Boehner walks from White House debt talks

[Lemon law]

We have to put this thread into perspective, the GOP dominated House recently passed a bill to legalize their position.

Regardless how various house leaders feel, within a matter of days the US Senate quickly and effectively shot down the GOP house bill. As a side issue no blame attaches to Obama, when its the US Senate that said nyet, but when Boehner and his fellow house stooges have seen the US Senate swiftly reject the GOP house bill, its a vainglorious fools move for the GOP house to pretend anything they passed has any force of law.

The GOP leadership in the US House is nothing but a set of fools in deep denial trying a deflection. Learn it and live it, the house GOP bill is dead dead and deader, and the US Senate is not or ever will be buying house GOP bullshit. So why is Boehner again appealing to the US Senate, only to get dope slapped again?

But that is what the fool move the GOP house now trying. And why do I suspect, its going to be mainly Senate Republicans who will have to dope slap Boehner and is ilk again and again.

 

[werepossum]

Though that would be great in an ideal world, the problem with that is neither side will make any significant concessions if the negotiations were public. The first side to blink would pay a heavy political cost as its base reacted in outrage. In today's highly-partisan America, the only way this can work politically if both sides present a comprehensive package to the public jointly, so that neither side gets blamed for the needed cuts and increases.

Perhaps, but neither side is being honest about its posturing. So now, neither side is making any significant concessions AND taking no political cost. When the Democrats claim raising taxes as cutting spending (Obama's "cutting spending in the tax code") their supporters say "Look, we're compromising, we're cutting spending!" When the Republicans claim to be raising revenue while actually proposing lowering rates, their supporters say "Look, we're compromising, we're raising taxes by cutting out loopholes!"

I'm not saying it would necessarily be more productive, but it would help loads in basic honesty, and there's always something to be said for honesty. Make 'em all put their cards on the table and if no one blinks, at least we'll know to blame them all. And if one side honestly puts forth a sensible plan, surely they will gain at least a LITTLE grudging respect from the other side and from the uncommitted middle to offset their loss of base support.

 

[Throckmorton]

Perhaps, but neither side is being honest about its posturing. So now, neither side is making any significant concessions AND taking no political cost. When the Democrats claim raising taxes as cutting spending (Obama's "cutting spending in the tax code") their supporters say "Look, we're compromising, we're cutting spending!" When the Republicans claim to be raising revenue while actually proposing lowering rates, their supporters say "Look, we're compromising, we're raising taxes by cutting out loopholes!"

I'm not saying it would necessarily be more productive, but it would help loads in basic honesty, and there's always something to be said for honesty. Make 'em all put their cards on the table and if no one blinks, at least we'll know to blame them all. And if one side honestly puts forth a sensible plan, surely they will gain at least a LITTLE grudging respect from the other side and from the uncommitted middle to offset their loss of base support.

Are you intentionally lying or just misinformed? Cuts outweigh tax increases by 3:1 at least.

I have a hard time believing you're just ignorant, so I can only assume you're telling a bald faced lie when you characterize Democrats as calling tax increases "spending cuts".

Also, Republicans OPPOSE closing loopholes. Why do you have everything completely backward??

 

[werepossum]

We have to put this thread into perspective, the GOP dominated House recently passed a bill to legalize their position.

Regardless how various house leaders feel, within a matter of days the US Senate quickly and effectively shot down the GOP house bill. As a side issue no blame attaches to Obama, when its the US Senate that said nyet, but when Boehner and his fellow house stooges have seen the US Senate swiftly reject the GOP house bill, its a vainglorious fools move for the GOP house to pretend anything they passed has any force of law.

The GOP leadership in the US House is nothing but a set of fools in deep denial trying a deflection. Learn it and live it, the house GOP bill is dead dead and deader, and the US Senate is not or ever will be buying house GOP bullshit. So why is Boehner again appealing to the US Senate, only to get dope slapped again?

But that is what the fool move the GOP house now trying. And why do I suspect, its going to be mainly Senate Republicans who will have to dope slap Boehner and is ilk again and again.

You're missing one very important fact: It's the Democrats who need to get something here. The Republicans think that our ever-increasing national debt and federal spending are killing our country, and thus not raising the debt ceiling, with all the pain that entails, may be better than merely continuing on our current course. When you have a problem, confront it, don't just let it get worse in the fear that addressing it will hurt. The Democrats feel that we need more government spending, and in fact that only government is keeping us from a major collapse soon. When you have a problem, more government spending is always the answer. The Republicans see some value in a debt ceiling increase, but also some danger. The Democrats see value only in a debt ceiling increase. The default, no agreement, no change situation is no debt ceiling increase. If there is no agreement, Boehner and the Republicans automatically win. This isn't just politics, it's a matter of basic policy.

