In response to:

Boehner: No Deal Without Significant Spending Cuts

OF COURSE THERE MUST BE SPENDING CUTS! BIG ONES! I guess I do not speak for all Liberals, but I know that the majority of us realize that the growth in Governemnt spending is unsustainable and must be reined in. I for one realize that spending cuts must be a LARGER part of the solution to our debt crisis than new revenue through increased taxes. It is frustrating that the Norquist Zombies cannot accept ANY tax increase whatsoever on the wealthiest Americans as even the tiniest component of a shared-sacrifice solution. The claim about 'job creators' needing more 'job-creation funds' has oviously been debunked by the Bush tax cuts (esp. halving capital gains) and the lack of created jobs.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 6:38 PM
Tell me what this tax increase on "the rich" ("rich" are $250K and up? ?) is supposed to achieve? ? ?

It's NOT going to balance the budget,not ANYwhere near that. it's SO tiny,it won't even be noticed.
it's strictly for redistribution of wealth,class envy.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 6:51 PM
thus it's unequal treatment under the law,and "unfair".
it's not for any legitimate purpose,just for revenge and envy. For communism.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 5:15 PM
We cannot even move on to the difficult considerations of what to cut & restructure.

I for one vote for extending & accelerating the current rise in the SS/Medicare retirement age, the biggest chunk of the budget. It's slowly going up to 67 by 2025 (or 2026?). We should raise it up to 70 or 72 by 2035.

When SS was created the average life expectancy was less than the retirement age! Now it's 78.5! That's where all the money goes!

Now, more of those years are at the end of life, and require lots of medical care. But on average we are far healthier & capable of working at 65 now than people were when SS started in the 1940s, and we're only going to get more so. WE need to pay in longer and collect for less time.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 6:41 PM
it's not our fault that Congress-FEDGOV failed to invest the Soc.Security money,instead opting for a classic pyramid scheme.
I'd be willing to have FEDGOV pay back all my SS payments,with a reasonable interest rate for having my money for 40 plus years,and drop any claim to Soc.Security. then I could invest it myself,and get a better return and be certain I'll actually get my money.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 6:47 PM
But NOOOO,you "progressives" didn't want Bush to privatize Soc.Security.
So screw you.

When President Obama was reelected on November 6, he told America he wanted to a take a balanced approach to solving the fiscal cliff crisis but today, Speaker John Boehner implied the President hasn't exactly been living up to his word. During a press conference, Boehner announced there has been little progress in the past two weeks on the

"I'm disappointed where we are.... disappointed what's happened over the last two weeks," Boehner said.

The Speaker spoke with President Obama over the phone last night and met with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who has been tapped by Obama...