July 22nd, 2011, 06:54 PM
He claimed today that he rejected an unfair deal that Obama offered and that is why he currently cut off communication with the President. I know that he is an irresponsible, arrogant, mentally challenged, hypocritical ass but I just want to know if he is telling the truth here. What do you think?
Last edited by gottspieler; July 22nd, 2011 at 07:01 PM.
Do you think what the offer was, that he turned down would be helpful to know. Cutting spending, but what spending and when, or maybe the so called cuts in SS cost, which one leaked item was from eligibility to 67, from 65 in the year 2036, when even he would be 75....get real!!!
The Democrats haven't submitted a budget in over 800 days.
I'm asking about the deal he spoke about in his news conference today. I can't find a transcript or video yet to type exactly what he said.
Maybe they knew Republicans would simply scoff at their proposals.Originally Posted by Harold14370
The democrats want to let GW's tax cuts to wealthy people expire (tax cuts which obviously didn't help anything, given that the recession is still on), and then raise the debt cap and call it a day.
Republicans want to cut the budget down (I'm not sure where the cuts are from exactly), and raise some new revenue. Healthcare will probably be one of the casualties.
Debt talks: How the Obama-Boehner debt talks broke down - Page 2 - latimes.com
kojax; In assuming your offering the Democratic viewpoint, I'd suggest this would be political, setting the stage and tone for the 2012 elections and extremely arguable.The democrats want to let GW's tax cuts to wealthy people expire (tax cuts which obviously didn't help anything, given that the recession is still on), and then raise the debt cap and call it a day.
The article pretty well explains the goal post change, as that 400B$ Increased Tax, which I'll assume is letting the Bush Tax Cuts (top two brackets) expire Dec. 31st, 2011, the 400B$ increased revenues over years. This had not been discussed or if it was, not agreed to, Boehner knows his Tea Party members would never agree and probably many others.Republicans want to cut the budget down (I'm not sure where the cuts are from exactly), and raise some new revenue. Healthcare will probably be one of the casualties.
Pure opinion; Obama is in full re-election mode, trying to maintain his base and among other recent moves, raising taxes on the wealthy or business is one. I really couldn't argue the republicans are acting much different, other than their goals or agenda hasn't really changed.
If my premise is correct, what's being suggested today, letting the 2012 elections determine the future policy and letting the Administration set their own Debt Ceiling, limited and could be vetoed by Congress, would be best. Obama wants 2.5T$, making his total additions to the debt in a single term, about 6.5T$. Singapore, New Zealand, Canada and others could get ready for American Money and business migration, which will certainly happen.
Is Boehner being honest?
He is the leader of a coalition in which an extremist minority holds veto power. He is probably a reasonable man and I'm guessing he thinks a reasonable deal was on the table, but he has to represent the views of unreasonable people. Is it lying when you have to submerge your own views to those of the people you were elected to lead?
I think Donald Trump would call what is happening "The Art of the Deal". It's like we're watching a used car salesman at work with a customer. (Who the dealer is, and who the customer is depends on your political leanings.)
The problem in this case is the dealer called the police to get the perspective owners old car booted by the police and public transportation stopped running two hours ago because of the category 4 hurricane is going to arrive in the next few hours.
The "extremist minority" won the last congressional election. Why is it an extremist position to cut spending?
There are 38 teapartiers in the House. That is an extremist minority that holds veto power and they did not win the last election. They won 38 out of 435 seats.The "extremist minority" won the last congressional election.
Talk about a strawman! I know you are not ignorant of the fact that the Democrats have offered large spending cuts, against the wishes of their own extremists, and against the advice of many economists. No one has said it is an extremist position to cut spending, except a few on the far left who will eventually toe the line. The rub, as you know, is about taxes, not spending.Why is it an extremist position to cut spending?
The Administrations request for an additional 2.5T$ increase to the current debt limit, to get by the next 18 months alone represents $8,333 per every legal citizens of the US today (300M), not taking into consideration how those dollars are designed to increase the overall Federal Government, mainly health care and other social program, admittedly showing up in additional debts nearing 10T$ over the next 10 years. Those same future budgets also show massive GDP increases, which are not happening (2010 & 2011) and according to most economist cannot happen, because of an ageing population and the cost to service that debt...then none of this considering the current and future obligation of both the Federal and State/Local Governments.
2011 Budget projected a 15.3T$ GDP, with a 1.3 T$ deficit to be added to the Nation debt.
2012 Budget projected a 16.2T$ GDP, with a 829B$ deficit to be added to the National Debt and also shows an expected National Debt of 15.5T$ National Debt Oct.1st 1012 (end of fiscal year 2012).
