Fergasun Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 TheHill.com: Boehner: "Mr President, help stop automatic cuts to Defense Spending House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged President Obama on Thursday to intercede in the growing congressional effort to change the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs triggered by the supercommittee’s failure to strike a deal....“I really believe that the president of the United States has a responsibility here as well,” Boehner told reporters. “He’s the commander in chief; he knows what those cuts will mean to the military, and so I frankly believe the Congress still must work with the president to find a solution to our long-term debt.”...Cantor has been talking to Democrats and Republicans about replacing the first year of cuts to the Pentagon and domestic spending, set to be implemented in 2013, with cuts agreed to by both parties in deficit talks last summer led by Vice President Biden. The ideas are similar to cuts proposed to the supercommittee by President Obama. :ols: I'm sorry. This is so priceless. Flash back to the original debt deal in August. Boehner claims to have gotten 98 percent of what he wanted. The parties intentionally agreed to a carrot and stick type of deal for the super committee. The GOP intentionally torpedoed the super committee deal, and set up this situation where they would be punished with these defense cuts, and then blamed Obama and the Democrats (okay this is politics 101). Now Boehner is coming back and asking for Obama to help the GOP get what they want? What happened to the "I believe President Obama is out to destroy the country" campaign trail type of rhetoric coming from the GOP? I don't even see how dragging the President into an area that is clearly Congress' responsibility is remotely acceptable either. Shouldn't you be begging to Pelosi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Funny, that he face a tea partier next spring. He could voted out. I say let the cuts happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Pretty much, but to be fair... even arsonists don't like getting caught in the fires they set. That's pretty much what's happened. The Republicans and Tea Partiers have set an agenda of not getting anything done and been so obstinately anti-compromise that even the normal government patch jobs have become impossible all in the name of acruing more power. They're still doing it. The house is aflame and they blame the supercommittees failures and while suport beams and the structural integrity weakens they play politics hoping the President will cave again and agree to a spending bill (with no taxes) to give them what they want that they can later crucify him for. They may claim that they want to shift around the cuts and they may, but in honesty what they really want is a spending bill because in order not to cut defense and come up with the same amount of cuts you either have to tax or wop off both legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think it's even simpler than that. I don't think that the cuts are really all that major. I think that the Republicans want these cuts to happen. (They're getting 100% of what they want, again. A deficit reduction plan that consists 100% of spending cuts.) They just want to be able to push the Kool Aid that the cuts are Obama's fault. If Obama so much as comes to the table, then they'll demand goodies from him, and if he agrees, then they'll demand more goodies, and they;ll keep moving the goalposts until Obama says "no". Then they'll announce that the entire problem is that Obama won't compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If Obama so much as comes to the table, then they'll demand goodies from him, and if he agrees, then they'll demand more goodies, and they;ll keep moving the goalposts until Obama says "no". Then they'll announce that the entire problem is that Obama won't compromise. Quoted for truth. It doesn't matter how many times in a row -- be it 0 or 100 -- Obama gives GOP intransigents something they want. When their 101st attempt fails, they'll spurt out the same prepared schtick they were going to spit out if the 1st attempt failed. And their base will happily swallow it all without any desire for question or perspective. As Ferg said: Politics 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Damn, tired today. accidentally substituted Boener with Biden in my sleepy mind. Edit and apologies for being dumb so far today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Dear Mr. Speaker....that was your job. ~O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 doesn't this kind of play into O's hands here? He said he'd veto unless they find the cuts somewhere else. I imagine if they move the cuts to 9/11 Responders or something else domestic that the President values, he'll veto it still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not that surprising seeing that the war profiteers' party of choice is the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not that surprising seeing that the war profiteers' party of choice is the GOP. except that the Dems are equally adept at their war mongering too. lets not try to pretend they are actually different when they are just two different wings of the same ugly war hawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 except that the Dems are equally adept at their war mongering too. lets not try to pretend they are actually different when they are just two different wings of the same ugly war hawk. That's a cop-out. Yes, the two parties are different. (If they weren't, then there would never be party line votes.) They may have elements in common. There may be cases where a tiny portion of Party X agrees with Party Y. There may be some issues where they both agree. That doesn't make them equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 That's a cop-out. Yes, the two parties are different. (If they weren't, then there would never be party line votes.) They may have elements in common. There may be cases where a tiny portion of Party X agrees with Party Y. There may be some issues where they both agree. That doesn't make them equal. They are equal until one of them actually stops the spending of money that we do not have. The ONLY differences are what they desire to spend money on. Six of one half a dozen of another. They both suck in economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 They are equal until one of them actually stops the spending of money that we do not have. The ONLY differences are what they desire to spend money on. Six of one half a dozen of another. They both suck in economics. Yes, I favor replacing every last one of their incompetent asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 He's said that on the assumption that the majority of his constituents aren't keeping track of what he's been saying. Unfortunately, that is probably the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 They are equal until one of them actually stops the spending of money that we do not have. Ah, got it. All people who think that instantly balancing the federal budget is a bad idea, are identical. You know, I suspect that, by that standard, that George W Bush and Adolph Hitler are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Ah, got it. All people who think that instantly balancing the federal budget is a bad idea, are identical. You know, I suspect that, by that standard, that George W Bush and Adolph Hitler are the same. And to think that in the other thread he's arguing about showing the REAL unemployment numbers, imagine what would happen to those numbers if the US immediately stopped spending money we don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yes, I favor replacing every last one of their incompetent asses. With who? Are we going to suddenly develop a subspecies of humans that are immune to what ails the current pols? I agree that both sides have plenty of faults as a group and individuals but until being rich isn't a requirement for running for office we are limited in who run. The really smart ones wouldn't waste their time in DC. Making money is what we're all about and while there's plenty to be made in DC, it's a pittance compared to what the functioning rest of the world will pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Ah, got it. All people who think that instantly balancing the federal budget is a bad idea, are identical. You know, I suspect that, by that standard, that George W Bush and Adolph Hitler are the same. Since I didnt say anything even remotely close to that, your suspicions are rather silly. Do they or do they not all seem to keep spending levels escalated? Its rather simple and your extra additions that make little sense have no place ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 10:32 AM ---------- And to think that in the other thread he's arguing about showing the REAL unemployment numbers, imagine what would happen to those numbers if the US immediately stopped spending money we don't have. Imagine what would happen to those numbers if we do the same for another few years. Not really sure what you find funny. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 10:35 AM ---------- You know what? The last time I engaged in a friendly debate here I ended up without access (unexplained) for a while. I'm going to bow out of your baiting on this one because my Mom is doing rough and I may need some friends to talk to here over the weekend. I dont want to endanger that.. Carry on with the conversation without me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 SnyderShrugged, It could be that the American people are for keeping spending levels escalated. While in the abstract, we may say "our debt/deficit is a problem", when it comes to actual cuts, the American people don't like them. Hence, this move by Boehner is a smart one. What's funny is that under the "similar threads" to this post there is one: "thehill.com: Tea Party Activists: Bring on Defense Cuts" from August 2011. Equally amusing is the lack of coverage from the right-wing-oriented political blogosphere on what Boehner and Cantor are doing. These same sites that watched and blogged about the debt-limit votes with bated breath and urged the GOP to shut it down, accept no deal, etc. etc. Is it too hard for these sites to believe that the deficit cutting party they love isn't really what they thought it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 You know what the Congressional GOP are at this point: brats. They want 100% of what they want, when they want it. And that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 SnyderShrugged, It could be that the American people are for keeping spending levels escalated. While in the abstract, we may say "our debt/deficit is a problem", when it comes to actual cuts, the American people don't like them. Hence, this move by Boehner is a smart one. What's funny is that under the "similar threads" to this post there is one: "thehill.com: Tea Party Activists: Bring on Defense Cuts" from August 2011. Equally amusing is the lack of coverage from the right-wing-oriented political blogosphere on what Boehner and Cantor are doing. These same sites that watched and blogged about the debt-limit votes with bated breath and urged the GOP to shut it down, accept no deal, etc. etc. Is it too hard for these sites to believe that the deficit cutting party they love isn't really what they thought it is? If it causes an entire economic collapse, should it even matter if the American people want the spending? The people of Greece wanted it too, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Both parties are spending all of their time nowadays positioning themselves for the next marketing campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If it causes an entire economic collapse, should it even matter if the American people want the spending? The people of Greece wanted it too, I believe. What do you seriously think would happen to the economy if over night Congress balanced the budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If it causes an entire economic collapse, should it even matter if the American people want the spending? The people of Greece wanted it too, I believe. I think the big question is where do these issues stop being issues and start being the party line. Raising the deficits issue in the context of "rich people are job creators and taxing them is class warfare" is just more party line preparing for the next election marketing crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think the big question is where do these issues stop being issues and start being the party line. As soon as they cross into DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.