You’re gonna cut entitlements? Suuurrrre you are

Granted: The national debt is a serious challenge to our economic prosperity and national security, and according to every budget projection, the problem will become even more serious in the years ahead.

So what are we going to do about it? Cut entitlement spending?

No, you’re not.

Not by enough to matter, anyway. If you want proof, take a look at how quickly that Texas tough guy, Rick Perry, has tried to backpedal on all that bluster about Social Security. And at this point, remember, he’s still running in the Republican primary, where such views are supposed to be popular.

On the other hand, if looking at Rick Perry is more than you can bear, you can also look at this:

ssmed

Look at those numbers. If your plan for solving the debt crisis is to cut entitlements, you have no plan to solve the debt crisis.

The poll was conducted on behalf of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which is grounds for approaching it with caution. However, it was conducted jointly by two nationally respected opinion research companies, one with generally Republican clients, one with generally Democratic clients. More importantly, its findings are consistent with poll after poll taken on the subject.

As the poll also found:

“When asked to choose between tax increases on the top 2 percent of income earners or cuts to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the deficit, 94 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans prefer tax increase on the top 2 percent of income earners.”

The truth is, entitlements do have to be cut. Medicare’s current path is unsustainable. And with Social Security, a change in how benefits are adjusted for inflation would go a long way to making the program actuarially sound for the next 75 years. That’s not popular with voters — two-thirds of Americans oppose the idea, the poll found — but it probably has to be done anyway. (The poll also found that 71 percent of Americans favor raising the $106,000 cutoff on payroll taxes, compared to just 21 percent opposed).

However, such benefit changes are politically plausible only as part of a much larger package in which the burdens of debt reduction are shared broadly, through tax increases as well as spending cuts. Without such a package, forget it.

(And before you argue that we’ll just cut elsewhere, the so-called untouchables in the budget — defense spending, pensions, Medicare/health spending, Social Security, veterans programs and interest on the debt — amount to $3.1 trillion out of a total budget of $3.7 trillion. You could totally eliminate everything else the government does — environmental protection, federal courts, the FBI, border patrol, food inspections, the State Department, foreign aid, food stamps, Congress, the national parks — and still reduce the deficit by less than half.)

If you truly believe that the national debt is a serious threat, you have an obligation to quit the nonsense and get serious about politically realistic avenues for addressing it. Otherwise you’re contributing to the problem that you claim to abhor.

– Jay Bookman

365 comments Add your comment

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:34 pm

Democrats led by Senator Reid are going to shut down the government. Extremist Dems ruining America.

Guy Incognito

September 23rd, 2011
1:35 pm

This is my problem with the Tea Party. The more recent participants are not willing to sacrifice their entitlements. If they want to be serious, it’ll mean cuts in their programs as well

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:38 pm

“politically realistic avenues for addressing it”

I’ve said I’d accept tax revenue increases. AFTER entitlements are reformed. And AFTER the tax code is cleaned up to simplify and reduce rates.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:39 pm

Senator Reid can’t pass a bill. He’s incompetent.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:41 pm

WHEN WE HAVE RUBES LIKE THIS RUNNING THE SHOW, OUR GOVERNMENT GOES IN THE TOILET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) scheduled a Monday evening vote on an alternative Democratic plan that mirrors the House measure — except for the corresponding spending cuts — but that appears destined to fail.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64264.html#ixzz1YnZOxSau

Get rid of the current bums. We need new bums.

Jay

September 23rd, 2011
1:41 pm

In other words, jm, you have no intention of solving the problem.

Look at those numbers.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:41 pm

Joe Mama

September 23rd, 2011
1:42 pm

The GOP doesn’t have to *actually* cut entitlements. They can just *run* on a promise to do it. Then they can keep their gubmint hands off of people’s Medicare.

