I wish you people had some small idea of what you are taking about.
There is no attempt to reduce payments to the SS disability program.
Quite the contrary.
Disability payments were set to be reduced by 20% next year and now they won't be.
Do some research before you post these ridiculous comments.
There is no attempt to reduce payments to the SS disability program.
Quite the contrary.
Disability payments were set to be reduced by 20% next year and now they won't be.
Do some research before you post these ridiculous comments.
Republican Speaker Boehner resigns and Republican Senator Rubio practically never shows up to vote and Congress gets something done (imperfect as it is). Imagine how much Congress could get done (and more for the good of average Americans) if all of the Republicans either checked out like Marco or quit like Johnny B.
So everything's copacetic, right? Not really. The budget deal just sets caps. The appropriations process follows. And with Ryan running the House, how likely is it that federal money will actually be spent on domestic programs that the new Speaker has railed against for many years?
From a strategic political standpoint, Democrats would be well-advised to let the Republican majorities in Congress slash and burn federal entitlements like Social Security and programs like highway repair and construction. Voters would get a taste of what Washington would look like with Republican control of the White House as well as Congress.
From the standpoint of those who are stunned that Social Security pension benefits aren't going up next year while out-of-pocket costs for healthcare and everything else except gas have soared, we can only pray that Republicans avert vexatious voter vengeance.
From a strategic political standpoint, Democrats would be well-advised to let the Republican majorities in Congress slash and burn federal entitlements like Social Security and programs like highway repair and construction. Voters would get a taste of what Washington would look like with Republican control of the White House as well as Congress.
From the standpoint of those who are stunned that Social Security pension benefits aren't going up next year while out-of-pocket costs for healthcare and everything else except gas have soared, we can only pray that Republicans avert vexatious voter vengeance.
2
Boehner must have convinced Ryan to take the Speaker's job by promising to get the ugly stuff out of the way. Already lame-duck, he had nothing to lose in closing the most pressing issues that would have both hurt the party and hurt the country.
Ryan gets to show his conservative chops by denouncing the deal, and pretending he wouldn't have had to do the same thing.
So, really clever maneuvering gets us through another year. Will Ryan's overarching ambition to be President force him to find a way to keep the anarchists from ruining the country?
Ryan gets to show his conservative chops by denouncing the deal, and pretending he wouldn't have had to do the same thing.
So, really clever maneuvering gets us through another year. Will Ryan's overarching ambition to be President force him to find a way to keep the anarchists from ruining the country?
2
So now we see the handwriting on the wall: those who have paid the most into Social Security and Medicare should expect to see their benefits cut so that those who have paid the least will not have to contribute anything into putting these programs on a more sound footing. I'm talking about the maneuver to end the possibility of claiming a few years of spousal benefits by those who have earned Social Security benefits on their own right by working, contributing, and paying taxes into the system. Why should anyone trust the politicians to not cut our already earned benefits in the decade ahead? I had considered waiting until age 70 to start collecting my Social Security pension, but now I will claim a reduced benefit the moment I turn 62. As people like me wake up and smell the coffee, they too will stop working, contributing, and paying taxes into the system and start earning at least some return Social Security contributions before this house of cards collapses on their heads.
1
Though diametrically opposed to almost everything Speaker Boehner proposed, I can't helping thinking this must be one the happiest moments in Boehner's tenure in Congress. Thank you Pope Francis for helping to inspire the Speaker to resign. A lesson others may learn from one hopes.
Zip-Ah-Dee-Doo-Dah.
DD
Manhattan
Zip-Ah-Dee-Doo-Dah.
DD
Manhattan
3
Congress is so concerned about fraud in the SSD program, saving only a few billion with this legislation. How about strengthening Sarbanes/Oxley; Dodd/Frank laws? WE could probably save hundreds of billions of dollars over the same time period. Wall St and other corporate crooks are who the Congress ought to be focusing on, not the poor, disabled SSD, SSI, or other Social Security and Medicare recipients. Wall St and corruption wins again!!! Never mind the money owed to the US treasury, hundreds of billions of dollars and Congress does nothing to make sure its collected.. http://business.time.com/2013/03/27/the-600-billion-the-i-r-s-cant-collect/
7
Every time there has been one of these budget problems, or so called "shut downs", President Obama with his friends in media have been able to pin the responsibility on the Republicans, when in fact the Democrats, Sen. Reid and the president in particular, have been at least equally responsible and pushed the situation to make Republicans look like the only bad guys. This aside, I applaud Speaker Boehner for crafting a deal that clears the books until after the next presidential election and doesn't allow President Obama to shut down the government a couple months before that election to once again embarrass Republicans to the public and in the media who support Hillary Clinton. Now, why did the Dems take the deal? Because of what The Times mentioned but didn't bother to give the why. Pres. Obama wanted those cuts in Medicare and SS disability to cover over spending of his healthcare baby, Obamacare. It's all about the legacy. A nice deal done, everybody's happy for now.
1
Donna, 167 Republicans voted against the budget bill yesterday. 0 Democrats voted against the bill. I expect the same scenario when the Senate votes on the bill.
What was your point about responsibility and government shut downs?
What was your point about responsibility and government shut downs?
2
After reading all 144 pages and the 74 previous comments. Let me state that I worked 22.5 years before having to retire disabled. Furthermore, it would have nice to receive a COLA but, I do not myself poorer because of this deal. I am fortunate and grateful not to be facing a 19% cut in my social security and 50% raise in Medicare part B Premium that is poor. The .5% reallocation will not fix all the funds problems but, being disabled since birth I was shocked when my doctors made me retire to find out that no medical concurrences were required but, readers' I assure you I provided medical documentation from my medical team, including phone number and addresses for every doctor. This bill now requires documentation from two doctors and, established Social Security fraud as a felony; punishable up to 5 years in prison/$250,000 fine. Also, authorized hiring more fraud investigators. Those now receiving SSDI who are not disabled I believe should be now be punished once the agreement is law and, they receive 1 check after its effective date. Which is a good step for those who truly are disabled and all taxpayers.
1
No so much as a word of the draconian cuts to Social Security by the NYT. Sometimes I have to scratch my head at what my ideas of what a newspaper should be reporting and what you generally get from the Times. It's more about the players then the game and form over substances. Sometimes I don't know why I still have a subscription.
