Pubfest Plan B

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I've tried to live by the motto: "Always have a Plan B."
And for the most part, it has served me well. Often, something doesn't go according to plan so it's nice to have a Plan B in place.


But Speaker of the House Boehner's Plan B disaster tainted this motto for good.

I almost feel sorry for him, with many of his pub colleagues's lips so far up Grover Norquist's ∀ss they are blinded to the realization that if they don't accept tax increases on the well-to-do, taxes will automatically go up much more and on a lot more taypayers.

I suppose if they do nothing and we go off the fiscal cliff (w/automatic tax increases) then they can vote to lower the new higher rates (albeit at higher rates over the old rates) and claim some sort of consolation victory.

Increased tax rates on income over $400,000 with a slowing in the growth of key entitlement programs is the cornerstone of a reasonable compromise.






















http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2012/12/07/100290024-fiscal-cliff-05-getty.240x160.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, the country voted in Demfest,. Guess we have a masochistic complex. (at least) 4 more yrs of Obear and the Transformation. Oh JOY!

[pphilfran]

I've tried to live by the motto: "Always have a Plan B."
And for the most part, it has served me well. Often, something doesn't go according to plan so it's nice to have a Plan B in place.


But Speaker of the House Boehner's Plan B disaster tainted this motto for good.

I almost feel sorry for him, with many of his pub colleagues's lips so far up Grover Norquist's ∀ss they are blinded to the realization that if they don't accept tax increases on the well-to-do, taxes will automatically go up much more and on a lot more taypayers.

I suppose if they do nothing and we go off the fiscal cliff (w/automatic tax increases) then they can vote to lower the new higher rates (albeit at higher rates over the old rates) and claim some sort of consolation victory.

Increased tax rates on income over $400,000 with a slowing in the growth of key entitlement programs is the cornerstone of a reasonable compromise.

I will go with the over 400k....

What do you consider slow growth and which key entitlement programs....

[LiveLaughLove]

I've tried to live by the motto: "Always have a Plan B."
And for the most part, it has served me well. Often, something doesn't go according to plan so it's nice to have a Plan B in place.


But Speaker of the House Boehner's Plan B disaster tainted this motto for good.

I almost feel sorry for him, with many of his pub colleagues's lips so far up Grover Norquist's ∀ss they are blinded to the realization that if they don't accept tax increases on the well-to-do, taxes will automatically go up much more and on a lot more taypayers.

I suppose if they do nothing and we go off the fiscal cliff (w/automatic tax increases) then they can vote to lower the new higher rates (albeit at higher rates over the old rates) and claim some sort of consolation victory.

Increased tax rates on income over $400,000 with a slowing in the growth of key entitlement programs is the cornerstone of a reasonable compromise.

The Grover Norquist jab is just liberal bogeyman demagoguery. You guys always have to have a bad guy. If its not Norquist, its the Koch Brothers. If its not them its somebody else.

Its possible that just maybe conservatives don't believe that raising taxes on anybody is going to help anything and might hurt things. Just maybe. If two people agree on a principle, who is following who?

Maybe they know Obama has no intention of giving ANY tax cuts that amount to a hill of beans. Just maybe. Is Obama following Soros' lead? Maybe Pelosi's? What a bunch of lemmings.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The Grover Norquist jab is just liberal bogeyman demagoguery. You guys always have to have a bad guy. If its not Norquist, its the Koch Brothers. If its not them its somebody else.

Its possible that just maybe conservatives don't believe that raising taxes on anybody is going to help anything and might hurt things. Just maybe. If two people agree on a principle, who is following who?

Maybe they know Obama has no intention of giving ANY tax cuts that amount to a hill of beans. Just maybe. Is Obama following Soros' lead? Maybe Pelosi's? What a bunch of lemmings.

Nothing wrong with believing that, but they lost. The pubs ran a horrible campaign - so bad they couldn't even beat Obama. They aren't getting their way on no tax increases on the well-to-do. If they refuse to compromise, the resulting tax increases will be worse than what they could negotiate.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I will go with the over 400k....

What do you consider slow growth and which key entitlement programs....