I love big gov't!...gimme some more

September 23rd, 2011
1:42 pm

raising taxes on the rich always works! why haven’t we confiscating more for the little guy who’s getting hosed. pure nonsense. Time to cut spending. I’d rather have the 12.4 percent of my pay given to me to invest than let the gov’t dole it out to whoever it wishes. The problem is gov’t hasn’t been a good steward of the peoples money and this is the price we pay now.

btw, Obama care does more to cut Medicare than any plan the Republicans have introduced.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:42 pm

Jay: If your plan for solving the debt crisis is to cut entitlements, you have no plan to solve the debt crisis.

BOOOOOOM! Oh I love it.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:43 pm

Said that yesterday, the GOP isn’t concerned about cutting spending, as they sure as hell aren’t going to touch entitlements — they know they’d be quartered and drawn.

md

September 23rd, 2011
1:46 pm

My guess……..nothing gets done……….major crisis ensues……….crisis management takes over………everybody pays dearly…………..

And probably end up with less than we could of had had we just got our ducks in a row…………

Joe Mama

September 23rd, 2011
1:46 pm

i love — “Obama care does more to cut Medicare than any plan the Republicans have introduced.”

And Obama’s plan puts that cut money *right back into health care,* which no Republican plan does.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:46 pm

jm: I’ve said I’d accept tax revenue increases. AFTER entitlements are reformed.

And what kind of response do you give when a bill is introduced that cuts entitlements “in the out years”?

If you want to get serious about this problem, you can’t make the case that the programs you don’t like have to go FIRST, and THEN (this time, we PROMISE to keep our word) you will raise taxes.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:46 pm

“major crisis ensues……….crisis management takes over………everybody pays dearly…………”

Already happening md.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:47 pm

I’d rather have the 12.4 percent of my pay given to me to invest

Of course you would. As, I am sure, would most people who simply want to keep their money and have no moral decency to contribute to the whole.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:47 pm

Jay 1:41 – what, conceding to revenue increases isn’t enough for you? What else do you want?

I know this is a silly question.

Ideally, something like a 60% tax on those that make over $250,000, conceding to running a 6% deficit to GDP ratio in perpetuity, blah blah blah….. would probably be ideal for you.

Or are you saying there has to be a grand bargain? Because if so, I don’t disagree. But TAX INCREASES are not going to get passed BEFORE the budget is fixed. Period.

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

If you truly believe that the national debt is a serious threat, you have an obligation to quit the nonsense and get serious about politically realistic avenues for addressing it.

When you have a segment of the population living in an alternate reality, depending on personal political beliefs, do you really expect anything realistic to happen? We have a Congress who’s approval rating can be measured in micro millimeters, yet they get re-elected around 75% of the time. People don’t want problems solved. They just want to b*tch and moan about stuff. It’s obvious by the sheer volume of jackasses who get re-elected to the same offices and/or promoted to even higher offices.

As an example, look at jm’s approach @ 1:38 as proof. It sounds reasonable to him, but somebody from the opposing point of view will see it as a non-starter. Common sense would dictate that doing all that at the same time would give both parties exactly what they want, but neither jm nor whomever opposes him will take the time to elect someone that will take the “Solomonesque” approach to solving our problems. They will champion and elect someone who will do what “they” want as opposed to what’s best for the country as a whole.

Not to pick on you directly jm, but your idea was the first one that came up.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

md: And probably end up with less than we could of had had we just got our ducks in a row…

Huh. And I thought you were AGAINST Obama’s vision of deficit reduction.

Aquagirl

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

the so-called untouchables in the budget — ……….— amount to $3.1 trillion out of a total budget of $3.7 trillion

Somebody help me with the math here…SS and Medicare are only .6 trillion?

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

Oh, and “grand bargains” are hard to come by. Good luck on that.

Janice

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

Jay,

Great article up until the point where you INSIST we must cut these programs to reduce the debt. You fail to mention Social Security has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus and will be able to pay 100% of benefits for the next 26 years…by all means let cut back on something that we all paid for and actually works! The future minor funding shortfall can be fixed by raising the FICA tax cap or adding more revenue. Clearly you don’t talk to seniors. If you did, you would know that they haven’t received a Cost of Living Adjustment in the past 2 years (despite the fact food and health care costs are rising considerably). I guess a zero raise is just far too generous for you? The current formula is woefully inadequate as it is.

