John Boehner: Democrats' Tax Bill Is 'Chicken Crap'

[Baculus]

Gee -- it's good to know that a GOP leader believes that a tax cut for the middle class and under-a-million dollars a year wage earners is "chick crap." What's even more pathetic is his statement, where he said that "we're 23 months from the next election and the political games have already started, trying to set up the next election."

That, Mr. Boehner, has been you party's modus oprerandi for the last two years. The Republicans have done everything possible to block all legislation -- even the legislation they've supported, all for political gain in 2010 and 2012.

If anything is "chicken crap," it's the Republican legislative efforts and their political platform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/john-boehner-chicken-crap_n_791155.html

[twa]

Everything is politics....who's winning?

[Mickalino]

Everything is politics....who's winning?

The chickens are.

They're crapping all over us.

[Larry]

Ah, lobbying to get appointed to a high position, by being more abusively confrontational that everybody else, eh?

(Maybe my opinion of the guy would be different if the first time I heard about the guy wasn't when he was covering up the fact that he and the GOP leadership knew that Mark Foley was hitting on former Congressional Pages, and did nothing about it. If it weren't for that, all I'd know about the guy is that he's got an 'R' after his name.)

Gee -- it's good to know that a GOP leader believes that a tax cut for the middle class and under-a-million dollars a year wage earners is "chick crap."

Actually, bac, that's not true. The GOP does not think that the middle class are chicken crap. They think that the middle class are excellent hostages.

"All right. Give me a tax cut for the top 1%, and put an artificial expiration date on it that I have no intention of ever honoring, so that I can lie about the costs. And do it snappy, or the middle class gets it."

Their entire legislative strategy every single time this comes up, is to not allow Congress to vote on a middle class tax cut, unless the top 1% get a bigger cut, at the same time.

(That's why I think that, if the lame-duck D's want to play hardball? What they should do is propose a bill to make the middle class cuts permanent. If they can do that, then at least they can't be used as hostages, any more.)

[Hunter44]

Ah, lobbying to get appointed to a high position, by being more abusively confrontational that everybody else, eh?

(Maybe my opinion of the guy would be different if the first time I heard about the guy wasn't when he was covering up the fact that he and the GOP leadership knew that Mark Foley was hitting on former Congressional Pages, and did nothing about it. If it weren't for that, all I'd know about the guy is that he's got an 'R' after his name.)

You forgot to mention that the Congressional Pages were teenage boys.

[twa]

Henry Kissinger: "Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

George Bernard Shaw: "He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career."

Edward Langley: "What this country needs is more unemployed politicians."

[Thiebear]

werent the democrats creating this omitting the over 250k so they could vilify the repubs?

Arent the repubs using this opportunity to play it up and get the previous bill passed for everyone.

Aren't both sides and the representatives sent out to give ridiculous examples of both.

Lame ducks trying to do what they wouldn't when they had something to lose.

[Hunter44]

Why don't the Reps want to pay for the tax cuts? I always thought that was odd. I've read that the tax cuts will add 700 billion to the bill. Why isn't the Tea Party in an uproar over it?

[Baculus]

Everything is politics....who's winning?

B.S. Everything is NOT politics. Real people are affected by political decisions.

Your response is what's wrong with the Republicans. You only see this entire struggle as political, with little regard to the affect on Americans.

[Mickalino]

B.S. Everything is NOT politics. Real people are affected by political decisions.

Your response is what's wrong with the Republicans. You only see this entire struggle as political, with little regard to the affect on Americans.

Obviously he's not referring to Americans in general, but the Congressman on both sides.

[Larry]

Why don't the Reps want to pay for the tax cuts? I always thought that was odd. I've read that the tax cuts will add 700 billion to the bill. Why isn't the Tea Party in an uproar over it?

Haven't you heard?

1) It's not a tax cut. It's opposing a tax hike. The Republicans all say so.

2) Tax cuts don't cost, they make money. Why, if we cut all taxes to zero, the government would have surpluses every year. (That's why we absolutely must not cut taxes to zero. Because if the government had a surplus, a Democrat might spend the money.)

[Baculus]

werent the democrats creating this omitting the over 250k so they could vilify the repubs?

Arent the repubs using this opportunity to play it up and get the previous bill passed for everyone.

Aren't both sides and the representatives sent out to give ridiculous examples of both.

Lame ducks trying to do what they wouldn't when they had something to lose.

The Democrats want to pass the middle class tax cut, while the Republicans want all or nothing, even though they could easily vote with the Democrats and call it a victory for the middle class. This does NOT have to be a zero-sum game or just a (D) or ® victory. That's what you seem to be missing. After all, retaining the tax cuts for the under-a-million a year wage earners is not unreasonable, and it will positively affect most of the American public. In essence, the GOP are fighting for the wealthiest of the population while avowing to let the tax cuts sunset if they don't get their way.

