If the Democratic Party allows Medicare or Social Security to be cut,

[Are_grits_groceries]

they will reap the whirlwind. The backlash will be fast and fierce.

People are emotionally connected to these programs. Many rely on them as a sole source of income and any medical care. Others are counting on these programs to keep them off the streets when they retire.

In addition, every paycheck has money taken out for these programs. People can physically see their money being taken out every payday.

Congress can whine until they are blue in the face. They knew decades ago how much money was coming in. They were also told of population trends that were coming. They were supposed to be stewards of that money and keep those funds solvent. According to some, it was used for other things.

People know billions or possibly trillion were spent bailing out people who are still making obscene salaries. These very people started the whole financial mess by creating derivatives and such that were used to just make money. When that fun maneuver blew up, they ran to the government for help.

In addition, our defense budget is so wildly out of whack in relation to the overall budget that it's mind boggling. We have eleventy billion types of drones and more being developed. There is a great push by some for more civilian use. What are they going to watch? More people on the streets and a crumbling infrastructure. What the hell are they protecting?

The Democrats will take the biggest hit because they have always been seen as the protectors of these programs. The Republicans will be close behind for retribution. The whacks will come from everywhere because even the teaspitters don't want them touched.

The politicians can try to explain their way out of it, but that won't work. Once that emotional button has been pushed by fear, people can't hear. They react.

We are slouching towards a tipping point of some kind, and we better get off that road. The destination is not a place we want to go.

[newfie11]

1. Then a third party will show up more

Maybe the Green Party.
If the Dems allow SS, Medicare, Medicaid to be cut they will be in a world of hurt.

[valerief]

27. The 3rd party just needs to call itself the Democrat Party (as opposed to Democratic Party).

The Republicans already vilify the "Democrat" Party, so it's automatically a progressive party.

[leveymg]

32. If there is a Grand Bargain, both the Dems and GOP may go the way of the Whigs.

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

The base on both sides won't continue to tolerate the triangulating corporate Centrists who actually run both parties. This country is ill-served by a two-party system that spins around a Center-Right that has been shifting rightward for three decades on tax and fiscal issues.

[HiPointDem]

74. +1

[CrispyQ]

82. Well said!

two-party system that spins around a Center-Right that has been shifting rightward for three decades

[Blue Gardener]

2. If I hear them called "Entitlements"

One more time, I'm going to punch someone. I've been paying in since I was 14 years old. I'm 53 now.
I'm hearing it from both parties by the way, not just republicans.

[JHB]

3. That's because they are. It's decades of conservative propaganda that has made the word...

...synonymous with "handout".

Back in the 80s the rhetorical trick was to rail about how much was spent on entitlements, then talk only about welfare programs even though by far most of the big number they had just waved around went to Social Security and Medicare. Technically accurate but deliberately misleading.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. You're entitled to collect what you've paid into. Doesn't matter that the repukes have sullied the

word like they do. They can't change the meaning which is that those who have paid into these earned benefits ARE entitled to collect fully.

I hate republicans!

[tularetom]

20. If you've been paying in for 39 years

You are goddamn well entitled.

It's the effing "liberal media" that has distorted the meaning of the word but there is actually nothing wrong with the
concept of SS being an entitlement.

[southernyankeebelle]

33. To me social security is an annuity not an entitlement and that is what we should call it.

We have been paying into social security annunity for a very long time. The rich are the ones who are getting entitlements.

[CTyankee]

41. And we STILL pay into Medicare when we are on it!

Plus paying for a supplementary policy that covers the 20% that Medicare B doesn't pay! It comes to a much higher percentage of most seniors' income than they used to pay for their health care. That has been my experience.

[loyalkydem]

4. Enough with the if posts

So far every democrat that I have seen says our critical programs are off the table. What we need to do is concentrate on those blue dog democrats from the south and make them understand that we can and will make sure they get primaried if they go after these programs. We need to start playing dirty like the tea party.

[WinkyDink]

6. They won't care; they will just go back home and count their bribes.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. I don't believe a word I hear from any of them!

We have been promised the moon and gotten a meteorite too many times. I will believe what I see happening.
I need to see action behind those words of 'off the table.' It's funny how we are finally asked to eat a done meal deal that we expect to be palatable, and find gruel. Then we are told to eat it because that's all that can be spared for us. Eff that!