You say Medicare is “unsustainable.” No, health care costs in this country are unsustainable and until we fix the underlying causes why we pay more for health care than every other industrialized country, Medicare will have funding issues. If we paid the same for health care as other European countries, we would have budget surpluses, not deficits. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/future-budget-deficits-almost-entirely-due-to-rising-private-sector-health-care-costs/

It’s about choices here. Clearly all Americans want to protect Social Security and Medicare. These are core values and programs we cherish and are more than willing to pay for. Why not wind down the wars and allow Bush tax cuts to expire if you’re so concerned about the debt and deficit? Going after wildly popular programs isn’t going to win you any fans and according to this poll, won’t win politicians any votes.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

“As, I am sure, would most people who simply want to keep their money and have no moral decency to contribute to the whole”

Which is why we don’t have a voluntary tax system.

(the real) Independent

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

Jay, you must have included Medicaid under the “Medicare/healthcare spending” category. That is one “entitlement” that is frequently targeted, in some ways for good reason. I believe I read that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Medicaid goes to pay for delivering babies to teenage and poor single moms who have no business having kids.

Joe the Plutocrat

September 23rd, 2011
1:48 pm

OK, one more time, and then I am leaving until music time. “entitlements” will NEVER BE CUT because they are “free money” for Big Pharm, Big Ag, Big Med, Big Bank, Big Energy, etc. the wealth is most certainly “redistributed” but not from taxpayers to the poor or the elderly, or the disabled. it merely flows through these human conduits until it ends up on the balance sheets of Wachovia/WellsFargo, Wal-Mart, Archer Daniel Midland, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, or Kaiser Permanente. You know, all these “producer/moocher” and tea party types might want to look at what hedge fund managers “produce” when they short stocks and cause a sell off, or what Wal-Mart, K-Mart or Target executives “produce” when they purchase the goods they sell from China, Nicaragua; and outsource administrative jobs (IT, customer support, accounting) to India, Ireland, Phillipines, etc.). And of course, my personal favorite, when the oligarchs start trading derivitives.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:49 pm

“But TAX INCREASES are not going to get passed BEFORE the budget is fixed. Period”

Or I’m gonna stomp my feet and have a hissy fit.

md

September 23rd, 2011
1:49 pm

“Already happening md.”

No……we are still in the minor stage……..shoot, we have 90% employment.

Wait till that number hits 80, 70, 60……….then you’ll know we have made it to “major”…………

Jefferson

September 23rd, 2011
1:49 pm

SS needs will need funding in the near future, small tax hikes can secure it for years to come. Medicare suffers from providers greed, fraud and overcharges. Single payer health care can solve that problem, with no loss of quality.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:50 pm

jm: But TAX INCREASES are not going to get passed BEFORE the budget is fixed. Period.

As long as you have the Republicans in office that you do, and the House is controlled by them, Tax increases will not pass no matter what. Our only real hope is that Republicans do not gain the House, Senate, AND Presidency. If they do, the Bush tax cuts will not expire. If they don’t, those tax cuts most certainly will expire because Obama will veto any extension.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:51 pm

Jay, furthermore, while polls are relevant, they only go so far.

First, that poll question places no context. Such as: “if you have to choose between tax increases and benefits cuts, how much of each?”

Second, while polls matter, running this country is about doing what’s RIGHT sometimes, not just what’s POPULAR. That’s why we have a problem. Empty suit Obama doesn’t have the guts to do what’s right.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:51 pm

” believe I read that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Medicaid goes to pay for delivering babies to teenage and poor single moms who have no business having kids”

YEah, they should just have abortions :roll: — seriously what IS your point?

