Obama and Boehner: Who Do You Agree With?

[phillyTIM]

I would bet that there is a more than distinct sect of people who voted "Neither" because they are wusses who are unable to refute Obama's speech but just don't want to admit it to themselves that they agree more with it.

 

[kage69]

I heard someone say the other day that this whole thing reminds them of the "battle of wits" scene from Princess Bride. Obama is playing the role of Vizzini, utilizing elaborate logic and argument about Wesley's motives. And the entire time, he's not realizing that Republicans have poisoned both cups. One moment Obama will be gloating about how "you should never get involved in a land war in Asia," and the next keeling over.

That analogy. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Right now the GOP's ego and short-sightedness puts them closer to Vizzini than Wesley. I think Boner makes a fine Humperdink.

 

[edro]

The top 1% of taxpayers paid 33.7% of all individual income taxes
...
the top 5% of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8%) of all individual income taxes
...
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.

OMG. I had no idea it was that drastic. I need to read P&N more often.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Schadenfroh The top 1% of taxpayers paid 33.7% of all individual income taxes ... the top 5% of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8%) of all individual income taxes ... Taxpayers who rank in the top 50% of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.



OMG. I had no idea it was that drastic. I need to read P&N more often.

The problem is the wealth distribution is even more weighted to the top, yes the top 1% pay a 1/3 of all taxes but the own 1/2 of all the assets and income so they still aren't paying their fair share. Same if you include the top 5% they pay a little over half of all taxes but they own 70% of the wealth and income.

And the bottom 50% of earners that the wealthy like to scream about that pay virtually no income taxes? They make between $1-$44,000 and when you include payroll taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc... they pay a larger portion of their income in taxes than the wealthy do, they just don't pay it in the form of income tax.
Typical ploy by the the rich "Look at all the taxes we pay" while conveniently forgeting to mention how much the own and earn.

 

[senseamp]

Boner tells GOP to get their asses inline:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60022.html
Still wasting time squashing House dissent on a bill that will go nowhere in the Senate with less than a week to go.

 

[werepossum]

While that may be a good point, I was responding to someone who says he is surprised by the poll results because he doesn't understand why so many people "support Obama." Yet the poll is about their speeches, not who one person or another generally supports. If someone wants to determine which of the two more people generally support, that person can go make a another poll. This one asks about the speeches and nothing else.

True, but the OP was:
"They both gave their speeches. Who do you agree with? "

I agree more with Boehner, so I voted that way. My point was that with whom I agree is not based on their speeches, but rather on their past actions, which I consider a much more reliable guide to what a politician will actually do. Had the OP specifically said "With which speech do you agree?" then I would not have voted, since I couldn't care less about what either says.

But I'm sure you're correct about the OP's intent.

 

[thraashman]

True, but the OP was:
"They both gave their speeches. Who do you agree with? "

I agree more with Boehner, so I voted that way. My point was that with whom I agree is not based on their speeches, but rather on their past actions, which I consider a much more reliable guide to what a politician will actually do. Had the OP specifically said "With which speech do you agree?" then I would not have voted, since I couldn't care less about what either says.

But I'm sure you're correct about the OP's intent.

Whereas in the context of the speeches, it's been shown that Boehner's speech was virtually a complete lie, and Boehner's history has been that he cares about narrow-minded doctrine regardless of what the people want or what's best for the country. Supporting Boehner is like going to see Harry Potter and rooting for Voldemort. Even though Harry is obviously the good guy, you don't want to support the pop culture so you'll cheer for the incredibly evil, inhuman bad guy. Just like this, even though in this situation Obama is obviously the good guy, cheer on the monstrously wrong Boehner because you have an irrational hatred of popular good guys.

 

[woolfe9999]

Supporting Boehner is like going to see Harry Potter and rooting for Voldemort.

Ok this incredibly partisan, but extremely amusing nonetheless. Boehner = he-who-must-not-be-named.

 

[Lemon law]

Woolfe says, "Ok this incredibly partisan, but extremely amusing nonetheless. Boehner = he-who-must-not-be-named. "

Even if I agree with the Woolfe, the God of Humor demands I post the Boehner version,
which is Boehner= he-who- must- not- be- blamed.

 

[brencat]

Just like this, even though in this situation Obama is obviously the good guy, cheer on the monstrously wrong Boehner because you have an irrational hatred of popular good guys.

