1 Foist??

Obama's a dick

2 Mister speaker! Mister Speaker! Are you league with the devil!!!

3

I like this John Boehner,

I'm afraid of when the other John Boehner shows up and caves on all these pretty words.

4 I love this because Barack will not listen to the criticism of his press conference but will just fume over what Boehner says.  Obama takes direction well, but does not take criticism at all.

5 Boehner got tougher questions than Barky.  Shocka.

6 Dang, I thought Obama would show up and sprinkle glitter.

7 Boehner so wanted to call Barky on his lies.  He left the questions hanging.

Heh.

8 It's over.  Now time for the MFM to get out the knives.

9 Huh. Barry lies and deals in bad faith. Who could've seen that one coming?

10 Boehner isn't very good at these things. El Presidente projected the "I'm reasonable and they're poopy-heads" vibe while Boehner was more "meh."

11 Boehner came off like a strong, in-control winner. Obama on the other hand was all weak and whiny and finger-pointy.

12 Mister Speaker! Do you drink baby blood?

13 Who's the douche from the WaPo on Fox? 

Summon the Krauthammer!

14 Boehner should tell 0 to pound sand!

15 I thought Boner did well.  The fact that he didn't leap off the podium and snap the necks of the MFM douches says a lot.  Because I would have.  But I'm a moronette.

16 Boner all but called him a liar. CK did call him a liar.

17 Boehner claims they'd agreed to $800B in new taxes, Barky breaks word and demands $1.2T. Ouch.

Paging Mark Halperin!

18 Obama's a dick

Isn't a stuttering clusterfuck of miserable failure, or something to that effect?

19 I'm so happy I got to ask Boehner the first question!

20 I thought Boehner looked like the grown up.  Barry looks like a pissy 16 year-old who didn't get an invite to Jr. Prom.

21  Obama is intent on ruining this economy, in order to transform it

22 Krauthammer pointing out the credit rating agencies are full of shit? Uh-oh... speghetti-o's!

23

I like this John Boehner,

This one shaved his goatee before the presser.

24 No, not the McConnell idiocy! Spare me!

"Over ten years" means never, ever.

25 "argument in the form of a question" from the press corps, exactly. speaking truth to power boehner!

26 Why the fuck does Krauthammer have such a hard-on for the McConnell plan?

27 I'm disappointed the MFM didn't ask Boehner what "enchants" him about being Speaker.

28 bottom line:  denials yesterday to the contrary, Boehner had agreed to $800b in "revenue increases". And there is no way he will let the Aug 2 deadline arrive without a debt increase.

Your taxes are going up morons.  The only Q is, how much MORE Than 800b is Boehner willing to agree to.

Stonewall Boehner rides again.

29 Krauthammer wants to do the extension to 2013!!! He wants to bail out Obama.

30 So Boehner agreed to tax revenue increases?

31 So Boehner agreed to tax revenue increases?

That's how I read it.  Bastards.

32 Boehner's the pitcher; Obama's the catcher  IYKWINAITYD

This is such a disgrace:  The President of the United States is a lying petulant whining bitch

33 Dan, I think Krauthammer means that this is what we're going to end up with, not what he favors. He keeps asking when actual cuts are going to happen; he knows as well as we do that no cut will ever happen, under the McConnell plan!

34 from Jonah: "Fascinating level of press skepticism for Boehner compared to Obama's "please repeat your talking points" questions."
as one of his commenters notes, notice that Obama called on specific reporters by name (excluding Tapper, naturally), while Boehner fielded questions from anyone.

35 13 Who's the douche from the WaPo on Fox? Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 22, 2011 07:28 PM ------------- That's Charles Lane. If you ever saw the movie Shattered Glass, about hugeass fabricator Stephen Glass at The New Republic, he was played by Peter Sarsgaard. Charles Lane was the boss when Glass was finally unmasked (by a rival publication, Forbes Digital). Not a bad movie if you haven't seen it. The cast is pretty good.

36
These closed-door negotiations must cease.

37

Mr. Speaker! Why are you such a dick? Is it because you are a racist?

38 Okay, someone's got photo's of Chris Wallace with a goat. Is there any doubt?

39 Listen to that shit with the WaPo. 

40 Yup, Boehner is on board with tax increases.  He lied like a rug on Rush's show yesterday.

41

Re...read my labia.....

Masshive new taxesh.

Pay up, su...suckash.

Aren'tchoo glad you.....you got me fightin' for ya?

Who's up for shum nachos! I could re....really usshe shum nachos.

42 We're boned.

New thread please.

43 0bama and progs spent us into oblivion and now want "revenue increases" to pay for their foolish liberal fantasies.

44

 

45 34, Ok I hope your right, but I have seen him promote the McConnel plan for days now.

46
gotta fund the DREAM Act somehow

47 CCB was for show, suckers. YOu're taxes are going up. Boehner is on board.

48 Two very different views of the pressers right there. Posted by: buzzion at July 22, 2011 07:30 PM ---------------- I'm not an officer of the True Conservative Purist Patrol, if that matters any.

49 O/T:  callers to savage are annoyed by the president' reaction to norway.

50 You folks need to make sacrifices, have some skin in the game.

Look at me, I've missed two tee times because of this shit.  And I've got my birthday fundraiser and two weeks on Martha's Vineyard coming up.

You'd think you'd be thanking me.

*long sigh*

51 41 Yup, Boehner is on board with tax increases.  He lied like a rug on Rush's show yesterday.
Posted by: some dope

I kept saying you could hear it in his voice, he was going to cave.

52 Yes, yes... but do any of you morons have a degree in Economics?

53 I have no problem with increasing "revenue".  47% of these M'CKERS! are not paying ANY taxes.  EVERY G'DAMN MUTHER F'ING AMERCIAN NEEDS TO PAY SOME G'DAMN TAXES!!!  It doesn't have to be much, but everyone has to have some skin in the game.

54 Seems to me like everyone has agreed that the economy is going to crash.  Doesn't matter what they raise the taxes too as most Americans won't have any money to pay them.  Time for a re-set.  No more politics as usual.

55 I have no problem with increasing "revenue".  47% of these M'CKERS! are not paying ANY taxes.  EVERY G'DAMN MUTHER F'ING AMERCIAN NEEDS TO PAY SOME G'DAMN TAXES!!!  It doesn't have to be much, but everyone has to have some skin in the game.

Posted by: USNA1985 at July 22, 2011 07:39 PM (U3TDy)

Thank you.

56 Boner is angry at Obama for not giving him an easy opportunity to fold. And fold he will. Third Party in 2012. Could it be much worse?

57

Speaker Boehner looked like a leader. Barry? Preening, petulant toddler. I never knew the depths of my anger until this man.

 

58 Third Party in 2012. Could it be much worse?

Yes.  A second term for Oblahblah.

59 We'll get tax hikes and like $1.50 in spending cuts over 10 years.(yeah, one dollar,fifty cents)

60 Regarding the accusations that Boehner had agreed to tax increases:  What I heard is that they were looking to grow revenue by increasing the tax base.  That is far different. 

If you have more taxpayers,  you have more revenue.  That is not a tax increase on existing taxpayers.

61 41 Yup, Boehner is on board with tax increases.  He lied like a rug on Rush's show yesterday.

Posted by: some dope at July 22, 2011 07:35 PM (+kznc)

Boehner lied and played his politician role well on Rush. There was likely always going to be some form of tax increase in any deal, but now that Barky has reneged on his word, Boehner calls him out, looks reasonable by pissing off the no taxes crowd (me included), and points out that Barky is a dick whose word means nothing.

Honestly, I don't like $800 billion in new "revenues", but Barky would have won if he'd just took it. Now he looks like the unreasonable POS that he's trying to claim the GOP is.

62

@45: "0bama and progs spent us into oblivion and now want "revenue increases" to pay for their foolish liberal fantasies."

Unfortunately, the GOP is apparently cool with that, too - both the excessive spending, and the ever-increasing taxes.

63 62 Regarding the accusations that Boehner had agreed to tax increases:  What I heard is that they were looking to grow revenue by increasing the tax base.  That is far different.

Don't confuse our RINO hunt.

64 Rolling black-outs.  Gasoline prices on the rise.  Three-four wars.  Unemployment at 9.2%.

Yep.  Barry's doing a hell of a job.

Thanks, you worthless 52%ers.

65 what if the republicans just don't bother to go to the meeting?  What if they craft a great excuse and don't show up?

they are going to cave, the lobbyists have been beating them about the debt ceiling and the default.  Actually, the ratings agencies are going to humiliate the republicans if they cave, give BO everything he wants, raise the debt ceiling and then when the ink is dry they downgrade the US anyway.  They've hinted and when they hint, they usually act. 

66
We're supposed to give an attaboy to a Republican speaker who's game for $800,000,000,000 in tax increases?

67 Boehner should tell Obama to make up the shortfall out of his "stash."

68 "Over ten years" means never.

Cuts now. Right now. Pick stuff and start slashing. Fire bureaucrats, who are the ones who benefit from all these programs. Get cracking, Congress. You weren't elected to tweet your genitals.

69

70 We're supposed to give an attaboy to a Republican speaker who's game for $800,000,000,000 in tax increases?


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix

Well, I'm not. I gather you're not, either?

71 The dollar is being devalued and everything us morons have worked for is being flushed down the toilet.  It makes 2006 seem so far away. 

72 Miss Marples

I understand your point, and agree to its validity on its face.

I think what most of us are pissed about is that it's kind of a "been there, done that" thing.  Historically, we've agreed to "revenue enhancements" in return for cuts.  Revenue was then enhanced, but cuts never happen.

73 I'm just hoping that this isn't some high level kabuki theater. 
 
2009 JugEars -- I won.
 
2011 Boehner -- No longer.

74
I'm a broken record.

Watch me make up funny names. Hee hee.

75 Regarding the accusations that Boehner had agreed to tax increases:  What I heard is that they were looking to grow revenue by increasing the tax base.  That is far different. 

If you have more taxpayers,  you have more revenue.  That is not a tax increase on existing taxpayers.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 22, 2011 07:41 PM (Fo83G)

That's exactly what the man said.     

76
I make up funny names like an anonymous 15 year old on the internet.

77 Yup, Boehner is on board with tax increases.  He lied like a rug on Rush's show yesterday.

Posted by: some dope at July 22, 2011 07:35 PM (+kznc)

________________________________

Boehner can't wait to do the swan dive.  This f*cker can't wait to be a "statesman".  He never even noticed the Tea Party election of 2010.

78 I am heading to another forum for a while. 

Apparently there are a lot of people who cannot listen to someone without totally misinterpreting what was said. 

It's annoying,  and either the people doing this are either complete idiots or they are democrats stirring up trouble.

I will go elsewhere until someone here realizes that Boehner didn't cave,  that he is looking for increased revenue by other means than tax increases,  and that Boehner is telling the truth.

Anyone who is trashing him is either a democrat or simply reflexively trashing him for jollies.

Crap on this.

79
I say RINO in every other comment to show how much smarter than you I am.

80

These closed-door negotiations must cease.

 

The Most Tranparentest Administration Evah!

81 We're supposed to give an attaboy to a Republican speaker who's game for $800,000,000,000 in tax increases?


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix


----

What, you don't want to end stuff like ethanol subsidies and electric car tax-credits?

82 We DESERVE to be downgraded.We are already reduced to buying our own worthless paper with even more worthless money pulled out of Ben Bernanke's ass.

83 >>I wanted tax reform that broadens the base, simplifies the code, and lowers rates, to boost economic growth. The president could not accept that because he wanted to increase the "progressivity" of the current system. This is where things began to break down. And this is where there's been some confusion. >>Tax policy is more than a little confusing, but what Boehner was willing to do on taxes was reduce or nix tax breaks--also known as itemized tax deductions and exclusions. The savings from reducing or eliminating tax breaks would facilitate lower tax rates with some revenue going toward deficit reduction. >>The House-passed GOP budget tries to do about the same thing http://tinyurl.com/3ryvaop That would be the Ryan plan. So is Ryan a RINO now too?

84
I have the intellectual maturity of a zit-faced teenager.

85 Miss Marple, we're all afraid he's going to cave. Because it seems like that's all the GOP does, sometimes.

86
RINO!

87 You  guys have this all wrong.  There is a deal.  B and O just did'nt want to announce it because it would have dicked up their weekend golf plans.

88 Now would be a good time for the bitter clingers to demand "no more than $400 billion" in revenue increase --and next week that drops to $200.

89 Revenue WILL increase if we can get out from under this planetoid of debt.

90 I'm sick of hearing "Revenue".. Even Boehner barely said the T word..

I wish they would call it what it is more often.. TAXES!

Put it plain and simple every time; "The White House wants to raise your taxes to pay for this debt increase"

91 After watching the 2 pressers, I think that if Oliar tried to call off the '12 elections in a desperate hissie fit the MFM would hail it as a fresh new approach and a novel idea.
 
  .... and Boehner would eventually come around.

92 He walked away precisely because the President refused to cut/reform entitlement spending and not increase taxes for the additional revenue estimates they had agreed on. In other words, he did precisely what most of you whiny taint-lickers are grousing about.

93 I would have been embarrassed for a teenager who threw a public tantrum like Obama.  I can't recall the last time I heard something so juvenile from an adult.

Boehner resisted the temptation to call him a whining, lying punk, and took the high road, but did make it clear the President DID "move the goal posts" with his demands, which Comrade Obama had just denied, so he made it clear the President is a liar without directly calling him one.

The $800 bil in increased revenue wasn't from eliminating the tax breaks alone, it was from streamlining the code, stripping most breaks and lowering rates, widening the base (meaning more people would have to pay taxes).  That would have depended on subsequent action, so the House would probably have accepted it.  Obama had his chain yanked by his radical socialist pals, and reneged.