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:52 pm

“will NEVER BE CUT because they are “free money” for Big Pharm, Big Ag, Big Med, Big Bank, Big Energy, etc. the wealth is most certainly “redistributed” but not from taxpayers to the poor or the elderly, or the disabled. it merely flows through these human conduits until it ends up on the balance sheets of Wachovia/WellsFargo, Wal-Mart, Archer Daniel Midland, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, or Kaiser Permanente.”

And Joe gets the gold star!

That is simply lost on our wingnut friends it seems.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:53 pm

jm: Second, while polls matter, running this country is about doing what’s RIGHT sometimes, not just what’s POPULAR

Saved for the next time someone vilifies the ACA on the basis of poll numbers.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
1:53 pm

Its vegetable eating time. And Democrats don’t like vegetables.

Democrats really are the ELF Party. They have four major food groups:
1. Candy
2. Candy Canes
3. Candy Corn
4. Syrup

Aquagirl

September 23rd, 2011
1:54 pm

I read that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Medicaid goes to pay for delivering babies to teenage and poor single moms who have no business having kids.

How did they come by that statistic? Is there a box to check on hospital admission forms “I have no business having this kid?”

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:54 pm

Bosch: Have you heard the latest about the Wall Street Occupation? Me neither.

Have you heard the latest about the Tea Party? Me too.

Jay

September 23rd, 2011
1:54 pm

“I believe I read that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Medicaid goes to pay for delivering babies to teenage and poor single moms who have no business having kids.

That may be true, Real. On the other hand, do you think withdrawing Medicaid for that service will cause teenage kids to stop having sex and thus babies? Won’t they continue to have those babies and force us to pay some other way, probably some more expensive way?

I get your point, but I’m just not sure what better options exist.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:54 pm

jm: And Democrats don’t like vegetables.

I heard McConnel and Boehner dont’ like to eat their peas :D

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:55 pm

Adam,

Yeah, that damn liberal media! :)

Wondrika

September 23rd, 2011
1:55 pm

Last night Gov. Perry was outed as a hypocrite on the entitlement issue. That feeble and disingenuous attempt to defend Texas’ policy of giving in-state university tuition to illegals finished off any chance he had of becoming President.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:55 pm

“Is there a box to check on hospital admission forms “I have no business having this kid?”

Yeah, Aquagirl, it’s right next to the box you check for “I am here illegally and stealing money from taxypaers”

Aquagirl

September 23rd, 2011
1:56 pm

Oh, and never mind my 1:48. All the showering talk downstairs must have distracted me. :)

Jay

September 23rd, 2011
1:57 pm

Second, while polls matter, running this country is about doing what’s RIGHT sometimes, not just what’s POPULAR

Right, jm. Just trot on up to Washington and deliver that message to congressmen trying to win re-election , and while you’re at it swing by Austin to try to buck up Rick Perry. He probably needs a hug.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
1:58 pm

Not sure why a poll that says this really surprises anyone. I don’t have any (yeah, I know, all conjecture) hard data to back this up, but I would be willing to wager that the proportion of the people that answered the poll are currently receiving benefits from one or more of the programs they were asking if they thought should be cut. Like I said, all conjecture, and I’m sure I’ll catch flak for that.

Bro – Didn’t get a chance to respond before Jay called sheets after I got back from lunch. Nice to know you can hit targets that well, but I was possibly giving you heck for missing one at 15 yards. I always try to be “green” when I go to the range and put the .45s through the same hole in the paper (you know, saves paper, and I can re-use the target that way). ;) Sold my pistols a couple of months ago, and haven’t been able to replace them yet, so I could be a bit rusty right now.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
1:58 pm

“running this country is about doing what’s RIGHT sometimes, not just what’s POPULAR”

Didn’t Dumbledore say that?

md

September 23rd, 2011
1:58 pm

To cut down on that medicaid spending, let’s just use the education program already in place “No child left behind…….we’re going to tie that sucker around your neck for the next 20 years” so you best think about that before play time…………………..

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
1:59 pm

Bosch: Yeah, Aquagirl, it’s right next to the box you check for “I am here illegally and stealing money from taxypaers”

And the birth certificates have checkboxes for what religion the baby believes in and will believe in for life, and one for “Believes in American Exceptionalism.”