7
Absolutely right; it's shameful. The bill unquestionably undermines Social Security but the New York Times has declared it a great victory for Obama and Boehner without any actual analysis. There's a reason that Boehner was able to get those 79 Republican votes with so little fuss; it's because the bill gives the Republicans what they've been unable to achieve for 80 years, the first major step in dismantling the Social Security Trust Fund. Under Sec. 831, Sec. 832, Sec. 833, and Sec. 834, of the bill funds have been temporarily shifted to conceal that everyone's Social Security benefits have actually been cut and Trust Fund reserves raided. The Tea Party brass knows this which is why a green light was given to 79 Republicans. However, none of this is ever dealt with in the NYT; instead there's great wonder and admiration for how our system can still work so well. What a joke. What this bill allows is Paul Ryan and the Republicans, President Obama and the Democrats, to walk away with little fallout, especially because the NYT has entirely failed to explain how terrible it is. After the next election cycle, the "new' players in both the Republican and Democratic leadership can claim to have inherited a shortfall which they'll need to fix, in the case of the Democrats, they'll move to implement the cuts that this bill has already made, in the case of the Republicans, they'll move to dismantle Social Security entirely.
Having this deal in place for two years will put some stability back in the US finical system. For the last 5 years it has been hit of miss if we will pay our bills or keep the government open.
2
So this frees Ryan from the need to do anything before the next president is seated, correct? Woohoo, free TV time for everybody!!!
1
Glad Boehner got this done, but hope he won't let the door to the House hit him in his behind as he leaves.
When he announced his impending departure, he expressed his concern for "the institution" [presumably of the Speaker-hood]. If the Speaker's "institutional" role is to promote partisan politics, he's preserved it quite well.
But, from a Constitutional standpoint, the correct institutional role of the Speaker is to lead all of the House, not just his own party. To the extent that he's failed in that scope, he has done more to undermine the "institution" than support it.
Good riddance. Unfortunately, from what his apparent successor is uttering, indications are that the next Speaker is simply the new orange -- albeit a pale one.
When he announced his impending departure, he expressed his concern for "the institution" [presumably of the Speaker-hood]. If the Speaker's "institutional" role is to promote partisan politics, he's preserved it quite well.
But, from a Constitutional standpoint, the correct institutional role of the Speaker is to lead all of the House, not just his own party. To the extent that he's failed in that scope, he has done more to undermine the "institution" than support it.
Good riddance. Unfortunately, from what his apparent successor is uttering, indications are that the next Speaker is simply the new orange -- albeit a pale one.
7
A couple of years ago, Congress gave us the sequester, irrational across-the-board cuts which were imposed, by agreement, because there was no agreement. This budget adds spending and extends the lives of Social Security disability and Medicare without adding a penny to the costs of beneficiaries, revisions widely supported by Democrats. We had to give something to get something. But no compromise got us the sequester. Compromise got us this. Those complaining apparently prefer to shoot themselves in the foot.
1
michjas - I guess you missed, "The budget deal, reached in secret negotiations with Congressional Democrats and the White House...". It appears that the Republicans did not participate in the "negotiations" and only gave Obama what HE wanted. What's new?
My view is that the budgets should always be for two years. The budget should be proposed in the off election year (odd years) and run for two years. This would prevent annual gridlock and Congress could use the rest of the time not spent on the budget to do what they do.
15
What is missing from much of the discussion about this budget deal is that they agreed to sell down the Strategic Oil Reserve starting 2018 to pay for budget shortfalls. This proves to me that we have two ineffective parties in DC. One cannot cut spending and the other can't raise taxes. Then, they walk out of their "bipartisan" meeting and sell the country's oil reserve because they CAN'T do the right thing: raise taxes, and cut spending to get the finances in order. It is the bitter tonic prescribes several times by non partisan tax group both parties put in charge of making recommendations. Shame. And in the course of all this, Boehner proved himself to be both an obstructionist as well as the member of the wind party.
11
A horrible day for folks on disability-the most vulnerable.
16
Make poor people who can't work even poorer.
7
I consider this to be a decisive psychopathic, conscienceless turn in US politics. Kill the Poor. Feed the Rich.
3
If I were Boehner, I could not help but ask myself this question: what happens to my party and my party colleagues that it would take my departure to achieve this budget deal. Boehner would find answer to PART of that question by looking in the mirror.
1
Maybe House speakers should resign more often, sooner than later...
10
This was a bad deal because Social Security Disability and Medicare funding was reduced, whereas it should have been expanded; while the 'Defense' budget was increased, whereas it should have been greatly reduced.
30
Why does the reporter not report the breakdown (democrat/republican) in the House's budget vote? I had to go to another site to learn that only 79 republicans joined all democrats in approving the budget deal.
Then, rather than stating (misleadingly) that the bill had "strong bipatisan support", better to report that only 32% of House republicans supported the measure - i.e., 68% of House GOP voted for continued fiscal extremism and gridlock to the detriment of the country. Seems like this point deserved a more direct comment.
Then, rather than stating (misleadingly) that the bill had "strong bipatisan support", better to report that only 32% of House republicans supported the measure - i.e., 68% of House GOP voted for continued fiscal extremism and gridlock to the detriment of the country. Seems like this point deserved a more direct comment.
23
This article does include the vote breakdown. 187 Dems, 79 Repubs in favor, 167 Repubs against.
2
"The measure, which was approved by a vote of 266 to 167, with 79 Republicans joining 187 Democrats in favor, averts a potentially devastating default by lifting the federal borrowing limit through March 2017..." was included in the article.
2
Mr. Boehner has surprised me just a bit. "Cleaning out the barn" was possible after he signaled to the White House that deals were possible. Since he no longer has to deal in future with the extreme right in the House, he has overwhelmed them. Probably some schadenfreude in there on his part to pay back their irresponsible behavior.
These actions can remove a bunch of poisonously evil stuff from the 2016 campaigns. I hope the Senate adopts them as well. Their value is confirmed by Sen. Ayn Paul's threat to filibuster.
Enjoy your golf and merlot, Mr. Speaker.
These actions can remove a bunch of poisonously evil stuff from the 2016 campaigns. I hope the Senate adopts them as well. Their value is confirmed by Sen. Ayn Paul's threat to filibuster.
Enjoy your golf and merlot, Mr. Speaker.
4
The Hastert rule - requiring a majority of votes from the majority party - is directly responsible for the public's lack of faith in Congress.
Put all legislation up for a majority vote and the 40 loons that would burn the country to the ground and default on the national debt rather than approve paying for spending already authorized by Congress would be worth exactly 40 votes.
Enough with giving these extremists the power to shut down the government and work against the interests of the American people.
Put all legislation up for a majority vote and the 40 loons that would burn the country to the ground and default on the national debt rather than approve paying for spending already authorized by Congress would be worth exactly 40 votes.