94 @ 56 Hear, hear.

This is all theatre. The die is cast. Won't be pretty, but maybe something good can rise from the ashes.

Gosh, and to think I agree with Ron Paul. We're going to default. We can do it now, with less pain, or later, with much more pain.

95 How do you get blood from a turnip?

By, as Rubio said, creating more taxpayers. Put more people to work and collect more revenue.

The Dems just don't seem to get the correlation.

96

Boehner came off as the adult in the room.  He was forced to say he trusted Obama by one of the reporters. If he said he did not, he'd be on the news all weekend.  He gets the real questions, Obama picks people that are not there.

Everyone has to pay taxes especially the 47% who do not. If they kicked some in maybe they'd be more responsible. This admin is a sham!

Did you hear that little Timmy demanded a debt limit increase before Boehner was sworn in?

97 @99 Neither do a lot of commenters in this thread.

98 Posted by: curious at July 22, 2011 07:43 PM (k1rwm)

Dude, you've been quite active recently.  By that I mean just in the past few hours.

Shouldn't you be out with your friends?

99 I'm about as optimistic as I can be right now on our future. I thought it would be 2013 before anything could possibly change in DC. There is a real chance for reform this year now. Barky is crying like a two bit hooker only being offered a nickel.
 
This optimism shit is scary for a born pessimist. Someone hold me.

100 if it makes you guys feel any better, at least the coming economic collapse saves us from having to worry about the ongoing social/cultural collapse...

101 What's the #1 strategic goal?   Defeating this douchebag in 2012. Frankly, I have no problem granting an increase to the debt ceiling if we can take the "evil Republicans hate you, they shut down the government" meme out of play.  

Frankly, any increase is spit in the ocean at this point, anyway.  When we take the white house and both houses, we can roll it back and start weighing into the budget with an axe

102 So much for all that talk about a deal by tonight, eh?

103

@73: "How do you get blood from a turnip?"

You have gold fillings, yes? Hair that can used for blankets?  Clothes, shoes, furniture that can be given to the needy? Eyeglasses? Silverware? Gold watches?  Skin that can be made into lampshades, fat that can be rendered into soap?

Please, there is a lot for you left to return to the government.

104 LA Times spinning the whole thing, still trying to portray the JEF as the adult in the room.

Who can believe them any more, after his performance today?

105 ...they were looking to grow revenue by increasing the tax base...



Quick back of the envelope calculation.  Say they want to bring into the tax base another 25 million low income workers who aren't currently paying up, say through reduction of the EIC or some such.

80 billion per year new revenue divided among 25 million taxpayers -- $3200 per.  On someone making say $25k to $30k per year?  Who may have previously actually been getting money back due to EIC?

Nahhhhh.....

106 btw, via geraghty, the same president who keeps saying it's time to raise taxes on 'rich folks like me' claimed itemized deductions of $78,269 last year.

107 Who can believe them any more, after his performance today?

So, yesterday, you believed them?

108 I say we go the rest of the year without a debt ceiling increase, let's see what happens.  I bet we survive and people start taking care of themselves.

109 There are a lot of things I would agree to raise taxes on. Like the 51% who pay no taxes also get rid of:
1. Earned Income Credit
2. Tuition Expenses
3. Child tax credit
4. First time home buyer credit
5. Hybrid Car credit
6. DC homebuyer credit
7. Making work pay credit
8. Low income housing credit

110 Where the fuck is Paul Ryan?!

111 112 btw, via geraghty, the same president who keeps saying it's time to raise taxes on 'rich folks like me' claimed itemized deductions of $78,269 last year.

Posted by: Adrian at July 22, 2011 07:57 PM (PY4xx)

That's why I love geraghty's twitter feed.  It's like a pop-up-video of the news.

112 Vic

I like the cut of your jib.

113 DEAL

114 i am so afraid to go into work now, i hope the people weren't watching all this news, i don't think i can bear another day of hearing MSM spin, especially after that jilted jello flinger's petulant pissy fit.

115 C'mon GOP, be strong, be smart, be practical.

116 Who can believe them any more, after his performance today?

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at July 22, 2011 07:55 PM (4sQwu)

Those who don't pay much attention. So like 90%+ of the public, especially the 52%

117 HAHAHA  You guys are so naive.

Increased revenues? 

Why thank you very much Mr. Comprehensive Immigration Reform!

118 47% pay no taxes?  Ha.

In Soviet Obamerica, Taxes pay YOU!

119 116 Where the fuck is Paul Ryan?!


Help.  I'm a prisoner in a fortune cookie factory.

120 "Perhaps you'd like the deal less if I destroy the whole planet" - BarryO

121 O'Reilly dissin the TEA ... AGAIN!

122 by the way, to the moronettes reading this, i've been inspired by our C-i-C's bold leadership, and I hereby summon you to my chambers tomorrow morning at 11. Bring pudding.

123 116 Where the fuck is Paul Ryan?!

Is he supposed to be somewhere? He and the Budget Committee are already working on contingency plans. Cantor will call him if/when they have something that needs to be prepared by Wednesday.

124 I don't trust any of them.

125
hmm what an interesting day.  I haven't seen anything like this....

126 You not like the deal?  Pray I do not alter it further.

127
damn it

128 I don't care. Obama is awesome. The economy is awesome, we are not running out of funds and we can always borrow more. Our magical President is working hard and making green jobs, and proving Capitalism is a miserable failure. One day America will be a great and lasting success, like Europe.

129
Anyway, I haven't seen anything like today's press conference since my autistic mother's last trip to the hair salon.

it was extremely edutaining

130 be thankful for small mercies: the Boehner interview to be conducted by Ingraham, not O'Reilly.

131 C'mon people, when are you going to get on your knee's and beg me to be your King?

132 Grateful Dead 4.26.77 at July 22, 2011 08:00 PM (eWXmR) Very nice.

133 I called his bluff.

134 141 I saw the date, and passed..

Was it Donna heavy?

135 Beltway insiders still burning-up Twitter with info.

OT:  [Eric Cantor] says House might take up balanced-budget amendment next week

"In his late Friday email, Cantor indicated that consideration of other legislation related to the debt ceiling is also 'likely.' He also warned members that a weekend session at the end of next week is 'possible.'"

136

Posted by: JackStraw at July 22, 2011 08:07 PM (TMB3S)

 

The run up to cornell 77 was a great era.

 

137 82 I am heading to another forum for a while. 

Apparently there are a lot of people who cannot listen to someone without totally misinterpreting what was said. 

It's annoying,  and either the people doing this are either complete idiots or they are democrats stirring up trouble.

I will go elsewhere until someone here realizes that Boehner didn't cave,  that he is looking for increased revenue by other means than tax increases,  and that Boehner is telling the truth.

Anyone who is trashing him is either a democrat or simply reflexively trashing him for jollies.

Crap on this.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 22, 2011 07:47 PM (Fo83G)

This.  And I don't blame you.

138 >>Was it Donna heavy? Not bad. And Jerry is in good form.

139 Its hard to avoid the conclusion that President Obama just wants this to never work so he has a campaign issue to use against Republicans.

140 Tawny Kitaen will appear with Bohner on Fox.

But will they be cavorting on the hood of a Jag?

141 I have this conservative-type idea that it's good when people aren't taxed, especially by the feds, and making taxpayers outta 'em is doing a terrible thing to them that shouldn't be done to anybody, especially-especially in light of the extra-Constitutional monstrosity of the gov't by which they'd thereby be taxed.

And there's this other idea I have that's more a pragmatic-accountant sort of idea, where trying to steal money from people with no money gets you no money, so there's no reason to do it—unless you think trying to steal from them, just victimizing them gratuitously, has a moral value that greatly—metaphysically!—exceeds the material value you'd fail to steal from them.

And then also I have this related poll-driven unprincipled idea that it's a poor electoral strategy to scream for taxy vengeance against the only income demographic (more than $0, less than $75k) that supports any conservative-type stuff, like for example not increasing taxes on everybody else besides them.

AMIRITE?

[foreveralone.jpg]

142

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:09 PM (o2lIv)

 

Why haven't you been promoted yet?

143 never mind, interview's out of date, not being aired.

144 Washington Week is unwatchable tonight. So much sucking of Donkey cock it should have been banned by the FCC for bestiality.

145 Is he supposed to be somewhere? He and the Budget Committee are already working on contingency plans. Cantor will call him if/when they have something that needs to be prepared by Wednesday.

No. I just want to hear his voice.

146 Isn't a stuttering clusterfuck of miserable failure, or something to that effect?

*nods*

147

Was it Donna heavy?

In 76 there's a great run where donna has llaringitis (sp?)...three shows, maybe four.  I think it's in July...

148 The media is in full panic mode right now

149 My father was the smartest man I ever knew, and the best negotiator.  His best tactic was to offer a deal, and if it was turned down, he would wait a few days, and offer less money.  He did not make every deal, but when he did, it was a REAL deal.  He would have made mincemeat of Obama about 3 or 4 months ago.  When he made a deal the other person felt lucky they had not gotten less.  To paraphrase Harry Reid, "He had a gift." BTW, I miss him more every day.

150 148 82  This.  And I don't blame you.

Tax reform means broadening the base by lowering rates first, then removing deductions and loopholes. I thought that's what Boehner was discussing? Or did he say something else?

151

How's this for kabuki theatre? From Zip's site

Geithner moves the goalposts: Treasury says August 10th might be drop dead date, Not August 2nd.

152 Chris Wallace - yep, on the stupid soup. The story is or should be - where is the POTUS' plan, where can we see it ON FUCKING PAPER, ON A WEBSITE - ANY WHERE????? Its easy to move the goal post when there is not real goal post.

153 >>In 76 there's a great run where donna has llaringitis (sp?)...three shows, maybe four. I think it's in July... My frat brother in college had a t-shirt that said Donna Must Die. Used to wear it shows and not many people disapproved. You know you suck when people still remember the golden days of 35 years ago when you weren't singing.

154 lol thanks guys.

Yeah, I've ran across some of those shows, but never remember when exactly.

I remember seeing some old concert footage where shes wailing like a banshee, totally off key.. Phil looked at Jerry and rolled his eyes, and Jerry just gave him that smile and kept goin.

155 GOP source: White House wanted that $400b from higher tax rates. That was the death blow

I went out to do some things right after the presser was announced but here's my take on this-- Boehner and Obama likely had something closer to resembling real tax reform until Dem leaders confronted him at the WH yesterday. That's when Obama returned to former demands about tax increases. JMO.

156 Adjoran

Shouldn't you call everyone here names and stomp your widdle feet about how stupid we all are compared to your superhardcore self?

Did you get a new stage manager?

Like the new act.

157 Tax reform means broadening the base by lowering rates first, then removing deductions and loopholes. I thought that's what Boehner was discussing? Or did he say something else?

Boehner mentioned that he and Obama had agreed to $800 bil in "revenue increases" before Jugears pulled the rug out at the last minute in an attempt to get more.  There are all kinds of ways that can be interpreted but I'm not assuming a tax hike is what he meant.

And I'm very tired of the pre-emptive torching of the people who right now are the only hopes we have.  It's thoughtless, stupid, and knee-jerk.

158 It's thoughtless, stupid, and knee-jerk. Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 22, 2011 You are aware this is the internet, are you not? There are toxic, multi-year flame wars over cartoon characters here.

159

@163: "My father was the smartest man I ever knew, and the best negotiator.  His best tactic was to offer a deal, and if it was turned down, he would wait a few days, and offer less money."

That tactic has been illegal, at least in several forms (esp. labor/mgmt talks) for a long, long time.  When legal, it only works if you can absolutely afford to have no deal at all and are also dealing with guys who don't make counteroffers involving your ability to get up and leave the room, see your wife and kids again, or ever eat solid food.

160 Boehner mentioned that he and Obama had agreed to $800 bil in "revenue increases" before Jugears pulled the rug out at the last minute in an attempt to get more.  There are all kinds of ways that can be interpreted but I'm not assuming a tax hike is what he meant.

He specifically mentioned that the additional $400B would tax the folks that we expect to invest and lead us out of the recession. So, yep, I'm guessing the $800B does not. Which, would explain the turnaround by O because I'm certain Nancy and Co. are flipping the fuck out.

161 174 It's thoughtless, stupid, and knee-jerk.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 22, 2011

You are aware this is the internet, are you not?

There are toxic, multi-year flame wars over cartoon characters here.


SHHHHHHHH.. Don't mention the (longbow) War! (I think I did once. but got away with it)

162 Let's call for a little specificity here. Obama is not a dick.

A dick is a hard and purposeful thing, full of life. It has the power to plant children, tickle ladies in a special way that makes them happy, and make a man feel better about his lot in life.

These are not qualities our current president shares.

Maybe if you consistently call him a limp dick, it would be closer.

Lay off the pussy, too. Some of my best friends have been pussies.

163 [COMMENT-DISECTED]

164 173 Boehner mentioned that he and Obama had agreed to $800 bil in "revenue increases" before Jugears pulled the rug out at the last minute in an attempt to get more.  There are all kinds of ways that can be interpreted but I'm not assuming a tax hike is what he meant.

And I'm very tired of the pre-emptive torching of the people who right now are the only hopes we have.  It's thoughtless, stupid, and knee-jerk.


Revenue increases are only synonymous with tax increases if you're a member of the Democratic Party; in other words, they almost always mean tax increases when they say revenue increases. But you can increases revenues in a whole host of ways without ever raising taxes, such as selling government land. The ultimate revenue increaser is flatter tax code that broadens the base and eliminates loopholes and deductions. 

165

Ah, so $800B tax increase now, some sort of somethingorother in spending decrease later?  And that was the "good" option?

Well played, Boner.  Well fucking played.

You're done.  We'll primary your ass right out.