Most people (I think) believe that the best course would be a debt ceiling increase with sharp spending cuts and actual tax increases. But between the two philosophies - rein in spending and speed up spending - the Republicans are the ones who benefit from no agreement. No debt ceiling increase automatically brings government more in line with the Republican ideal, probably more so than they could achieve legislatively. You are arguing that the Republicans have some sort of need to please the Democrats, but in reality it's exactly the opposite.

And no matter which side prevails, things are likely to get worse before they get better.

 

[sportage]

1. Republicans have sold out to radical special interest.

2. The voters have caught on to republican dirty tricks and their agenda playing up to radical special interest groups by signing pledges having nothing to do with the will of the American people.

3. Republicans believe playing up to the tea party will pay off in 2012.

Republicans lied and mislead voters in the 2010 midterms. Once they fooled the voter into placing them in office, they immediately followed their radical special agenda.
Time after time with every special election since, voters have rejected republican candidates and placed the democrat in office.

Massive recall movements will also prove very successful for democratic candidates in coming months.

The only pledge the American voter expects republican candidates to sign is the pledge to do the will of the people. Not the will of small radical special interest. Who, by the way, pull this new little dirty trick "gotcha... sign my pledge" tactic because they know republicans desire to please the tea party will corner republicans into a corner.

The voters will "correct" the error of the 2010 midterms come 2012.
And take action against the republican state governors as well.

 

[werepossum]

Are you intentionally lying or just misinformed? Cuts outweigh tax increases by 3:1 at least.

I have a hard time believing you're just ignorant, so I can only assume you're telling a bald faced lie when you characterize Democrats as calling tax increases "spending cuts".

Also, Republicans OPPOSE closing loopholes. Why do you have everything completely backward??

Links? The only actual proposal I've seen is the Republican Cut Cap and Balance bill, which Obama promised to veto. Everything else I've seen has been reports of compromises with no details, vague agreements in the vein of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." We went through this with Reagan and the spending cuts simply didn't happen.

When I say cuts, I mean cuts NOW, not cuts supposedly happening half a decade out. Those cuts will not happen, and everyone knows this.

And I've already posted a link showing Obama promising to cut "spending in the tax code". It was only a press conference on NATIONAL FUCKING TELEVISION.

 

[werepossum]

1. Republicans have sold out to radical special interest.

2. The voters have caught on to republican dirty tricks and their agenda playing up to radical special interest groups by signing pledges having nothing to do with the will of the American people.

3. Republicans believe playing up to the tea party will pay off in 2012.

Republicans lied and mislead voters in the 2010 midterms. Once they fooled the voter into placing them in office, they immediately followed their radical special agenda.
Time after time with every special election since, voters have rejected republican candidates and placed the democrat in office.

Massive recall movements will also prove very successful for democratic candidates in coming months.

The only pledge the American voter expects republican candidates to sign is the pledge to do the will of the people. Not the will of small radical special interest. Who, by the way, pull this new little dirty trick "gotcha... sign my pledge" tactic because they know republicans desire to please the tea party will corner republicans into a corner.

The voters will "correct" the error of the 2010 midterms come 2012.
And take action against the republican state governors as well.

And you believe that Democrats, once they have taken over everything, can merely keep borrowing and spending more and more money, forever?

 

[Jhhnn]

And you believe that Democrats, once they have taken over everything, can merely keep borrowing and spending more and more money, forever?

If you could make a rational argument w/o resorting to hyperbole & false attribution, then you would, I suppose. But you haven't.

Which means you have no rational argument.

When & if Repubs succeed in causing the US to default, they'll win nothing but scorn form the rational segment of the electorate.

In passing the existing budget, they agreed in principle to pay for it, yet want to welch on the obligations they've helped to create, to extort other concessions with yet another hostage taking maneuver. That much is obvious to anybody other than the most extreme elements of their base, and won't sit well in the voting booth.

 

[cubby1223]

It's very simple: raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills. No deal, bundle, hostage taking.

Obama and the Democrats have supported that all along.

Really?

Barrack Obama on raising the debt ceiling:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

"And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on."


Harry Reid on raising the debt ceiling:
"How can they [Republicans] explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, to finance this debt through higher taxes? That's what it'll have to be. Why is it right to increase our dependence on foreign creditors? Democrats won't be making arguments to support this legislation which will weaken our country."