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_pie_gs.php?span=usgs302&year=2012&view=1&ex pand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy11&local=s&state=US#us gs302
To show the hypocrisy of all the talk, that 2.5T$ added to the current 14.3T$, which is said will get us through the 2012 elections adds up to 16.8T$ alone, 1.2T$ above the projections. Now those projections also show a 19.2T$ GDP by 2015, some 33% or so increase and inconceivable in my mind, with a Federal Deficit of 19T$, which if nothing is done WILL BE nearer to 24T$ , GDP at best by 2015 (whomever in office) at best will be around 17T$.
And influenced how many others Bunbury; How many State Governments went Republican and most important how many Legislature seats in those States. I'd suggest for a grass root movement, they probably hold all modern day records for influencing an election and the concerns of many over the next.There are 38 teapartiers in the House. That is an extremist minority that holds veto power and they did not win the last election. They won 38 out of 435 seats.
Anyway your figures might be slightly off, but you decide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
Last edited by jackson33; July 24th, 2011 at 11:40 AM.
I agree with Bunbury. "No new taxes" doesn't cut it.
Veto power? Really?There are 38 teapartiers in the House. That is an extremist minority that holds veto power and they did not win the last election. They won 38 out of 435 seats.The "extremist minority" won the last congressional election.
[/quote] I don't know where you are getting your information on the large spending cuts. I don't believe the negotiations have been made public. From what I hear the spending cuts are kind of phony because they don't kick in for many years. The rub is not only about taxes. It's about getting the deficit under control, and a disagreement about how that should be done.
Talk about a strawman! I know you are not ignorant of the fact that the Democrats have offered large spending cuts, against the wishes of their own extremists, and against the advice of many economists. No one has said it is an extremist position to cut spending, except a few on the far left who will eventually toe the line. The rub, as you know, is about taxes, not spending.Why is it an extremist position to cut spending?
And I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower.
President Obama, 7/15/11
"We don't estimate speeches" - Congressional Budget OfficeAnd I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower.
President Obama, 7/15/11
By the way, here is an article on what Obama really meant. It's not domestic spending but discretionary domestic spending. That includes redefining highway money from discretionary to mandatory. And it's a projection to 2015, not the current budget.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...owest-level-e/
Last edited by Harold14370; July 24th, 2011 at 09:44 PM. Reason: More info on Obamas numbers.
Maybe it's just a bad time for health care reform. I'm pretty sure that's what the Republicans are trying to kill off. "Spending cuts" is just a very broad way of saying it, because I'm pretty sure they're not planning to scale back the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, or cut essential services like the forest service, or FBI budgets.
...and since then he has added large cuts in Social Security and Medicare spending which the Repbulicans rejected. Boehner initially indicated acceptance, then his extremists vetoed the idea. David Brookes, a conservative commentator among others saw this as a missed opportunity for the Republicans to get what they wanted. But rationality is non-existent on the far right.
Apparently I'm not alone in this view:Vince Cable attacks 'rightwing nutters' over US debt ceiling talks | Politics | guardian.co.uk
Brooks is no conservative and who the hell is Vince Cable?
[QUOTE=Harold14370;276216]Brooks is no conservative[/quote
Rather depends on one's personal point of view.
If you can't be bothered to read the link I'll tell you: he's the UK Minister for Business; prior jobs include chief economist for Shell Oil. Probably a raging liberal.and who the hell is Vince Cable?
There were a couple of comments on that page I agreed with.
What a load of nutters. Everybody knows you have to borrow more to become less insolvent.How come nobody is calling Obama a nutter? Obviously he would get his debt limit increase if only he would cave in to the Republicans. Well, it's because they share Obama's vision of a tax and spend, cradle to grave, nanny state. Lots of Brits seem to share Obama's politics. They ought to keep their noses out of our business.Left wing nutters commenting on right wing "nutters". The republicans are doing what they were elected to do. Cut spending and the liberal left is throwing a fit. If only the US were more socialized like Europe we wouldn't be having these issues of debt. Oh, wait a minute. Nevermind.
Bunbury, maybe you are privy to the details of Obama's proposal. If so, then please tell us what entitlement cuts he is proposing, and when the cuts will take effect. A promise of a cut some year after he is out of office is worthless.
Because people can see he is completely rational.
Sorry you are so badly informed about Obama's vision.Well, it's because they share Obama's vision of a tax and spend, cradle to grave, nanny state.
Correct; he is quite popular over there.Lots of Brits seem to share Obama's politics.
Our business happens to impact the entire world. You may have noticed the IMF also has opinions about our business.They ought to keep their noses out of our business.
John Boehner had the details and apparently approved of them until he disapproved of them.Bunbury, maybe you are privy to the details of Obama's proposal. If so, then please tell us what entitlement cuts he is proposing, and when the cuts will take effect. A promise of a cut some year after he is out of office is worthless.
I don't care for the president either, but in this case he's looking far more reasonable than the tea party contingent dragging even the reasonable republicans around by the nose. Summaries of the presidents plans are pretty widely available.
Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com
Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal Available Online
I could go on and on.
And it's absolutely retarded to argue about not paying bills for budgets that have already been agreed to.
If push comes to shove, the president will probably order paying the bills by executive order as is his right because the Department of Treasury is in the executive branch and he's merely carrying out what's already been approved.
Better to let a Constitutional fight ensue, that the president would be likely to win anyhow, than watch interest rates dramatically rise overnight and plunge the nation into a deeper debt producing crisis.
Probably Boehner is just pushing it up to the last minute so he looks like he's being tough. If he concedes, even to a fair agreement, before the deadline without Obama showing up, hat in hand, and publicly kissing his feet, his supporters will feel like he didn't ask for enough stuff. This is classic "strong man" politics. They're playing chicken with each other.... or well Boehner is.... and he doesn't want to be the one to flinch first.
There's no reason to entertain for five seconds the notion that Boehner could be "honest", here. That's as far fetched as pretending the "Tea Party" is some kind of separate, grassroots movement newly arrived on the scene, instead of the rebranding operation for standard post-Reagan Republican Krazy.
The debt ceiling hike is to pay off what has already been borrowed and promised, btw. It has little to do with new spending.
From one of your NYT articles:I don't care for the president either, but in this case he's looking far more reasonable than the tea party contingent dragging even the reasonable republicans around by the nose. Summaries of the presidents plans are pretty widely available.
Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com
Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal Available Online
I could go on and on.
Bunbury said Obama had proposed entitlement cuts.Neither party has put forward specific proposals to begin grappling with the most pressing long-term budget problem: the huge costs in the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs as the population ages and medical costs rise, a bill that could overwhelm the government and crimp the economy if not addressed.
I guess that means Obama was absolutely retarded in 2006.And it's absolutely retarded to argue about not paying bills for budgets that have already been agreed to.
Obama on the Debt Limit: Then and Now - Washington Wire - WSJ
Well, it seems nobody is showing us their idea of a budget. In my opinion, the upper tax rates need reduced if anything, and to get more revenue, remove most deductions that lower taxable income.
Something serious needs to be done to get people back to work. I would be willing to go into debt more if I though there was a plan to bring work back to America. As it stands, it will be very painful no matter what we do. There is no way out without bring jobs back home.
Lynx...
Two of the three budget links you presented are past. They are 2011 budgets. This is FY 2012 being discussed. How can the president be serious about cuts when he still includes spending for teachers. Can't they finance themselves in adequate quantities?
There is no plan that's going to increase jobs. Everyone is trying to use Keynesian economics, where you put more money in the hands of consumers in the hope that they'll spend money and that will motivate manufacturing to increase. How is that plan supposed to work if most of your manufactured goods are being made by third world workers in China? It won't. If any jobs emerge, they will emerge in China.
Better the government just plain quit trying to fix things until a better plan is on the table. Or better yet: go back to good 'ol fashioned Reaganomics for a while. At least that plan guaranteed some manufacturing growth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us...icit.html?_r=1
Medicare-and-Medicaid-for-Revenue: NYT Looks at the Particulars | FDL News Desk
Going Big: Obama Reportedly Seeking $4T Deal, Major Entitlement Cuts, Tax Changes | FDL News Desk
With Entitlements on the Table, Obama Plans to Go Big on a Budget Deal | The Nation
Democrats Balk as Obama Offers to Raise Medicare Eligibility Age in Deficit-Reduction Talks - FoxNews.com
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
Bunbury,
What on earth makes you think that Obama is popular in the UK ? People are starting to realise that you have a Muslim Marxist in the White House.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or if you're just stupid.
Actually it isn't a 2012 discussion. The debt ceiling fight is about trying to change the past, Congress already approved spending the money. And I did show you the 2012 budget with its cuts which is what Harald asked for and is more than sufficient to completely disprove the claim that he hasn't shown proposed cuts--he's not only shown them, he's done so with enough detail to get CBO and economist estimates which generated the article.
Not sure what your point is about teachers. Some 80% are in public service.
Bunbury,I don't know if you're trying to be funny or if you're just stupid.
Every village has one, and I fear that the village of Bunbury in Cheshire is missing theirs.
do you have any references to back the assertion taht he is either a muslim or a maxist. Or for that matter that a notable portion of the UK citizens think this?
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/07/31/opinion/contributors/john-boehner%e2%80%99s-no-confidence-vote/
“Get your ass in line,” Speaker John Boehner had told House Republicans who resisted his plan to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default.
But really, it was Boehner’s butt that was on the line — and late Thursday night, he had it handed to him.
For his 6-month-old speakership, it was a grievous if not mortal wound. The legislation under consideration was fairly pointless — a solution to a self-inflicted crisis that faced certain defeat in the Senate — but Boehner made it into a test of his leadership. And rank-and-file Republicans returned a vote of no confidence.