166

It's the Orpheum 76 run in July

...just had to go look at my tape racks...

167 I sure would hate to hurt the feelings of the speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America with anything I said on an internet comment thread.

He may decide that his salary, perks, payoffs, privileges, and prestige are no longer worth the criticism he has to take from an anonymous voter nicknamed sifty he has never and will never meet.

168 There are toxic, multi-year flame wars over cartoon characters here.

And those are just the political threads. 

169 Pelosi apparently said (about an hr ago) that it's time for Boehner to have an adult moment. That woman is just something else...

170 The ultimate revenue increaser is flatter tax code that broadens the base and eliminates loopholes and deductions.

If they can eliminate the tax loophole that allowed Immelt and that fucking klan to get away without paying any taxes, I would be all for it.

171 It seems that the White House isn't denying that Obama had agreed with Boehner on $800B in additional revenue".  And yesterday, Obama insisted on an additional $400B.

But they vehemently deny that they "moved the goal post" as Boehner said. 

This is Obama's idea of keen negotiating skills.

172

Geithner moves the goalposts: Treasury says August 10th might be drop dead date, Not August 2nd.

King Barry I will have his birfday party while Rome burns? Heehee.

 

173 I'll say it again:

We're not categorically opposed to "revenue enhancement".  We are opposed to any revenue enhancements as part of raising the debt limit.

Cuts first.  They show us they're ready to make meaningful cuts (RIGHT NOW!), then maybe we'll talk revenue.

History has not been kind to us.

174 b obama is done
toast history
i don't mind democrats cuz i know their game
but repubs?
 skull fuck this dude
with extreme prejudice
with extreme prejudice

175

Donna Must Die

I want this.

176 And I'm very tired of the pre-emptive torching of the people who right now are the only hopes we have.  It's thoughtless, stupid, and knee-jerk.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 22, 2011 08:22 PM (Rwy5G)

I agree to an extent. However.....there has been much cause in the past to have little faith. I refer you to the last budget deal that had 100 61 38 billion no cuts in it. Plus the lame ducking we took at the end of 2010. Some pessimism is warranted just to keep their feet to the fire in case their aides read our worthless opinions.

177 183 Ah, so $800B tax increase now, some sort of somethingorother in spending decrease later?  And that was the "good" option?

Well played, Boner.  Well fucking played.

You're done.  We'll primary your ass right out.

Did he actually say those were tax increases or revenue increases? If it referred to taxes, what was the context? Are we talking rate-flattening yielding higher revenues, eliminating loopholes, what? You need to look at what he said and determine what that was before jumping to conclusions.

178 184 ah cool!

BTW, I've been checking out this place.. Found some great recordings of the two venues I made it to in the early 90s..

http://www.archive.org/details/GratefulDead

Great stuff!

179 Pelosi apparently said (about an hr ago) that it's time for Boehner to have an adult moment. That woman is just something else...

You know what it's like to get older and everyone else looks like a kid. In her case, she considers anyone under 65 to be a little punk who keeps trampling her petunias.

180 Revenue increases are only synonymous with tax increases if you're a member of the Democratic Party; in other words, they almost always mean tax increases when they say revenue increases. But you can increases revenues in a whole host of ways without ever raising taxes, such as selling government land. The ultimate revenue increaser is flatter tax code that broadens the base and eliminates loopholes and deductions.
Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:27 PM (o2lIv)

Precisely.

As I said to someone else in another thread, it's beyond me why Boehner or any other Republican would listen to the base if it is just going to trash them even when they do what is demanded.

181

I have five kids... more than I should, per some environmentalists/statists. I can say this about where we are. I entered this world in the early 1960's to a fairly prosperous nation with opportunity and hope. Now I fear that I will leave these children with something less than they deserve and were promised. We are on the verge of becoming a footnote in future history books.

We are Americans. We defeated a vastly superior mother nation to win our independence. We fought and survived a mortal civil struggle for our national conscience. Our great-grandparents built our industrial might. Our grandparents struggled through the first great depression and defeated the Nazi/Axis threat to humanity. We were (and still can be) that shining city on the hill. It is up to us to be a second great generation.

This is the time for austerity. This is the time to jetison the preliminary trappings of soft socialism. This is the time to salvage and reconstruct something that the far left has spent years insidiously undermining and redefining. We must stand firm. Write your senators and representatives. Talk to you neighbors and friends. Educate your children. The time to be timid about conservatism is over.

I recall a line from a movie years ago.... WOLVERINES!

 

182 192 Yup.

183 Revenues are down 500B this year from 2007 (in adjusted dollars).  Let's get the economy moving again.

184 This is Obama's idea of keen negotiating skills.

So Barky's response to Boehner was 'Did Not!'

Yes, very adult.

185 192 But why was there any talk of revenue increases, at all?  The problem is spending.  Period.  End of story.

In his bitch session with the press, Barky tried to say that all cuts must be matched by commensurate revenue increases.  Why? What is the connection between the two?  NOTHING.

But, Boehner doesn't seem to understand that, as many of us understood from the beginning.


You don't think reforming the tax code is a good idea that would be beneficial in this environment? Or how about telling the Dems that they can sell land and other things instead of giving them actual tax increases?

Additionally, recall that a number of people wanted Boehner to walk-away from the negotiating table. Well he has, and he didn't agree to the actual tax increases. So why are we condemning him for actually doing the right thing here? That's ridiculous. You got what you wanted.

186 _{Dear Krauthammer:}

Whatever, Ironside. Let me know when you get in a position to make a difference, you elitist poof.


Fuckin Krauthammer changes direction more than my 3yo.

187 Yes, very adult.

I know you are but what am I?!

188

 skull fuck this dude
with extreme prejudice

Boehner showed balls.

+1,000

Fuck Commies.

 

 

 

189 >>Did he actually say those were tax increases or revenue increases? If it referred to taxes, what was the context? Are we talking rate-flattening yielding higher revenues, eliminating loopholes, what? You need to look at what he said and determine what that was before jumping to conclusions. What you outlined up top is exactly what he said. It's what he's been saying since Day 1. It's the same proposal that was in the Republican budget. Grover Norquist came out said that allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire would not be a tax increase. Grover figging Norquist. Boehner disagreed. Boehner has never been for tax increases.

190 188 If they can eliminate the tax loophole that allowed Immelt and that fucking klan to get away without paying any taxes, I would be all for it.

As would I. So why is such a move a bad thing?

191

Did he actually say those were tax increases or revenue increases? If it referred to taxes, what was the context? Are we talking rate-flattening yielding higher revenues, eliminating loopholes, what? You need to look at what he said and determine what that was before jumping to conclusions.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:31 PM (o2lIv)

He was very careful to make a distinction between revenue increases of the type you refer to (which he understood to be the deal) and revenue increases from raising taxes on the rich (which he claims obama brought out of nowhere at the last minute).

192 47% pay no taxes?  Ha.

Actually, everyone pays taxes.  It's 47% who don't pay income taxes.

193 true story
 my first love was in san diego and when i walked her home she pointed to the house next door
" guess who lives there?
 me.. " mm, who"
 her"tawny kitaen"
 me" kiss me u fool""

194 Grover Norquist came out said that allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire would not be a tax increase. Grover figging Norquist. Boehner disagreed.

The same Grover Norquist that just came out and said he supports lifting the debt ceiling through the 2012 elections?

195 He was very careful to make a distinction between revenue increases of the type you refer to (which he understood to be the deal) and revenue increases from raising taxes on the rich (which he claims obama brought out of nowhere at the last minute).

Yup, standard underhanded negotiation technique - build a deal that both sides can agree to, then slip one more thing in and dare the other side to tear down the entire deal over one little thing.  Car dealers do this sort of thing all the time - at the end, they throw in "so do you want the extended warranty?  It will only add $10 to your payment...  Besides, you love the car, don't you? ..."

196 Replace refundable tax credits with bigger tax deductions.

197 He was very careful to make a distinction between revenue increases of the type you refer to (which he understood to be the deal) and revenue increases from raising taxes on the rich (which he claims obama brought out of nowhere at the last minute).

That is what I heard as well.

198 209 What you outlined up top is exactly what he said. It's what he's been saying since Day 1. It's the same proposal that was in the Republican budget.

Grover Norquist came out said that allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire would not be a tax increase. Grover figging Norquist. Boehner disagreed.

Boehner has never been for tax increases.


Yes, Paul Ryan has been incredically clear on that point and on the proper way to go about reforming the tax code. I would love for a flatter tax system for both individuals and corporations.

As for Grover Norquist, I was honestly shocked when I heard about that, because it doesn't make any sense. Why does Norquist think that removing loopholes and subsidies counts as a tax increase but letting tax cuts expire isn't? Like I said, that's contradictory to me.

Lastly, with regards to Boehner, the Conference would never have accepted tax increases and Cantor has made it clear he wouldn't either. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about Boehner accepting actual tax increases unless I see proof.

199 Boehner should have offered to throw some floor mats into the deal.

200 I actually would be okay with getting rid of some deductions, especially deductions which incentivize bad behavior (i.e., the "hybrid car" deduction which just encourages people to rush into debt for a car they can't really afford) but I have to know that I'm GETTING SOMETHING FOR IT if I do.  "Cuts over ten years" means nothing.

201 I came back to check on things and see that you moron types do not get it yet.

How can we increase revenues other than raising taxes?  By selling government property, by removing certain tax credits (like the stupid energy ones), by increasing the number of employed people, by asking for donations from tools like Warren Buffett, etc.

I am sick to death of knee-jerk ranters who don't know a damn thing about this stuff just mindlessly trashing Boehner and posing as tough guys.  GET OVER YOURSELVES!!

What is the point of trashing the only guy who is actually doing something?  Are YOU having to stand up to Obama?

Yes,  I know this is an internet forum,  but the people on talk radio and staffers on The Hill read this.  And when they read it,  they ALSO start attacking boehner,  and the staffers and eventually the Congress gets demoralized,  and then they think " What the hell, they hate us no matter what we do!"

STOP IT!  You are not smarter than the average bear, you are not dealing directly with crazy Obama, and it is despicable to trash the guy who is leading the fight.

I am beyond pissed at this. 

Rant over.  Going to go watch a movie and hope my blood pressure goes down.

202 211 He was very careful to make a distinction between revenue increases of the type you refer to (which he understood to be the deal) and revenue increases from raising taxes on the rich (which he claims obama brought out of nowhere at the last minute).

So what's the problem?

203 As would I. So why is such a move a bad thing?

Beats the hell out of me.

204 220 Boehner should have offered to throw some floor mats into the deal.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 22, 2011 08:40 PM (GTbGH)

lol - and don't forget the spoilers!

205 Pelosi could use a Botox injection here and there.

206 Rant over.  Going to go watch a movie and hope my blood pressure goes down.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 22, 2011 08:41 PM (Fo83G)

Stay in it, gal! There are both sides of the argument being bandied about here. If this is causing you to stroke out, the 2012 campaign is going to be downright deadly!

Hang in there.

207 Pelosi could use a Botox injection here and there.

Posted by: ErikW at July 22, 2011 08:42 PM (doTYI)

I hope one of those places is her tongue.

208 Undercoating.  Gratis.

209 222 I came back to check on things and see that you moron types do not get it yet.

How can we increase revenues other than raising taxes?  By selling government property, by removing certain tax credits (like the stupid energy ones), by increasing the number of employed people, by asking for donations from tools like Warren Buffett, etc...


I think it's because the Dems use the two terms synonymously and they've been accepted into the lexicon as such.

Hang in there, Miss Marple.

210

You don't think reforming the tax code is a good idea that would be beneficial in this environment?

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:35 PM (o2lIv)

Well, of course I think tax reform is a good idea, but I fear it can be manipulated in this situation. I would love closing the loopholes, simplifying things drastically, and enacting a flat tax, putting armies of tax attorneys out of work. But what I think/fear is going to happen is just closing some loopholes, and then not otherwise doing anything in good faith to otherwise simplify the code or implement a flat tax, so that the end result is basically nothing but a tax increase. Same story as with the tax-increases-in-concrete-now/spending-cuts-in-theory-negotiated-later trick they've been pulling for decades. Point being, after the 'tax reform' they talk about, i'm pretty sure the code will still be just as complicated as it's ever been and not a single tax attorney will have to fear for his living, the only change will be more money flowing into DC from businessmen who already pay through the nose.

Or am I completely wrong? Been known to happen, though this isn't a leap year.

211 The fact that we don't know what Boehner meant by "revenue increases" in his speech should tell you something.

Are these leadership pricks charged by the word for TV time? Lay this shit out. Take some time and lay... it... out...

Quit saying "revenue" when you mean tax. Say "put more people to work" if that's what you mean.

The fact that we don't know exactly what he meant means he didn't really say anything. We pay this guy to be clear about this.

Smart people here are arguing over what the man said and meant.

That aint good.

He's the champion we have pushed into the arena to fight in a fight that could decide whether the United States continues as we know it.
A little clarity about how the fight is going isn't too much to ask for from our champion.

Fuck John Boehner's widdle feelings. Other public servants are in foreign lands tonight getting shot at and blown up. He can take the pressure from teh internets or he can retire.

212

STOP IT!  You are not smarter than the average bear

Not sure you are correct, there... are we talking Black or Brown Bear?

213 232 Well, of course I think tax reform is a good idea, but I fear it can be manipulated in this situation. I would love closing the loopholes, simplifying things drastically, and enacting a flat tax, putting armies of tax attorneys out of work. But what I think/fear is going to happen is just closing some loopholes, and then not otherwise doing anything in good faith to otherwise simplify the code or implement a flat tax, so that the end result is basically nothing but a tax increase...


