those “greedy incompetent GOVERNMENT hands” and having GOVERNMENT decide where and how it is invested… Makes no political, common nor financial sense to me.

Isnt’it the height of irony that the GOP, the epitomy of government hate, is proposing to take money out of a fund that is basically “government hands-off”, since surpluses are invested “by law” in Bonds and T-Bills, – and the goverment has no say in changing that – and getting it into GOVERNMENT CREATED, GOVERNMENT MANAGED investment funds? And Pelosi OPPOSING GOVERNMENT CONTROL of SS funds is being savagely attacked by GOP and conservatives? Yes, Chicken Little, the sky is falling indeed…

stevemb12…Ever hear the saying that the “devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you don’t”. Well, in this shallow political landscape of “just throw the bums out”, you might want to think about it. Tea partiers, conservatives and wing nuts are using that shallow rallying cry quite a bit lately. Too bad they are not intellectual enough to know who the “Devil” really is.

Boy, this board got quiet in a hurry!

Pelosi should look at the budget obama just submitted. FICA taxes collected are 985billion while we pay out over 2130 billion (thats 2.2 TRILLION!) in social security medicare and medicaid.
the huge deficit which is going to get worse at the boomers retire, is what is causing the TRILLION dollar deficits. even if you raise the tax rate to 100% of those over 250K/yr, you still cannot bridge these types of deficits.
She is hurting the country and the Democrats are refusing to look at the problems. Social Security was to run surpluses; Meidcare as a few billion per year, etc. Now they are trillions in the hole and how can we beleive the democartic health bill will not speed us down the road to default even faster?
Pelosi needs to go!

scott jeffries | Feb 6, 2010 5:41:22 PM: First, it is not about Pelosi, it’s about diverting social security from guaranteed financial instruments such as T-Bills and US Bonds to the stock market and having government, i.e. politicians, decide in what economic sector and specific corporation it will go. This is scary at best! Please read my 4:03 post and tell me if and where my logic goes wrong, please… As far as FICA collecting 985 billion and spending 2130 billion, where do you get these numbers? Maybe you were looking at projections for some future year, ecause as far as the “Social Security Trustees Report for FY 2008″ goes, it states total revenues from FICA, That is OASI, DI, HI, SMI of 1.286 Trillion$ and expenditures for the same 4 departments of 1.09 Trillion$, a 192 billion$ surplus. You may want to look at the numbers closer YOURSELF, before inviting Ms.Pelosi to do so. Just a little note, How could you believe that Social Security and Medicare would spend 2,13 out of a 3,8 trillion$ budget?

treblig- I see your worry about stock market investing becoming political. When a president and VP take office their investments go into a blind trust. You can take some money going into SS say 10% and invest it into target funds run by outside managers. It would need to be the best performing managers with low fees. It can be done as the Congressional 401ks are currently invested in targeted funds. The T bills and US bonds don’t make enough to outpace inflation. Over the long term the market is the best investment.

treblig56 – Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security’s finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government’s general purpose deficit spending. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right”. In simple terms, the decision means that since no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits, Congress can cut or eliminate benefits at any time.
The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. It is important to note, however, that while the Treasury guarantees the interest and principal payments it makes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the benefit payments made from the Social Security Trust Fund to American retirees have no guarantee at all. The Social Security Administration’s authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security’s ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government’s ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. The federal government’s ability to repay Social Security, in turn, is contingent on fiscal policies taken today (which have tended to increase deficits and the percent of the budget spent on interest and principal payments) and in the future. With the reduction in our workforce (those who pay into Social Security) in relationship to those who collect Social Security the current system is unsustainable and will go broke in a few years. Currently the unfunded liability (promised payments/services for which money has been collected but is not available) of Social Security is in excess of 14 Trillion dollars, the Prescription Drug program is in excess of 18 Trillion dollars and worst of all Medicare is in excess of 107 Trillion dollars.

In June 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked banking systems as per their soundness, reliability if you prefer. Canada’s strictly regulated system ranked first. US banking system: 40th, coming after even small African nations. Canada advanced about 10 billion in loans to Canadian Banks to soften the blow from losses due to “ABCPs” or sub-prime loans bundled into securities. No Bank failed, credit remained available without interest rates going significantly up. 20% of the “stimulus funds” enacted in Canada went to bailout Canadian subsidiaries of GM and Chrysler. As far as Corporate taxes go, the statutory rate is 35%, the effective rate for the 275 Fortune 500 companies with avalable data show the effective rate varies between 1,6 and 27,7%. Accelerated depreciation, sectorial tax credits, off-shore tax-sheltering, stock options – most of which do not exist in most other countries – all make the illusion of high corporate taxes just that, An ILLUSION. —- Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.—– Corporate taxes made up 20% of Federal Revenues in the 60′s, now, they account for less than 6%. Guess why the US is broke…

Sandcrab1612 | Feb 6, 2010 7:57:37 PM
And how taking money out of a system that is “actuarially broke” going to fix it? GOP plan is Run for the hills while there is money in the kettle, and leave the poor saps who cannot bear the risks of the market figure how to fund the remaining disaster WE have created by underfunding it for decades?

