Compromise............is still a dirty word .

Along with all the things above ^ the Democrats and President Obama say are off the table in the compromise  ..here's about the only thing they have put on the table...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laid down a firm marker Tuesday:"I agree with the president"  raising the debt ceiling has to be part of a deal on the fiscal cliff..."it has to be a package deal"..

OK!   Now let's go to the table and compromise..

What tea party ?

Three month ago Sen Reid declared, ..The Tea Party movement is dead in the water under his leadership...and he's still the Senate Majority leader....

As far as the "debt ceiling" Congress cannot raise it beyond the limit China willing to buy our debt ..and who knows what number that is ?

 That's true with the electronic money printing machines ...but,I can't remember who said it.. "The minute a lender fears you may not be able to settle up this debt, they may either refuse to roll over the debt or raise the interest rates that you have to pay.”

A raise in the interest rate would be a killer ..

Quote Originally Posted by dl36:

I thought compromise was a dirty word for the gridlock teabaggers...

The only one's that call Tea Party members the "teabaggers " slur are followers of Keef Olbermann and far left liberals ...never true nonpartisan Independents ... 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15?billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds  on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.

And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.

" I know one cut in spending the Obama administration would probably go along with....spending cuts to embassy security..."

Let me quantify that ....I know one cut in spending the Obama administration would probably go along with....spending cuts to embassy security in Benghazi...

Budget records show "

According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008.

On Oct.10 2012 in a Congressional  hearing Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif. asked  State Department's deputy assistant secretary for international programs Charlene Lamb ..

"It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I'd like to ask Miss Lamb.You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"

"No, sir," said Lamb.

That's because the State Department's budget for embassy security has increased significantly, not decreased, over the past decade..

Comparing FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 estimate, there appears to be a reduction in Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance..But ...that reduction does not account for additional funding in FY 2012 from Overseas Contingency Operations funds amounting to $236 million for Worldwide Security Protection (p. 63) budget records ..and $33 million for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance. ( p. 467)... Together, there is a net increase.

In its budget request for FY 2013, the Obama admistration requested significantly more funding for embassy security—mostly through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget—but retained the same number of positions, apparently on the assumption that security staffing was adequate. Regardless, that budget, even if approved in its entirety, would have entered into effect after the events in Libya....................The Heritage Foundation .