Really? You don't actually believe this pathetic liar from Chicago is actually a 'good guy' do you? They are ALL scumbags. Every last one of them. And where's the WH plan for this debt ceiling problem? ABC and NBC correspondents pounded his press secretary yesterday. He's trying to stay above the fray and look good so clueless emotion driven but brain dead drones on the left like you will still think he's a 'good guy' come Nov 2012.

Pathetic

 

[thraashman]

Really? You don't actually believe this pathetic liar from Chicago is actually a 'good guy' do you? They are ALL scumbags. Every last one of them. And where's the WH plan for this debt ceiling problem? ABC and NBC correspondents pounded his press secretary yesterday. He's trying to stay above the fray and look good so clueless emotion driven but brain dead drones on the left like you will still think he's a 'good guy' come Nov 2012.

Pathetic

It's so disappointing you misunderstood my point. I was talking about how the previous poster was cheering on John Boehner who has been nothing but a bad guy during this whole thing. Especially if you look now where Obama wants compromise and is willing to sacrifice things Democrats don't want to sacrifice, but Boehner has repeatedly had the attitude that "compromise means you do everything we say". Even if you don't like Obama, in the fight between him and Boehner, Obama is the good guy and Boehner is the lying evildoer.

 

[werepossum]

Whereas in the context of the speeches, it's been shown that Boehner's speech was virtually a complete lie, and Boehner's history has been that he cares about narrow-minded doctrine regardless of what the people want or what's best for the country. Supporting Boehner is like going to see Harry Potter and rooting for Voldemort. Even though Harry is obviously the good guy, you don't want to support the pop culture so you'll cheer for the incredibly evil, inhuman bad guy. Just like this, even though in this situation Obama is obviously the good guy, cheer on the monstrously wrong Boehner because you have an irrational hatred of popular good guys.

"It's been shown" translates to "people who hate him as much as I hate him have spat out foaming rage against him." Always.

Agree with him or not, Boehner is trying to fix this problem. He is putting out concrete proposals. Obama on the other hand is merely playing politics, claiming that he is offering concessions which turn out to be smoke and mirrors. "I proposed cuts in Medicare/Medicaid" translates to "My health care program is going to save us money." "I proposed spending cuts" translates to "I proposed raising taxes by cutting loopholes and called it spending cuts."

I can't stand Harry Reid, but he at least has the balls to put his bullshit into a concrete proposal that can be evaluated and debated, just like Boehner. Until Obama does the same, he is merely playing politics at best. And never letting a crisis go to waste at worst.

 

[manly]

"It's been shown" translates to "people who hate him as much as I hate him have spat out foaming rage against him." Always.

Agree with him or not, Boehner is trying to fix this problem. He is putting out concrete proposals. Obama on the other hand is merely playing politics, claiming that he is offering concessions which turn out to be smoke and mirrors. "I proposed cuts in Medicare/Medicaid" translates to "My health care program is going to save us money." "I proposed spending cuts" translates to "I proposed raising taxes by cutting loopholes and called it spending cuts."

I can't stand Harry Reid, but he at least has the balls to put his bullshit into a concrete proposal that can be evaluated and debated, just like Boehner. Until Obama does the same, he is merely playing politics at best. And never letting a crisis go to waste at worst.

Obama has been offering at least $3 in cuts for every $1 in additional revenue, and in recent weeks has consistently vouched for a "grand bargain" with close to $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years with cuts in entitlements. Entitlement cuts that have infuriated the Pelosi wing of the Congressional caucus. What sacred cows has GOP leadership put on the table?

I agree, Boehner is negotiating in good faith; but it's besides me why he'd pull an Eric Cantor at the last moment and quit. The Speaker who's directly involved in negotiations hasn't refuted the broad outline of negotiations over cuts in a big deal. So how would you know Obama hasn't offered zilch, or have you been living under a rock the past month?

 

[woolfe9999]

"It's been shown" translates to "people who hate him as much as I hate him have spat out foaming rage against him." Always.

Agree with him or not, Boehner is trying to fix this problem. He is putting out concrete proposals. Obama on the other hand is merely playing politics, claiming that he is offering concessions which turn out to be smoke and mirrors. "I proposed cuts in Medicare/Medicaid" translates to "My health care program is going to save us money." "I proposed spending cuts" translates to "I proposed raising taxes by cutting loopholes and called it spending cuts."

I can't stand Harry Reid, but he at least has the balls to put his bullshit into a concrete proposal that can be evaluated and debated, just like Boehner. Until Obama does the same, he is merely playing politics at best. And never letting a crisis go to waste at worst.