Let everyone else be damned if they don't get their way.

It's like health care reform -- it didn't have to be just a (D) or ® issue, or a victory for one or the other. The problem is that the Republicans have become so absolutist in their desire the Democrats defeat on nearly issue that their response is entirely predictable.

[Larry]

Obviously he's not referring to Americans in general, but the Congressman on both sides.

Really? Funny, what I see when I read his post is "Ha, ha. My side is winning, so there!"

[Baculus]

Obviously he's not referring to Americans in general, but the Congressman on both sides.

Really? "Obviously"? Because that isn't what he said. He said "Everything is politics...." Which, if you ask me, is not true, especially when the GOP take stance based on purely political pursuits, even if it harms the public.

[Mickalino]

Really? Funny, what I see when I read his post is "Ha, ha. My side is winning, so there!"

There's nothing whatsoever in his post to even insinuate that "my side is winning".

It's obviously a statement that politics is a game where nobody wins

[Larry]

The Democrats want to pass the middle class tax cut, while the Republicans want all or nothing

I hthink a more honest way of expressing it would be

If the middle class tax cut came to a vote, it would pass with 99% of the vote. (Maybe there's one wierdo who'd vote against it, like Ron Paul, or somebody.) (You can argue about whether this politician or that one wants the middle class tax cut. But it's undeniable that they'd all vote for it.) (And, frankly, what I care about is their vote, not their intentions.)

If the top 1% tax cuts came to a vote, it might pass, it might not. The Republicans (and some Democrats) want it, but it's conceivable that some of the people who want it, would vote against it, for political reasons. In any case, it's certain that the Republicans don't want the top 1% to come to a separate vote. They want it passed, but they don't want a vote on the record showing who voted for it.

(And they don't want to admit how much it costs, which is why they keep up with this outright lie of claiming they're only temporary.)

[Baculus]

There's nothing whatsoever in his post to even insinuate that "my side is winning".

It's obviously a statement that politics is a game where nobody wins

You have used "obviously" twice so far.

I don't think it is so "obvious" from his statement, which was very broad in nature.

Sorry, but it ain't so "obvious" -- if that is what he meant, then he should have said it. Don't put words in his mouth.

[Mickalino]

You have used "obviously" twice so far.

I don't think it is so "obvious" from his statement, which was very broad in nature.

Sorry, but it ain't so "obvious" -- if that is what he meant, then he should have said it. Don't put words in his mouth.

You guys are the ones putting words in his mouth. You just admitted the he made a broad statement, yet you insist that you have a specific interpretation of it, without anything in his quote to back up that interpretation.

[Larry]

You guys are the ones putting words in his mouth. You just admitted the he made a broad statement, yet you insist that you have a specific interpretation of it, without anything in his quote to back up that interpretation.

No, we guys. "We" includes "you".

And "we" have exactly as much to back up our interpretation as "you" do.

[Baculus]

I hthink a more honest way of expressing it would be

If the middle class tax cut came to a vote, it would pass with 99% of the vote. (Maybe there's one wierdo who'd vote against it, like Ron Paul, or somebody.) (You can argue about whether this politician or that one wants the middle class tax cut. But it's undeniable that they'd all vote for it.) (And, frankly, what I care about is their vote, not their intentions.)

If the top 1% tax cuts came to a vote, it might pass, it might not. The Republicans (and some Democrats) want it, but it's conceivable that some of the people who want it, would vote against it, for political reasons. In any case, it's certain that the Republicans don't want the top 1% to come to a separate vote. They want it passed, but they don't want a vote on the record showing who voted for it.

That's the whole problem: It's an ideological game that the Republicans are trying to play. It's ridiculous. They want to say one thing but do another. It's the same absurd game they played with the Spending Stimulus: They voted against it, but they went home to their districts, requested money from the federal government, and then extolled programs funded by these stimulus dollars.

Some may say it's brilliant and Machiavellian, but people forget that Machiavelli also wrote Discourses on Livy after he wrote The Prince. It's entirely cowardly, if you ask me, especially for the GOPers who refuse to speak their mind when they support a bipartisan effort.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2010 at 01:30 AM ----------

How is restating your use of "obvious" putting words in your mouth?!

[isle-hawg]

This **** just continues to piss me off!! There should be a balanced federal and state budget every year!!!!! These pandering ***holes elected to office refuse to make any hard decisions. Just keep mortgaging the next generations future to pander to us now - what a sound plan!!!!. Let's just maintain tax cuts for everyone and Trillion dollar spending deficits until this country goes ****ing bankrupt!!!! Stupid *&$#@()*(&%^$#!!!!!!

[Larry]

That's the whole problem: It's an ideological game that the Republicans are trying to play. It's ridiculous. They want to say one thing but do another. It's the same absurd game they played with the Spending Stimulus: They voted against it, but they went home to their districts, requested money from the federal government, and then extolled programs funded by these stimulus dollars.