I understand, because that's been the case historically, but I think the fiscal cons within the party are serious about real reform of the tax code. It would have been/will be difficult to do with the modern Democratic Party, but even the Gang of 6 acknowledged that we need to lower rates. If the Canadians can do it, we can.

214

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 22, 2011 08:41 PM (Fo83G)

Well, I can understand how some people treat everyone in DC with pretty much equal levels of disgust, it's not like they've earned a lot of honor with their dealings over the years.  But this is one time Boehner deserves some credit, it would have been very easy for him to just cave and take the deal but he did not.

215 >>Or am I completely wrong? Been known to happen, though this isn't a leap year. Boehner's proposal called for the elimination of loopholes and deductions and lowering tax rates at the same time.

216 223 211 He was very careful to make a distinction between revenue increases of the type you refer to (which he understood to be the deal) and revenue increases from raising taxes on the rich (which he claims obama brought out of nowhere at the last minute).

So what's the problem?

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:41 PM (o2lIv)

Hey, I'm not piling on Boehner today!  Oh, sorry, should rephrase that in Obama-speak to connect with the people: I'm not pilin' on.

I think he outclassed the President by several orders of magnitude this afternoon.

217 How sad is it that mom called and said "jewells I don't understand any of this, it's too complicated for this old lady".  I said mom, I can only tell you one thing I know you will understand.  If you don't get your SS check, you can blame Obama, cuz the money is there.  Don't be fooled.  But really, isn't it a sad state of affairs right now?  Why has it come to this?

218 What's the #1 strategic goal?   Defeating this douchebag in 2012.

Well, then...you obviously weren't watching Juan Williams on that horrible new show, The Five, tonight.  When asked if he thought Obama was going to win in 2012...he quickly declared it will be a "cake walk."  Delusion, thy name is Juan.

219 @212, yeah, those who work do pay payroll taxes, which are promptly cancelled out by the EITC.

Not necessarily arguing that those in lower half of income earners need to pay more taxes or anyhing (since they all catch the five hundred different fees, sales taxes, excise taxes, sin taxes, passed through taxes on corporations, etc etc etc), just pointing out that many of those who pay payroll taxes do end up still getting more than they put in every year.

220

Posted by: sifty at July 22, 2011 08:45 PM (ECjvn)

Exactly!!  Quit trying to be cute by half.  Just spell it out in precise terms we can all understand.

221 But really, isn't it a sad state of affairs right now?  Why has it come to this?

It is the Anti-Grover-Norquist strategy played by the left.

Grover Norquist strategy: Cut taxes so much so as to create the perceived inevitability of cutting spending to match revenues.
Anti-Grover-Norquist strategy: Raise spending so much so as to create the perceived inevitability of raising taxes to match the spending.

We can't let them get away with this.  If they win on it this time, they will just keep on doing it forever.

222 >>If they can eliminate the tax loophole that allowed Immelt and that fucking klan to get away without paying any taxes, I would be all for it.<<

How can anyone trust the Congress to write legislation that accomplishes what they say is intended?  What record do they have of doing that?

I'm pretty sure that any attempt to close loopholes on very wealthy people would somehow increase my taxes.  I'm just a little guy, but I have a small business, and when Obama talks about the "rich" in this country, he means me.  And everyone else who doesn't work for someone else.

No new taxes of any kind whatsoever.  And if Immelt continues to get rich, I don't care.

223

 "jewells I don't understand any of this, it's too complicated for this old lady".

 

Give her Miss Marple's number...she's smart enough to understand it all, apparently. 

224 240 How sad is it that mom called and said "jewells I don't understand any of this, it's too complicated for this old lady".  I said mom, I can only tell you one thing I know you will understand.  If you don't get your SS check, you can blame Obama, cuz the money is there.  Don't be fooled.  But really, isn't it a sad state of affairs right now?  Why has it come to this?


Gridlock. The gridlock is as bad as it's been in a long time and the liberals don't want to yield an inch of their agenda. If they make certain concessions, it means losing their grip on power, and class warfare and dependence are all they have. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is trying to find it's identity. I think a number of lawmakers-- more reps than senators-- want to do the right thing here, but they're divided as to what that thing is and how we get there. Overall, though, I fear we're paying for decades of things that are wrong with our infrastructure, political system, government, and a whole host of other things. The bill is due.  

225 Anyone who thinks GE or any other big Obama donor is going to come out of this deal paying more in taxes before the next election is fooling themselves.

226 i sat in my barn today and flat out cried. This is what i feared when that guy got elected. Its playing out as stupidly as i was terrified it would be. '10 assuaged my fears some but im not sure my digestion wont be permanently wreaked by all this. The man came off as slightly unhinged to me in that presser, but somehow the press will spin him as great. I really wonder if those 52% are on crazy pills.

227 OT: from VG.no translated "Breivik established firm GeoFrame in 2009, and stated that the company should engage in the cultivation of vegetables, roots and tubers. The company in this industry you can get access to large amounts of fertilizer."

228

Posted by: Gushka posting for Aurochs at July 22, 2011 08:53 PM (QNeKQ)

Man, I hate to burst your bubble, but this is only the beginning.

229 Obama's cracking up. The dark, hidden side has emerged for all to see. It isn't pretty.

230 Here is the full text of Boehner's letter to his colleagues:

Dear Colleague,

It's too long to post in its entirety.

231 Obama's handlers and puppet-masters will never agree to let Obama negotiate in a candid forum.

They know that listening to him in real-time without a teleprompter and careful choreography would cause such a crisis of faith by the US public and around the world that it would be a danger to national security.

232 Maybe its GeoFarm

233 80's baby- believe me I have tried to explain alot of it to her but at 81, she's just doesn't get it.  She said tonight.. "what's wrong with these men in Washington.. their wives need to get on their asses and tell them to knock it off".  I just LOL'd.

234 candid = candid and televised

235 Overall, though, I fear we're paying for decades of things that are wrong with our infrastructure, political system, government, and a whole host of other things. The bill is due.  

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:53 PM (o2lIv)

Yep. You can't have the 1970s and then not expect the good lord to get some payback.

So, dumb question: considering how unpopular Obamacare is, why wouldn't it be a good idea to offer a deal that gives Obama and the dems everything they want in this negotiation, ie raising the debt-ceiling past the election, 1:1 cuts to tax increases or even worse, anything, except demand the repeal of Obamacare? We could have even said it's not about endangering present entitlements, just getting rid of a brand new extremely unpopular one that was passed against the nation's will anyway. How could the MSM have spun that one against us? I know Bachmann favored this, but what's the moderate GOP reason for not bringing - excuse me, bringin' - it up?

236 >>Here is the full text of Boehner's letter to his colleagues: <<

It reads like something an adult would write.

237 Obama's cracking up. The dark, hidden side has emerged for all to see. It isn't pretty.

Concur, but this is where the msm steps in to spin his insanity into some kind of genius.  And nearly half the people will believe it.  They see him as "sticking it to the man."  Therefore, his crazed pressers and completely unpresidential manner come off as some kind of sick win in their minds. 

238 251

Posted by: Gushka posting for Aurochs at July 22, 2011 08:53 PM (QNeKQ)

Man, I hate to burst your bubble, but this is only the beginning.

Posted by: jewells45 at July 22, 2011 08:55 PM (Z71Vg)

why do you think i cried?

also there had to be a reason my guy left me with the Aurochs as a no sex professional badass husband stand in,  while he got deployed this time... and i know it.  Last time, he felt like leaving me by myself was just peachy and i would be perfectly safe living quite alone.

I read history. I dont like where i see this going. Balkanization, propaganda, scapegoating, debt, inflation, militarized police and a leader longing to make decisions all alone lead to one thing that they are already talking about... trains.

239 Good letter from Boehner. I commend him.


_{Because of Washington}

This phrase is used several times in the letter.

I would prefer he start using the phrase "because of us in congress and the President".

240 Posted by: Gushka posting for Aurochs at July 22, 2011 08:53 PM (QNeKQ) We're with ya there in spirit, Gushka. I think maybe the Oproblem is that they're *not* on pills they should be.

241 Obama 'Moved the Goal Post':

"...When the president demanded the $400 billion in additional revenue through tax increases, Boehner said he had to 'back away from the tree and take a look at the forest.' After consulting with his Republican colleagues all day, he decided to pull out of the talks.

Boehner said 'an agreement had been reached' earlier in the week that included about $800 billion in new revenue (but not through raising increases). However, the White House on Thursday 'moved the goal post' by insisting on an additional $400 billion in tax increases, which Boehner refused to accept."

So the $800B was not by raising increases. There you go.

242 O/T VG has received confirmation from several independent sources that it was Anders Behring Breivik, who was arrested by armed police after the mass killings of Utøya Friday. http://tinyurl.com/3vukaha

243 This is what the Pubbies need to say.  The first couple of parts are obvious but the last is a little devious.

1: The Republicans have offered a plan supported across the entire political spectrum and all it needs is for the president to act like an adult and convince 4 Democrat Senators to come aboard. No other plans are even in existence and Obama has still not EVER put forth a budget... not when he was a professional rabble rouser and not in the two years since he has been in office.  There is no time for another plan and there is no reason for one when the American people want this one.

2: There is enough money to pay entitlements, defense and the debt in the event of a shutdown.  If Obama doesn't send out the checks that will be because he has determined something else is a higher priority.  This needs to be the stock answer when asked if checks will go out.

3:  And here's the devious part.  The Republicans can then say that they are sure the president could prioritize the SS checks based on some form of means testing so that the ones who need them most will receive them if Obama wanted to use the rest of the money for other purposes.  The Democrats know that if means testing is ever made part of SS (perhaps even just temporarily) then support for the program will crumble.

4:  Having said all of this the Republicans can then sit back and agree to nothing other than their plan or a shutdown.  Let Obama pick his poison.

Our part would be to provide the pressure to get the last 4 votes once Obama crumbles.  As much as he hates working and making decisions I don't see Obama wanting to take on the responsibility of deciding which bills to pay and taking the heat that goes along with it.  Not even with the press running interference for him.  Means testing would be such an obvious and obviously fair way to decide which checks go out that it would be difficult for him to avoid it if push came to shove. 

The downside would be that if Obama did sign a balanced budget amendment he might just get a second term.  But that would be worth the trade in my mind since we would have effectively tied his hands for the duration.  The catch being that the states would have to approve the amendment which would be all sorts of sweet for Republicans at the state level since it is such a good issue for them.  It would be the main issue in every gubernatorial election in states that didn't pass it.

Speaking of which.  There is no reason the state legislatures can't start promoting this exact balanced budget amendment now.  This would help build pressure and would be hard for the press to ignore. AZ and TX could be first up.  If Perry were smart that would be how he would start his campaign.  With luck he could sign it as governor and then sign it as president.

Ok, that is my wet dream.  What are yours?

244
Let me tell you about this guy I know, Barry. Mean kid, bad seed, hurt people.  You know what the problem was? He got sloppy, then crazy. He started to lose it. He had a head full of bad wiring, I guess. Couldn't keep him straight up here. He was a kind of guy who couldn't hear a train until it was two feet from him. You know what happens now, Barry? Well, he made mistakes and he ended WITH HIS LIGHTS OUT!! YOU WANNA GET NUTS?!! COME ON, LET'S GET NUTS!!

245

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:53 PM (o2lIv)

The fact that you have not been promoted to cob-logger status is a puzzle.  Posts are informative, clear, concise & thoughtful.  The powers that be should get on it.

246 256 80's baby- believe me I have tried to explain alot of it to her but at 81, she's just doesn't get it.  She said tonight.. "what's wrong with these men in Washington.. their wives need to get on their asses and tell them to knock it off".  I just LOL'd.


I wish they would, I really wish they would. But the national Democratic Party is now filled by ideologues who are not men and women of ideas but (rather) people who cannot win without controlling the populace. So they are unyielding in that desire and that's unfortunately the way it is. What else can I say?

247
Boehner said 'an agreement had been reached' earlier in the week that included about $800 billion in new revenue (but not through raising increases). However, the White House on Thursday 'moved the goal post' by insisting on an additional $400 billion in tax increases, which Boehner refused to accept."

So the $800B was not by raising increases. There you go.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:02 PM (o2lIv)

This was made very clear in Boehner's press conference, though admittedly he did not specify what kinds of new revenue, maybe that's where some confusion is coming from. But I don't know why anyone who watched would dispute this.

248 No hope.  No change.  No nuthin'. Nobody with a grain of sense in Washington, except maybe Jim De Mint.

249 270  Let me tell you about this guy I know, Barry. Mean kid, bad seed, hurt people.  You know what the problem was? He got sloppy, then crazy. He started to lose it. He had a head full of bad wiring, I guess. Couldn't keep him straight up here. He was a kind of guy who couldn't hear a train until it was two feet from him. You know what happens now, Barry? Well, he made mistakes and he ended WITH HIS LIGHTS OUT!! YOU WANNA GET NUTS?!! COME ON, LET'S GET NUTS!!
Posted by: john boehner at July 22, 2011 09:04 PM (GTbGH)

Thread winner.

250

Posted by: john boehner at July 22, 2011 09:04 PM (GTbGH)

Yeah that pretty much sums him up.  One thing he didn't count on.  The tea party.  Boy, that really messed up his plans.

251 I'm pretty sure that any attempt to close loopholes on very wealthy people would somehow increase my taxes.

Not individuals, corporations. And not all corporations...just the shits like G.E.

Immelt=G.E. in my eyes.

252 Roll Call: DCCC already fundraising off Boehner walking away - "This is inexcusable," Robby Mook says, asking for $3 donations

253 Concur, but this is where the msm steps in to spin his insanity into some kind of genius.  And nearly half the people will believe it.  They see him as "sticking it to the man."  Therefore, his crazed pressers and completely unpresidential manner come off as some kind of sick win in their minds. 