POTUSES don't generally draft legislation. They absolutely do not when the opposing party is in control. The POTUS'S role here is to work with Congress in shaping a proposal that is then introduced by members of Congress. Because of procedural rules, that generally has to be the majority party, in this case the GOP since they control the House and the revenue bill has to originate there. Obama could in theory draft a piece of legislation and try to get it introduced through House dems, but in practice it will get killed in committee since they are currently the minority. This business of "he has nothing concrete but we do" is nonsense of the GOP who know better and you're buying into it.

The fact is, Obama has laid out his proposal in broad strokes for the public, and apparently in much more detail for Boehner and the House GOP. Boehner never said in his speech that Obama has not laid out such a proposal. He never said what was wrong with it, either, if you bother to listen closely. He merely said "the President is asking for a blank check" without explaining why.

- wolf

 

[Pens1566]

There was a poll last week sometime that showed the breakdown of what people wanted the eventual deal to look like ... Obama's 85/15 cuts/increases breakdown was to the right of the polled republicans. That speaks volumes.

 

[werepossum]

Obama has been offering at least $3 in cuts for every $1 in additional revenue, and in recent weeks has consistently vouched for a "grand bargain" with close to $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years with cuts in entitlements. Entitlement cuts that have infuriated the Pelosi wing of the Congressional caucus. What sacred cows has GOP leadership put on the table?

I agree, Boehner is negotiating in good faith; but it's besides me why he'd pull an Eric Cantor at the last moment and quit. The Speaker who's directly involved in negotiations hasn't refuted the broad outline of negotiations over cuts in a big deal. So how would you know Obama hasn't offered zilch, or have you been living under a rock the past month?

Let him put it in writing. On the Internet. I know he (or at least his water-carriers) SAYS he has offered 3:1 spending cuts, but all I've seen so far are those assertions. We need concrete spending cuts NOW, not tax increases NOW in return for promises of spending cuts later. After seeing him say he's willing to cut spending "in the tax code" and hearing that his proposal includes insisting that future "savings" from Obamacare count as new cuts, I'm not trusting his word without demonstrated evidence.

POTUSES don't generally draft legislation. They absolutely do not when the opposing party is in control. The POTUS'S role here is to work with Congress in shaping a proposal that is then introduced by members of Congress. Because of procedural rules, that generally has to be the majority party, in this case the GOP since they control the House and the revenue bill has to originate there. Obama could in theory draft a piece of legislation and try to get it introduced through House dems, but in practice it will get killed in committee since they are currently the minority. This business of "he has nothing concrete but we do" is nonsense of the GOP who know better and you're buying into it.

The fact is, Obama has laid out his proposal in broad strokes for the public, and apparently in much more detail for Boehner and the House GOP. Boehner never said in his speech that Obama has not laid out such a proposal. He never said what was wrong with it, either, if you bother to listen closely. He merely said "the President is asking for a blank check" without explaining why.

- wolf

True, but the Democrats do control the Senate. You can't tell me Obama has so alienated his own party there that he doesn't have some friendly Democrats to put together a proposal - a REAL proposal. Not a proposal that adds up claims for what Obamacare will save - history is against him there. Not a proposal that claims not continuing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars beyond their projected closure as new cuts. A proposal that says we'll cut this much from this department and that much from that one, or this much across the board. (I know this is technically illegal, but it's done every session. Every Senate - at least, until the last couple - crafts its own budget. Some Senator introduces a non-appropriations bill, then by amendment replaces its entire contents with an appropriations bill. You and I both know this, as does anyone who's looked up a budget entitled the "Security in Luggage Act or some such.) He can also offer a bill like Harry Reid's - not an appropriations bill, but a bill proposing cuts - and demand that Republicans negotiate a matching bill of tax increases. Or he can have a House Dem properly introduce it for him; if Boehner refuses to debate it, Obama and the Obama media would have a field day.

Personally I think taxes will have to increase for us to make much of a dent in new debt, much less existing debt. But I cannot support ANY new or raised taxes (well, except for things like ending that CIP) until Congress and the President prove they are willing and able to actually spend less money. Not less money than they would like to spend, not less money than they claim to need, but less than they are spending now. History makes me virtually certain that yet another mix of tax increases and spending cuts will be the standard fair of tax increases and spending increases, with much self-adulation and back-patting.