If they presently grow x% per year, then they need to instead grow at kx%, where 0< k <1.

To get the needed $$$, gotta be Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Obama and the democrats want tax increases for all, and to blame it on the republicans, so the low-informtion/mis-information types will still vote for the democrats, and to further dirty the republican image to those people. The republicans act as if they don't even know that the dems are planning to destroy the entire republican party, and are well on the way to doing just that.

[nutinbutdust]

I will go with the over 400k....

What do you consider slow growth and which key entitlement programs....

Since 2000....Problem in a Nutshell

Average salaries are up 44%.
US govt spending is up 112%.

[pphilfran]

If they presently grow x% per year, then they need to instead grow at kx%, where 0< k <1.

To get the needed $$$, gotta be Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

So you want to slow the growth of the monthly check? Change in calculation? Raise age? Means testing?

[yermom]

Obama and the democrats want tax increases for all, and to blame it on the republicans, so the low-informtion/mis-information types will still vote for the democrats, and to further dirty the republican image to those people. The republicans act as if they don't even know that the dems are planning to destroy the entire republican party, and are well on the way to doing just that.

i love how people only vote democrat if they are uninformed, like the average redstater is this well-read worldly person voting on reason

[pphilfran]

Since 2000....Problem in a Nutshell

Average salaries are up 44%.
US govt spending is up 112%.

I am putting the squeeze on SJS...

He put out an exact number on the place to raise taxes on the rich...

But on everything else it is more like smoke and mirrors...

[pphilfran]

i love how people only vote democrat if they are uninformed, like the average redstater is this well-read worldly person voting on reason


Hey! I am a red stater...I voted for Rom, mostly because he was not the incumbent...

[LiveLaughLove]

Nothing wrong with believing that, but they lost. The pubs ran a horrible campaign - so bad they couldn't even beat Obama. They aren't getting their way on no tax increases on the well-to-do. If they refuse to compromise, the resulting tax increases will be worse than what they could negotiate.

This might come as a shock because I know Obama likes to throw this in peoples faces, but the Republicans all won also or they wouldn't be there.

In fact, they are a coequal branch of the government. We did not elect a King or Emperor contrary to the wishes of Dear Leader.


Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

After the election, Boehner aides tried to shape the debate by offering early concessions, including that the GOP would agree to raise new tax revenue. A speech Mr. Boehner planned to give was rewritten 18 times and included input from top Republican leaders.

Sounds like Obama is really trying to save the country from the fiscal cliff or get more votes for the Dems on the next election, but mostly get votes for the Dems in the next election.


On Dec. 13, Mr. Boehner went to the White House at the president's request, joking he was going to the woodshed.
The president told him he could choose one of two doors. The first represented a big deal. If Mr. Boehner chose it, the president said, the country and financial markets would cheer. Door No. 2 represented a spike in interest rates and a global recession.

Mr. Boehner said he wanted a deal along the lines of what the two men had negotiated in the summer of 2011 in a fight over raising the debt ceiling. "You missed your opportunity on that," the president told him.

That night, the speaker and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) decided to make the biggest concession so far.

Once again, Dear Leader appears more interested in his voting bloc than he does in saving the country financially.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

But keep on blaming the Republicans as the country melts. Soon it really won't matter who was right or wrong and who was willing to compromise with whom.

[yermom]

Republicans won half of one of the coequal branches

[LiveLaughLove]

Republicans won half of one of the coequal branches

They control the House. Nothing you want to say can change that. They have the right and duty to represent their constituents. The ones that voted them in.

They were not elected to bow to and kiss Obama's ring.

I noticed you chose to just ignore the quotes there from the WSJ showing Obamas arrogance and willingness to ruin this country for his political agenda.

[yermom]

it takes two sides to be obstinate

[nutinbutdust]

Back To Plan A (http://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2012/12/22/back-to-plan-a-n1472172/page/full/) by Phil Kerpen. Full article below.

