So when we extend the Bush tax cuts and cut Social Security and Medicare

[county worker]

and the unemployment rate is still 10%, who gets blamed?

[blue sky at night]

1. we won't talk about it and no one will notice...

it's all they got.

[glinda]

2. The Dems because they will have no way to defend themselves in the media.

[jwirr]

3. In a repug world it is always the working idiots who are to blame. Who

else?:sarcasm:

[katnapped]

5. Personal responsibility, peoples!

Hello? :sarcasm:

[dkf]

Yet the Repubs timing will probably benefit them.

We are in a recovery after all.

The problem is what if unemployment decreases and it looks like they have succeeded.

[jaxx]

4. The people who voted to go backwards.

All of them. This is what they voted for, as Cantor said last night they are going to go back to 2008 when the sun rose and set each day and it wasn't so bad. :puke:

[virtualobserver]

6. the Repubs will never cut SS or Medicare

the folks who voted for them yesterday are on SS and Medicare.

[tsuki]

10. They promised those on SS & Medicare, in my area I know, that

they would not cut their benefits; they would cut their children's.

[virtualobserver]

12. in the toxic future that the Repubs want to leave us....

their children wouldn't live long enough to collect anyway.

[tsuki]

22. But what I find upsetting is the fact that they are not willing to fight for

their children. Fuck the bootstraps, I am going to fight for my child.

[Lasher]

7. Clinton.

Or maybe Jimmy Carter.

[phantom power]

8. The Dems will allow the GOP to frame the debate

So, that allows us to predict who will be blamed.

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. That's easy - they'll blame the old, the sick, and the unemployed.

It's always the blame the victim game, regardless of reality. Facts never mattered before, and that will continue.

[Kablooie]

11. The president gets the primary blame and the Democrats by association.

[mzmolly]

13. The President

as usual.

[thereismore]

14. The black guy. nt

[JackRiddler]

15. Not the Republican black guy, though.

[thereismore]

20. I hate republicans. What else can I say? Just happy about CA and looking forward to comedy

from the new teabag Congress.

[wizstars]

16. Clinton's penis, naturally n/t

[thecrow]

17. They wil blame the unemployed

[OnlinePoker]

18. On Tax Cuts and the election

The new senators and congressmen don't take office until January. In the intervening time, the current lawmakers are still allowed to pass bills. Have they actually tabled any legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts to middle and lower income people, and if so, how likely is it they will be passed before the Christmas recess?

[sabrina 1]

19. There is a lame duck period coming up.

Democrats can end the Bush tax cuts, DADT and introduce a bill to extend SS benefits and leave the retirement age where it is.

They can prepare for 2012 by laying the groundwork that exposes Republicans as the party that wants to cut SS and keep that fight going until the next election.

The president can veto any bill that includes any cuts to SS and make it known right now that Democrats will fight for SS so if Repubs want to try, they will have a huge fight on their hands.

A lot can be done in a lame duck session. But Dems would have to want to fight and so far, only the Progressive Caucus has shown any willingness to do that.

[jeff47]

21. Lame duck isn't going to fix anything

"Democrats can end the Bush tax cuts, DADT and introduce a bill to extend SS benefits and leave the retirement age where it is."

Actually, the Bush tax cuts end themselves. Ending them doesn't require any legislative work. Nor does leaving the retirement age where it is.

But DADT repeal is not gonna happen. The R's in the Senate will just filibuster it again. And then the Democrats will cave and remove it from the defense authorization bill.

[sabrina 1]

23. Ending them doesn't take any action, but extending them does.

Already, Dems are saying they will have to extend them. Why are they saying that when they know what those tax cuts cost?

They are not going to leave the retirement age where it is. Chris Van Hollen refused to commit to Democrats refusing to raise the retirement age. When asked if the Commission recommends it what would Dems do, he became irritated and stated that they would 'have to look at the whole package'.

Iow, there will be a recommendation to raise it, and Dems intend to use the rest of the 'package' to cut the deficit as an excuse for not being able to vote against it.

This can change by Dems promising to fight it no matter what is in the 'package'.

We are part of a global attempt to eliminate social programs and I would love to think that the American people would react to this plot the way the French are doing. We the people should already be on the phone, letting them know that if they try to lie about SS contributing to the deficit, they will pay a political price the next time they come up for reelection.

What they could do is bring these recommendations to the floor right now. Stop hiding them, or passing them off on the Republicans who we know will be only too willing to cut SS benefits in any way they can.

Force Republicans to publicly show what they really are all about. The problem is that Democrats agree, so in that sense you are right. They will not fight for SS. And then they will blame REpublicans. They need to know we will not buy that.

As for DADT, they missed the opportunity to deal with that, probably on purpose also. So, I agree, Obama's plan to 'let Congress deal with it', will turn out exactly as it did the last time he let them decide, only with even more opposition as predicted.