Who do we run to when it’s time to foreclose on America? At some point we have to stop the spending and the borrowing. If you keep borrowing from a person who hates you, and you know they hate you, then you are asking for some serious trouble.
The Chinese and the Saudis are patiently waiting as they continue to finance our addiction to irrelevant “stuff.” Just like all the folks, a few years ago, who were making $45,000 a year; yet, went and purchased $500,000 homes; then, because they had the new home, went out and bought all new furniture and a new car – all on credit. Then the foreclosure on the home and the repossessions of the furniture and the car arrived. Left the folks almost crazy. Now, I see’em walking around talking to telephone posts; all beetie-eyed and sad looking.
Pay attention to the sayings of old folks: “You can run but you can’t hide,” and “You can’t make a race horse out of a donkey.”

The current democrat has been in office one year – somehow I think he deserves a little bit longer to turn the ship of state around.
Who we voters really need to pay attention to is Congress. Republicans were the party of snore under the Bush years, our financial position rapidly eroded, the recession began in 2007.
It takes money to turn it around and to suddenly come awake and start screaming about the money used to pull us back from the precipice is foolish.
Tax cuts for big business are part of what eroded away the governments ability to cover infrastructure – like the military, like our bridges, roads, electric networks, water and so on.
Additional changes are needed and this representative’s proposals need to be mulled over – but all of them need to pull together to tackle the health care bill and GET IT DONE.

Trueblue – You said ”The current democrat has been in office one year – somehow I think he deserves a little bit longer to turn the ship of state around. Who we voters really need to pay attention to is Congress. Republicans were the party of snore under the Bush years, our financial position rapidly eroded”.
Let’s look at the debt of the federal government since January 19 2001 (the day Bush took office), for comparisons I have chosen the same day or the first day listed after the 19th is on a weekend. When Bush took office the debt of the federal government was $5,727,776,738,304.64 and a year later (2002) it was $5,924,540,106,802.70 (an increase of $196,763,368,498.06 or an increase of 3% from the past year). A year later (2003) the debt was at $6,387,841,175,651.97 (an increase of $463,301,068,849.27 or an increase of 8% from the past year. A year later (2004) the debt was at $7,006,834,072,435.49 (an increase of $618,992,896,783.52 or an increase of 10% from the past year). A year later (2005) the debt was $7,613,772,338,689.34 (an increase of $606,938,266,253.85 or an increase of 9% from the previous year). A year later (2006) the debt was $ 8,176,948,650,558.59 (an increase of $563,176,311,869.25 or an increase of 7% from the past year). A year later (2007) the debt was $ 8,675,085,083,537.48 (an increase of $498,136,432,978.89 or an increase of 6% from the past year). A year later (2008) the debt was $ 9,191,074,962,157.16 (an increase of $515,989,879,619.68 or an increase of 6% from the past year). A year later (2009 when Obama took office) the debt was $ 10,626,877,048,913.08 (an increase of $1,435,802,086,755.84 or an increase of 16% from the past year). A year later (2010) the debt was $12,322,107,592,352.90 (an increase of $1,695,230,543,439.90 or an increase of 16% from the past year).
As can be seen the large increases have come under the Democratic controlled Congress. The President does not initiate spending bills of the Federal Government Congress does. The President submits a desired budget to Congress and Congress writes the spending bills and after passing both houses submits the bills to the President where he can sign or Veto the bill. As the Democrats took over the majority in both houses after the 2006 elections (sworn into office in January 2007) they had control of the government purse strings for the 2008 and beyond budget, also as a Senator, Obama had the opportunity to voice his concerns on spending when he voted on the budgets while he was serving in the Senate.
During his eight years as President, the administrations overseen by Bush increase the debt by a little less than 5 Trillion dollars, on his present course the administration of Obama is set to pass this rate of spending in less than four years in office. Spending by the federal government does not turn the economy around. Private industry hiring for jobs is what turns the economy around. The government needs to look at what will cause private industry to begin hiring (i.e. are government regulations costing money which could be used to expand business or are government taxes and fees costing money which could be used to hire and expand business. Adding government employees is not the answer as it provides a short term job with no long term expectation without having to get the funds from a tax or fee placed on business.

So Rs believe that PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY is a great deal. Its a Safety Net, not a roulette wheel; a concept that in 70 years that Rs have never quite understood.
I truly hope that Rs run on Privatizing Social Security in Nov. Response: simply run commercials showing the daily drops in the DOW of 900 points as in 2008 and ask the voter if that R Congressman then has a bailout plan to replace the trillions that seniors could potentially lose when the DOW drops and they see their monthly Social Security checks cut in half. As a housing proposal Rs should next propose building Hooverviles for senior who gamble and lose with their R gift that keeps on giving: PRIVATIZING Social Security.
Even W realized it was a boneheaded idea, but we thank R leadership for that gift anyway.

Mr. Conservative: I have a great suggestion who should be investing your Social Security for you and your R friends. His name is Bernie Madoff.

Hey reaganfan if Privatizing SS and raising Medicare eligibility to 70 is such a grand idea, then why is R leadership quietly trying to squelch it.
Once agin Rs take the Ryan pledge and urge both. I will gladly pay for your web site and petition to Privatize and raise Medicare eligibility age. Please, please do so.

Listen to Pelosi and let the great Ponzi scheme die.

Rick so you don’t like Ds.
Why should we care? Exactly what has Mitch McConnell and cantor offered this country other than obstructionism?