[Enrique]

11. some big-name dems are talking cutting Medicare

and some DUers are ok with it.

[HiPointDem]

77. yes. as long as a D does it, it's the best thing since sliced bread by some.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Unfortunately many Democrats, starting with our President, are OK with cuts... or are even

asking for cuts, presumably in order to claim that they're "bipartisan" or some such nonsense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021375333#post36 (Simpson-Bowles calls for an eventual 22% cut in the average Social Security benefit.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021127956
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/27/obama-im-prepared-to-make-a-whole-range-of-compromises/

From last year:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president (search the page for Social Security)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security

My own senior Senator, John Kerry, is on the record as saying that entitlements are the only financial problem facing the US. Hopefully our soon-to-be other Senator can shame Kerry into doing the right thing.

[sabrina 1]

35. There are very few Blue Dogs left. A lot of them lost in 2010

It is the Leadership who needs to be concentrated on. The rank and file only do what the party leadership directs them to do.

And I have not heard 'every democrat' say that SS will be off the table in any Deficit discussions because it had nothing to do with the deficit.

I have heard the WH say Obamacare is off that table.

Why is it so hard to do the same with SS?

Because it IS on the table and everyone knows it.

[bvar22]

64. Off the Table...... until the Marketing Department manufactures another fake "Hostage Crisis"...

..where the Party leadership must step in and save the hostage,
THEN it will be all tears and excuses:

"We had to do SOMETHING!"

"We couldn't let the Perfect be the enemy of The Good."

"It was the only SENSIBLE thing to do for those of us who live in the Real World."

"This was a step in the right direction."

"We can fix it later."

"He doesn't have a Magic Wand."

"We might not have had 60 votes."

"It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!"

[djean111]

80. "Stop whining because you didn't get your pony!"

[WinkyDink]

5. People laughed at Gore's "Lock-Box".....

[ReRe]

7. I'm with you

K&R

Something's happening here, alright. We've been slouching for some time, and the tipping point is nigh. I'd say around New Year's Day, 2013. If those Bush tax breaks don't go away on New Year's Day, with no strings attached (to cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Education, etc.,) then they screwed us. Period. New. Paragraph. This is the point that this country finally makes up its mind about what kind of country it wants to be. We thought that was decided by the election, but by the confusing mumbo-jumbo and twisted logic coming out of DC, we just don't know for sure. Seems like we go from one point of insecurity to another, over and over and over again.

[banned from Kos]

8. Medicare needs to be reformed around patient wellness

and stop being a fee-for-service system.

Docs run unnecessary tests just for the fees. Obama even mentioned this.

Reason # 9870983 I support him.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. That is reform that I can live with.

However, the Republicans will pull switch and bait at any moment. Then we will be screwed even more because we promised something else.

Any reform better be framed so that people will understand it and even begin to buy in. They don't trust the politicians anymore than I do.

[Zen Democrat]

12. There are many ways to cut Medicare costs and sustain the level of benefits.

One would be to allow the government to negotiate bulk drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. There are many more. Social Security can be shored up by increasing the salary level for SS taxes. There are many ways to "cut" these programs to make them stronger and not affect benefits.

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. There may be.

However, I don't want one step made until we KNOW what is in the final bill. I don't believe any of them. They would trade their mothers to stay in office.

In addition, if the word CUT takes hold, that's the ball game. Congress has an approval rating near absolute zero. People don't like or trust them as a governing unit.

[Doctor_J]

19. Which is why negotiating with them is an abandonment of the people

Congress has an approval rating near absolute zero.

So why is the president even considering their ideas?

[vi5]

29. Because "Bipartisanship, YAY!!!!"

Unless it's an election year, then "Liberals, YAY!!"

[geckosfeet]

16. Social policy in its many manifestations is the linchpin of the democratic platform.

If they start messing around with the bedrock instability will follow.

[Doctor_J]

21. We already have instability

cutting Medicare and SS will be followed by the end of the party.

[geckosfeet]

52. Yeah well, I guess it's a matter of degeree. Tremor or all engulfing chasm causing quake.

Frankly I think the democratic party will cease to be if they give ground on these issues.