Aquagirl

September 23rd, 2011
1:59 pm

Didn’t Dumbledore say that?

Yeah, and look at what happened to him.

Good little liberal

September 23rd, 2011
1:59 pm

Interesting arguments by liberals.

We support people that live on increasing the size of the government, increasing entitlements and increasing the amount of control that the government has on every one of us, but . . .

The Republicans are sooooo wrong because they aren’t going to reduce what we support by nearly enough.

HUH?

So you know that what the democrats are doing is a disaster, but you still support them because Republicans aren’t different enough.

Leaving the asylum now.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:01 pm

md: To cut down on that medicaid spending, let’s just use the education program already in place “No child left behind…….we’re going to tie that sucker around your neck for the next 20 years” so you best think about that before play time…

Yeah, THAT’LL cut down abortions….

md

September 23rd, 2011
2:02 pm

“That feeble and disingenuous attempt to defend Texas’ policy of giving in-state university tuition to illegals finished off any chance he had of becoming President.”

Hope so……..but doubtful. Don’t know what the masses see in that guy, but they already have the hots for him……so they won’t change their minds. probably thinking with the other brain…………..

(the real) Independent

September 23rd, 2011
2:03 pm

Women (and men) have no business getting pregnant if they cannot pay for the delivery of the baby and be able to support the child after it is born. An no, I am not talking abortion, I am talking being smart with contraception until you want and can afford a child.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:03 pm

GLL appears to have completely missed the point. I know I am absolutely SHOCKED at this turn of events…..

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:03 pm

“Interesting arguments by liberals.

We support people that live on increasing the size of the government, increasing entitlements and increasing the amount of control that the government has on every one of us, but . . . ”

Libertarian,

There’s another one for our tally.

md

September 23rd, 2011
2:04 pm

“Yeah, THAT’LL cut down abortions….”

Folks remain uneducated on the subject, that stays the same regardless……………

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:04 pm

(the real) Independent : I am talking being smart with contraception until you want and can afford a child.

Glad you’re on board with government subsidized birth control and educational outreach programs.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:05 pm

Independent – That’s why there are these neat little things called “adoption agencies.”

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:05 pm

” I am talking being smart with contraception until you want and can afford a child”

Yeah, because we all know that is so realistic

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:06 pm

Bosch – I was smart with it (still am, don’t want no little me’s running around, scary scary thought).

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:07 pm

Bosch @ 2:05: Close one that time! :D

(the real) Independent

September 23rd, 2011
2:08 pm

(ir)Rational – try to adopt out all the black babies born – or better yet older or medically challenged black youths. They are languishing in no-adoption land.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
2:08 pm

Jay

“swing by Austin to try to buck up Rick Perry. He probably needs a hug.”

:D That he does. He got whalloped by Romney.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
2:10 pm

http://www.politico.com/

The headline at top says it all….

Kamchak

September 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm

I was smart with it (still am, don’t want no little me’s running around, scary scary thought).

Just what the world needs — more Arsenal fans. :roll:

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm

What does it matter what race they’re born? Are you saying that they’re undesirable because they’re black? I tend to agree that people shouldn’t get pregnant unless they can afford it, but I am enough of a realist to know that just isn’t reasonable. There are enough people out there that want to have children that can’t, that should be matched up with people that are having children and don’t want them. Even if they shouldn’t have them, it all comes down to whether they want them or not. It isn’t the state’s responsibility or place to tell someone when they can stop having children.

Normal

September 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm

jm

September 23rd, 2011
2:10 pm

Thank God! Now let them work on a serious bill, instead of a Tea party bill.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:12 pm

Kam – As opposed to Chelsea fans? Yeah, that’s JUST what the doctor ordered. :roll:

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:13 pm

I tell ya’ were gonna get irRational on our side yet.

