Checkmate ... IMHO

[proud patriot]

:wow: he is good .. Damn :think:

edit to add this is my response to the Pesident's Press Conference

[Palmer Eldritch]

1. This place will be a ghost town by August 2. Except for all the uneaten plates of crow.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Plus One.

Damn!

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

3. Isn't he now?

[JTFrog]

4. K&R

[Cherchez la Femme]

5. 650 Billion in cuts to SS, Medicare & Medicaid

and you call Checkmate?!

I'd :rofl: at this if it wasn't just so damn pathetic.

[TomCADem]

6. Democrats Are Willing To Cut, Republicans Want To Turn It Into A 401(k)

I think Democrats are driven by an honest desire to make sure the programs are solvent, which is why they are insisting on revenue increases.

BUT, Republicans do NOT want to make these programs solvent. They want these programs to be in the RED so that they can justify killing these programs!

That is what is going on. Unless you honestly believe that Republicans are concerned about the debt, the fact of the matter is that Republicans were never going to accept these proposed cuts.

The downside of this gamble is that Republicans would accept the cuts, which would hurt Democrats and beneficiaries, but it would also make these programs more solvent, which Republicans can't stand.

Why do you think Boehner kept on using the code words, "fundamental changes." This is a key admission that Republicans do not want mere cuts, and he can't get his caucas to go along. What they want is fundamental change, which means turning social security into a 401(k) the way Bush tried to do.

[Cherchez la Femme]

7. Solvency would be a problem

in what, 40 years?
And is not tied to the Deficit, which is the crux of the current problem?

Therefore it should be dealt with immediately?!
With Big Brother, or Wise Father --take your pick-- exhorting we children to eat our peas?

And if these people in charge are so concerned with Social Security going broke, why did they come up with, this year, the brilliant plan of reducing by 2 percentage points the portion of payroll taxes that fund Social Security?
Which would, y'know, defund it even more?
"Savings" which would be minimal to the individual but taken as a whole, take a big bite out of this program that already has a solvency concern?

Or continuing the Bush tax cuts when he could have just let them expire;
then telling regular Americans including seniors, the poor, the 'least among us' that THEY have to "Share Sacrifices"

BE the sacrifices, more rightly.


Do you like being manipulated? Propagandized? Treated like an idiot?

I guess I'm a "retarded Liberal", because I sure don't.


There is some serious stink hanging over all this crap; and no amount of "trust him, look what he's done for us already" is going to work

because we've already SEEN what he's 'done for us already', which is just great if 'us' are all Corporations, especially those shipping once-America jobs off to China, Mexico, India, etc.
it's awesome for CEO's or Banksters or War Manufacturers/Profiteers or big holders in stocks in, say, the Health Care Industry or those who don't happen to like their own rights such as Habeas Corpus


--but regular U.S. workers? No, not very good for us at all.
And you can't just blame it on the Republicans; the "two parties" are using many of the same bloody talking points for god's sake. Hell, the "New Democrats" are fucking crowing about it.


But keep on trying to polish those turds. Some people seem to really relish the task.