Enough with giving these extremists the power to shut down the government and work against the interests of the American people.
32
Funny how that pedophile Hastert just pleaded guilty to lying to the Feds about his hush-money payments today.
10
I wonder how long the "Hastert rule" can be used as a "Republican" term much longer. The name brings up bad memories for various reasons going forward. The moral high ground indeed.
4
No matter how much the Republican candidates fret, whine about the Federal Government, they continue to push for more Defense spending, more war, more conflict, and absolutely refuse to pay for any of these items
And then blame the POTUS for the mess...
Tonights debate was a great example, a bunch of freeloaders, who refuse to raise taxes to pay for things that help their friends
And then blame the POTUS for the mess...
Tonights debate was a great example, a bunch of freeloaders, who refuse to raise taxes to pay for things that help their friends
44
And who is it who has ordered troops to remain in Afghanistan well after the time he promised they would all be home?
Does the name Obama ring a bell?
Does the name Obama ring a bell?
2
Ah, but who is it who turned from Afghanistan to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, thereby gifting us ISIS? Hint - his brother is running to be the GOP nominee for president next election.
7
That was years ago.
Obama has been President for 7 years. When do you all stop blaming everything on Bush and giving Obama a pass?
He promised to have us out of Afghanistan quite a while back. He is now planning to keep troops there with no thought of how many more tours of duty they will have or the effect it has on their families.
Obama has been President for 7 years. When do you all stop blaming everything on Bush and giving Obama a pass?
He promised to have us out of Afghanistan quite a while back. He is now planning to keep troops there with no thought of how many more tours of duty they will have or the effect it has on their families.
John Boehner has been consistently embarrassed, standing naked before the world, in his attempts to lead. It has been painful to watch, excruciating. He and his fellow far right House mates helped to create the disaster which enveloped him by, 1, encouraging the tea party eruption (money, operatives, silence at stupid statements) and, 2, not putting the Freedom Caucus and like minded new members of the House in their place when they arrived.
There was no good reason that 40 or so new members of Congress should control the national agenda, unless you let them. Boehner let them. He will go down in history as one of the worst, weakest Speakers to ever yield the gavel. Yet, the media had to treat him seriously because he held the title, if not the power.
Boehner faced two bad choices: pass the debt extension, negotiate a deal on other matters with Obama and then be kicked out of his chair or, two, do the same thing while resigning. He chose the latter, a (barely) more dignified exit.
This is the normal way disaster is covered over with handshakes and smiles in the Capitol. People 12 miles away from Congress can't be bothered with details, what matters is how it looks. This looks better.
What was at stake was the 2016 election to the White House for Republicans. If they had persisted, they were done, dead. Budget and deficit showdowns would have revealed by obstructionist nature of their party beyond any doubt and they would have lost the election now rather than later.
There was no good reason that 40 or so new members of Congress should control the national agenda, unless you let them. Boehner let them. He will go down in history as one of the worst, weakest Speakers to ever yield the gavel. Yet, the media had to treat him seriously because he held the title, if not the power.
Boehner faced two bad choices: pass the debt extension, negotiate a deal on other matters with Obama and then be kicked out of his chair or, two, do the same thing while resigning. He chose the latter, a (barely) more dignified exit.
This is the normal way disaster is covered over with handshakes and smiles in the Capitol. People 12 miles away from Congress can't be bothered with details, what matters is how it looks. This looks better.
What was at stake was the 2016 election to the White House for Republicans. If they had persisted, they were done, dead. Budget and deficit showdowns would have revealed by obstructionist nature of their party beyond any doubt and they would have lost the election now rather than later.
23
One other thing: it should be noted that Boehner managed to get major concessions from Obama at the start of Obama's first term, when the Democrats still had a majority in both houses of Congress. The biggest (by dollar amounts) cuts in federal spending, legislating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy into permanence and forced savings on Medicare. The fact that the new president and his team gave in on so much, even while they controlled a majority of votes on Capitol Hill, probably paved the way for the excesses since 2011. The Republicans came to believe that this president could be had, so when they got the majority, they expected Obama to cave. Instead, it is Boehner who is leaving before his time is up.
10
Congratulations America! you created a budget on the backs of the most vulnerable and those least able to provide for themselves.
Tax increases or closed loopholes for corps and the wealthy don't enter into the picture? What a surprise. The plutocracy triumphs. But good news: your disabled relative will be depending on you much more now...that's family closeness. Must be what politicians really mean by 'family values'.
That is, "We'll be taking from poor families to pay for increases to a.military already spending more than the rest of the world, combined.
Enjoy your garrison state, America. After all, you are the ones paying for those really great "Free Military Air Shows" each summer. Yes, go on out and salute with the rest of us veterans as lost doctor care, infrastructure and jobs go flying past....Boom! Bang! Pow!
It's so exciting, so
utterly American, and regrettable.
Tax increases or closed loopholes for corps and the wealthy don't enter into the picture? What a surprise. The plutocracy triumphs. But good news: your disabled relative will be depending on you much more now...that's family closeness. Must be what politicians really mean by 'family values'.
That is, "We'll be taking from poor families to pay for increases to a.military already spending more than the rest of the world, combined.
Enjoy your garrison state, America. After all, you are the ones paying for those really great "Free Military Air Shows" each summer. Yes, go on out and salute with the rest of us veterans as lost doctor care, infrastructure and jobs go flying past....Boom! Bang! Pow!
It's so exciting, so
utterly American, and regrettable.
20
Um, they didn't do anything to the disability program--which, by the way, if rife with fraud.
And how is a budget "on the backs of the most vulnerable"? All Congress did was to punt until 2017.
And how is a budget "on the backs of the most vulnerable"? All Congress did was to punt until 2017.
3
This is about as good as life gets in Washington these days. Be happy for small graces.
7
Republicans also likely wanted a CYA with this before the Tea Partiers take over. They want to minimize the chaos in the upcoming election year.
4
True Obama "bipartisanship" - he gets what he wants (a free ticket to spend for the next year), the Republican leadership gets to .... fall on its own principles.
1
Can the 'discharge petition' be used to discharge Congress ?
5
I'm thrilled this has happen, although I don't believe the GOP house member will stay "united" through December….too much "pride" is at stake…it doesn't anything to do w the good will of Americans.
This will see President Obama through his term, but set up a battle when the next President sets up shop.
The DNC needs to get to work on getting a House Majority- quickly. 2016 could be a wave election.
The DNC needs to get to work on getting a House Majority- quickly. 2016 could be a wave election.
To Mr. Ryan: now go and fashion a like bipartisan consensus on passing appropriation bills instead of shutting down the government on Dec. 11. We'll see.