Mick

September 23rd, 2011
2:13 pm

Let’s prioritize here: Fix social security by raising the cap – solved. Medicaid is the first to feel the ax, then medicare should be scrutinized for fraud then fixed..

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:14 pm

Besides that Kam, I’m completely bi(tri)-partisan on this issue. I like Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern Munich. Really I like Arsenal, Lionel Messi and Bayern Munich, but that’s beside the point.

jm

September 23rd, 2011
2:15 pm

Normal – the Tea Party bill spends $1.5 billion more than they previously agreed to, in order to deal with disaster relief. All they’ve asked is that 1/2, HALF! of the disaster relief get paid for with spending cuts elsewhere.

Democrats are a joke.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:15 pm

You watch your mouth Bosch. Things like that will get it washed out with soap for cursing.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:16 pm

“I like Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern Munich”

OMG, irRational is like my soccer doppleganger, but the Bosch house is English divided: Liverpool and Chelsea….

Joe Mama

September 23rd, 2011
2:16 pm

(ir)Rational — “Independent – That’s why there are these neat little things called “adoption agencies.”

Insufficient. There is a significant population of children who take *years* to adopt or who *never* get adopted; IIRC, the population of long-term eligible adoptees not adopted is in the neighborhood of 100K year-over-year.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:17 pm

Liverpool AND Chelsea? That explains SOOOOO much. ;)

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:17 pm

irRational,

Admit it, you agree with more of what we say than the wingnuts. Just saying.

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 23rd, 2011
2:17 pm

Neither party has the testicular fortitude to touch “entitlement” spending. Nothing will be done until the jackasses who are party loyal in DC are replaced with statesmen who are more concerned with the well being of the country as opposed to the well being of the party.

(ir)Rational

“green” target shooting!!! Dammitt, that’s a good one. :)
While at the academy, I tried to circle the center mass point and knock a hole out of the target when shooting center of mass. When working on head shots, my friends and I tried to put smiley faces on the target.

Lucifer

September 23rd, 2011
2:18 pm

Elizabeth Warren for Prez! At least she has it right; over the last decade the rich have gotten richer and there’s been no “trickle down” effect. Unemployment is high and so are the profits of the rich. And people like the Koch brothers want to thin out the ranks of the middle class even further, until they have all the money and the rest of us become their indentured servants. The Pubs are evildoers and the Tan Man, Cantor and McConnell are the henchmen for the wealthy. But, the bright side is, the chuckleheads running on the GOP ticket are nuts and Obama will win a second term. You heard it here first!

ragnar danneskjold

September 23rd, 2011
2:18 pm

You could raise entitlements if you would abolish all of the Federal regulators. The roaring economy could support increases.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:18 pm

Joe – I realize that, but at the same time he is talking about people who shouldn’t have kids, as opposed to people who don’t want that. So even so, there isn’t really any reason to expect that these kids will even end up in the care of the state.

(the real) Independent

September 23rd, 2011
2:18 pm

I’M not saying that they are undesireable because they are black, the people doing the adopting are saying that. I am just pointing out that other than white, newborn babies of the desired sex, other children are harder to find adoptive parents for. Look it up.

Better to keep from having the babies in the first place. Especially if public money (Medicaid) is having to pay for the pregnancy and delivery.

Kamchak

September 23rd, 2011
2:19 pm

Yeah, that’s JUST what the doctor ordered.

I wish the doctor would order Drogba fit for play. I did notice that he was available to sub in Wed.’s Carling Cup game against Fulham.

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:20 pm

jm: All they’ve asked is that 1/2, HALF! of the disaster relief get paid for with spending cuts elsewhere.

DISASTER RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE PREDICATED ON CUTS.

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 23rd, 2011
2:20 pm

Admit it, you agree with more of what we say than the wingnuts. Just saying.

:lol:

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:20 pm

“Elizabeth Warren for Prez”

I think she will be our first lady POTUS, in 2016 after Obama’s second term is over.

Granny Godzilla

September 23rd, 2011
2:21 pm

Bosch

I’d be on that bandwagon.