There is not a majority in the House of Representatives to support a tax plan that would raise taxes on any taxpayers – not even the much-maligned “millionaires and billionaires.” But that does not mean the House has acquiesced to the automatic tax hikes on every taxpayer slated for January 1. In stark contrast to the failure of “Plan B,” the House already succeeded in passing its “Plan A” back in August: H.R. 8. That bill would extend all current tax rates for one year, while committing to comprehensive tax reform in 2013. It passed the House on a rock solid 256-171 vote, with 19 Democrats joining 237 Republicans.

The Senate has taken no action on the bill. Harry Reid did, for show, pass a Senate bill to raise taxes above $200,000 only, as favored by President Obama. But that bill, S. 3412, violated the Constitution’s requirement that revenue bills originate in the House. It would be legally void even if it did pass the House, which it won’t.

So now the ball is in Harry Reid’s court. H.R. 8 is the bill that passed the House. It’s the only duly-enacted bill to pass either chamber. He should call it up, amend it – if he can – and appoint conferees to reach a final agreement. President Obama will almost certainly sign any deal that can pass the House and Senate.

The economic stakes are huge. Boehner’s Plan B millionaire tax would have done significant damage to the U.S. economy. The Tax Foundation estimated the long-run impact of Plan B and found it would knock 0.92 percent off of GDP. That’s less than a third of the 2.88 percent that Obama’s plan would shave off the U.S. economy, but it’s still considerable. The do nothing option? That’s really ugly. Allowing taxes to rise on all Americans as contemplated under current law would mean a 9.61 percent hit to GDP, along with a 7.35 percent decline in wages and a 23 percent drop in private business stocks.

Now the insistence of House Republicans to make this all-or-nothing must infuriate Democrats, especially President Obama, who famously explained he would support higher taxes on capital even if they hurt the economy so much that they resulted in lower revenues. He said “fairness” was more important.

But like it or not, the American people elected a House of Representatives that is committed to stopping all tax hikes. They are so committed that they refuse to put their fingerprints on a deal to raise taxes on some even if it means risking automatic tax increases on all. Speaker Boehner tried his best to alter this reality for the sake of compromise. He couldn’t. So this is the reality Obama and Reid must deal with.

Why would Reid and Obama insist on tax hikes for everyone in this context? The economic suffering would be serious and widespread. They have repeatedly claimed that current rates should be extended for 98 percent of Americans. The intransigence of House Republicans has set up a scenario in which we’ll either have economically destructive tax hikes on every American, or we’ll postpone all the tax hikes for a year while we move forward on comprehensive tax reform. Democrats should do the right thing for the U.S. economy and choose the latter option.

[okie52]

I love the logic of obama's "fairness" regarding taxes as stated above. Nothing like raising tax rates to decrease tax revenues.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I am putting the squeeze on SJS...

He put out an exact number on the place to raise taxes on the rich...

But on everything else it is more like smoke and mirrors...

Well it's not up to me personally. Ok with me to raise age eligiblity for medicare (I heard to 67 in negotiations), and cut the COLA formula to 2/3 of present calculation.

[nutinbutdust]

We Arent Quite as Stupid as They Think (http://townhall.com/columnists/matttowery/2012/12/21/we-arent-quite-as-stupid-as-they-think-n1471602/page/full/) by Matt Towery full article below



If you are reading any opinion column during the Christmas season, you are likely an individual who seeks out information and observations, and comes to your own conclusions. In other words, you are a "thinking" man or women, and whether you ever agree with a single word I write, I nevertheless both congratulate and give thanks for you. And this column is for you.
Most politicians and many in the media truly believe we are stupid. We are the masses. We are those meant to receive a pat on the head, an empty promise and a warm feeling --- that leaves us empty. Trust me, I was in this business, and while those in it now think I am not on to them, I am. I know when I get the run-around or that pat on the head. So let me just take some stories in the news as we end the year and apply this concept to them.

Let's start with the story of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's stomach virus that led to massive dehydration that led to a fall at home and a failure to go to the hospital with a serious concussion. Now I have made it clear in the past that I consider former President Clinton a roaring conservative as compared to President Obama, and I am not accusing Secretary Clinton of lying. But the fact that hearings were to be held on the entire Benghazi debacle, the State Department was already set to be given blame by a White house appointed panel, and suddenly Hillary Clinton simply could not testify -- give me a break. Do they think we are stupid? Yes, they do.