[bvar22]

76. It won't matter then.

After the last remaining vestiges of The New Deal and The Great Society have been Privatized,
and the supra-Constitutional powers of the Unitary Executive have been reinforced and expanded,
it will be [font size=3]MISSION ACCOMPLISHED![/font]

Those leading the attack on these Successful Social Programs
could NOT Care Less whether the Democratic Party survives.

[RomneyLies]

17. I'm with you on that.

There's one line in the sand for me, my need to have Medicare and Social Security in my old age.

Otherwise, there's no need to even make it to old age. We would immediately move into Soylent Green territory.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. My experience has been that Washington

is the LAST place to get a clue. They think they can continue on in unlimited corruption and profit-taking and screwing over the poor and middle class with immunity -- most likely because they HAVE been getting away with it for over 30 years now. But you are right. There's been a sea change. We out here in the hinterlands have had enough and are in a surly mood because we see people like Mitt Romney paying a whole 14% in taxes and still bitching about it and WE'RE the ones asked to make sacrifices. We know that millionaires and billionaires hide money offshore and don't pay a dime in taxes. If they even THINK about trying to screw us over via "adjusting" Medicare and SS there WILL be a backlash. Guaranteed.

[union_maid]

22. We're going to have to give on something

Not minimizing the problem. I'm 63. Our 401K is a shadow of its former self due to stock market fluctuations and medical emergencies. It now holds the status of a very limited emergency fund, rather than anything that can fund retirement. I need SS and Medicare in place as much as anyone. But, while Dems have a good hand, they do not hold all the cards. What I'm hoping for is that they make adjustments that don't really hurt us much, but allow the Repubs to say they won something.

[Are_grits_groceries]

26. No!

That's what the Republicans want. Give them ANYTHING on SS or Medicare and they will blame Dems the nnosecond it is passed. Unfortunately, the Dems have proven to be ineffective at framing issues.

What is really is that unemployment and other programs to help people barely keep their heads above water will probably be cut. We have been jammed into an unacceptble corner.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Not really, they can't pass a single cut without us

Give them nothing but hell.

We can afford to be "not hurt much", they've fucked us for decades and become richer than kings in the process.

I wants teeth and skull fragments on the fucking floor.

[bread_and_roses]

36. no & No & NO - we've ALREADY "given" damn near everything

We've given up raises, paid more for our health care, seen our services cut, been laid-off, outsourced, evicted, foreclosed on, supported our out-of-work family members, taken on trillions in debt for college, underfunded our schools, been killed in infrastructure collapses, paid more for our prescriptions to give Big Pharma more profits, accepted for-profit health insurance to give the Vampire insurance companies more profits, and taken a raise in SS age to 66 - on and on and on, I'm sure I forgot some.

Not only must we refuse ANY cuts in SS/MA/MC but we must begin to demand restoration if some of what we've lost.

Time for the rich to pay.

[GoCubsGo]

45. Hogwash.

This idea that Social Security is part of our deficit problem, or is in some sort of trouble comes from the assholes who put out those memes in order to convince people to privatize it. It is one big, fucking LIE. Social Security is FULLY FUNDED until 2039--for the next 25 years. After that, only minimal cuts might be needed to keep it running, if nothing is done. It can easily be fixed by raising the cap on the amount of income that is taxed. It stands at the first $110K of income. Remove the cap altogether, and there will be NO problem.

The republicans have wanted to kill Social Security from Day One. As long as people keep believing their lies, and keep spreading them, they'll eventually get their way. Time to stop that. NOW. Mark Begich has put out legislation to raise the income cap. Call your representatives and demand that they support it. And, then demand that they stop lying about Social Security and Medicare. They are not the problem. Two wars, multiple unpaid-for tax cuts, and a Medicare Part D drug company give-away ARE the problem.

[bluestate10]

81. Removal of the Cap would be the best option. Allowing people to voluntarily give

up SS benefits but retain Medicare benefits would be another. I am on the opposite end from you. My 401K is large enough that if I make minimal changes in lifestyle, can last the rest of my life once I retire. I can toy with the idea of giving up some or all SS benefits as long as I can retain the Medicare coverage.