The bickering is just that - bickering. It's nonsense. It means nothing. We have a dysfunctional government across all aisles.

 

[brencat]

1. Republicans have sold out to radical special interest.

2. The voters have caught on to republican dirty tricks and their agenda playing up to radical special interest groups by signing pledges having nothing to do with the will of the American people.

3. Republicans believe playing up to the tea party will pay off in 2012.

Republicans lied and mislead voters in the 2010 midterms. Once they fooled the voter into placing them in office, they immediately followed their radical special agenda.
Time after time with every special election since, voters have rejected republican candidates and placed the democrat in office.

Massive recall movements will also prove very successful for democratic candidates in coming months.

The only pledge the American voter expects republican candidates to sign is the pledge to do the will of the people. Not the will of small radical special interest. Who, by the way, pull this new little dirty trick "gotcha... sign my pledge" tactic because they know republicans desire to please the tea party will corner republicans into a corner.

The voters will "correct" the error of the 2010 midterms come 2012.
And take action against the republican state governors as well.

Sorry but I totally disagree. The movement for curtailing government growth and cutting spending NOW (not a decade from now, or never) is growing daily and you can stay in denial if you choose. I predict the Dems will lose the Senate next year, make no meaningful gains in the House, but hold the presidency with Obama getting re-elected. Divided govt for the win.

The Repubs are playing hardball, that much is for sure. I think they are probably going overboard a bit but I don't see the Dems offering ANY plan to cut spending from entitlement programs meaningfully TODAY. And I don't buy Obama's bullshit either -- the guy is a fvcking liar and crybaby. He needs the Repubs more than they need him at this point.

 

[cubby1223]

It's sad to see certain people continue failing to realize that insulting "the other side" louder than before doesn't solve any problems.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry but I totally disagree. The movement for curtailing government growth and cutting spending NOW (not a decade from now, or never) is growing daily and you can stay in denial if you choose. I predict the Dems will lose the Senate next year, make no meaningful gains in the House, but hold the presidency with Obama getting re-elected. Divided govt for the win.

The Repubs are playing hardball, that much is for sure. I think they are probably going overboard a bit but I don't see the Dems offering ANY plan to cut spending from entitlement programs meaningfully TODAY. And I don't buy Obama's bullshit either -- the guy is a fvcking liar and crybaby. He needs the Repubs more than they need him at this point.

That's not the position that Repubs took when they helped pass the current budget. That was the time to fight for less spending, not now, not over money they've already agreed to spend... not in a way that threatens the full faith & credit of the govt of the people.

That's not the position they took when they held extended unemployment compensation hostage to extended taxcuts for the wealthy "Job Creators", either, and we see how much good that's done, too.

For Republicans, fiscal responsibility just means beating down the little guy. You can clothe that whore in any dress you choose, it'll still be a whore to wealth & privilege.

 

[Lithium381]

It's sad to see certain people continue failing to realize that insulting "the other side" louder than before doesn't solve any problems.

it's hard to realize for some people but their beloved party is part of the problem. they both are.

although the offerings that the dems have made thus far are pretty weak.... give us another 2.4t to spend, and in return we'll "cut spending" by 200b per year over ten years. and let us raise taxes.

obama refuses to sign anything that doens't have tax increases in it

 

[ProfJohn]

It's very simple: raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills. No deal, bundle, hostage taking.

Obama and the Democrats have supported that all along.

Remember all that fighting over funding for the wars where Democrats wanted to attach withdrawal time tables and other limitations on the money and the Republicans wanted a straight up deal?

How come I don't recall all of you calling for the 'simple' deal back then?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Sorry but I totally disagree. The movement for curtailing government growth and cutting spending NOW (not a decade from now, or never) is growing daily and you can stay in denial if you choose. I predict the Dems will lose the Senate next year, make no meaningful gains in the House, but hold the presidency with Obama getting re-elected. Divided govt for the win.

The Repubs are playing hardball, that much is for sure. I think they are probably going overboard a bit but I don't see the Dems offering ANY plan to cut spending from entitlement programs meaningfully TODAY. And I don't buy Obama's bullshit either -- the guy is a fvcking liar and crybaby. He needs the Repubs more than they need him at this point.

I have to disagree with your disagree


In the 2010 midterms the republicans took advantage of the traditional conservative and elderly turnout for a midterm election fueled by anger at losing so badly in 2008 in conjuction with a traditionally poor midterm turnout of minorities and low income voters that are crucial to the dems base.


