Signaled by flashing orange?

Question: What is the difference between "reforming" and "tweaking"?

Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

So they'll pay more if they can ensure it doesn't go where it would be useful?

See, when the 1% plays class warfare, peasants actually die.

The Super Committee is just as likely to put its own genitalia forward for cuts as it is social security.

That said, it's fun to fantasize.

skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

That doesn't mean anything to them learning what compromise means. Their formula for agreement could be to take what Democrats are willing to give on entitlement reform, kick that up a notch, and toss everything Democrats want to take on tax hikes in the garbage.

skullkrusher: Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

"Give us these trillion major tax cuts and we'll give you your minor two tax hikes" isn't exactly compromise but it shows that the Republicans are learning to at least differentiate their regressive strategy to a slightly more moderate-palatable one.

So yeah, they're learning something alright. Not that it benefits any actual human beings.

American Extreme Left-Wing Socialifascist Radical Lieberal: They CAN be taught!

Politicans can't be taught. They can be somewhat behaviorally conditioned with money on a stick but that's a bit different.

skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

I really wouldn't bet on that.

Now they wait to get the "compromise" out of the democrats, shiat all over it anyway, then put forward their own plan that only contains the concessions they just earned through their "compromise". Then when that gets defeated, issue a press release saying that democrats just voted against their own ideas.

CanadianConservative: skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

They CAN be taught!

BS. He's trying to redefine increases in Medicare insurance payments as "increased revenues".

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

That doesn't mean anything to them learning what compromise means. Their formula for agreement could be to take what Democrats are willing to give on entitlement reform, kick that up a notch, and toss everything Democrats want to take on tax hikes in the garbage.

offering revenue increases in exchange for entitlement cuts is pretty much Webster's in terms of "compromise" - or at least willingness to make compromises

I don't think Boehner is actually that crazy or poor of a statesman. He just has very minimal power over all the 1st term tea party congresscritters. He's the weakest R speaker in a long time.

tomcatadam: skullkrusher: Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

"Give us these trillion major tax cuts and we'll give you your minor two tax hikes" isn't exactly compromise but it shows that the Republicans are learning to at least differentiate their regressive strategy to a slightly more moderate-palatable one.

So yeah, they're learning something alright. Not that it benefits any actual human beings.

American Extreme Left-Wing Socialifascist Radical Lieberal: They CAN be taught!

Politicans can't be taught. They can be somewhat behaviorally conditioned with money on a stick but that's a bit different.

They can't be taught, but they can be bought.

There's certainly room from reform when a dirt-ball like my wife's half-brother can get disability because he doesn't like taking orders and can't hold a job.

Mr_Fabulous: Question: What is the difference between "reforming" and "tweaking"?

Speaker Boehner seems to be more of a tweaker than a reformer.

/meth is a hell of a drug

ha-ha-guy: I don't think Boehner is actually that crazy or poor of a statesman. He just has very minimal power over all the 1st term tea party congresscritters. He's the weakest R speaker in a long time.



Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

// don't the Sith always end up killing their masters?

MisterBill: They can't be taught, but they can be bought.

And conditioned to be more easily and frequently bought, or rather, to expect to be bought. It's innate though, part of a politician's fiber, so I really don't want to call it "learning".

Have you ever called his offices and pronounced his name "Boner?"

Boy do the staffers get all ruffled about it.

Immature, I know, but I also like to ask them if I could talk to him when he gets out of the tanning booth.

Didn't the Dems offer something like 83% spending cuts with 17% revenue increases a few months back only to have Boehner run off in a huff?

skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

Only because of the elections upcoming and the economy slowly improving despite their best efforts to sabotage on all levels of government.

This is just Boehner playing his part int the Bad Cop/ Really, Really Terrible Cop routine that he and Cantor have going.

Like with the debt ceiling, Boehner will make some vague statements about compromise, but when a deal gets close Cantor will launch into the "not a dime more " schtick. Then Boehner will say that he can't get any revenue increases passed, so the Democrats should just compromise and accept the Republican plan in whole.

astonrickenbach: Didn't the Dems offer something like 83% spending cuts with 17% revenue increases a few months back only to have Boehner run off in a huff?

The question was, would they accept 1 tax increase in exchange for 10 program/spending cuts/10 tax cuts of the same weighting.

And every Republican answered a stern "NO".

If Obama had any balls whatsoever he would say Tax hikes on top earners and we're not touching Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. If you don't like that, we'll see what the voters say about it in 2012.

GAT_00: Boehner's idea of SS reform is privatization. Don't be too happy about this yet.

silly me looking much more towards my private 401k to sustain me in my golden years than my social security. I better get my 401k socialized so that it's good!

skullkrusher: silly me looking much more towards my private 401k to sustain me in my golden years than my social security. I better get my 401k socialized so that it's good!

The Free Market (tm) will not lead to any improvements. Privatization of programs like SS will only do more harm.

