Obama didn't cause this mess, but he's trying to get us out of it.

Would someone please tell the GOP infused, media-enabled TeaPublicans it's not about spending cuts, it's about paying for what we've already bought?. Namely, three wars.

That's right (pun intended), the pro-war GOP wants to pay for the war on the backs of single mothers, the poor, the elderly and the disabled, while bending over backward to support tax cuts for their base, aka the super-rich.

How anyone that is not super rich can call themselves a republican is beyond me. Maybe when their social security and Medicare are cut off they will realize they've been duped. But then again, they hate democrats/liberal/Obama (in that order) more than they love themselves, which is why they can be counted on to vote against their self interest at every turn like good little sheeple.

Social Security cuts under consideration by the White House in deficit-reduction talks would drive 245,000 people into poverty and lower widows' benefits $1,200 a year by 2050, according to Social Security Administration calculations provided to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Changing the way inflation is measured to determine Social Security benefits is one option on the table in high-stakes budget negotiations that resume Sunday at the White House. The so-called Chained Consumer Price Index on average results in a lower inflation levels than the more common formula used to adjust benefits.

"The result would be devastating cuts for millions of American seniors and people with disabilities," said Sanders. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders asked the Social Security Administration's Office of Retirement Policy to calculate the impact on poverty rates and benefits if the revised inflation gauge were to be adopted.

In 2030, according to the report prepared for Sanders, there would be 173,400 more people living in poverty in the United States. The revised formula also would dramatically lower benefits for retirees. Widows would receive almost $70 a month less in benefits, a reduction of $840 a year. People who are 70-79 would receive $49 a month less, a drop of $588 a year. Benefits for those who are 80-89 would drop by $80/month or $960 a year. Benefits for women would fall by 3.5 percent overall while men's benefits would drop by 2.9 percent.

Until I hear from the President's mouth instead of some "White House official" I'm not going to rush to judgment on the Medicare and social security rumor because at this point that's all it is. For all we know Harold Ford (DINO) could be the source. Let's wait and see what the President says and not what some unnamed White House official says.

IF, and I mean IF, the rumors are true and cuts to Medicare and social security are on the table why did John Boehner stomp out of the meeting? I mean, that is what they wanted isn't it? Me thinks the republicans are caught between Barack and a hard place. They are damned if they insist on cuts to Medicare and social security and damned if they don't.

Laurence Lawerence says We shouldn't be talking about deficits.

That's the worst part about the entire debate. And from that fundamental problem all others follow. In the midst of the most tenuous of recoveries from one of the most severe recessions, we should be talking about jobs and mortgages and stimulus. We should be talking about reinventing our economy to be green not lean and mean. We should be talking about the Republicans as depraved agents of regression and extremism. We should not be talking to them as if they are willing to negotiate in good faith. We should not be talking to them as if they are capable of making sound decisions on policy.

I don't know what part of the republicans are trying to destroy you President Obama doesn't understand.

The reality is that the Republicans know that for one of them to return to the Oval Office, and for their party to retake one or both houses of Congress, this presidency must be perceived as a failure. The consequences to the country of this presidency actually being a failure are irrelevant to them. They want it to fail. They work for it to fail. They know that any successes by this president undermine their party's chances, so they will do their best to prevent any successes, in any ways they can. The Republicans are a party that impeached a twice-elected president for lying about sex. There is no depth too low, and no sewage too rank, for their pernicious partisan wallowing.

So now that we know the republicans are mean and immoral are we going to let them win?

The last time the U.S. government shut down in the mid-1990s, it was Newt Gingrich who tried to capitalize politically on stories about closed signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Of course it backfired, since Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 in a landslide and Gingrich ended up resigning as House Speaker in an ethics scandal.

This time, however, if an agreement cannot be reached to keep the government operating, millions of poor people will suffer enormously when the Social Security checks stop coming and Medicare and Medicaid won’t pay the hospital bills. Yes Wall Street will crash again, and even the middle classes will lose their retirement. But that’s not even the worst of it.

If an agreement is not reached by August 2, the Dog Days of Summer will take on a whole new meaning. Many poor people will simply die.

Don't be distracted by the media hype, we have bigger problems than the Casey Anthony verdict.

What's the greater moral outrage: the guilty going free or the innocent wrongfully convicted? The death of little Caylee was a tragedy, but her mother's case went through the system, and the system worked as it is designed to do. Don't let the media attention and hyped "moral" outrage distract you from the real challenges to U.S. civil rights and liberties. The next innocent victim could be you!

I'm just saying...