Some may say it's brilliant and Machiavellian, but people forget that Machiavelli also wrote Discourses on Livy after he wrote The Prince. It's entirely cowardly, if you ask me, especially for the GOPers who refuse to speak their mind when they support a bipartisan effort.

Oh, I have no doubt that there's political maneuvering going on, on both sides.

Example, I can only think of a few hypothetical reasons why the D's haven't proposed Obama's "middle class only" tax cuts, already.

1) They've done a head count, and they can tell that if they introduce it, the "top 1%ers" have enough votes to attach their tax cut to the bill.

2) They know that if they pass the middle class tax cuts, then the CBO will have to revise their estimates of how big the future deficits will be. (The CBO is required to base their forecasts on the assumption that current legislation doesn't change.)

In short, they know that if they pass their middle class tax cut, then the forecast for future deficits will go up. And the R's will point at the new, bigger, deficit forecasts, and blame Obama for them. (And in this case, they'd actually be right.)

3) A variation of 2) The D's know that passing tax cuts will increase the deficit projections, and they think they can blame those deficit increases on the R's.

(If so, then they're idiots. The Republicans have been passing tax cuts, and increasing deficits, for 30 years, and the voters have

never

punished them for it. In fact, they don't even

blame

them for it.)

(However, I will never allow the fact that I think something is politically stupid, cause me to say that the Democrats couldn't possibly do it.)

In short, I can only think of three possible reasons why the Democrats haven't passed their own plan, already. And all three of my theories involve the Democrats playing politics with the bill.

[Baculus]

This **** just continues to piss me off!! There should be a balanced federal and state budget every year!!!!! These pandering ***holes elected to office refuse to make any hard decisions. Just keep mortgaging the next generations future to pander to us now - what a sound plan!!!!. Let's just maintain tax cuts for everyone and Trillion dollar spending deficits until this country goes ****ing bankrupt!!!!

These are the same Republicans who constantly talk about the need for controlling deficits and the debt, but claim that "we do not need to pay for tax cuts." The Bush tax cuts while having little appreciable gains for the economy (job creation was low during the Bush administration) led to the addition of $2.8 trillion to the debt. Why? Partially due to a bloated military budget and two oversea wars that, surprise, surprise, weren't paid for as well.

[isle-hawg]

These are the same Republicans who constantly talk about the need for controlling deficits and the debt, but claim that "we do not need to pay for tax cuts." The Bush tax cuts while having little appreciable gains for the economy (job creation was low during the Bush administration) led to the addition of $2.8 trillion to the debt. Why? Partially due to a bloated military budget and two oversea wars that, surprise, surprise, weren't paid for as well.

Yeah no **** this is why I challenge anyone who claims the R party as conservative - unless their version of conservative mean fiscal irresponsibly. Same reason why they were swept out of office 2 years ago. Unfortunately for us the D party did absolutely no better (worse) the last 2 years IRT fiscal responsibility. What is completely dumbfounding to me is the D party folks chastised Bush and the R congress for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it back into a deficit (rightly so). But now this lame duck D congress is poised to approve the same tax cuts (while not reducing spending) that got us into this mess?

[Baculus]

Oh, I have no doubt that there's political maneuvering going on, on both sides.

Example, I can only think of a few hypothetical reasons why the D's haven't proposed Obama's "middle class only" tax cuts, already.

1) They've done a head count, and they can tell that if they introduce it, the "top 1%ers" have enough votes to attach their tax cut to the bill.

2) They know that if they pass the middle class tax cuts, then the CBO will have to revise their estimates of how big the future deficits will be. (The CBO is required to base their forecasts on the assumption that current legislation doesn't change.)

In short, they know that if they pass their middle class tax cut, then the forecast for future deficits will go up. And the R's will point at the new, bigger, deficit forecasts, and blame Obama for them. (And in this case, they'd actually be right.)

3) A variation of 2) The D's know that passing tax cuts will increase the deficit projections, and they think they can blame those deficit increases on the R's.

(If so, then they're idiots. The Republicans have been passing tax cuts, and increasing deficits, for 30 years, and the voters have

never

punished them for it. In fact, they don't even

blame

them for it.)

(However, I will never allow the fact that I think something is politically stupid, cause me to say that the Democrats couldn't possibly do it.)

In short, I can only think of three possible reasons why the Democrats haven't passed their own plan, already. And all three of my theories involve the Democrats playing politics with the bill.

All good points, and by no means would I imply that politics aren't a part of this tug-of-war. After all, this legislation is in a politically-based chamber, i.e., Congress.

It ultimately, though, comes down to the vote, and to which position either party, and that is when political gamesmanship sometimes has to be left at the door.