Boehner Tells Glorious Comrade Leader "No To Taxes".

[FreeBorn]

I had big hopes and much optimism for the new Speaker who surfed in on the tsunami of NO-vember. Unfortunately it seems he came in like a lion and then behaved like a lamb. He has caused some of my warm glow to fade a bit but I'm still hanging in there with the optimism. We shall see.

Zero the Hero needs to keep the slop flowing to all the piggies at the trough, no matter what. He needs to bankroll and provide for unemployment bennies to the legions of unemployed whom he is keeping on the outs by stifling America's economy in his bid to usher socialism into the U.S.S.A. He knows he has to keep that hungry throng fed and just comfortable enough so they view the safety net of unemployment as a hammock and it grows on them that they like it enough to vote for the security of it and secure for him a second term. Strangling America with one hand and keeping it fat & happy with the other. Raise the debt ceiling or raise taxes, by hook or by crook the slop must be kept flowing to the trough to keep the glorious revolution alive!



By Dave Boyer, The Washington Times~

Speaker John A. Boehner told President Obama on Saturday night he will not agree to the President's most ambitious plan for deficit reduction, citing the administration's pursuit of tax increases as one of the main hurdles.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/9/boehner-tells-obama-no-big-debt-deal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[rich_t]

Let's wait and see if Boehner holds that line.  I still have the feeling that he will cave.

[CG6468]

I'd do PRACTICALLY anything to get out of the room with Peloshit there. But he'd better not cave in.

[formerlurker]

Saturday Night at Negotiations: White House Takes a Walk on Leadership
July 9, 2011 7:53 P.M.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez   
 
John Boehner’s update on talks with the White House, provided by his office after the Speaker had a phone conversation with the president tonight: “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes.  I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

Behind the scenes, according to those close to the negotiations, Boehner has been pushing the president for the better part of the year for a dramatic deal — one that would include entitlement and other reforms. That the White House would even discuss such a thing, of course, sent the Left wild when it hit the news this week.

According to a source close to the negotiations, on Friday the Speaker proposed tax-reform principles as a guarantee against tax increases.

That did not fly with the White House.

“The White House would not agree with the core elements of tax reform proposed by the Speaker,” Republican familiar with the talks says. “A gulf also remains between the Speaker and the White House on the issue of medium and long-term structural reforms.”

As a Hill source told Reuters’ James Pethokoukis earlier today: “WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price.”

If there is a smaller deal, which now appears likely, Boehner will still be insistent on the same basic standard he would have been in a bigger one: spending reforms and the cuts that exceed the amount of the debt-limit hike, according to those close to the negotiations.

How about this? Small deal for now and new president — with a House and maybe even Senate that will work with him — in 2012.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[Janice]

The McConnell Capitulation Plan

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., released what he is calling a “contingency plan” for the debt limit negotiations this afternoon. Essentially the plan would grant President Obama exactly what he has been asking for all along: a clean $2.5 trillion debt limit hike. In exchange, Republicans would get three meaningless cover votes disapproving the borrowing authority increase. >>>

>>>

Some of the most willfully ignorant and willfully naive McConnell supporters are coming out of the woodwork to say this is not *the* plan, but a contingency plan if *the* plan can’t be agreed to. So let’s get this straight: if Democrats won’t agree to make spending cuts, we’ll fall back to the contingency where they get to raise the debt ceiling without making spending cuts. That’s not a contingency, that’s handing the Democrats a silver platter.

 

[rich_t]

Everything after the first paragraph is pretty irrelevant. The first vote would effectively cede all congressional authority to raise the debt limit to Obama.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/mcconnell-capitulation-plan#ixzz1RvYP9XD8

Yeah....  Good plan.

 

[formerlurker]

McConnell’s plan would require the president to submit, in detail, a list of spending cuts of equal or greater value than the amount of debt increase he is requesting (about $2.5 trillion). “Obama wants to claim to the American people that he’s seriously willing to reduce spending and he’s not seriously taxing everybody and his brother,” Noquist says. “He’s lying. It’s time to end this fiction that he’s negotiating in good faith. They’ve got to force him to put in writing what the hell he thinks he’s doing.”

He blames the “established press” for allowing the president to get away with putting out a horrendous budget earlier this year, and allowing Senate Democrats to get away with having gone more than 800 days without even passing a budget. Members of the media and their Democratic cohorts, he says, have convinced themselves that Republicans will eventually cave and agree to raise taxes, as they did in 1982 and 1990. But they are perilously mistaken. “Most the people around in ’82 and ’90 are dead now!” he exclaims. “That’s a long time ago. Democrats think because MSNBC says we’ve got them on the ropes, that Republicans will fold and raise taxes. They’re nuts.”

The impetus to raise the debt ceiling has been with President Obama all along, Norquist argues, so where is the harm is simply forcing the issue? “He needs to do something to change the game,” says Norquist. “If nothing changes, Republicans win the Senate and keep the House in 2012.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[rich_t]

Today I heard that Obama did more fear mongering about SS checks and military pay if the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

The sad part is that there are probably people out there that believe it.