On the subject of tragic shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, I'm not a big on guns personally, and when I hear of these types of senseless murders, particularly of innocent young children, I am prone to ask questions about the sale of certain weapons and ammunition.

But as soon as I start seeing the Drudge Report carrying immediate talk of efforts toward gun control and later see a television news bulletin with President Obama naming Joe Biden to head up a special something or another to deal with gun control, then I realize that once again emotions of the moment are being manipulated by politicians. And whatever shift in my views over gun rights that might naturally have occurred end as I hear television news "reporters" arguing with those opposed to changes in the law or pontificating while "reporting" the news. Do they think we are stupid? Yes, they do.

And that, of course, leads us to the continuing "stalled" negotiations over the "fiscal cliff." My, my, it is almost Christmas, the Senate is going home, and the big bad speaker and President Obama are seemingly stalled in a lockdown over spending cuts and who qualifies to be a millionaire.

Hah, what a laugh. Make no mistake, a last-minute bill will be agreed to before the end of the year. Special treatment will be extended to the defense industry to avoid the dreadful cuts that would have occurred under the automatic sequestration that otherwise would have kicked in on Jan. 1. Unemployment benefits will be extended, and taxes for those earning over, say, $400,000 -- or perhaps a bit more or less -- will go up. Sounds OK, right? Again they think we are stupid.

In the process, the Republican's long-fought battle, which raised many a penny in campaign contributions to fight the so-called "death tax," will be thrown right out the window. In the end, whether by January or more likely next year, deductions and credits that have served to stimulate the economy will be curtailed or eliminated. Who will suffer in the long term? The answer is the integrity and word of the GOP, and conservatives and plenty who have fought for their cause only to see another last-minute deal that will never ever really reduce the deficit.

Oh, and by the way, the world was set to end on Dec. 21, as well. Oh, that got plenty of media attention. And you know why? That's right, they think we are stupid. And if I've written another version of this in years past, blame it on stupidity

[East Coast Bias]

Personally I am not okay with $400K, I think $250 was the right number and again Obama is giving head to the Pubs when we re-elected him to raise the taxes on the wealthy. The country supports him on this, he needs to cash in on his political capital, like right now. I say lets go over the cliff, see how the Pubs like getting the blame for that? That will raise money and cut spending and is what we deserve if we can't get our politicians to act on what we want. All those Pubs feeling smug about their re-election shouldn't plan on long-term jobs if they let this one get away.

And if PPhil wants to put the squeeze on me, go ahead. I have already said lets go over the cliff, check those cuts out. I would prefer Rock-Ons budget and cuts to avert a possible recession, but something has to give....

[okie52]

Personally I am not okay with $400K, I think $250 was the right number and again Obama is giving head to the Pubs when we re-elected him to raise the taxes on the wealthy. The country supports him on this, he needs to cash in on his political capital, like right now. I say lets go over the cliff, see how the Pubs like getting the blame for that? That will raise money and cut spending and is what we deserve if we can't get our politicians to act on what we want. All those Pubs feeling smug about their re-election shouldn't plan on long-term jobs if they let this one get away.

And if PPhil wants to put the squeeze on me, go ahead. I have already said lets go over the cliff, check those cuts out. I would prefer Rock-Ons budget and cuts to avert a possible recession, but something has to give....

I love the logic of pubs getting the "blame" for taxes reverting to the Clinton tax rates.

[East Coast Bias]

I am pretty sure Obama is more than willing to take the blame for raising taxes on the wealthy.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I think enough east coast/west coast donk senators will support 400k, knowing 250K isn't exactly rich on the coasts.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm also OK with capping medicare at age 85. After 85, more power to your long life, but gravy should be on your own dime, not the taxpayers'.

Not that there's a chance in hell of that happening.

[East Coast Bias]

I would be okay with that as well. We could also raise the cap on FICA contributions and save SS FOREVER. I know PPhil is okay with this as well.Clearly we need to do something, grid-lock is not acceptable to voters anymore..