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 22, 2011 09:01 PM (EIlEQ)

In totally unrelated news on Kos - Breaking: Obama FINALLY sticks it to the GOP

 

They are so twisted.

254 More on what happened tonight

255 So what do you think the MSM would do now if some crazy lefty blew up a corporate jet?

256

Yeah that pretty much sums him up.  One thing he didn't count on.  The tea party.  Boy, that really messed up his plans.

Posted by: jewells45 at July 22, 2011 09:07 PM (Z71Vg)

Don't forget his digs at talk radio.  At least two during his presser.

Can't wait for Rush on Monday.

257 JB has already shown that he has negotiated against how own plan by saying he would go 800billion in additional revenues vs 1.2 trillion in debt increases. I'm just a layman here but I don't think that excites the credit agencies on iota, I can't see them not downgrading us with that deal.

258 282 So what do you think the MSM would do now if some crazy lefty blew up a corporate jet?

Give a crazy shout-out to some random Medicine Man?  That's all I've got.

259 281 More on what happened tonight

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:11 PM (o2lIv)

Who, above all, does America associate with Jell-O? Bill Cosby. Clearly, Boehner is using veiled racist imagery!

260 Closing tax loopholes on businesses right now ought to be just the thing to get us to $5.00/gallon milk and $5.00/ gallon gasoline.

Just the prescription the working family scraping by on $35,000 / year needs to improve morale.

261 the gop better not cave....assholes...

262 Here is my question - if the $800B in "revenue" that Boehner agreed to is all good - not new taxes - then what is wrong with $1.2B? This is the thing that pisses me off so much about this crap is that they think we are stupid. If you tell me that you are agreeing to $800B and you really didn't want to but it was the price of getting a deal and that it was the only way to make it happen, and you were getting something in return for your giving in, that's one thing. But if you say, yeah, I agreed to $800B, its a good thing, really, then I don't get balking at more. That means that the $800B is good line is just bullshit.

263 Isn't Rush friendly with Boehner? Or did he just play golf with him a few times?

264 Obama's cracking up. The dark, hidden side has emerged for all to see. It isn't pretty.

His administration has long reminded me of the scene in The Devil's Advocate where Theron's character is at a boutique, trying on clothes, and catches a glimpse of the demons hidden within her friends.

Scary shit then, scary shit now.

265

... But the national Democratic Party is now filled by ideologues who are not men and women of ideas but (rather) people who cannot win without controlling the populace. So they are unyielding in that desire ...

Remember that many Blue Dog / moderate Congressional Dems in competitive districts got flushed out in the 2010 elections because of their ObamaCare votes.  Hard core prog idealogues in safe districts are the core of the Dem roster now.  You know, concentrated ass-hattery.

266 That means that the $800B is good line is just bullshit.

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:17 PM (Fw2Gg)

The additional $400B that Bambi wants IS new taxes.

267 281 More on what happened tonight

So Cantor and Boehner have been showing much more spine than they've been given credit for. Barky must have steam coming out his ears about now.

And, wow, WaPo.

268 290 Here is my question - if the $800B in "revenue" that Boehner agreed to is all good - not new taxes - then what is wrong with $1.2B?

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:17 PM (Fw2Gg)

Because the extra 400B was specifically in new higher taxes on job creators, ie completely different from the first 800B. There is a difference, Boehner noted it repeatedly. That's the whole reason the talks broke down, because Obama decided to insist on that last minute.

269 I've had all the dreadful news from Norway and pissy Barky pressers I can stand for one day life.

I'm off to bury my head in a novel and drown out this crappy world.

'night, all.

270 _{I agreed to $800B, its a good thing, really, then I don't get balking at more.}

Right.
If Boehner got $800 billion without raising taxes, couldn't he get to $1.2 trillion (can't even believe I have to write that word) without raising taxes?

271 We do have some pretty smart bears around here, that's true Miss M.

But til I see one walking around carrying a Remington 870, let's just say that that particular debate is no contest.

_{However if Holder's DOJ thought they could somehow undermine the 2nd Amendment by arming bears......}

272 293 Remember that many Blue Dog / moderate Congressional Dems in competitive districts got flushed out in the 2010 elections because of their ObamaCare votes.  Hard core prog idealogues in safe districts are the core of the Dem roster now.  You know, concentrated ass-hattery.

It's also a shame that so many of the true conservative Democrats like Dan Boren and a few of the others who voted for CCB have been forced outside the party. I read that Pelosi punished some of those who voted against her for minority leader, too. Then we have men like Chuck Schumer, who loudly brag that they prevented a few concerned colleagues from producing a final budget because it would paint a target on their backs and they need to focus on Mediscare so that they can win big in 2012. That's all they care about now, is the liberal agenda and winning elections.

273 290 Here is my question - if the $800B in "revenue" that Boehner agreed to is all good - not new taxes - then what is wrong with $1.2B?

It depends on what the "revenue increases" involve.  I would assume that whatever deal they had worked out that would have worked at a figure of $800 bil was blown all to hell when Jugears decided to be a Dick at the last minute and demanded $1.2 T.

274 Just to be clear:

I am very happy that JB walked out.

Glad the deal was not struck.

I just think there are shenanigans and theater going on.

275 295 281 So Cantor and Boehner have been showing much more spine than they've been given credit for. Barky must have steam coming out his ears about now.

And, wow, WaPo.


It's Jennifer Rubin. They gave her a column so that she could provide one of the few conservative Republican viewpoints in the paper. Can't let people think you're completely liberal, you know.

276 Mr. Speaker, Naziwhowantstokillgrandmasayswhat?

277 Does he look like him?

278 Go see Captain America if you can.

It's worth it.

279 Because the extra 400B was specifically in new higher taxes on job creators, ie completely different from the first 800B. There is a difference, Boehner noted it repeatedly. That's the whole reason the talks broke down, because Obama decided to insist on that last minute. Posted by: Adrian at July 22, 2011 09:20 PM (PY4xx) Really? Here is what Jennifer Rubin - who is actually a conservative person writing about conservatives at the Post - said: According to Boehner, Obama upped the revenue figure at the last moment. So which is it? Are the "revenues" all good? Or is it only the revenues that Boehner agreed to are good? I think Boehner is covering his ass by saying that the new "revenues" aren't taxes. Let me see if I can get a transcript.

280 Because the extra 400B was specifically in new higher taxes on job creators, ie completely different from the first 800B. There is a difference, Boehner noted it repeatedly.

I still had blood shooting out of my ears at that point and missed that part.

If this is so, then good for him for standing firm.

281 Right.
If Boehner got $800 billion without raising taxes, couldn't he get to $1.2 trillion (can't even believe I have to write that word) without raising taxes?

Posted by: sifty at July 22, 2011 09:21 PM (ECjvn)

It wasn't a question of just getting to 1.2T, it was specifically getting there by deliberate tax increases. It's not like Obama said, let's close some more loopholes and lower rates and broaden the base to work the laffer curve and get 400B more, it's that he outright demanded the extra 400B be reached via tax increases. (incidentally, that 400B in tax increases would then reduce the initial 800B anyway since the economy would be hurt and closing loopholes wouldn't matter as much, so it's a doubly bad suggestion)

282 Raising anyone's taxes, business or citizen, right now is poison.

Cut it all. Start the engine.

283 I think Boehner is covering his ass by saying that the new "revenues" aren't taxes.

Let me see if I can get a transcript.

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:25 PM (Fw2Gg) 

But he's not saying that.  The additional $400B that Obama tacked on at the last minute are $400B of new taxes.  The $800B are non tax revenues.

284 blech.

I gotta go hug my kid.

This shit sucks the life out of me.

285 I still had blood shooting out of my ears at that point and missed that part.

If this is so, then good for him for standing firm.

He said that the $400B was specifically directed at the job creators that we need to lead us out of the recession(pp).

286 That's all they care about now, is the liberal agenda and winning elections.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:22 PM (o2lIv)

Concur.  Damn the country, full speed ahead on the agenda!

287 where are they getting this revenue?  Everywhere I read is leading me to believe that the dems when they put up their entitlement programs bake the "revenue" to fund them into the cake for all eternity and they are untouchable.  So where is this money coming from?  Are they going to make DC government smaller?  Are they going to completely defund the military?  They already finished the space program, don't need to fund that.  They're closing tons of data centers, no need to fund that.  So where is it coming from?

288 Really? Here is what Jennifer Rubin - who is actually a conservative person writing about conservatives at the Post - said:

According to Boehner, Obama upped the revenue figure at the last moment.


So which is it? Are the "revenues" all good? Or is it only the revenues that Boehner agreed to are good? I think Boehner is covering his ass by saying that the new "revenues" aren't taxes.

Let me see if I can get a transcript.

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:25 PM (Fw2Gg)

Hey, I could be wrong, could be delusional, but that's what I heard Boehner say, more than once. I'm not talking about Rubin, but about what Boehner said.

289 298 Right.
If Boehner got $800 billion without raising taxes, couldn't he get to $1.2 trillion (can't even believe I have to write that word) without raising taxes?

He could have, but Obama obviously didn't want to go there. The Dem leaders and their caucuses were furious yesterday and they said publicly that Obama needed to push tax increases. No revenue increases, but straight tax increases. I'm sure they repeated the message when they went to see him for 2hrs yesterday, too. That's likely why they were silent after last night's meeting.

290 "One thing he didn't count on. The tea party. Boy, that really messed up his plans." The real problem for Obama is that Alinsky doesn't have a rules to handle the Tea Party.

291 Raising anyone's taxes, business or citizen, right now is poison.

Cut it all. Start the engine.

There are some individuals and entities that should be paying at least SOME taxes and G.E. is one of them. And, I feel certain, that at least a small portion of that 47% of individuals who pay nothing should be paying SOMETHING as well.

292 That's all they care about now, is the liberal agenda and winning elections.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:22 PM (o2lIv)

Don't need to look further than what they did to Joe Lieberman, a decent and honorable and very liberal man, who just wasn't rabidly partisan enough, so they did their best to destroy him.

293  I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about Boehner accepting actual tax increases unless I see proof.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 08:40 PM (o2lIv)

Given Boehner's recent history, and his categorical denials on national radio yesterday, at which time he said nothing about Revenue increases at all, I'm not taking the leap of faith that you and some others are. This guy has been a terrible bust as Speaker.

Bet you a six pack of your favorite he caves and gives BArky tax inceases in exchange for promises of great things in the future. We'll know soon. And I know a squish when I see one.

294 It's Jennifer Rubin.

Ah, should have noticed that.

295 AsIf@292: Ashley Judd, not Charlize Theron, in Devil's Advocate.

296 AsIf@292: Ashley Judd, not Charlize Theron, in Devil's Advocate.

Nope. Charlize Theron.

297 The Dem leaders and their caucuses were furious yesterday and they said publicly that Obama needed to push tax increases. No revenue increases, but straight tax increases. I'm sure they repeated the message when they went to see him for 2hrs yesterday, too. That's likely why they were silent after last night's meeting.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:29 PM (o2lIv)

I trust your analysis of this is correct, but then why would Boehner make such a show of saying he's going to deal with the congressional Dem leaders? If the problem wasn't Obama, but was congressional Dems, why not make that clear, instead of giving the impression like he did that he's frustrated by the Prez and so will continue negotiations only with congressional Dems?

298 Given Boehner's recent history, and his categorical denials on national radio yesterday, at which time he said nothing about Revenue increases at all, I'm not taking the leap of faith that you and some others are.

I don't know what he said yesterday, but the idea of raising revenue through sales of government property, tax enforcement and the like has been coming out of Boehner's camp for a while, including the point about it not coming from tax increases.  I recall correcting curious when she posted a claim that the GOP was going to raise taxes last week. 

299 328 AsIf@292: Ashley Judd, not Charlize Theron, in Devil's Advocate.

Nope. Charlize Theron.

Posted by: As If... at July 22, 2011 09:34 PM (piMMO)

Can't we fantasize about both and call it a wash?

300 There's not enough tension in this thread.

I could bring some. Ready...?

Per Breaking News Twitter --

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says as a states rights supporter he is OK with gay marriage in NY

301

Don't need to look further than what they did to Joe Lieberman, a decent and honorable and very liberal man, who just wasn't rabidly partisan enough, so they did their best to destroy him.

Posted by: Adrian at July 22, 2011 09:31 PM

Lieberman backs Israel and the dems don't mind if Israel goes away.  Or how it goes away.

302 House GOP Conference meeting report from this morning

Boehner also held a presser this morning in which he yelled at the end. Need to find that.

303 I have to give Boehner and the Republican's credit. I swore they would have caved long ago.

304 Can't we fantasize about both and call it a wash?

Have at it!

305 Boehner, next time he meets with you just grab him by the throat and shake him like the annoying baby he is.

306 Bet you a six pack of your favorite he caves and gives BArky tax inceases in exchange for promises of great things in the future. We'll know soon. And I know a squish when I see one.

Fair enough.
But, if there aren't tax increases, will you give him some credit?  And maybe, you know, end the "going third party" threats?

307 link

308 It doesn't matter if the forced revenue increases were from taxation of sales of assets.  It doesn't matter because neither should have been part of the debt limit discussion.  This isn't very complicated. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 22, 2011 09:33 PM (G/MYk)

This.  My point exactly from earlier.  This is about the debt ceiling.  And there's no reason at all - when we're holding aces given the circumstances - to discuss revenue enhancements at all.

We all know that we can't make any sort of long term deal with this guy and his democrat buddies.  They fuck us every chance they get.

309 338 link

Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 22, 2011 09:37 PM (JNGHp)

States' rights? What the?!