As for Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio: just try to filibuster. That'll put you even further from the mainstream and nomination for POTUS.
As for Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio: just try to filibuster. That'll put you even further from the mainstream and nomination for POTUS.
How far has our so-called democracy fallen when we cheer a budget deal that adheres to misguided austerity at a time when the country desperately needs to rebuild its antiquated and deteriorated infrastructure in order to maintain its economic vitality and world leadership, and it avoids a catastrophic default on our debt. This is no longer the post-World War II America of vision, entreprenuership, and a government that can do really big things like build an interstate highway system and send man to the moon. It is the small, impotent government that the anti-tax Republicans have created with dysfunction and gridlock. It is, even with a budget, a government on life support only capable of fighting wars while being hollowed out at home as the majority struggle to make enough just to exist while watching the American dream of their parents and grandparents elude their grasp.
An example of how Congress works when the two parties are forced to work together. Compromise, dialog, action.
Listening, President Obama?
Listening, President Obama?
1
Rand Paul is right. We are stealing from Social Security and Medicare and spending it on Defense and other entitlements.
I have a problem with the fact that government is finding more and more creative ways to steal from SS/Medicare to accomplish a big fat zero.
No one can argue that we have accomplished anything with our defense spending aka wars, and no one can argue that we have improved poverty or living standards in this country in the last 30-40 years. Sure, we have grown the economy, but I do not care for that kind of growth. You know, the kind that went all into the pockets of the .01%
I have a problem with the fact that government is finding more and more creative ways to steal from SS/Medicare to accomplish a big fat zero.
No one can argue that we have accomplished anything with our defense spending aka wars, and no one can argue that we have improved poverty or living standards in this country in the last 30-40 years. Sure, we have grown the economy, but I do not care for that kind of growth. You know, the kind that went all into the pockets of the .01%
limping along, like a panhandler, no long range plan beyond th next drink
The deal is a welcome surprise and a victory for bipartisan cooperation. Glad that the sequester does not continue and that we're cutting from disability because that's a bloated program.
2
It’s funny how the most conservative Republicans, identified by those who wear the most flag pins, carry the Constitution in their pockets, and rave ad nauseam about our liberties – actually hate democracy in practice. In practice, they act to obstruct the will of the majority by blocking any vote in which they know they will lose.
It’s called the Hastert Rule, in which a majority of Republicans must agree before any bill will be brought for a vote by the full House. Hastert, of course, is now just another disgraced politician due to earlier peccadilloes (and that’s being kind). But his disgrace should be for the practice of denying votes on bills that will pass the full House because most of his party disapproved.
Those who proclaim liberty and democracy the loudest, I find, are in reality its worst enemies. Like any good dictator, they only care about their will prevailing.
It’s called the Hastert Rule, in which a majority of Republicans must agree before any bill will be brought for a vote by the full House. Hastert, of course, is now just another disgraced politician due to earlier peccadilloes (and that’s being kind). But his disgrace should be for the practice of denying votes on bills that will pass the full House because most of his party disapproved.
Those who proclaim liberty and democracy the loudest, I find, are in reality its worst enemies. Like any good dictator, they only care about their will prevailing.
The Times is reporting that the proposed changes to Social Security would be limited to "a Social Security disability program that supporters of the measure said would save the government billions", but elsewhere there are reports that the budget deal includes the elimination of "file and suspend".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-...
How far has our so-called democracy fallen when we cheer a budget deal that adheres to misguided austerity at a time when the country desperately needs to rebuild its antiquated and deteriorated infrastructure in order to maintain its economic vitality and world leadership, and it avoids a catastrophic default on our debt. This is no longer the post-World War II America of vision, entreprenuership, and a government that can do really big things like build an interstate highway system and send man to the moon. It is the small, impotent government that the anti-tax Republicans have created with dysfunction and gridlock. It is, even with a budget, a government on life support only capable of fighting wars while being hollowed out at home as the majority struggle to make enough just to exist while watching the American dream of their parents and grandparents elude their grasp.
9
" at a time when the country desperately needs to rebuild its antiquated and deteriorated infrastructure"
Perhaps there would be infrastructure spending if the democrats did not demand that all such work be done by union members who kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. The GOP would be foolish to agree to such a plan which gives kickback money to the democrats.
Perhaps there would be infrastructure spending if the democrats did not demand that all such work be done by union members who kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. The GOP would be foolish to agree to such a plan which gives kickback money to the democrats.
3
Rand Paul is right. We are stealing from Social Security and Medicare and spending it on Defense and other entitlements.
I have a problem with the fact that government is finding more and more creative ways to steal from SS/Medicare to accomplish a big fat zero.
No one can argue that we have accomplished anything with our defense spending aka wars, and no one can argue that we have improved poverty or living standards in this country in the last 30-40 years. Sure, we have grown the economy, but I do not care for that kind of growth. You know, the kind that went all into the pockets of the .01%
I have a problem with the fact that government is finding more and more creative ways to steal from SS/Medicare to accomplish a big fat zero.
No one can argue that we have accomplished anything with our defense spending aka wars, and no one can argue that we have improved poverty or living standards in this country in the last 30-40 years. Sure, we have grown the economy, but I do not care for that kind of growth. You know, the kind that went all into the pockets of the .01%
6
Where is the "stealing" from Social Security? There's a loan from SS Trust Fund to cover disability overruns, in lieu of any reform of a program that has come to mean "extended unemployment benefits," rather than disability.
2
The deal is a welcome surprise and a victory for bipartisan cooperation. Glad that the sequester does not continue and that we're cutting from disability because that's a bloated program.
4
The Times is reporting that the proposed changes to Social Security would be limited to "a Social Security disability program that supporters of the measure said would save the government billions", but elsewhere there are reports that the budget deal includes the elimination of "file and suspend".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-...
3
Seems like the double-dipping "file and suspend" is out in 6 months. Good riddance.
3
It does and will end any benefits (within 6 months of the bill's passing) that spouses and/or dependent children receive based on ANY person's record because of a file and suspend application unless that person lifts the suspension request and begin receiving personal benefits.
1
An example of how Congress works when the two parties are forced to work together. Compromise, dialog, action.
Listening, President Obama?
Listening, President Obama?
3
What, listening to the party that drove this nation into the ditch, and then claimed that the problem was with Obama, while actively not helping to get this nation back on track is the issue? Maybe Compromise, dialog, action should happen with the republicants!
4
It’s funny how the most conservative Republicans, identified by those who wear the most flag pins, carry the Constitution in their pockets, and rave ad nauseam about our liberties – actually hate democracy in practice. In practice, they act to obstruct the will of the majority by blocking any vote in which they know they will lose.
