... that they "protect" the programs for beneficiaries"

So I'm sorry, I find this a bit less than reassuring. I want to hear "NO CUTS." And that means no raising the age of eligibility, either, for future beneficiaries. Raising the age IS a cut.

And to any who defend raising the retirement or MA age - which are already TOO HIGH - I want to see them breaking pavement on a road crew all day, or standing behind a cash register for eight hours. At even age fifty-five, forget at sixty-seven.

isn't 69 the magic number that's now being floated around? UFB.

like mortgage interest deduction, EIC, child tax credit, student loan interest deduction. That's what the Republicans want to close. Not loopholes for the rich. I don't mind paying higher tax if the rich actually have to pay their share.

Because it's a crock.

For every loophole that's closed, another opens.

Raising rates is not impossible, but pretty damn hard to sneak around.

...wanna bet tax accountants are busily looking for additional loopholes to take advantage of that wouldn't be closed under such a deal, or already know of many that don't see much use because they aren't quite as effective as possible closure targets?

In this article, "How The Rich Soaked The Rest of Us"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance

Over the last half-century, the richest Americans have shifted the burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves and onto everybody else. The three convenient and accurate Wikipedia graphs below show the details. The first graph compares the official tax rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. Note especially that from the end of the Second World War into the early 1960s, the highest income earners paid a tax rate over 90 percent for many years. Today, the top earners pay a rate of only 35 percent. Note, also, how the gap between the rates paid by the richest and the poorest has narrowed. If we take into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than the poor, the gap narrows even more.

One conclusion is clear and obvious: the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, both absolutely and relative to the tax burdens of the middle income groups and the poor.

Was hoping for one which included property and sales taxes.

In addition to Income tax reductions, in 1960 there was a transaction tax. Excise taxes have changed.. Sales tax has gone from 0% to approx. 8%. I was interested in seeing how these changes have shifted the burden.

when you stated in a press conference, "I am for the strongest possible public option." I'm not sure that you won't cave yet again.

were our only ally.

Direct your caving accusations where they belong.

It's the Progressives in the House against everyone else. Boeher, Obama and the Senate would cut taxes, Medicare and Social Security if it weren't for the Progressives in the House that would stop them.

This is worth remembering, if you haven't read me saying it a thousand times already:

The expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy is a done deal. They are going to expire in January, the President has promised to veto any extension for the wealthy (he has also asked for a further extension for the middle class, but guess who already shot that hostage?), and Congress cannot override the veto.

In football terms, we outscored the GOP 25-8 in the fourth quarter, the two-minute warning has blown, they're out of time-outs, and President Obama remembers Joe Pisarcik as well as any Giants fan does.

We're going to take a knee, run out the clock, and trot off the field, and there is nothing Republicans can do about it.

Keep posting it so we don't forget. It is a done deal.

It will be part of my ongoing "I told you so series," which has been entirely ignored by everyone, everywhere.

But this is still going to happen.

If you don't trust Congress, I don't blame you, and neither would the President. That's why he structured the last tax cut compromise in such a way that President Obama would have the final say on its expiration, no matter what else happened. Unless you think he's going to change his own mind, it's already over.

How about A HORRIBLE, ASSINE, STINKY, AWFUL, CRAPPY NON STARTER OF AN IDEA, Nancy.

How about saying we will never agree to that, so its absolutely NON NEGOTIABLE.

If they want to be reassuing us that they have our backs on this their language has to be less wishy washy and more forceful. JMHO