On the Cap. I have capped out every year of my working life. I set my living budget at the start of the year and due to relatively good health, have been able to meet my targets year in and year out. I wouldn't notice if the Cap was eliminated because nothing in the way that I live and spend would change. People that make more than I do also shouldn't feel any effect from elimination of the Cap if they have managed their finances properly.

[SidDithers]

23. If the Democratic Party starts cooking kittens in the street...

there will be hell to pay!

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

25. That might finally do the trick.

Certainly, 20 years of sprinting to the right on economics and foreign policy hasn't.

[SidDithers]

31. 22%, right Manny?...

maybe you'll be right this term. Though I doubt it.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Was I wrong about something? Please provide my actual quote

so I can learn from my mistakes.

Thanks!

Manny

[SidDithers]

42. You've been ringing the alarm bells about a 22% cut to SS for 2 years Manny...

Now, you're going to pretend all those posts didn't happen? That they weren't a prediction?



Pull the other leg.

Sid

[Are_grits_groceries]

44. And that bell is still out there.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls while you roll around on the floor.
Why any of this is funny is beyond me.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. One quote. Let's see what you're disagreeing with here. nt

[SidDithers]

54. Here's you putting words into Obama's mouth, it's obviously what you believe he wants...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=747031&mesg_id=747038

"Make no mistake: we need to modestly cut benefits by 22%
so that Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers get a return on their campaign contributions we can save Social Security. And, make no mistake: the need to save Social Security is every bit as realistic as the Debt Crisis."

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of posts where you scaremonger about a 22% cut to SS, Manny. They follow a familiar pattern, something like:

Simpson-Bowles recommends a 22% cut
Obama appointed Simpson-Bowles
You can figure out the rest.

You can play all the word games you want, Manny, but your message is clear as day.

So, when you ask "Was I wrong about something?", the answer is absolutely you were wrong about something. SS wasn't cut by 22% in Obama's first term. Maybe you'll be right in his second term, but I doubt it.

Sid

[SidDithers]

56. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=781211&mesg_id=781239

Cutting the average worker's benefit by 22% is "modifications around the edges"?
Obama's "deficit commission", led by each party's most virulent foes of Social Security, voted to recommend a 22% cut in the average recipient's benefits over time. Obama rejected many other recommendations of his commission - but not that one.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Is anything in the following part of that quote incorrect?

"Obama's "deficit commission", led by each party's most virulent foes of Social Security, voted to recommend a 22% cut in the average recipient's benefits over time. Obama rejected many other recommendations of his commission - but not that one."

[SidDithers]

59. Has SS been cut by 22%, Manny?...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

69. I see. You don't want to answer my simple question.

The the conversation really can't continue.

[SidDithers]

71. I have no interest in a conversation with you, Manny...

my only point was to show that you've been scaremongering about a 22% SS cut for 2 years, and that for 2 years you've been completely and totally wrong.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

73. So the President's commission did *not* vote to recommend a 22% cut

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

in the average benefit?

Are you going with that answer?

[SidDithers]

75. The commission did issue a final report that included a 22% recommendation?...

you're going with that answer?

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Yes.

See? A simple answer.

Your turn....

[SidDithers]

86. That was approved by 14 of the 18 members of the commission?...

Proceed, Manny.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Yes.

Which did not achieve the number needed for an automatic Vote in Congress, but was still the commission's recommendation.

So what's your point?

[SidDithers]

90. Without 14 votes, it was just noise...

and of no more value than the opinions of any other former or current politicians.

Yet you treat it as if it holds the weight of law.

So, back to the original point - 2 years of predictions an no 22% SS cut.

It's OK to admit you were wrong, Manny.

Sid

[SidDithers]

60. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=702316&mesg_id=702316

It still blows my mind. A Democratic President hell-bent on slashing Social Security

http://www.handsoffss.org/what-is-the-deficit-commissio...

A government gutting Social Security to cut the deficit when, BY LAW, it is forbidden from adding a penny to the deficit.

Again, I woke up this morning feeling like I somehow teleported to an alternate bizarro-world. Who ever heard of Democrats gleefully doing such things?