It’s called the Hastert Rule, in which a majority of Republicans must agree before any bill will be brought for a vote by the full House. Hastert, of course, is now just another disgraced politician due to earlier peccadilloes (and that’s being kind). But his disgrace should be for the practice of denying votes on bills that will pass the full House because most of his party disapproved.
Those who proclaim liberty and democracy the loudest, I find, are in reality its worst enemies. Like any good dictator, they only care about their will prevailing.
It’s called the Hastert Rule, in which a majority of Republicans must agree before any bill will be brought for a vote by the full House. Hastert, of course, is now just another disgraced politician due to earlier peccadilloes (and that’s being kind). But his disgrace should be for the practice of denying votes on bills that will pass the full House because most of his party disapproved.
Those who proclaim liberty and democracy the loudest, I find, are in reality its worst enemies. Like any good dictator, they only care about their will prevailing.
35
This will see President Obama through his term, but set up a battle when the next President sets up shop.
The DNC needs to get to work on getting a House Majority- quickly. 2016 could be a wave election.
The DNC needs to get to work on getting a House Majority- quickly. 2016 could be a wave election.
9
To Mr. Ryan: now go and fashion a like bipartisan consensus on passing appropriation bills instead of shutting down the government on Dec. 11. We'll see.
As for Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio: just try to filibuster. That'll put you even further from the mainstream and nomination for POTUS.
As for Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio: just try to filibuster. That'll put you even further from the mainstream and nomination for POTUS.
4
limping along, like a panhandler, no long range plan beyond th next drink
" no long range plan beyond th next drink"
I am sure that the liberal/progressives would much prefer central planning and 5-year plans just like to old Soviet Union, their ideal form of government.
I am sure that the liberal/progressives would much prefer central planning and 5-year plans just like to old Soviet Union, their ideal form of government.
2
See, now, that's interesting, because it is my distinct impression that Conservatives' only plan for eternity to come is to cut taxes. Directly recommended by God.
Why do Americans hate socialism? After all, they already live in a socialist country. What do you think public education, public highways, police departments, Social Security, Medicare, etc are? Socialist institutions all of them!
This vote was Boehner's ninth and final violation of the Hastert Rule. What this final budget vote proves is that without Democratic assistance, the Republican caucus cannot produce must-pass legislation. The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus makes the Republican party incapable of governing.
1
This vote was Boehner's ninth and final violation of the Hastert Rule. What this final budget vote proves is that without Democratic assistance, the Republican caucus cannot produce must-pass legislation. The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus makes the Republican party incapable of governing.
47
Finally our lame-duck Speaker gave the finger to the "Freedom Caucus" and allowed those on the other side of the aisle to actually participate in the decision-making process. Had he done this years ago the nation could have avoided so much grief and rank stupidity. Maybe he should schedule one last vote to rescind "Obamacare," just for the hell of it.
1
Finally our lame-duck Speaker gave the finger to the "Freedom Caucus" and allowed those on the other side of the aisle to actually participate in the decision-making process. Had he done this years ago the nation could have avoided so much grief and rank stupidity. Maybe he should schedule one last vote to rescind "Obamacare," just for the hell of it.
6
Anything about the trillions sitting offshore untaxed? Oh, how rude of me, that would be asking the rich to pay their share. So very sorry...
13
George, the trillions sitting offshore untaxed are there because we are the only government in the entire world with the audacity to tax profits earned overseas. We are the only government who taxes our citizens overseas. The people not paying there fair share are the 50% of the people in this country who pay no federal income taxes at all. Even if those profits are ultimately repatriated during some kind of tax holiday, when they are paid out as dividends to shareholders those shareholders will pay income tax, likely at the top rate of 39.6%, because the vast majority of stock is held by the wealthy, who pay almost all of the taxes and far more then their fair share. Stop being bitter and frowning on success without understanding what you're criticizing.
1
There is nothing to celebrate in this "deal": $112 billion in new spending over two years, almost two-thirds of it going to the Pentagon, and cuts in Medicare spending to health care providers.
The Medicare cuts won't result in belt-tightening among doctors. No, the belt tightening will be in clinics that serve the elderly, and even more MDs will stop accepting Medicare patients - a number tripled between 2010 and 2013 thanks to Obama's partial funding of ACA via Medicare cuts to providers.
Once again, the Democrats fail to make a campaign issue out of the Republican's sabotage of the economy via the withholding much-needed economic stimulus. Do the Democrats sincerely want to take back control of congress?
The Medicare cuts won't result in belt-tightening among doctors. No, the belt tightening will be in clinics that serve the elderly, and even more MDs will stop accepting Medicare patients - a number tripled between 2010 and 2013 thanks to Obama's partial funding of ACA via Medicare cuts to providers.
Once again, the Democrats fail to make a campaign issue out of the Republican's sabotage of the economy via the withholding much-needed economic stimulus. Do the Democrats sincerely want to take back control of congress?
17
"Averting a potentially devastating default" should not be considered a victory. Republicans know that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficits and surpluses. They are simply willing to damage the credit of the US and do real damage to the US and world economy unless they get what they want. "Bad faith" is the most generous term you can use to describe this behavior.
13
Sen. Rand Paul reportedly will try to filibuster the deal. Why doesn't someone in a politically prominent position call him out for this ? Almost all Americans do not understand that if the budget limit is not raised, the gov't defaults and that has a substantial effect on financial markets, with widespread consequences for all investments and credit rates. Calling Sen. Paul an incompetent for shrugging that off and bullspitting the American people on those absolutely unnecessary consequences would be kind. He deserves to be called much worse. Hopefully, the leaders of the Senate will deal with this.
13
The plutocracy wins again (of course) and everyone else loses. Our government is a disgrace. Boehner can now get a fat paycheck from K Street, Obama will make as much money as the Clintons did when he leaves office, and the crazies in the House and Senate will go back to acting like fools and clowns in a few weeks. The rest of us are supposed to celebrate because it could have been even worse. Some government, some electorate. I'm supporting Sen. Sanders.
15
more and more th american govt resembles that of 3rd world countries
endless haggling over minutia and nothing important is ever accomplished or resolved
th fate of america appears to become th worlds largest banana republic
endless haggling over minutia and nothing important is ever accomplished or resolved
th fate of america appears to become th worlds largest banana republic
People, Senator Sanders is encouraging a revolution. What he means is, Vote! Vote the Democrat ticket in 2016. The most effective way to fight the 1%, the Koch brothers, the do-nothing Republicans in Congress. You have the vote. Use it and vote Democrat.