[formerlurker]

House Republicans should take away his choice, legislating the order of funding that must occur if the president refuses to strike a deal to cut spending and the debt ceiling is therefore reached — and they would be well served to pass such legislation now.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-threatens-withhold-social-security-checks_576778.html


Game on.

[true_blood]

Let's wait and see if Boehner holds that line.  I still have the feeling that he will cave.

^^This.

[Janice]

Republicans - meet the defender of your liberties.

[Janice]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1LRB-SpHrM[/youtube]
You tourists stink ...

Harry Reid commends Mitch McConnell’s debt plan

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday praised Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for putting forth a plan to raise the debt ceiling, calling it a “serious proposal” that he’s continuing to study.

“He spent a great deal of time working on this. I commend him for his thoughtful and unique proposal, something that we have to look at very closely,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said on the Senate floor. “I’m heartened by what I read. This is a serious proposal, and I commend the Republican leader for coming forward with it.”

If there was ever any doubt ... Dingy Harry has removed it ...

You just gotta know we are in serious trouble folks, when Harry Reid commends and is "heartened by" a republican debt plan.

What part of "this is not a game" dont republican leaders understand? This is not a game, this is our country dammit!

[docstew]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1LRB-SpHrM[/youtube]
You tourists stink ...

Harry Reid commends Mitch McConnell’s debt plan

If there was ever any doubt ... Dingy Harry has removed it ...

You just gotta know we are in serious trouble folks, when Harry Reid commends and is "heartened by" a republican debt plan.

What part of "this is not a game" dont republican leaders understand? This is not a game, this is our country dammit!

McConnell's playing with fire on this. He's trying to set the stage to lay blame at 0bama's feet for $2T or so of debt while the GOP can say "We didn't vote for that, it's all his fault!" Looking for a way to fix blame instead of fixing the problem.

Ok, how about this: Boehner and McConnell go into these talks w/ 0bama and say "We will agree to increase the debt ceiling by X (the X would be equal to total payments for Medicare/Medicaid, SS, Welfare, military pay, and maybe some other necessary payment until Jan 2013), but no taxes and no further consideration of another increase until after Jan 2013." This tactic paints 0bama in a corner.  He can't demogogue it and say he's denying SS checks or some other BS, the increased debt allows for that. When the limit is reached again before 2013, GOP sits back and says "We told you what you were allowed to run up, you failed to stay within that. Your problem, not ours."

[Janice]

Official Treasury Reports: Coffers Full Enough to Cover Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, Veterans, Federal Salaries and Interest — Without Borrowing a Dime

Obama told CBS News today that there may not be enough money in the U.S. Treasury to cover Social Security checks after Aug. 3 if Congress does not agree to lift the legal limit on the federal debt and allow his administration to borrow more money. >>>

However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

So 0bama bin Lying strikes again. And yet, the cowardly republican leadership wont call him on the carpet.

[Eupher]

McConnell's playing with fire on this. He's trying to set the stage to lay blame at 0bama's feet for $2T or so of debt while the GOP can say "We didn't vote for that, it's all his fault!" Looking for a way to fix blame instead of fixing the problem.

Ok, how about this: Boehner and McConnell go into these talks w/ 0bama and say "We will agree to increase the debt ceiling by X (the X would be equal to total payments for Medicare/Medicaid, SS, Welfare, military pay, and maybe some other necessary payment until Jan 2013), but no taxes and no further consideration of another increase until after Jan 2013." This tactic paints 0bama in a corner.  He can't demogogue it and say he's denying SS checks or some other BS, the increased debt allows for that. When the limit is reached again before 2013, GOP sits back and says "We told you what you were allowed to run up, you failed to stay within that. Your problem, not ours."

I like your thinking on this. But part of me says, "How many times do we have to run up the debt ceiling before enough is enough? Hasn't Congress and the administrations (at least two of them) had enough time to figure out WTF is going on and take steps to live within a budget instead of creating money/debt to finance everything and anything?"

To begin with, I fail to understand why this nation has to run on debt as a long-term strategy. While some debt is inevitable from time to time and even from a financial perspective good, I just don't get why it's necessary for the long term. Can some financial whiz-person please 'splain that to me? 

[rich_t]

McConnell's playing with fire on this. He's trying to set the stage to lay blame at 0bama's feet for $2T or so of debt while the GOP can say "We didn't vote for that, it's all his fault!" Looking for a way to fix blame instead of fixing the problem.

Ok, how about this: Boehner and McConnell go into these talks w/ 0bama and say "We will agree to increase the debt ceiling by X (the X would be equal to total payments for Medicare/Medicaid, SS, Welfare, military pay, and maybe some other necessary payment until Jan 2013), but no taxes and no further consideration of another increase until after Jan 2013." This tactic paints 0bama in a corner.  He can't demogogue it and say he's denying SS checks or some other BS, the increased debt allows for that. When the limit is reached again before 2013, GOP sits back and says "We told you what you were allowed to run up, you failed to stay within that. Your problem, not ours."