[okie52]

I am pretty sure Obama is more than willing to take the blame for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Who created the Clinton tax rates in the first place?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i love how people only vote democrat if they are uninformed...
Some are misinformed. Some more are misinformed AND uninformed of other truths. They should start to be curious about the honesty and motivation of some of their sources.

[soonercruiser]

Speaking of PLan B...it's still an abortion, either way!

And has anypone seen all the LIES posted on the WH web site about Boehner's Plan B!
Unbelieveable lies to rally the uninformed left!
Typical leftist tactics.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Speaking of PLan B...it's still an abortion, either way!

And has anypone seen all the LIES posted on the WH web site about Boehner's Plan B!
Unbelieveable lies to rally the uninformed left!
Typical leftist tactics.

The White House didn't sabotage Plan B, it was done in by house pubs unwilling to support it.

[soonercruiser]

The White House didn't sabotage Plan B, it was done in by house pubs unwilling to support it.

Who said they did?
NOT ME!
I said that the WH posted a whole slew of LIES (SOP for them) on their web site, rather than come forth with a plan of their own.

[pphilfran]

Personally I am not okay with $400K, I think $250 was the right number and again Obama is giving head to the Pubs when we re-elected him to raise the taxes on the wealthy. The country supports him on this, he needs to cash in on his political capital, like right now. I say lets go over the cliff, see how the Pubs like getting the blame for that? That will raise money and cut spending and is what we deserve if we can't get our politicians to act on what we want. All those Pubs feeling smug about their re-election shouldn't plan on long-term jobs if they let this one get away.

And if PPhil wants to put the squeeze on me, go ahead. I have already said lets go over the cliff, check those cuts out. I would prefer Rock-Ons budget and cuts to avert a possible recession, but something has to give....


If we go over the cliff for any substantial amount of time or they don't pull some long lost rule that they can override the deal anyway...

The stock market will tank...
Business and consumers will lose confidence and probably slow hiring and spending
It will show the ineptitude of our DC leadership...they knew this was coming up all year long...yet they prioritized getting elected and going on vacation...
A recession that will be murder on unemployment, revenue, and debt
A downgrade on our credit

[Midtowner]

After we go over the fiscal cliff, the Democrats will probably within weeks be able to claim that they had a President who presided over the largest tax cut in history--massive cuts on the first $250K of everyone's income, capital gains and estate taxes.

[diverdog]

If we go over the cliff for any substantial amount of time or they don't pull some long lost rule that they can override the deal anyway...

The stock market will tank...
Business and consumers will lose confidence and probably slow hiring and spending
It will show the ineptitude of our DC leadership...they knew this was coming up all year long...yet they prioritized getting elected and going on vacation...
A recession that will be murder on unemployment, revenue, and debt
A downgrade on our credit


When it tanks I am going in.

[pphilfran]

I would be okay with that as well. We could also raise the cap on FICA contributions and save SS FOREVER. I know PPhil is okay with this as well.Clearly we need to do something, grid-lock is not acceptable to voters anymore..

SS is going to be a fight...dems probably won't allow age increases....pubs won't want to raise the wage limit....

This would be my offer...

Slowly raise the age limit by a couple of years..

Lower the overall limit from the current 12.4% to 10%...to make up for the overall shortfall I would raise the limit to, say, 140k (I haven't worked the numbers...might be 130k...might be 160k)..now we are back to our current state...still hurting over the next 20 or 30 years...to make up for the annual revenue shortfall I would bump the age another 30k...170k

$170,000 at 10% instead of the current $113,700 at 12.4%...up to 140k or so you pay less...above 140k you pay more..somebody topping out at 170k will pay 17k compared to the current max of 13.5k..like I said, my numbers probably are not close but I think you can get my idea...

My plan basically pizzes of both sides so the chance of this happening is slim to none...

[sappstuf]

Personally I am not okay with $400K, I think $250 was the right number and again Obama is giving head to the Pubs when we re-elected him to raise the taxes on the wealthy. The country supports him on this, he needs to cash in on his political capital, like right now. I say lets go over the cliff, see how the Pubs like getting the blame for that? That will raise money and cut spending and is what we deserve if we can't get our politicians to act on what we want. All those Pubs feeling smug about their re-election shouldn't plan on long-term jobs if they let this one get away.