Somehow, I think this "deal" only became possible because Wall Street, the MIC, and Corporate America don't want more chaos. It's bad for business. And business is all that matters.
15
There is nothing to celebrate in this "deal": $112 billion in new spending over two years, almost two-thirds of it going to the Pentagon, and cuts in Medicare spending to health care providers.
The Medicare cuts won't result in belt-tightening among doctors. No, the belt tightening will be in clinics that serve the elderly, and even more MDs will stop accepting Medicare patients - a number tripled between 2010 and 2013 thanks to Obama's partial funding of ACA via Medicare cuts to providers.
Once again, the Democrats fail to make a campaign issue out of the Republican's sabotage of the economy via the withholding much-needed economic stimulus. Do the Democrats sincerely want to take back control of congress?
The Medicare cuts won't result in belt-tightening among doctors. No, the belt tightening will be in clinics that serve the elderly, and even more MDs will stop accepting Medicare patients - a number tripled between 2010 and 2013 thanks to Obama's partial funding of ACA via Medicare cuts to providers.
Once again, the Democrats fail to make a campaign issue out of the Republican's sabotage of the economy via the withholding much-needed economic stimulus. Do the Democrats sincerely want to take back control of congress?
47
Nope, all they know how to do is to cave, even when they have the advantage.
Sen. Rand Paul reportedly will try to filibuster the deal. Why doesn't someone in a politically prominent position call him out for this ? Almost all Americans do not understand that if the budget limit is not raised, the gov't defaults and that has a substantial effect on financial markets, with widespread consequences for all investments and credit rates. Calling Sen. Paul an incompetent for shrugging that off and bullspitting the American people on those absolutely unnecessary consequences would be kind. He deserves to be called much worse. Hopefully, the leaders of the Senate will deal with this.
24
Let it default. Stop stealing from the people and giving it to the MIC and plutocrats.
The plutocracy wins again (of course) and everyone else loses. Our government is a disgrace. Boehner can now get a fat paycheck from K Street, Obama will make as much money as the Clintons did when he leaves office, and the crazies in the House and Senate will go back to acting like fools and clowns in a few weeks. The rest of us are supposed to celebrate because it could have been even worse. Some government, some electorate. I'm supporting Sen. Sanders.
54
People, Senator Sanders is encouraging a revolution. What he means is, Vote! Vote the Democrat ticket in 2016. The most effective way to fight the 1%, the Koch brothers, the do-nothing Republicans in Congress. You have the vote. Use it and vote Democrat.
7
more and more th american govt resembles that of 3rd world countries
endless haggling over minutia and nothing important is ever accomplished or resolved
th fate of america appears to become th worlds largest banana republic
endless haggling over minutia and nothing important is ever accomplished or resolved
th fate of america appears to become th worlds largest banana republic
3
"Averting a potentially devastating default" should not be considered a victory. Republicans know that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficits and surpluses. They are simply willing to damage the credit of the US and do real damage to the US and world economy unless they get what they want. "Bad faith" is the most generous term you can use to describe this behavior.
21
Anything about the trillions sitting offshore untaxed? Oh, how rude of me, that would be asking the rich to pay their share. So very sorry...
42
George, the trillions sitting offshore untaxed are there because we are the only government in the entire world with the audacity to tax profits earned overseas. We are the only government who taxes our citizens overseas. The people not paying there fair share are the 50% of the people in this country who pay no federal income taxes at all. Even if those profits are ultimately repatriated during some kind of tax holiday, when they are paid out as dividends to shareholders those shareholders will pay income tax, likely at the top rate of 39.6%, because the vast majority of stock is held by the wealthy, who pay almost all of the taxes and far more then their fair share. Stop being bitter and frowning on success without understanding what you're criticizing.
2
Taxed as income at 39%?? I think you mean taxed as capital gains at 12%. Not their fair share.
6
Somehow, I think this "deal" only became possible because Wall Street, the MIC, and Corporate America don't want more chaos. It's bad for business. And business is all that matters.
30
Which means that Wall Street, MIC, and Corporate America, for all their faults, are somewhat rational. It could be worse.
2
“What I’ve heard from members over the last two weeks is a desire to wipe the slate clean, put in place a process that builds trust, and start focusing on big ideas. "- Ryan. Big ideas? What "big ideas". The Republicans have not had a new big idea since Goldwater, maybe since Taft. The Republican version of a big idea is a new special committee aimed at cutting off the legs of a political foe.
14
“What I’ve heard from members over the last two weeks is a desire to wipe the slate clean, put in place a process that builds trust, and start focusing on big ideas. "- Ryan. Big ideas? What "big ideas". The Republicans have not had a new big idea since Goldwater, maybe since Taft. The Republican version of a big idea is a new special committee aimed at cutting off the legs of a political foe.
33
37 no votes on an issue the leadership opposed. I thought they were supposed to be good at counting votes.
2
37 no votes on an issue the leadership opposed. I thought they were supposed to be good at counting votes.
4
The proposed change in social security rules that drops the "file and suspend" rule for couples is a major blow to our middle-class retirement plans. We are 70 and 65 to have it hit us out without warning this way after carefully planning how we would stay in our home is a terrible blow, with a loss of about $75,000 in expected income. I suggest that if you are concerned or affected that you contact your senators immediately and let them know. I believe there is still some negotiation taking place.
8
I am reminded of the coverage after the first Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA, which I thought underplayed the impact making the Medicaid expansion voluntary would have. I have no idea how this budget deal will come to be seen, but I am troubled that we seem to be getting a limited discussion of its contents. Maybe the group who will notice the changes from this deal to the Social Security retirement program rules is thought to be too small to require more detailed coverage, but to me it feels like there is a risk that the coverage is putting the public at a disadvantage in understanding in a timely manner what has happened and what its consequences are likely to be -- it sort of introduces an element of surprise into a situation where there needn't be one. It undermines my trust, both in the deal makers and in the deal coverers. And I say this as someone who I don't think is actually impacted by the rule change itself.
3
This comment is the first mention I have seen of this proposed change; it will have enormous negative impact on many retired two-income couples. A little more publicity would be helpful here.
1
The proposed change in social security rules that drops the "file and suspend" rule for couples is a major blow to our middle-class retirement plans. We are 70 and 65 to have it hit us out without warning this way after carefully planning how we would stay in our home is a terrible blow, with a loss of about $75,000 in expected income. I suggest that if you are concerned or affected that you contact your senators immediately and let them know. I believe there is still some negotiation taking place.