After a day of cocky predictions, GOP leaders suddenly pulled the bill from the floor Thursday evening — and when five hours of backroom arm-twisting failed to change enough minds, they called off the night’s vote.
Leadership on Friday rewrote the Boehner Plan to suit the conservative palate, but that only affirmed that the Tea Party was leading the speaker, and not vice versa.
Whether Boehner’s team can survive such a public failure will be of interest to political gossips. But the thwarting of the Boehner Plan also displayed how ungovernable the House Republican majority is. With the nation just days from a default, the chamber is at the mercy of a handful of people who believe they are on a mission from God.
“Where’s the chapel?” Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., asked as he emerged from an arm-twisting session with Majority Leader Eric Cantor Thursday night. The freshman lawmaker explained that he wanted to “go to the divine source.”
In a room off the Capitol Rotunda, Scott joined a prayer session with fellow South Carolina lawmakers. “I hope the Lord … gives men wisdom when they desperately need it,” Scott explained.
As it happens, the Lord gave Scott the wisdom to oppose Boehner. “I think divine inspiration already happened,” Scott said. “I was a ‘lean no’ and now I’m a ‘no.’” And he’s not much worried about default, saying: “I hope the Lord blesses our nation in a way that is measurable.”
The Lord will surely bless the nation with higher interest rates, if not outright economic collapse, in a default. But Thursday night’s debacle proved there are enough House Republicans who would prefer that to raising the debt limit — even if they bring down their speaker in the process.
“I’m still no. … I can’t vote for it the way it is,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, announced after a session with Republican leaders just before 10 p.m.
“The speaker has said he can’t do his job if you guys aren’t there to support him,” ABC News’ Jon Karl pointed out. “This is his most important vote yet as speaker.”
“I just can’t support his bill, but I do support the speaker,” Chaffetz concluded.
To be on Capitol Hill was to watch a speakership crumble in real time. Compounding Boehner’s problem was that he had forsworn the earmarks used to buy off recalcitrant backbenchers. And these tea party freshmen were elected to vote against pretty much everything.
In bringing the Boehner Plan to the floor, the speaker abandoned the reforms he promised when he took over the House. In the minority, he complained that Democrats rushed bills without sufficient notice and wasted time on trivial items. “With all the challenges facing our nation, it is absurd that Congress spends so much time on naming post offices,” he complained in 2010.
But Republicans rushed this bill to the floor without the promised notice, and, after hours of debate, the presiding officer announced just before the scheduled vote that the House would instead take up: post office namings. They went from Peoria, Ill., to Guam before recessing.
Off the floor, GOP leaders engaged in five hours of the sort of backroom dealings they deplored under Democratic rule. No fewer than 40 pizzas were delivered to the offices of Boehner, Cantor and Whip Kevin McCarthy, as various delegations arrived for private coercion sessions.
A throng of 100 reporters clogged the hallway and quarreled with police outside Boehner’s offices. Just before 10:30 p.m., McCarthy emerged from the speaker’s office to call it off for the night.
Lawmakers got to work on the Sisyphean task of retooling the Boehner Plan into a more conservative proposal that was also certain to be rejected by the Senate. Regardless, damage had been done — both to Boehner’s speakership and to the House, now under the control of people who think God demands default.
Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is danamilbank@washpost.com.
Boehner: Pact with Obama 'isn't the greatest deal' but lives up to GOP principles - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON - House Speaker John Boehner says the pact he's reached with President Barack Obama and other leaders of Congress on lifting the debt limit and taming the budget "isn't the greatest deal" but lives up to the GOP's principles on taxes and spending.
The agreement pairs spending cuts demanded by Republicans with an immediate increase in the government's borrowing cap that's needed to avoid a first-ever default after Tuesday.
Boehner said the deal with Obama — which contains no tax increases and sets the stage for more than $2 trillion in spending cuts — shows how Republicans have changed the terms of debate in Washington.
The Ohio Republican says he wants to bring the measure to a vote as soon as possible.
So the Republicans won. No new taxes. Likely there will be many "entitlement" cuts. I hope they spared the Pell Grant and Medicare.
Well, I think that this YouTube clip takes care of the Marxist bit. I will not bother to look for the Muslim bit because I know it is out there.
do you have any references to back the assertion taht he is either a muslim or a maxist. Or for that matter that a notable portion of the UK citizens think this?
Obama Marxist Quotes - YouTube
So in other words a group of quotemined statements make him a Marxist, not any actual policy changes or adjustments. The muslim thing is bull that was started based on his name and not on actual evidence.
Tea party leadership is rejecting the deal. Now does Boehner have the votes to leave them behind?
| « Signs of the Times | Now, the revolution on computer: PeoplePower simulation » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