310 57 I have no problem with increasing "revenue".  47% of these M'CKERS! are not paying ANY taxes.  EVERY G'DAMN MUTHER F'ING AMERCIAN NEEDS TO PAY SOME G'DAMN TAXES!!!  It doesn't have to be much, but everyone has to have some skin in the game.
Posted by: USNA1985 at July 22, 2011 07:39 PM (U3TDy)

This should be repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated.  It cannot be said enough. 

Not only do the magic 47% not pay taxes, they get money from the government because they don't pay taxes or some such nonsense.  How in hell does one get an "earned income credit" (known in Britain as the dole) without actually earning any income?  

P.S.   Beat Army. 

311 Rick Perry says as a states rights supporter he is OK with gay marriage in NY

Did he call them sissies though?  Seriously, I'm fine with that, as long as neither my state nor the Feds are forced to recognize them.  I have as much concern about what they do in New York as I do what happens in France. 

As long as they keep it there.

312 Texas Gov. Rick Perry says as a states rights supporter he is OK with gay marriage in NY

Meh.  He's governor of Texas.  What would you expect him to say? 

When he becomes a candidate, I would be more interested to hear what he thinks about how this administration has approached DOMA. 

313 329 I trust your analysis of this is correct, but then why would Boehner make such a show of saying he's going to deal with the congressional Dem leaders? If the problem wasn't Obama, but was congressional Dems, why not make that clear, instead of giving the impression like he did that he's frustrated by the Prez and so will continue negotiations only with congressional Dems?


That's an interesting point. The primary reason may be because he needs something to pass both houses that he can use to pressure Obama. Working with just the party leaders instead of Obama ensures that they can have these fight between themselves instead of having Obama, Bill Daley, Geithner, and others looking over their shoulders. Too many people involved in this process anyway.

/I need to mull this one over more since this is such a complex situation.

314 Feeling better.

Hearing that 3 year old son say "I love you too, Daddy" makes up for all this garbage. Instant recharge.

315

In no way, no shape, no form, whatsoever ... are revenue increases any part of this debate.  Not asset sales.  Not tax increases.  Not rental fees ... Nothing.  This is about cutting spending.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 22, 2011 09:41 PM (G/MYk)

While I agree with you completely, apparently that's not an option at this point.

316 _{The talk about raising the debt limit should involve nothing but how many cuts are going to be made.}

This.

317 Okay, found the transcript. It's all bullshit, and here is why. The President said this: "What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base." The President is saying that he's not raising taxes - using the same words that Boehner is using about the $800B. EXCEPT - that further in the press conference, Obama says this: "Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan thatÂ’s been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me whoÂ’ve done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more. In other words, if you donÂ’t have revenues, the entire thing ends up being tilted on the backs of the poor and middle-class families. And the majority of Americans donÂ’t agree on that approach." This is the same damn rhetoric that he used when he was talking about raising taxes. But now he's saying he isn't raising taxes. He's just getting more revenue. Which is EXACTLY what Boehner is saying. But somehow he is trying to draw a distinction between the $800B and its elimination of loopholes and deductions and reforming and broadening, and the $1.2T and its elimination of loopholes and deductions and reforming and broadening. Like I said, Boehner is covering his ass, and anyone who wants to carry GOP water and say "well he said X" - guess what, the President is also saying X. Explain to me why Boehner agreeing to $800B in new revenues is something I should be excited about and support, but no effing way on $1.2T. Just because Boehner has an (R) after his name? He screwed us before, why do I suddenly trust him now? How stupid am I supposed to be?

318 Oh and Miss Marple, please take a break if you must, but make sure to stick around. I enjoy your commentary.

319 If it wasn't for those stupid fucking media polls claiming "Americans want a compromise" that deal Boehner setup would have stuck.  All the dems then believed that Americans soooo wanted tax increases that they found last minute courage to scuttle any deal that didn't increase people's taxes.  Its like a circle of bullshit....

Democrat strategists floats a BS talking point
\/
Media produces a poll that magically reinforces it
\/
News anchors and reporters repeat that poll non-fucking-stop
\/
Democrat congresscritters watch this on TV... believe their own bullshit.
\/
Dem Congresscritters reorient their votes and positions accordingly.

320 If Obama and the rest of the communists in Washington don't want to stop writing checks, fuck 'em.

Let it shut down. You don't enable a junkie. You cut them off.

Keep sending up bills that prioritize payment of debt, SS and the other necessities like VA and etc.

321 Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 22, 2011 09:44 PM (JNGHp)

Exactly.  I may not agree with everyone all the time, but I learn something new almost every thread around here.

322 Hearing that 3 year old son say "I love you too, Daddy" makes up for all this garbage. Instant recharge.

Awww...

Sifty, did you see Captain America yet?  If so, what did you think?

323 Like I said, Boehner is covering his ass, and anyone who wants to carry GOP water and say "well he said X" - guess what, the President is also saying X.

I don't follow how quoting a known pathological liar (Obama) who is parroting Boehner's words proves that Boehner is lying. 

324

@ 234  LMAO !!!

 

reminded me of the Monty Python scene in Holy Grail "is that an English Sparrow........."..........................tears

325 I like to see a poll that asks:

Yes or no?

I'm willing to have my own tax rates go up as a part of a debt-ceiling deal?

326 P.S. Beat Army. Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at July 22, 2011 09:39 PM (hZqYp) Oh no you din't.

327 323  Given Boehner's recent history, and his categorical denials on national radio yesterday, at which time he said nothing about Revenue increases at all, I'm not taking the leap of faith that you and some others are. This guy has been a terrible bust as Speaker.


Has he been the best speaker? No. He goes beyond just listening to his members by allowing them to walk all over him when he sometimes needs to put his foot down and say "Enough!". But his poor managerial skills do not translate into him necessarily lying. He had no reason to mention revenue increases when he spoke to Rush yesterday, either, since the subject was never mentioned and that wasn't Rush's concern. So let's blame Boehner for what he has done instead of what we think he's done.

Furthermore, increasing revenues through tax reform is a key part of the House Republican budget, and raising revenue through the sale of federal land is also in there. As for tax reform, everyone from Budget Committee members to those on Ways & Means to RSC heads to other freshmen plus their conservative colleagues in the Senate have been talking about implementing these ideas. This isn't something new that just arrived out of a vacuum. 

328 Kratos, pretty sure sifty has never even heard of Captain America.

329 We survived another day without a sellout.  Sure, maybe we'll be sold out next week, but maybe not.  A few more days and the pressure on the Dems will be pretty high.

Don't borrow tomorrow's doom today.

330

So when are the morons going to start getting political and quit fucking around so much.

You need to get off these boards a bit and help good people get elected.  We have alot of people to replace.

331 >>Posted by: sifty at July 22, 2011 09:42 PM (ECjvn)

Had to do double take on the vowel in the name after that, Dad.

_{Heh, we could prolly all use more of that.}

>>In no way, no shape, no form, whatsoever ... are revenue increases any part of this debate.  Not asset sales.  Not tax increases.  Not rental fees ... Nothing.  This is about cutting spending.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 22, 2011 09:41 PM (G/MYk)

We have BINGO.
Revenues are only included in these deals to obscure the real sausage products coming out.
Just F'N CUT

332 Sounds like Boehner got rolled and Obama maybe thought he could roll him some more. Fucking quisling Republicans. We should hang the lot of them.

333 @365 O/T

This is not good.

Jawa Report seems to think that his online presence is staged.  His accounts are recent.  He has no online history. 

I think we should wait and see. 

334 Obama's a dick

A nasty, unwashed, covered in goat-jizz dick.  Skipping the rest of the comments from 1 to now.

335

Posted by: mghorning at July 22, 2011 09:50 PM (gWxB

Thanks for the damn advice, armchair general.  When are you going to grace us with another brilliant tactical plan, General Patton?

Many people here (myself included) have contributed money and/or gave time to help with people's campaigns.  We know our duty here and we will do it!

336 O/T

This is not good.

Expect big sis to be rounding up you right wing christian gun owners in 1, 2,3

http://tinyurl.com/3ut4ab2

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at July 22, 2011 09:49 PM (hXJOG)

Oh my.  This is what the left has been waiting for.  Oklahoma City redux.

337 Like I said, Boehner is covering his ass, and anyone who wants to carry GOP water and say "well he said X" - guess what, the President is also saying X. Explain to me why Boehner agreeing to $800B in new revenues is something I should be excited about and support, but no effing way on $1.2T. Just because Boehner has an (R) after his name? He screwed us before, why do I suddenly trust him now?

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:42 PM (Fw2Gg)

To clarify, I am not trying to carry water for Boehner, for all I know he could be full of it, just like he was in the previous deal a few weeks back when the cuts he promised us turned out to be illusory. But you asked a good, sensible question about why the 400 distinction would matter at all, and I gave you the answer as Boehner gave it. You can choose to disbelieve Boehner completely, you can choose to dispute the principle that tax increases are different from tax reform, I'm not going to argue. And I'm definitely not calling you stupid! I was just trying to inform you specifically what Boehner said, for clarity, as Prager would put it. You can do with it what you will.

Oh, but for goodness sake don't waste time reading Obama's transcripts! Every word is a lie, including and, but, and the.

338 in Senate primaries we need to replace Roger Wicker, Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch (he's good but we can do better), Bob Corker, and maybe Olympia Snowe (she hasn't gone over to the other side since the 2010 elections, but that's just to protect herself from a primary challenge).

339 Also, I believe that Obama is terrified of accepting any deal that gets much more Republican votes than Democrat.  Having the Republican caucus generally go along with the deal while the dems bail at the last minute would be a disaster for him politically.  His base would go ape shit at the idea of huge cuts without making the rich "pay their fair share."

340 @373
Sorry, but we need to reject the premise.

Their "right" is not our "right," for pete's sake. 

341 Expect big sis to be rounding up you right wing christian gun owners in 1, 2,3

Come and get em.

342 Like I said, Boehner is covering his ass, and anyone who wants to carry GOP water and say "well he said X" - guess what, the President is also saying X. I don't follow how quoting a known pathological liar (Obama) who is parroting Boehner's words proves that Boehner is lying. Posted by: Y-not at July 22, 2011 09:45 PM (5H6zj) Boehner is a model of truthtelling? How much did the 2011 CR cut from spending again? My point is that Boehner is saying that the $800B concession is consistent with his pledge not to raise taxes because they are new revenues that aren't tax hikes. The President is saying, hey, I am doing the same thing, just I found another $400B. It's all good, right? Boehner is already okay with the new revenues. What proof do you have that those extra $400B are different - that they are tax hikes? Because Boehner said so? That's all we got? I am not arguing that the President's argument is valid. Yeah, he's a liar. But he is using the same cover that Boehner is on this topic.

343 348 So what?  Revenues shouldn't have been part of the discussion.  Period. Why would increasing revenues serve as any sort of "offset" for cuts in spending?  What is being "offset"?

All the "increased revenue" talk is nothing but unmitigated, indefensible bullshit.  The talk about raising the debt limit should involve nothing but how many cuts are going to be made.  Nothing else.  It should ahve been all about repealing ObamaCare, but the GOP are too stupid to do that, so we're left with nothing but spending cuts.

In no way, no shape, no form, whatsoever ... are revenue increases any part of this debate.  Not asset sales.  Not tax increases.  Not rental fees ... Nothing.  This is about cutting spending.


Do you really think that Obama is going to get rid of his chief achievement by repealing ObamaCare? This is one of the reasons why it was so easy to shake the head at the rumors about Boehner talking ACA repeal last night, is because Obama and the Dems in Congress would never do it.

I have personal reasons as I to why I want that law repealed, and I want it badly, but he isn't going to it. It's going to take a conservative WH and conservative Congress to do that, and you and I know that. Let's stop pretending.

Furthermore, as for spending, I am all for extracting as much as possible from the liberals. If that takes an exchange of selling land in order to receive higher cuts, so be it! No tax increases, no expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but I'll take the land and the others. 

344 I think we should wait and see.

Not only that, but did this nutterbutter, if it's true that he's a winger, kill in the name of Christianity? Or is he just a crank. I think we know the answer to that.

345 370 @365 O/T

This is not good.

Jawa Report seems to think that his online presence is staged.  His accounts are recent.  He has no online history. 

I think we should wait and see. 

Posted by: Y-not at July 22, 2011 09:51 PM (5H6zj)

Agree.  48 hour rule rules.  Unless you're an Olympic caliber conclusion jumper.

346 Heh. Jeb Bush just called Rubio a "stud".

347 #373, It wouldn't surprise me if the guy faked his background as part of an Islamist plot. Suddenly creating a whole online identity before what was clearly a long term planned event raises a lot of red flags.

348 @292 Just watched that movie last night.

349

So the GOP folded like a cheap suit and agreed to 800 billion in tax hikes, things like an end to the mortgage deduction; charitable deductions, child expenses, in return for what

 

-massive cuts in national security spending.

 

Default now.  If our credit is destroyed maybe we can get a balanced budget.

 

If the GOP folds throw them out.

They are enslaving you and your children and grandchildren.

Throw out the dhimmies and their vampire allies.

 

Most of all beware of the entreaties of the RINOs who are in league with the dhimmies.  Do you really need more RINOs who will sell you out so can get invited to Beltway cocktail parties.

 

350 Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:57 PM (o2lIv)

Girl, they really need to give you the keys to teh blog . . . before your awesomeness goes elsewhere and leaves us in the dust.

351 >>Has he been the best speaker? No. He goes beyond just listening to his members by allowing them to walk all over him when he sometimes needs to put his foot down and say "Enough!". Pat Buchanan of all people had an interesting take on this today. He said that Gingrich flew all around the country and helped campaign for lots of Republicans. When they won and he took the Speaker's seat he could say to them "You owe me your job, fall in line". The new freshman now for the most part owe their allegiance to the Tea Party grassroots that put them their and because of this Boehner has a lot less control over them. Interesting take.