13
I am reminded of the coverage after the first Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA, which I thought underplayed the impact making the Medicaid expansion voluntary would have. I have no idea how this budget deal will come to be seen, but I am troubled that we seem to be getting a limited discussion of its contents. Maybe the group who will notice the changes from this deal to the Social Security retirement program rules is thought to be too small to require more detailed coverage, but to me it feels like there is a risk that the coverage is putting the public at a disadvantage in understanding in a timely manner what has happened and what its consequences are likely to be -- it sort of introduces an element of surprise into a situation where there needn't be one. It undermines my trust, both in the deal makers and in the deal coverers. And I say this as someone who I don't think is actually impacted by the rule change itself.
9
This comment is the first mention I have seen of this proposed change; it will have enormous negative impact on many retired two-income couples. A little more publicity would be helpful here.
4
It's a done deal Harry, it's a done deal.
In terms of the big picture this appears to be a victory for a bipartisan approach, a victory for a rational approach to making government work.
As for the detail of reducing Medicare payments to providers, many physicians no longer accept new Medicare patients because of inadequate reimbursement. This will only exacerbate that problem.
As for the detail of reducing Medicare payments to providers, many physicians no longer accept new Medicare patients because of inadequate reimbursement. This will only exacerbate that problem.
10
Medicare was once considered premium insurance. Now doctors can't pay their bills with Medicare reimbursement. When the baby boomers try to find a good doctor, they are going to have a rude awakening. Senior citizen, heal thyself.
5
As for Medicare payments being insufficient, you can find results with data at http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/10/02/do-medicare-and-medicaid-paymen...
The author, a private practice orthopedic surgeon, looks at orthopedists and family doctors. He finds that an orthopedist who had only Medicare patients would have a take home income of $411,000. I could live on that.
A family doctor who had only Medicare patients would end up with $137,000, a lot less, but you know I could live on that, too (which is more than I ever earned) if I didn't serve Chateau Petrus on weekdays.
The author, a private practice orthopedic surgeon, looks at orthopedists and family doctors. He finds that an orthopedist who had only Medicare patients would have a take home income of $411,000. I could live on that.
A family doctor who had only Medicare patients would end up with $137,000, a lot less, but you know I could live on that, too (which is more than I ever earned) if I didn't serve Chateau Petrus on weekdays.
1
In terms of the big picture this appears to be a victory for a bipartisan approach, a victory for a rational approach to making government work.
As for the detail of reducing Medicare payments to providers, many physicians no longer accept new Medicare patients because of inadequate reimbursement. This will only exacerbate that problem.
As for the detail of reducing Medicare payments to providers, many physicians no longer accept new Medicare patients because of inadequate reimbursement. This will only exacerbate that problem.
12
Medicare was once considered premium insurance. Now doctors can't pay their bills with Medicare reimbursement. When the baby boomers try to find a good doctor, they are going to have a rude awakening. Senior citizen, heal thyself.
11
As for Medicare payments being insufficient, you can find results with data at http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/10/02/do-medicare-and-medicaid-paymen...
The author, a private practice orthopedic surgeon, looks at orthopedists and family doctors. He finds that an orthopedist who had only Medicare patients would have a take home income of $411,000. I could live on that.
A family doctor who had only Medicare patients would end up with $137,000, a lot less, but you know I could live on that, too (which is more than I ever earned) if I didn't serve Chateau Petrus on weekdays.
The author, a private practice orthopedic surgeon, looks at orthopedists and family doctors. He finds that an orthopedist who had only Medicare patients would have a take home income of $411,000. I could live on that.
A family doctor who had only Medicare patients would end up with $137,000, a lot less, but you know I could live on that, too (which is more than I ever earned) if I didn't serve Chateau Petrus on weekdays.
5
Dr. G:
Maybe the major problem is that so many doctors are so greedy..
You all make more money than most people ever will and are still never satisfied.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people became doctors to help people instead of with the goal of becoming rich?
Maybe the major problem is that so many doctors are so greedy..
You all make more money than most people ever will and are still never satisfied.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people became doctors to help people instead of with the goal of becoming rich?
1
Kind of a crushing experience for the Freedom Caucus. I assume the 37 votes against the import/export bank issue where of that subset? Now Mr. Ryan and his followers in the FC can spend the next two years talking about how they are going to get their way next time.
7
Kind of a crushing experience for the Freedom Caucus. I assume the 37 votes against the import/export bank issue where of that subset? Now Mr. Ryan and his followers in the FC can spend the next two years talking about how they are going to get their way next time.
11
Paul Ryan says "What has been produced will go a long way toward relieving the uncertainty that hangs over us" as if it weren't his own party that was creating the uncertainty in the first place. Then a paragraph later you mention a vote that had 392 to 37 support that was opposed by the Republican leaders. Who do these people represent? Does something need 100% support before the leadership will deign to allow a vote to proceed? John Boehner had a chance to move these agendas forward during his time as speaker but he feared for his job more then he loved America. A profile in cowardice.
11
Paul Ryan says "What has been produced will go a long way toward relieving the uncertainty that hangs over us" as if it weren't his own party that was creating the uncertainty in the first place. Then a paragraph later you mention a vote that had 392 to 37 support that was opposed by the Republican leaders. Who do these people represent? Does something need 100% support before the leadership will deign to allow a vote to proceed? John Boehner had a chance to move these agendas forward during his time as speaker but he feared for his job more then he loved America. A profile in cowardice.
21
Supporters of that measure forced a vote, which passed 392 to 37, using a rare procedural weapon, called a discharge petition.
Its a shame that John did not do his job as speaker sooner and force a vote as it looks like the vast majority of his party liked the idea. Why does the GOP think 100% of their party must like a bill before it is voted on. A note to Paul, this is not a one party system.
Its a shame that John did not do his job as speaker sooner and force a vote as it looks like the vast majority of his party liked the idea. Why does the GOP think 100% of their party must like a bill before it is voted on. A note to Paul, this is not a one party system.
Bully for them. Always slap the little guy.
9
Bully for them. Always slap the little guy.
19
I would think that the little guy is benefiting by not having his SS Disability reduced by 20% next year as had been planned.
Why are you all never satisfied and always engaged in partisan sniping?
The House has compromised and done a good thing and you all are still griping.
Why are you all never satisfied and always engaged in partisan sniping?
The House has compromised and done a good thing and you all are still griping.
2
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $80 billion in federal spending over two years in exchange for a variety of cost offsets, including cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and other health care providers and tightened eligibility requirements for a Social Security disability program."
It would be somewhat more accurate to state it this way:
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $40 billion in defense spending over two years in exchange for a variety of non-defense cost offsets.