Hey unrec-ers: We welcome your hatred

Sid

[SidDithers]

62. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1314096&mesg_id=1314786

You expect Senate Democrats to fight Obama on his War Against Social Security?
Slashing Social Security is a fetish for this president. It's just sick.

It will come down just like Obama's "hostaging" over continued tax cuts for wealthiest: suddenly a deal between Obama and Republicans will be announced that guts Social Security. Then the Senate Dems will be told by the White House "it's a deal - take it or we default on the debt".

Obama will, of course claim that they are "needed minor adjustments to keep up with increasing life expectancy" etc. This, of course, will be absolute bullshit: they will not be minor (Obama's hand-picked commission voted for 22% in cuts for the average recipient), and they are certainly not needed - other than to conserve money for continued continuous war, and continued hyper-low taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Unless one assumes that the US economy is about to get much worse than it is even today, and stay that way, Social Security is perfectly solvent

Shame.

How many more do you want me to post, Manny? 'Cause there's lots more.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

70. My post perfectly predicted what Obama agreed to do just one month later

But the Republicans turned him down.

Or am I misrepresenting something here?

[SidDithers]

63. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4918838&mesg_id=4918920

Probably less of a hit than if the Catfood Commission's recommendations become law

Which is what I think this whole thing is about - Shock Doctrining us into slashing benefits by the 22% recommended by Obama's commission, so the wealthiest can grab the entire Trust Fund (which will grow to more tha $4 Billion in a decade or so).

In any case, current benefits can be paid almost fully from current receipts. Any shortfall is due to the President's coincidental decision to "temporarily" cut payroll taxes this year.

Emphasis added.

Sid

[SidDithers]

66. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=849632&mesg_id=851655

A commission to slash Social Security benefits by 22%

http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-socia... /

Gotta admit, not even Dim Son had the balls to pull that.

And Obama's leading the way, cheering it on with lie after lie:

http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-socia... /

Sid

[SidDithers]

67. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1511593&mesg_id=1511678

But nobody wants to get rid of that law

Nor do they need to. Social Security is fine.

A special law can be passed allowing a one-time payment into Social Security to make up for Obama's payroll tax holiday. But more likely, Obama created the holiday because he knew he was gonna slash the crap out of benefits and it would never need to be repaid - after all, his commission recommended a 22% cut for the average beneficiary. That frees up many trillions.

Emphasis added.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

30. lol!

[CanonRay]

24. That would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

They can't be that stupid, and yet I'm worried....

[plethoro]

39. This is my line of thinking also, Cannon Ray. If they touch SS benefits,

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I will act with a huge group of people that are ready to go. And we won't be sending emails, nasty letters to CEO's, etc. We will figure it is end-game and respond in-kind. See, we are an Inverse Fascist State right now as per Chris Hayes. And the iFascists know that the normal Democratic response is tame--what I said above plus "they are a bunch of meany letters" letters to Bernie Sanders. That is what they are expecting . . . But these people HAVE to try to begin their processes now, falling back on the assertions of adjusting entitlments being started by a Democratic President. They figure this is their time--or never. Now, this is all my opinion, the election results notwithstanding. Good day to you.

[CanonRay]

72. We are on the same page plethoro

if the Dems can't hold the line of fundamentally Democratic ideals like Social Security, what good is the party? We have to try a new way.

[SHRED]

37. They need to strengthen them not cut them

[MrYikes]

38. Congress shall extend Medicare to all Americans.

[NNN0LHI]

40. My school used to teach anyone who depended on Social Security alone was a fool

They always taught us there were three legs to this stool. Savings, pension and SS.

That is what it was going to take to retire comfortably we were taught. They explained that without all three legs you will barely avoid living under a bridge. Barely. I wasn't the greatest student but that part sure sunk in.

Not sure when they stopped teaching that in our schools?

Don

[Are_grits_groceries]

43. Well, in the financial mishegas

guess what disappeared? Pensions and savings. A lot of people had 3 legs on their stools. They had to use them to survive.

[Zorra]

47. That school wouldn't be Liberty University by any chance, would it?

I'm pretty sure they are still teaching that, btw.

[WinkyDink]

48. What "school" would that be? Who are "they"?

[NNN0LHI]

51. Well, lets see. Who would be teaching at a school?

Bloom Township High School to be exact. By golly, I bet that would be teachers.