352 358 I don't follow how quoting a known pathological liar (Obama) who is parroting Boehner's words proves that Boehner is lying.

Neither do I. Obama speaks an entirely different language and everything in his presser was spun to his own advantage. Did Boehner likely do the same thing in some ways? Yes, but he's not proven himself to be a pathological liar. They are not the same person, and it does not do well to confuse them.

353 Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 09:42 PM (Fw2Gg)

so why doesn't anyone ask why the "cuts" have to hurt the average American.   Why can't they get their revenue from big business?   Across the board.  Why didn't anyone ask why GE paid little or nothing in taxes?   You would think this would concern the media somewhat since they are all rich and have done well like the president so they don't need all that money to live and he wants it.  You think they would be concerned that the money for their little place in the hamptons is up for grabs from the dems?

354 Oh, shit on a shingle, sure, let's get the revenue from "big business!"  Why don't we just buy 'em a one-way ticket to China?

355 Blaster, I'm seeing this different than you do:

"Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan thatÂ’s been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me whoÂ’ve done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more.

Obama is saying that despite Boehner coughing up $800B in revenue that if there isn't "revenue" and thus that the revenue (the $800B) will fall on the backs of current taxpayers. For the Dems, "revenue" is the spin for taxes. He seems to be complaining that Boehner is NOT coughing up taxes on "corporate jet owners, oil and gas companies, and people such as himself"

Doesn't this support Boehner's statement?

356 _{Sifty, did you see Captain America yet?  If so, what did you think?}

Yes I did. Caught the 10:45am show in a packed theater.

It is a great movie. Taking my beautiful bride tomorrow night for date night.

Regarding the anti-American sentiments of the director and some Marvel tools in general:

This is a pro-America movie. It is Sifty Approved.

The entire film is a slow warm feeling of good. Only one or two stand up and cheer moments, but many little _{fuck yeah} under the breath moments.

It serves it's purposes perfectly.

1. It tells a great deal about the origin of Cap (as they have decided to run with for these movies) in a clear, measured way. We like him.

2. It is not filled with Cormac McCarthy anti-hero nihilism woe-is-me sparkley ghey vampire emo garbage.

3. Joe Johnston did not get to fuck it up for Joss Whedon. The hand-off to a better director for the Avengers has been achieved without destroying the Captain America character.

My guess is that extensive re-shoots and color manipulation was done to add back in a lot of the red, white, and, blue that Joe Johnston tried to take out or mute.

Joe Johnston is a no-good cocksucker who needs to move to Cuba and make 2nd Rate Communist Party Stag Films, but someone at Marvel and millions of fans managed to rein his candy-ass in and force him to make a good movie.

The Avengers is going to break box office records. I predict The Avengers will fuck Avatar in it's blue noble savage ass bent over a pile of awesomeness with big titty sauce.

357 Expect big sis to be rounding up you right wing christian gun owners in 1, 2,3

molon labe, baby-cakes

358 388 Pat Buchanan of all people had an interesting take on this today. He said that Gingrich flew all around the country and helped campaign for lots of Republicans. When they won and he took the Speaker's seat he could say to them "You owe me your job, fall in line". The new freshman now for the most part owe their allegiance to the Tea Party grassroots that put them their and because of this Boehner has a lot less control over them.

Interesting take.


It's more that he lets all these different groups walk all over each other without consequences, at least not that we can see. For example, the liberal Republican appropriators walk all over everyone and openly show their disdain, yet he says nothing. But he also allows himself to be yanked every which-way by listening to opinion instead of making his own decisions. The conservative lawmakers should be encouraging and pressuring him to do the right thing, as is their duty, but I dislike this constant tug-of-war in which Boehner gets caught in the middle between the conservative and liberal Rs and he waits until the circus gets to be too much. For Heaven's sake, man, you're the Speaker of the House and it's your job to lead, not follow.

359 @390 Good thing average Americans don't work for big businesses, eh?  Or buy products and services from them.

360 Oh, shit on a shingle, sure, let's get the revenue from "big business!"  Why don't we just buy 'em a one-way ticket to China?


G.E. paid NO taxes. How far does that go towards stifling free-market competition? It's not that big business is an enemy...God knows... I work for one. It is BAD business, such as G.E. that is an issue.

As well as the 47% who pay nothing for the benefits and privileges this nation provides.

361 380 348 I should have added the personal in addition to moral, ethical, economical, political, and you get the gist.

362 damn sock

363 391 Oh, shit on a shingle, sure, let's get the revenue from "big business!"  Why don't we just buy 'em a one-way ticket to China?

Posted by: Peaches at July 22, 2011 10:01 PM (afUO

look, maybe business has to realize that they need to stop their un American behavior.  And maybe any business doing business here has to pay some extra tax.  It can't all be a burden of the American people.  The republicans have to start getting creative.  Maybe the tea party should only buy things made in America to send the message that if you want us to buy it here, make it here.  I think it's time for out of the box thinking and everyone is staying within the lines cause the lines are their friends.   We need American ingenuity for the good of America.

364 Neither do I. Obama speaks an entirely different language and everything in his presser was spun to his own advantage. Did Boehner likely do the same thing in some ways? Yes, but he's not proven himself to be a pathological liar. They are not the same person, and it does not do well to confuse them. Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 09:59 PM (o2lIv) I did not say they are the same person, I am saying that they are both using the same rationalization for why their "revenue increases" are good. I am asking why I (or anyone) should accept that Boehner's "revenue increases" are *good* while the President's are *bad*? I think that they are BOTH bad. But Boehner is papering his cave in over by saying that the new taxes he agreed to are okay. The President just kept pushing, since Boehner agreed to increased revenue. I think Boehner is rightly pissed because his deal with the President was probably let's both lie about the $800B in new revenue. But by piling on to $1.2T, the President exposed the "new revenues aren't new taxes" as a lie. So Boehner lost his cover. If you want to believe that Boehner's agreeing to revenue increases is not a tax increase while the President's revenue increases, which are justified the exact same way, simply because Boehner says so, well, hey what can I say? I need a higher level of proof, especially from someone who told me before that he was going to take $100B in spending out of the 2011 CR, and then agreed to $38B that was actually only $352M.

365 The Boehner presser

366

Many people here (myself included) have contributed money and/or gave time to help with people's campaigns.  We know our duty here and we will do it!

Then put it on the front burner.  I'm find of tired of hearing about special elections 16 hours begore I can help.

I enjoy the humor here.  Cite a post in the last ten momths when you supported a candidate  And didn't just bitch about one.

367

In no way, no shape, no form, whatsoever ... are revenue increases any part of this debate.  Not asset sales.  Not tax increases.  Not rental fees ... Nothing.  This is about cutting spending.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 22, 2011 09:41 PM (G/MYk)

This

Ive felt they should fire a bill up there that says every dollar increase in the debt limit = 2 dollars in immediate spending cuts(I would prefer 1:5,but that might be asking too much but it would show everbody they are serious), not this 2 trillion over 10 years BS...Cut NOW

368 403  I did not say they are the same person, I am saying that they are both using the same rationalization for why their "revenue increases" are good. I am asking why I (or anyone) should accept that Boehner's "revenue increases" are *good* while the President's are *bad*?


A revenue increase is not a bad thing unless it is a tax increase. Since when do we use the liberal dictionary to define revenue? So I reject the premise because I don't believe revenue increases always = tax increases. That's the difference.



If you want to believe that Boehner's agreeing to revenue increases is not a tax increase while the President's revenue increases, which are justified the exact same way, simply because Boehner says so, well, hey what can I say? I need a higher level of proof, especially from someone who told me before that he was going to take $100B in spending out of the 2011 CR, and then agreed to $38B that was actually only $352M.

I understand that. We could get into how he still cut $38B in spending authority and talk about how the CBO scores things, but I'll leave you with this. Boehner will ultimately raise the debt limit, but he's done the right thing several times now. For the time being, I'm going to celebrate that.

369 Obama is saying that despite Boehner coughing up $800B in revenue that if there isn't "revenue" and thus that the revenue (the $800B) will fall on the backs of current taxpayers. For the Dems, "revenue" is the spin for taxes. He seems to be complaining that Boehner is NOT coughing up taxes on "corporate jet owners, oil and gas companies, and people such as himself" Doesn't this support Boehner's statement? Posted by: Dear President at July 22, 2011 10:02 PM (piMMO) Nope. The President recognized that Boehner was giving in on revenue. Just that it wasn't *enough* for him: "Q But they were willing to move on some revenues, apparently. THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. But what you saw -- and, again, youÂ’ll see this from the description of the deal -- essentially what they had agreed to give on is to get back to a baseline -- this starts getting technical, but there were about $800 billion in revenue that were going to be available. And what we said was when youÂ’ve got a ratio of $4 in cuts for every $1 of revenue, thatÂ’s pretty hard to stomach. And we think itÂ’s important to make sure that whatever additional revenue is in there covers the amount of money thatÂ’s being taken out of entitlement programs. ThatÂ’s only fair." The President is giving away the game here. There is no difference in the $800B and the $1.2T - it's all more money going into the maw of the government. Boehner said okay to the first number, not the second. Like I said, he isn't saying, hey, I hate to have to do this but it is the only way to make it happen and in return I got something - he is saying that its all okay.

370 Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 10:09 PM (Fw2Gg)

I think a lot of people feel the way you feel.  

It's going to be awfully embarrassing for all of them, both parties, both houses when they raise their debt ceiling and on the first business day after, all the ratings houses downgrade the country in unison.   They are thinking that this warning was a courtesy, but it wasn't.  In typical wall street ways...they are getting downgraded and they were given some time to figure out how to deal with the downgrade.  Sadly, they don't get it.  They think if they do everything the ratings agencies alluded to, then they are safe but, everyone I've spoken to says they aren't safe and the downgrade is coming.

Heck I'm expecting eric and his merry bad of prosecutors to ride into the ratings agencies and suddenly remember how unsuccessful their ratings on the CDO's were, now that would make it interesting.

371 look, maybe business has to realize that they need to stop their un American behavior.  And maybe any business doing business here has to pay some extra tax.  It can't all be a burden of the American people.  The republicans have to start getting creative.  Maybe the tea party should only buy things made in America to send the message that if you want us to buy it here, make it here.  I think it's time for out of the box thinking and everyone is staying within the lines cause the lines are their friends.   We need American ingenuity for the good of America.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but unless I am mistaken, you are saying it backwards.

levying additional taxes on business who already pay taxes, unlike G.E., will create a burden to remaining here in the states. You cannot punish those who are doing good.

Yes, it is a privilege to live and work in America, but businesses are not conducted in a vacuum. Businesses are made up of individuals who must be paid and, in turn, pay taxes on their own incomes. If a business pays more taxes, and is therefore limited in their ability to spend on capital to grow their company, then both the paid employees, and the tax rolls tax a hit. I do NOT believe in increasing taxes on domestic businesses, large or small, with a few exceptions. G.E. being the big one.

G.E. not paying taxes means that they have an advantage over their competition. They can invest more into their company and charge less for their product and that stifles their competition.

There is a distinction to be made.

G.E. is not tantamount to American big business.

372 Go with the goers.  Who else on our side would you have pinch-hit for Boehner in a critical situation?

373 I'd back Allen West for Speaker.

374 >>It's more that he lets all these different groups walk all over each other without consequences, at least not that we can see. Eh, I guess I give him more credit. The freshman class was elected to go to DC and shake things up. Their purpose is to not listen to the way things have always worked in DC. And the old guard is naturally not about to just roll over. It's got to be a tough job to keep them all moving in roughly the same direction. Plus he's been Speaker for a pretty short time. I'm willing to cut him some slack. Not sure he could be playing this one a lot better. For now.

375 "A revenue increase is not a bad thing unless it is a tax increase. Since when do we use the liberal dictionary to define revenue? So I reject the premise because I don't believe revenue increases always = tax increases. That's the difference. " I am not using the liberal dictionary. Boehner handed the President the conservative one. Hey, I am on board with the government taking more money, here's how i describe it so that I am okay with it. The President is using that same description for $400B more. Why is that extra $400B a tax hike? Because Boehner said so?

376 414 I am not using the liberal dictionary. Boehner handed the President the conservative one. Hey, I am on board with the government taking more money, here's how i describe it so that I am okay with it. The President is using that same description for $400B more. Why is that extra $400B a tax hike? Because Boehner said so?


Two quotes:

"In reality, Steel writes, the White House offered a 'ceiling' of $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years that would be achieved through comprehensive tax reform (e.g., eliminating loopholes, credits and deductions) in a way that would stimulate economic growth. This would not constitute a tax increase."

and

"Boehner said 'an agreement had been reached' earlier in the week that included about $800 billion in new revenue (but not through raising increases). However, the White House on Thursday 'moved the goal post' by insisting on an additional $400 billion in tax increases, which Boehner refused to accept. “I take the same oath of office as the president…to do what is in the best interest of our country,' Boehner said. 'And it’s not in the best interest of our country to raise taxes in this economy.'"

/NRO: The Corner

377 My God.

Reports are now coming out that 80 people were killed at the youth camp.

378

He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such."

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at July 22, 2011 10:21 PM (tHnoW)

Personally, I am praying for a perp-walk from 1600.  In leg-irons.  Hey, a gal can dream . . .

379 M80B - so that's what we have then? Boehner said so?

380 413 Eh, I guess I give him more credit. The freshman class was elected to go to DC and shake things up. Their purpose is to not listen to the way things have always worked in DC. And the old guard is naturally not about to just roll over. It's got to be a tough job to keep them all moving in roughly the same direction. Plus he's been Speaker for a pretty short time.

I'm willing to cut him some slack. Not sure he could be playing this one a lot better. For now.


