You're completely missing the point. The NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, NCAA, and any other sports org can ban steroids or other supplements all day long and nobody will object. Almost everybody, in fact, will support such bans. All John's asking is why this has to be a federal issue. Where in the constitution does it grant the Federal government any say in what we put in our bodies? Isn't it incomprehensibly foolish for our US Senators and Representatives to be wasting their time on MLB players? We're simply saying that if federalism, freedom, and constitutional government have any meaning, then this shouldn't be a matter for debate at the Federal level. More so, it shouldn't even be a criminal matter at any level.

I'm sorry, but why pay off the conventionally lenders for 5 years? If the Feds want to write standards that would allow people in this situation to refinance with the Feds guaranteeing these peoples mortgages that's bad, but understandable, but why would they have to pay off the conventional lenders for 5 years? Unless there's some kind of pre-payment penalty, why would the current lenders need to be paid anything? Are they yet again funneling big money to the wall street bankers?

I'm guessing that the 1st reform to be proposed will lift the ban on firearms in schools. Then license teachers to carry just as we license pilots. Of course Obama can't think of a solution without spending copious amounts of money so grants will be handed out to teachers and school administrators to allow them to buy handguns, holsters and training.

You're exactly right here. He's negotiating with himself. He's so desperate for a deal that he keeps making proposals only for each to be shot down all the while offering more and more concessions. Bring on the fiscal cliff. Taxes rates will rise and flatten addressing the deficit to a small degree - good. Spending will be sequestered - even better. I haven't any idea why the Republicans should oppose any of this. Sure we don't want to pay higher taxes, but if spending isn't in any way restrained, it's meaningless.

It's the SPENDING stupid! I don't understand what they're trying to solve here. Who cares if tax rates go up a bit it they don't get the deficit under control? I hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but Republicans need to make sure people see a connection between the gluttonous spending in Washington and the taxes we pay. Keeping taxes low while continuing to spend like drunk sailors is neither responsible nor a winning strategy. Clearly what Boehner is saying is that he doesn't care about spending as long as tax rates don't go up much. That's just simply corrupt and immoral.

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but for the life of me I can't comprehend how we could get a country who would re-elect BO to understand the concept of Federalism.

Any kind of 'balanced' approach needs to deal with spending more aggressively than taxing. Please quit focusing on tax rates when Obama won't even begin to address spending restraints.

Or maybe the market anticipates that nothing will be done. Taxes will go up and spending will be sequestered. Our deficit will not be solved, but will be restrained. I really don't think tax rates matter as much as spending restraint and trying to close the gaping deficit we're facing. To frame the whole debate in terms of tax rates exhibits gross tunnel vision. You're framing the whole debate poorly. Pick a reasonable level of gov't spending relative to GDP, then cap spending at that level and design a tax code to raise the revenue. I'd say 15% or less should be enough, but 19% is realistic. Right now we're taxing at closer to the 15% level but spending at closer to 25%.

For BO specifically, raising tax rates has nothing to do with raising revenue. He's stated it clearly himself. It's all about his warped, bastardized, corrupt, evil, wholly condemnable sense of fairness. He simply believes that people shouldn't be rich and that anyone that is has no right to their wealth. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you can negotiate with this 3rd rate psychopath. Quit negotiating - you're just digging a deeper hole. We should be preaching the benefits of the cliff. It will cause all of our tax rates to rise truly fairly. It actually flattens the tax rates even if they go up. Sure it would be better to raise revenue by eliminating deductions, but then BO can't force people to do what he wants.

I'm sorry, but what is it that Obama wants? He hasn't even detailed a tax plan and he's proposed nothing for spending. There's also no Senate budget and Obama's didn't even receive one Democrat vote in support. So what are the Republicans supposed to surrender to? Quit spinning your wheels. Just let the President and Senate respond to the Republican bills from last summer. Don't do or say anything. Let's see what the Democrats propose and it can be negotiated out in conference committee and put up for an up or down vote. Then we can negotiate, but saying anything until then is just prepping your own noose.

Bah. 1st, according to our constitution, individuals have rights, not groups except as far as individuals have a right to organize. Of course this is meaningless here. Since Hamas supports lobbing missiles into Israel, Israel has a right to defend itself and if it so chooses, it may go to war against them. In this case, rights really don't matter. Forced into war, they should fight to win an incontrovertible victory and ideally eliminate or completely decimate their opponent. Minimally, they should continue pounding them until they receive an unconditional surrender. Unfortunately, this requires leaving in place some semblance of leadership structure in Gaza to surrender.