She’s marvelous.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:22 pm

Bosch – (If there was a emoticon for me hanging my head in shame, it should be inserted here) Yeah.

Bro – Yeah, I made myself laugh with that one. I can’t do it with anything but a 1911 though. Those more modern sites don’t work as well for me. I’ll have to work on that idea of cutting out the circle next time I hit a range, smiley face too.

Normal

September 23rd, 2011
2:22 pm

jm,
Why would I want to support a party that would use American people, victims of disaster, hostage just to get their political way?

Has toe GOP and most especially the Tea Party, no heart? No “milk of human kindness” in their veins? They are sad, cruel people. If they want to pay for disaster relief, all they have to do is vote in a tax raise. Simple and done. As I see it, only personal greed stops them.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:22 pm

Mrs. G.,

Yes, she is — she’s not afraid to tell it like it is, which is what lots of people want. She’ll be the next Senate Goddess.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:23 pm

irRational,

“for me hanging my head in shame”

Because deep, deep down there somewhere in the back of your brain….you know I’m right.

:lol:

Kamchak

September 23rd, 2011
2:24 pm

I think she will be our first lady POTUS, in 2016 after Obama’s second term is over.

That probably won’t happen as she is almost as polarizing as Ms. Clinton.

DebbieDoRight

September 23rd, 2011
2:24 pm

I believe I read that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Medicaid goes to pay for delivering babies to teenage and poor single moms who have no business having kids.

I have a solution. Show those poor teenag moms, etc., etc…..pictures of Rush Limbaugh naked and show those teenaged boys pictures of Karl Rove in panties, bra and garter. The sheer disgust should stop them in their tracks from even thinking about sex — possibly forever.

If that doesn’t work, you can always force them to watch hour after hour of Pat Robertson loosing what’s left of his mind on TV — or Anne Coulter eating food (which is so rare, pictures of it are ensconed in pages of National Geographic)

(the real) Independent

September 23rd, 2011
2:24 pm

(ir)Rational – it should be the State’s decision on whether or not to pay for a pregnancy. Just because a woman “wants” a child, doesn’t mean she should be able to get pregnant and have the rest of us pay for it. She can get pregnant, but she should have the baby on her own dime or naturally, and if she does not have the financial means to take care of the baby, it should be taken away from her.

Or just don’t have them at all.

BTW, I am white and my niece has two children that Medicaid paid to deliver (by a druggie dad), so this is not a black/white issue.

(ir)Rational

September 23rd, 2011
2:24 pm

Bosch – No, you’re left. I’m right, get it straight.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:26 pm

Normal @ 2:22,

Here’s me kissing you (on each cheek of course, you know like dudes in Europe do) — and yes, I’m comfortable enough with myself to say that!

:lol:

Adam

September 23rd, 2011
2:26 pm

if she does not have the financial means to take care of the baby, it should be taken away from her.

Government subsidized baby theft! Get the government out of deciding who can be a mother!

theyeshaveit

September 23rd, 2011
2:26 pm

Second, while polls matter, running this country is about doing what’s RIGHT sometimes, not just what’s POPULAR. That’s why we have a problem. Empty suit Obama doesn’t have the guts to do what’s right.

What is “right” is in the eye of the beholder. All I see from the comment above is that you are ON the right; not IN the right.

Jefferson

September 23rd, 2011
2:27 pm

Working folks pay for these programs, the GOP act like its payed with “their” money only.

Jay

September 23rd, 2011
2:27 pm

“If that doesn’t work, you can always force them to watch hour after hour of Pat Robertson loosing what’s left of his mind on TV — or Anne Coulter eating food (which is so rare, pictures of it are ensconed in pages of National Geographic)

I’m pretty sure those Coulter photos were photoshopped, Deb.

Bosch

September 23rd, 2011
2:28 pm

“Just because a woman “wants” a child, doesn’t mean she should be able to get pregnant and have the rest of us pay for it.”

Oh, my freaking GOD! I did not just read that! My eyes!! MY eyes!!!