"There will not be any increase in domestic spending, just transfers of money from one domestic program to another, with most of the money coming out of Social Security and Medicare."
The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual; there will be no increase in taxes, and no tax loopholes will close. The era of ultra low taxes on the super-rich will continue, along will $Trillions for defense spending and never-ending stupid wars.
It would be somewhat more accurate to state it this way:
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $40 billion in defense spending over two years in exchange for a variety of non-defense cost offsets.
"There will not be any increase in domestic spending, just transfers of money from one domestic program to another, with most of the money coming out of Social Security and Medicare."
The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual; there will be no increase in taxes, and no tax loopholes will close. The era of ultra low taxes on the super-rich will continue, along will $Trillions for defense spending and never-ending stupid wars.
34
"The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual;"
Just like the Republicans have their Freedom Caucus that is not willing to compromise on anything, Obama must deal with his ultra liberal wing that claims he caves when he goes along on a compromise that averts a government shutdown and stabilizes financial markets. Moderates applaud a budget deal where everybody has to give something to get something. Beware of people who use simplistic phrases like "the bottom line is this". I spent 7 years listening to Grover Norquist say the same thing over and over again.
Just like the Republicans have their Freedom Caucus that is not willing to compromise on anything, Obama must deal with his ultra liberal wing that claims he caves when he goes along on a compromise that averts a government shutdown and stabilizes financial markets. Moderates applaud a budget deal where everybody has to give something to get something. Beware of people who use simplistic phrases like "the bottom line is this". I spent 7 years listening to Grover Norquist say the same thing over and over again.
2
babel - What are some of the policies of the "ultra liberal wing"?
An improved Medicare for everyone?
A smaller defense budget?
Investing in America? (Fixing our roads and bridges, educating our kids, etc.)
More progressive tax rates?
Regulation of financial speculation?
Preservation of a woman's right to choose?
And so on.
If so, count me in.
An improved Medicare for everyone?
A smaller defense budget?
Investing in America? (Fixing our roads and bridges, educating our kids, etc.)
More progressive tax rates?
Regulation of financial speculation?
Preservation of a woman's right to choose?
And so on.
If so, count me in.
1
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $80 billion in federal spending over two years in exchange for a variety of cost offsets, including cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and other health care providers and tightened eligibility requirements for a Social Security disability program."
It would be somewhat more accurate to state it this way:
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $40 billion in defense spending over two years in exchange for a variety of non-defense cost offsets.
"There will not be any increase in domestic spending, just transfers of money from one domestic program to another, with most of the money coming out of Social Security and Medicare."
The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual; there will be no increase in taxes, and no tax loopholes will close. The era of ultra low taxes on the super-rich will continue, along will $Trillions for defense spending and never-ending stupid wars.
It would be somewhat more accurate to state it this way:
"The budget deal calls for an increase of $40 billion in defense spending over two years in exchange for a variety of non-defense cost offsets.
"There will not be any increase in domestic spending, just transfers of money from one domestic program to another, with most of the money coming out of Social Security and Medicare."
The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual; there will be no increase in taxes, and no tax loopholes will close. The era of ultra low taxes on the super-rich will continue, along will $Trillions for defense spending and never-ending stupid wars.
73
"The bottom line is this: Obama caved in as usual;"
Just like the Republicans have their Freedom Caucus that is not willing to compromise on anything, Obama must deal with his ultra liberal wing that claims he caves when he goes along on a compromise that averts a government shutdown and stabilizes financial markets. Moderates applaud a budget deal where everybody has to give something to get something. Beware of people who use simplistic phrases like "the bottom line is this". I spent 7 years listening to Grover Norquist say the same thing over and over again.
Just like the Republicans have their Freedom Caucus that is not willing to compromise on anything, Obama must deal with his ultra liberal wing that claims he caves when he goes along on a compromise that averts a government shutdown and stabilizes financial markets. Moderates applaud a budget deal where everybody has to give something to get something. Beware of people who use simplistic phrases like "the bottom line is this". I spent 7 years listening to Grover Norquist say the same thing over and over again.
8
babel - What are some of the policies of the "ultra liberal wing"?
An improved Medicare for everyone?
A smaller defense budget?
Investing in America? (Fixing our roads and bridges, educating our kids, etc.)
More progressive tax rates?
Regulation of financial speculation?
Preservation of a woman's right to choose?
And so on.
If so, count me in.
An improved Medicare for everyone?
A smaller defense budget?
Investing in America? (Fixing our roads and bridges, educating our kids, etc.)
More progressive tax rates?
Regulation of financial speculation?
Preservation of a woman's right to choose?
And so on.
If so, count me in.
10
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Cassandra in Central New Jersey
So, reduction of necessary things for the United States of Wars.
Thanks for the clarification-translation. Thanks also, for depressing me.
Submitted 10-28-15@7:50 p.m. EST
So, reduction of necessary things for the United States of Wars.
Thanks for the clarification-translation. Thanks also, for depressing me.
Submitted 10-28-15@7:50 p.m. EST
2
No question, after all the howling, kicking, screaming and outlandish extremist statements, Obama, and reasonableness won the day. The fighting is over with a whimper for the Obama era and Republicans have to move on to fight the next President. We can only hope they'll be more constructive next time.
8
No question, after all the howling, kicking, screaming and outlandish extremist statements, Obama, and reasonableness won the day. The fighting is over with a whimper for the Obama era and Republicans have to move on to fight the next President. We can only hope they'll be more constructive next time.
12
If Boehner had only exhibited the same backbone the past few years, the so-called Freedom-from-Intelligence Caucus would have never been able to gain traction. Glad the House actually did something; kinda reminded me of how democracy is supposed to work.
17
If Boehner had only exhibited the same backbone the past few years, the so-called Freedom-from-Intelligence Caucus would have never been able to gain traction. Glad the House actually did something; kinda reminded me of how democracy is supposed to work.
24
And, "It also will prevent a default on the federal debt ..., and called for cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and other health care providers as well as changes to a Social Security disability program that supporters of the measure said would save the government billions, while preserving the program for decades to come.
So, the Democrats chose 1. reduce Medicare payments to health care providers and 2. make changes to the Social Security disability program that would "save the government billions (cut benefits?)
One of the many problem concerning our health care today is a LACK of doctors, so the Democrats answer to this problem in to REDUCE Medicare payments to doctors. A great solution, especially since most other insurance companies base their payments on the Medicare fee schedule. Result: Lower payments by Medicare results in lower payments by other health care insurance companies.
The attempt to reduce payment to the SS disability program is just as ridiculous.