And if PPhil wants to put the squeeze on me, go ahead. I have already said lets go over the cliff, check those cuts out. I would prefer Rock-Ons budget and cuts to avert a possible recession, but something has to give....

This is why Boehner should be replaced..

Anyone who thought that the Dems wouldn't raise taxes on everyone and slash defense spending isn't from this universe.

They are happy to have both and then to get to blame the Pubs for not coming to an agreement is just icing on the cake.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

With the full retirement age of SS now up to 67 (for those born after a certain date), I can't see the age being raised higher. Maybe for Medicare, though, since it is now set at 65. They could increase it a bit.

They could raise the income cap on paying SS FICA but that would be a loss for the pubs, not the donks.

With SS, the only thing I think the donks would give in on is a COLA formula adjustment.

[okie52]

After we go over the fiscal cliff, the Democrats will probably within weeks be able to claim that they had a President who presided over the largest tax cut in history--massive cuts on the first $250K of everyone's income, capital gains and estate taxes.

And only idiots will buy into it.

[pphilfran]

Social Security was founded in 1935 ...

Life expectancy for someone born in 1935 61.7 years...retirement age was 65

Life expectancy for someone born in 1950 is 68.2...retirement age 66

Life expectancy for someone born in 1970 is 70.8...retirement age 67

Life expectancy for someone born in 1985 is 74.7...retirement age 67

Life expectancy for someone born in 2000 is 77...retirement age 67

Life expectancy for someone born in 2010 is 78.7...retirement age 67.....

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And only idiots will buy into it.
We are not supposed to hurl personal insults on this board. Only Leftists are allowed to call people such names. By definition, the Left holds the insult cards, since it is a given that constitutionalists are stupid, crazy, tinfoil hatters, or (if the Leftist is really agitated), just plain old evil.

[yermom]

yeah...

it's only different when you say it because it's true, right?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

yeah...

it's only different when you say it because it's true, right?It's never too late to deeply examine and reflect on the results of Socialism, and what it does to economic activity, among other poor results.

[yermom]

would you kindly cite me an advocate of socialism?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

would you kindly cite me an advocate of socialism?What's your economic philosophy?

[yermom]

really, that's the best you have?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

really, that's the best you have?You're passionately anti-Christian, and think the crusades could re-erupt at any time, and appear to worry about that more than Islamist terrorism. I haven't seen you criticize socialism and its results on the board. You imply that Obama isn't doing so badly running the country. Never have seen anything regarding economic philosophy, nor commenting on authoritarianism. You occasionally take shots at conservative ideas, and imply irrational or deficient thinking attributed to them.

[soonercruiser]

SS is going to be a fight...dems probably won't allow age increases....pubs won't want to raise the wage limit....This would be my offer...

Slowly raise the age limit by a couple of years..

Lower the overall limit from the current 12.4% to 10%...to make up for the overall shortfall I would raise the limit to, say, 140k (I haven't worked the numbers...might be 130k...might be 160k)..now we are back to our current state...still hurting over the next 20 or 30 years...to make up for the annual revenue shortfall I would bump the age another 30k...170k

$170,000 at 10% instead of the current $113,700 at 12.4%...up to 140k or so you pay less...above 140k you pay more..somebody topping out at 170k will pay 17k compared to the current max of 13.5k..like I said, my numbers probably are not close but I think you can get my idea...

My plan basically pizzes of both sides so the chance of this happening is slim to none...

Phil,
I think that you are wrong on this.
Even Ryan's plan, that the Repugs in the House supported, called for both.
It is the Dems reluctance to cut ANYTHING on social rograms that is the obstacle to long-term SS solutions.
And, many Repugs have spken, and been interviewed on this.
Right now, the Dem Senate is the biggest obstacle to any deals!

[soonercruiser]

would you kindly cite me an advocate of socialism?

The president! "Redistribution of wealth as a strategy!"...under the guise of "fairness".
Government control of industry and energy....President's EPA.
Gobment control of Healthcare....Obamacare!
Shall I go on???
(I'm sure I know the answer!)

It's not what he says: it's what he does!