But with the shenanigans pulled this term by the repulicans and it being a Presidential cycle I expect a large turnout for the dems and a sound thrashing for the repubs in congress. I predit they extend their majority in the Senate and close the gap in the House, not sure if they can regain the house but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[ProfJohn]

The deals offered aren't ones that I personally like, but overall they would be good for our deficit situation.

Could you please provide details for said 'deals'

Thanks...

 

[Jhhnn]

it's hard to realize for some people but their beloved party is part of the problem. they both are.

although the offerings that the dems have made thus far are pretty weak.... give us another 2.4t to spend, and in return we'll "cut spending" by 200b per year over ten years. and let us raise taxes.

obama refuses to sign anything that doens't have tax increases in it

Says the guy who just posted a troll thread attacking "left wing hacks"

 

[ProfJohn]

Beohner is such a worthless sack of excrement, since he has become speaker of the house not one single thing has come out of the house, absolutely nothing. And I really think he believes this is acceptable, and has no clue that he is dooming himself and the republican party.

What is your opinion on the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget for 800+ days?

 

[trenchfoot]

The deals offered aren't ones that I personally like, but overall they would be good for our deficit situation. The Republicans have had ample opportunity to do the right thing here, and even before this manufactured 'crisis', but clearly they are willing to let this country shoot itself in the economic foot for political advantage. The only option they are leaving Democrats are to completely cave in on everything the Republicans want, or to let the country go under. Democrats aren't doing anything like that to the Republicans. This is just another example on how the Republicans, especially the freshmen Republicans, are piss-poor statesmen in a class of their own. Real statesmen will compromise for the good of their country.

I can't wait to see how many of them survive their re-election efforts.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but it did cross my mind that the repubs feel that by being so intransigent in their negotiations, they will always come out with more in their their pockets than if they were more yielding. It's kind of like that's been their S.O.P. when dealing with the Dems, and especially when dealing with Obama.

 

[senseamp]

Looks like Republicans have gotten more efficient in bringing the country to a brink of another depression. Last time it took them 8 years, this time they managed in 7 months.

 

[Jhhnn]

Great Op-Ed on the subject-

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=819654&f=28

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you intentionally lying or just misinformed? Cuts outweigh tax increases by 3:1 at least.

Obama jacked up spending by $800 billion in his first two years and now he wants the Republicans to raise taxes to pay for it.

Think of it this way...
Your wife goes away for the weekend and you go on a spending spree and buy a new TV, computer and camera.

When she gets back she freaks out and rips your head off.

So you offer to return the TV and camera and when she stays mad you ask her why she won't compromise with you...

 

[Tom]

What is your opinion on the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget for 800+ days?

40 senators can stop almost anything in the Senate.

 

[ProfJohn]

I have to disagree with your disagree


In the 2010 midterms the republicans took advantage of the traditional conservative and elderly turnout for a midterm election fueled by anger at losing so badly in 2008 in conjuction with a traditionally poor midterm turnout of minorities and low income voters that are crucial to the dems base.


But with the shenanigans pulled this term by the repulicans and it being a Presidential cycle I expect a large turnout for the dems and a sound thrashing for the repubs in congress. I predit they extend their majority in the Senate and close the gap in the House, not sure if they can regain the house but I wouldn't be surprised.

And you dare to call me crazy with my predictions?

At least mine are rooted in reality.

The Democrats WILL lose Senate seats. It will be nearly impossible for them to add to their total. The seats up for election favor Republicans by a HUGE margin.

Larry Sabato expects the Republicans to take control of the Senate, unless Obama has a huge margin of victory.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2011062301/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012
Look at the seats up for election.

Massachusetts is the only Republican seat that is in danger of being lost, perhaps Nevada.
The Democrat though have to defend Montana, Nebraska, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Florida and New Mexico. Any of those seats could flip and it wouldn't be a surprise.

As for the house: it probably comes down to who wins the Presidency. The Democrats might pick up a few seats, but they most likely won't come close to gaining control. But keep in mind that red states picked up 6 more seats in the house and the Republicans have far more control in redistricting than the Democrats.

There is a good chance that even if Obama wins in 2012 he could be looking at a Republican control house AND Senate.

 

[Tom]

Obama jacked up spending by $800 billion in his first two years and now he wants the Republicans to raise taxes to pay for it.

Think of it this way...
Your wife goes away for the weekend and you go on a spending spree and buy a new TV, computer and camera.

When she gets back she freaks out and rips your head off.

So you offer to return the TV and camera and when she stays mad you ask her why she won't compromise with you...

The Bush tax mistake has needed to be undone since it started. It's not something new because of Obama.
It's ridiculous to argue that higher spending means we don't need to raise taxes.