I heard Rush say much the same thing yesterday.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Really both sides are playing with fire, because as the deadline approaches, rating systems start downgrading the US debt rating, and to the extent buyer take it seriously (Some of which is automatic when dealing with the megabanks who are big bond purchasers; purchase decisions made by sentient beings rather than algorithms are another story, but for various reasons those algorithms play a surprisingly-dominant role in this), the interest rates on the bonds will have to rise to move the paper, which suddenly increases the debt so that any increase in the debt ceiling turns into a whole lot less breathing room than it looked like when the deal was struck...sort of like pouring gas on a fire. 

[formerlurker]

Really both sides are playing with fire, because as the deadline approaches, rating systems start downgrading the US debt rating, and to the extent buyer take it seriously (Some of which is automatic when dealing with the megabanks who are big bond purchasers; purchase decisions made by sentient beings rather than algorithms are another story, but for various reasons those algorithms play a surprisingly-dominant role in this), the interest rates on the bonds will have to rise to move the paper, which suddenly increases the debt so that any increase in the debt ceiling turns into a whole lot less breathing room than it looked like when the deal was struck...sort of like pouring gas on a fire. 

Very interesting - thanks for the explanation.

So this pissing match is serving no useful purpose?

[formerlurker]

McConnell's playing with fire on this. He's trying to set the stage to lay blame at 0bama's feet for $2T or so of debt while the GOP can say "We didn't vote for that, it's all his fault!" Looking for a way to fix blame instead of fixing the problem.

Ok, how about this: Boehner and McConnell go into these talks w/ 0bama and say "We will agree to increase the debt ceiling by X (the X would be equal to total payments for Medicare/Medicaid, SS, Welfare, military pay, and maybe some other necessary payment until Jan 2013), but no taxes and no further consideration of another increase until after Jan 2013." This tactic paints 0bama in a corner.  He can't demogogue it and say he's denying SS checks or some other BS, the increased debt allows for that. When the limit is reached again before 2013, GOP sits back and says "We told you what you were allowed to run up, you failed to stay within that. Your problem, not ours."

McConnell is looking at reality, and trying to net as much political gain as he can for the GOP in this lose/lose situation.   

I like your idea though.   

[DumbAss Tanker]

Very interesting - thanks for the explanation.

So this pissing match is serving no useful purpose?

In a way.  The problem for both sides is how to least alienate their own base, in a deal that ultimately has to be made.  Nobody involved is going to look good after any deal they could foreseeably make, it is a question of who will look worse.

The hardcore base of both parties will accuse their principals of caving, rolling, whatever, for giving up anything.  Clearly neither side is going to give the other one everything for nothing in return, that is just magical thinking.  The negotiators are trying to be the one who gives up the least, but even if they score a technical win on that, the problem still remains of how the base takes it.

On top of that, neither party can deliver all its votes on a deal.  The Dems can't deliver any of their totally-devoted Socialists on entitlement cuts, and the GOP can't deliver the freshmen TEA Partiers on any tax increases.

Both bases are going to be pissed off and screaming "SELLOUT!!!  TREASON!!!" at any deal that has the remotest chance of passing the House and Senate, it's just a question of who is going to take the worst hit for it in Novermber of next year.   

[formerlurker]

In a way.  The problem for both sides is how to least alienate their own base, in a deal that ultimately has to be made.  Nobody involved is going to look good after any deal they could foreseeably make, it is a question of who will look worse.

The hardcore base of both parties will accuse their principals of caving, rolling, whatever, for giving up anything.  Clearly neither side is going to give the other one everything for nothing in return, that is just magical thinking.  The negotiators are trying to be the one who gives up the least, but even if they score a technical win on that, the problem still remains of how the base takes it.

On top of that, neither party can deliver all its votes on a deal.  The Dems can't deliver any of their totally-devoted Socialists on entitlement cuts, and the GOP can't deliver the freshmen TEA Partiers on any tax increases.

Both bases are going to be pissed off and screaming "SELLOUT!!!  TREASON!!!" at any deal that has the remotest chance of passing the House and Senate, it's just a question of who is going to take the worst hit for it in Novermber of next year.   

Excellent analysis -- I totally agree.   H5.

[docstew]

Read an excellent article today about the debt:

Empire Of Debt

[Chris_]

Read an excellent article today about the debt:

Empire Of Debt

Debt is not universally interpreted as a sign of failure on the part of government planners.  On the contrary, it becomes a weapon used to demand more taxes.  The same politicians who spent $1.7 trillion more than they collected, in just this year alone, say the problem is that private citizens are not paying enough.

That pretty much sums up the current crop of jesters and fools.

[Janice]

Debt is not universally interpreted as a sign of failure on the part of government planners.  On the contrary, it becomes a weapon used to demand more taxes.  The same politicians who spent $1.7 trillion more than they collected, in just this year alone, say the problem is that private citizens are not paying enough.

What a bad joke. Im not laughing.

[Janice]