That's the way it is, and you're foolish if you think that ANY market factors can overcome human greed and innate centralization of power.

That is not to say that a pure government answer is perfect either, but a program by and for the people run by an entity by and for the people is far more logical than giving control of said program to an entity whose only goal is money and power, especially when a monopoly is all but guaranteed in the end (such is the entropic result of these systems).

Slowly but surely eliminate entitlement programs and let people be in charge of their own lives? The Democrats would never hear of this. You're an ignorant peon who cannot be trusted with your own money and you must give it to them so they can make sure it is used to take care of you.

We can cry about defense spending or we can actually do something about the entitlement programs that are driving our debt... AND make some serious cuts to defense spending.

America can never truly call itself great while 1/3 of the country hovers near the poverty line with no hope of improvement. Republicans solution to this is to kill every near the poverty line

Jackson Herring: Yes my 401k that after 5 years is currently worth less than what I've put into it myself (not even counting matching). A marvel of privatization.

yes, because it makes sense and doesn't show a complete lack of understanding to view a 401k in the short term.

GAT_00: A 401k is subject to the constantly shifting and occasionally falling without reason that is the stock market. SS is bonds, which mature at a constant rate.

right. That is why I am looking to socialize my 401k. I like not having the option and choice to choose how my retirement savings are invested.

randomjsa: eliminate entitlement programs

Like tax cuts for corporations? And corporate personhood?
OK, maybe they are learning.

skullkrusher: right. That is why I am looking to socialize my 401k. I like not having the option and choice to choose how my retirement savings are invested.

You always have a choice. Save money in a savings account, invest as you desire.

randomjsa: Slowly but surely eliminate entitlement programs and let people be in charge of their own lives?

I truly hope that the GOP runs on this platform, now and forever.

Hey, granny... we want to eliminate your Medicare and Social Security checks AND your grandkids' subsidized school lunch as well. But you'll thank us, because we're putting YOU back in charge of your life! Aren't we awesome!?

skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: Yes my 401k that after 5 years is currently worth less than what I've put into it myself (not even counting matching). A marvel of privatization.

yes, because it makes sense and doesn't show a complete lack of understanding to view a 401k in the short term.

Imagine the fluctuation of a 401k where you have no control over the investments. This is what the Republicans are proposing. Now imagine that you are getting ready to retire, but the government can't be certain they will be able to afford the SS payments because the market is down. Republicans would rather let you starve to death while their rich banker friends rake a constant 5% commission off the top for managing the funds that hemorrhage your hard earned dollars.

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Democrats "want more revenue than what we are willing to give and they are not as willing to do as much entitlement reform as we'd like to do," he said. "If there is going to be an agreement here, there has to be some kind of formula."

Someone finally learned what "compromise" means.

That doesn't mean anything to them learning what compromise means. Their formula for agreement could be to take what Democrats are willing to give on entitlement reform, kick that up a notch, and toss everything Democrats want to take on tax hikes in the garbage.

offering revenue increases in exchange for entitlement cuts is pretty much Webster's in terms of "compromise" - or at least willingness to make compromises

Jackson Herring: C = .95R + .05D

See? There's an example of compromise that's super farking slanted.

skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: Yes my 401k that after 5 years is currently worth less than what I've put into it myself (not even counting matching). A marvel of privatization.

yes, because it makes sense and doesn't show a complete lack of understanding to view a 401k in the short term.

So, when you're 55 (or worse, 60), and your 401(k) has been tanked because banks had to loan money to poor people GSEs had a hookers-and-blow party on top of a pile of burning money financial firms have no duty to make you any money (only to make themselves more money), it's OK to not think of things in the short term?

It may work out, on the whole, better for everyone, but the few years after a bust like this would be hell for those close to retirement. It also, like cap gains taxes, rewards lucky investors and punishes unlucky investors without any regard for the fact that the losers here are real people, with real needs.

$2k/month may not be caviar money, but it'll keep the poo flowing and the lights on. I'll take a guaranteed stipend over a "Try your luck for the next 30 years with the same people who just killed the world economy."

// YMMV

tomcatadam: skullkrusher: right. That is why I am looking to socialize my 401k. I like not having the option and choice to choose how my retirement savings are invested.

You always have a choice. Save money in a savings account, invest as you desire.

not with the cash I am forced to save. Want to force people to save for retirement? Fine. Give them more options in an undefined benefit program with limited options for investment or the option to go the SS route where the government strictly controls how the money is invested.
Why do you hate choice?

skullkrusher: GAT_00: A 401k is subject to the constantly shifting and occasionally falling without reason that is the stock market. SS is bonds, which mature at a constant rate.

right. That is why I am looking to socialize my 401k. I like not having the option and choice to choose how my retirement savings are invested.

Would you save in a program that gave you a limited number of choices in funds to invest in for a tradeoff of having absurdly low adminstrative costs?