Did I answer your questions well enough?

Don

[CrispyQ]

83. I learned that too, but clearly old school needs revising!

1. Recent reports indicate that most American's could not come up with $2000 if they needed it now. So much for savings.

2. I can't think of a company that still pays pensions. Some companies that did have pensions raided them or did not honor them. So much for pensions.

3. They keep raising the age of SS so they don't have to pay it back. Never do they mention lifting the cap, just cutting benefits. So much for SS.

The middle class is seriously fucked. If the dems thought 2010 was bad, they better not mess with SS & Medicare.

[SomethingFishy]

87. They didn't. What they did was stop paying us enough to have a pension

or savings. The cost of living went up and our wages stayed stagnant or went down. Or they just outright stole our pensions. What the fuck do we do then? When you work 40-50 years putting money into a retirement account only to have it raided by some vulture capitalist leaving you with nothing? I must have missed the day in school when they taught us how to deal with that.

On the other hand some of us get sick. We pay thousands a year into "health insurance" only to be denied coverage for something that ends up forcing us into bankruptcy. But that's our fault too, we should have listened in school when they told us that having "health insurance" doesn't really insure anything. I remember that lesson well.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the dumbasses who didn't listen in school.

[bonniebgood]

46. The Dems are ineffective in messaging because they won't

tell the truth. what's so difficult about saying what actually caused the debt and deficit?
Bush two tax cuts for the rich and bush two wars? Not SS and Medicaid.

We could start by finding that 2-3 Trillion ( Darral Issa and John Mccain) that donald Rumsfeld said was UN-accounted for by the pentagon 9/10/01. The UN-accounted for pallets of cash that was dumped in Iraq.

I guest the Dems didn't get the message that money don't buy elections, money just FUNDS ELECTIONS 11/06/2012

IF THEY DO I WILL VOTE FOR ROSANNE BARR FOR PRESIDENT

[WinkyDink]

49. 9/10/01. All records in the WTC. And yet some people still throw around the term "tin-foil".

As if somehow TRILLIONS aren't worth murdering people over.

[Generic Other]

53. We need a Feet to fire Grover Norquist like pledge

All of us should pressure our Democratic congresspeople to sign on to protect SS and MC. Promise no cuts. Or be publicly shamed.

[Romulox]

55. "If the Democratic Party pushes for NAFTA (or in 2012 TPP!), they will reap the whirlwind..."

[Doctor_J]

68. Sadly, you're probably right

there may be no lurch to the right that will push away the true believers.

[forestpath]

57. K&R

[RepublicansRZombies]

61. The People will react with a powerful anger as if their lives depend on it, which they do.

Someone is about to go off the cliff and it ain't the American people.

[hughee99]

65. I'd like to think so but I don't believe it's true

perhaps the next campaign slogan will be "Who else you gonna vote for?" Certainly in 2014, that will be the case as I don't think that wouldn't give 3rd parties enough time to come together and create a national structure. The further away you get from that vote, the more time the 3rd parties have, but the more people forget, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Is that "if" or "when"?

Of course it will be decorated as a "compromise" and "the best deal we could get" and then told that the cuts are for our own good...and, of course, to "donate" to the politicians who sold us out...again.

[Are_grits_groceries]

84. I hope it's an 'if',

but I believe it will be a when. President Obama has yet to prove he has learned any lessons from trying to negotiate with Republicans. I want him to prove he will stand up to them and not wobble their way for some fake bipartisanship. Everybody says the election has changed the way he negotiates. We'll see.

[bluestate10]

79. I agree. We fought hard during the past election to get into this position.

Wall Street and business tycoons are buying ads and making their demands. Republicans are being recalcitrant. If democrats abandon the actions that we elected them to fight to implement, there really is not much of a reason for having them around. We need to primary any blue state democrat that caves and replace that person with a democrat who won't cave. The equation is a simple as that.

[Sadiedog]

88. Why don`t they cut foreign aid some?

I am just wondering why this is never on the table. I know it sounds rather Libertarian of me but really why should the poor , and middle class always have to take all the hits? I`m just angry and frustrated by all this!