It's not the freshmen who are the problem, though. I also understand his job is like herding cats because he has so many different people with so many different viewpoints in that room. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that he actually listens to the conference and lets them guide his decisions-- you'd never see a liberal allow such a thing. But sometimes he allows too much struggle from all sides and he needs to act faster at those times. Also, he needs to reprimand people like Steve LaTourette, a greedy appropriator who also sneers publicly at other members and doesn't take some of his duties seriously. I saw several other examples when he was presiding over a session of the CCB debate and it needs to stop.

381 And maybe any business doing business here has to pay some extra tax.  It can't all be a burden of the American people.

I am gobsmacked.  Business don't pay taxes, they're just the middlemen.

382 M80B - so that's what we have then? Boehner said so?

Posted by: blaster at July 22, 2011 10:30 PM (Fw2Gg)

So what you're saying is that Obama came up with another $400B in NON tax revenue and Boehner walked out on that?  That doesn't make any sense.

383 I am gobsmacked.  Business don't pay taxes, they're just the middlemen.

Posted by: toby928™ at July 22, 2011 10:33 PM (GTbGH)

I'm smacked too and I was wondering when someone was going to mention that.

384 421 M80B - so that's what we have then? Boehner said so?


He's not the only one who has said that's what happened and what both are saying in the above quote is consistent with what they said previously. Regardless, I don't quite understand the argument here. If you don't believe that Boehner walked-away because Obama wanted to raise taxes, what do you think caused him to leave? I'm also not sure why the insistence that all revenue increases are bad, when there are numerous examples of how the government can raise revenue without increasing taxes.

385 So what you're saying is that Obama came up with another $400B in NON tax revenue and Boehner walked out on that?  That doesn't make any sense.

What I heard is that he was in agreement on $800B in revenue increases but then Obama tried to slap another $400B in taxes which would impact those who are the job creators and the ones that we expect to lead us out of the recession. That's paraphrasing, of course. But that is essentially what he said.

Perhaps I am missing something because I think both Boehner's speech and, oddly enough, Obama's speech, support the idea that Boehner did not support tax increases.

386 Pls help...am stuck in car w/3 libs who are forcing me to listen to NPR -- & the Pres having a hissy fit & blaming Repubs for everything including the Oslo attacks & tooth decay. p.s. Had to sit through Chris van Hollen *and* Obama, I can declare that I have fulfilled my Pissy Little Bitch quotient for the 21st century. Can Allen West rewrite the DWS email for our Pres?

387 Boehner's speech...


A revenue number agreed on based upon "a flatter tax code, lower rates, and a broader base that would produce more economic growth, more employees, and more taxpayers. And, a tax system that is more efficient in collecting the taxes that were due to the federal government.." at the 1:00 mark

388 So what you're saying is that Obama came up with another $400B in NON tax revenue and Boehner walked out on that? That doesn't make any sense. Posted by: Tami at July 22, 2011 10:34 PM (X6akg) No, I was clear on what I think. The President says that the $1.2T is not raising taxes. He uses the same language that is used to justify the $800B as not raising taxes. I think that by doing so, he blew the deal with Boehner because he blew his cover story on why it was okay to agree to the $800B. That whole we've established what you are, now we are just haggling on the price thing. He's not the only one who has said that's what happened and what both are saying in the above quote is consistent with what they said previously. Regardless, I don't quite understand the argument here. If you don't believe that Boehner walked-away because Obama wanted to raise taxes, what do you think caused him to leave? I'm also not sure why the insistence that all revenue increases are bad, when there are numerous examples of how the government can raise revenue without increasing taxes. Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 10:37 PM (o2lIv) Same deal - I am clear on what I think. I think Boehner walked because the President moved the goalposts. Yes, the President busted the deal. But I think that Boehner's explanation - that the President's position was a tax increase - is so that he doesn't sound petty for walking away over that. I have not seen anyone other than Boehner making the claim that the President's proposal was a tax increase. The President, for his part, claims that it isn't. Could he be lying? Yes, he probably is. But I think he is lying about the whole thing. I don't think that all revenue increases are tax increases and that they are all necessarily bad. But I have not seen anything that establishes a distinction other than Boehner's words. I need more than that.

389 I'm listening to some earlier call in shows and people are really upset that we didn't react to the tragedy in Norway.  It seems a lot of the blogs are ignoring this too.  I mean they are saying there are 80 dead kids at this camp.  The blaze has a lot of stuff and a speech boehner gave after the senate's behavior.

390

"I am gobsmacked.  Business don't pay taxes, they're just the middlemen."

True the vast majority of time, but not at all times.  In tight markets, businesses can't necessarily pass their costs (including extra taxes) onto the consumer.  Raise your prices and at some point, you lose volume either to competitors or when you've hit/crossed the the max of the P-V curve..  Eating those costs may require "cutting jobs".  That's why it's never good to raise any costs (taxes, regulations, energy, etc) during tight times and I do believe the Obama extended Recession might be considered tough times.

391 431 Because increasing revenue, by any means, to the government is what one does when one wants to further empower that government and give it more power. 

So we shouldn't sell federal land and do other things that would help us float longer and contribute to reducing our debt? Why shouldn't we? If it also helps us get more in cuts, then we should do it. We need to cut spending and use any (ethical) means at our disposal to get every last penny out of these people.


The GOP was not sent to Congress to increase the power of the feral government in any way.  It was mostly sent to start to restrain the feral government from the dramatic violations of its limits that it has undertaken in the past 2 years, most notably the cancer of ObamaCare...

So we can't discuss anything that isn't part of the mandate? Does that mean true tax and Medicare reform are off the table because the GOP didn't run on it? What counts as turning-back the tide of big government and what doesn't under this mandate?

Also, I'm curious as to how we achieve everything we want when we have Obama in the White House. How do you make him repeal ObamaCare? How many bills do they have to pass before he says yes? They've already passed almost ten (including amendments) and they've held hearing after hearing on IPAB, waivers, and numerous other parts of it. We even got Reid to allow a vote on repeal but that didn't go anywhere. The fact of the matter is that it's Obama's chief "accomplishment" and it's not going anywhere until 2013.

392 Boehner said the talks broke down because he and the President had agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases (over 10 years),...

Note to Boehner: No tax increases, period. Got that?

NO TAX INCREASES, PERIOD.

If the fucking government wants to "increase" its revenue, it can do that by NOT SPENDING AS MUCH.

Carry on.

393 No more private negotiations. Pass a 30 day credit increase and tell Obama everything has to be in writing on his letterhead. Its far to easy for Obama to negotiate in bad faith as long as the MSM backs him up on his lies.

394 The other day banana republic sent out a one day only 35% off your first three items coupon.  I had eyed a suit but the price was outrageous and I walked out of the store last week.  I took my coupon ran in there and bought the suit, ended up with a new silk shirt and leather pumps, all full price but much lower than banana had previously charged for their shoes.  The week before it was me and the store clerks, on coupon day, it was me, the 6 store clerks and a big crowd of other women there to grab what they had walked out on in the weeks before.    I interpreted that to mean that those still receiving a paycheck are being very frugal with their money, buying only what they need and on sale.  Yes, they had a lot of sales that day, probably saved the quarter.  But, if they lowered their prices everyday, they'd have a lot more sales.  I think when in 2008 the American consumer was told they were a bunch of spending pigs they took it to heart.  It sounded good to the dems to be horrified by the conspicuous consumption and to hawtily think that they would be saved by that same set of piggy spending consumers.   They are getting the shock of their lives, They aren't going to jump start the economy until there are jobs and the housing crisis is fixed and the AMT for people who are essentially middle class, is abolished.  Heck, consumers are so angry, they probably won't help jump start the economy until these folks in DC realize they want their incandescent light bulbs back!

395 FWIW, I'm talking to other independents and everyone's reaction is similar.  After obamacare, people just don't trust any of them.  One of my freinds said that he thinks they've spent days in there trying to figure out loopholes in the tax code to enable them to collect more taxes and interest and fees and ways to move money around to use it in different places.  He thinks there is no fighting at all, he thinks they want their money and they are going to get it no matter what.  He and my other friends are discouraged.  If this is how independents are thinking and I see how you conservatives are thinking and the dems only want to increase taxes outright, how can they possibly come to any conclusion but collusion?

396 Boehner should have said, and maybe he did... "Barry, you want 400 billion more in taxes, where do you want to get the 1.2 trillion cuts for to keep the ratio to the 3:1 level you have been touting..." Also, if you walk out of negotiations, you CANNOT be an hour later than Obama getting your message out. He needed to go straight to the media. Or better yet twitter directly in front of Obama...Palin would have done that - you betcha.

397 "he thinks they want their money and they are going to get it no matter what." I think there are real differences, but, yes, THIS.

398 When Obama-man said that he is only looking out for "the little people" you know that he is lying SOS.  How any sentient being can reconcile this claim with the fact the he and his proxies denied the children of D.C. their school vouchers tells me all I need to know about the progessive folks true allegience - children be damned.

399 435 Same deal - I am clear on what I think. I think Boehner walked because the President moved the goalposts. Yes, the President busted the deal. But I think that Boehner's explanation - that the President's position was a tax increase - is so that he doesn't sound petty for walking away over that.

I have not seen anyone other than Boehner making the claim that the President's proposal was a tax increase. The President, for his part, claims that it isn't. Could he be lying? Yes, he probably is. But I think he is lying about the whole thing.

I don't think that all revenue increases are tax increases and that they are all necessarily bad. But I have not seen anything that establishes a distinction other than Boehner's words. I need more than that.


I don't think it's the same thing at all. Besides, a tax increase has been a major sticking-point throughout this entire negotiation and I don't suddenly see how that changes because Boehner said it this time. (In other words, conservative lawmakers have said the same thing.) Many conservative columnists and economists also warned Boehner about falling into the tax trap when the last time we were talking about a potential deal ala tax reform. So they merely came full-circle again after Obama tried to use the Gang of Six as leverage.


"Revenues Raisers That Aren't Tax Increases"

"Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues"

"Federal Revenue and Tax Reform Issues"

"The Path to Prosperity"

"The American Land Act"

"How to Raise Revenue without Raising Taxes"

400 my great great great great grandmother called it a corset, ultimately my great grandma called it a girdle, then my generation calls it spanx.  It's the same damned thing with a different name.  People aren't stupid, they see this.

401 444 Do you think that the debt-limit legislation is the place for all of this to take place?  Hardly.

This debt-limit rise is only to be traded for something of real value.  Smaller government, as in, reduced expenditures (cutting programs, budgets) AND/OR reduced tax burdens.  Period.  Selling federal land and the rest of that crap have no business being part of this particular negotiation.  NONE.



Entitlement reform and tax reform have real value, as does axing entire departments, general spending cuts, etc. Since we know the libs will not agree to further cut spending without demanding revenue raisers, why not agree to do that if they give us something big in return? Why not use it as a means of extraction? The Republicans are not asking for it in and of itself, rather as is a means to an end.

402 "rather as is a means to an end. "

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 22, 2011 11:22 PM (o2lIv)

wait I was taught by watching beck that this is the progressive way.  Wouldn't you expect the republicans not to behave in the same manner as the dems.  It' not monopoly money, it's real and I don't think any of them are willing to realize this and the impact it will continue to have on the American people. 

403 452 wait I was taught by watching beck that this is the progressive way.  Wouldn't you expect the republicans not to behave in the same manner as the dems.  It' not monopoly money, it's real and I don't think any of them are willing to realize this and the impact it will continue to have on the American people.


Just because most of the people in D.C. are just in it to get rich off the American taxpayer doesn't mean all of them are. I think we have seen enough examples in recent days of lawmakers who are in D.C. because they believe in the conservative cause and aren't living for the next election cycle. Hopefully next election cycle we'll have more of them to back the veteran and freshmen conservative lawmakers. In the meantime, I have to say that at least one party in the political class is reacting to the wishes of the people more than I've seen (and read about) in some time. Is it for the right reason in every case? Hardly, but part of the political process (on the part of the citizen) is giving the wrong people incentive to do the right thing. But it will be perfect because it's a fallen world.

404 That should be "it will never be perfect because it's a fallen world".

405 In light of Sarah Palin's no holds barred response, the absolute silence of the presidential candidates is becomming more and more obvious.  Not a palinista at all but she has put them all in a position of having to say something anything to prove they are relevant.

406 Why are you calling tax raises "revenue increases"?

What is it with Republicans/Conservatives that they insist on using the opposition's language? Laziness? Stockholm Syndrome? Pushovers?

407 456 Why are you calling tax raises "revenue increases"?

What is it with Republicans/Conservatives that they insist on using the opposition's language? Laziness? Stockholm Syndrome? Pushovers?


I am fully aware that liberals use "revenue increase" when they're really thinking "tax increase", despite the fact that lowering rates increases revenue. The issue is whether Boehner was using it as code and he thoroughly explained the difference between the two tonight, which is one reason why I say he wasn't.

408 Forgive me if I'm not catching what the Speaker said, but I read his "$800B" as getting rid of some the BS tax deductions.

409   "Boehner derails tax increase, ObamaÂ’s 2012 plan"

410 "Watch: Boehner Responds to Obama on Collapse of Debt Negotiations"

411

458-

BS tax deductions like your mortgage deduction, charitable deductions, prodfessional deductions, child deductions.

 

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the GOP and the Marxists.  Your money is there money.

 

Is this what the founding fathers intended?  That 47% of the population pay nothing while the other half carries the load?

 

We should emulate the actions of the founding fathers against these vampires.

412 An interesting comment on PMSLSD, no less, was about the difference between Boehner's Speakership now and Newt's Speakership in 1995-1999.  The Republicans who were elected because of Newt and his Contract with America owed him and so Newt could get them to vote his way.  Boehner, on the other hand, owes his Speakership to the new wave TEA Party Republicans and their less government, less taxes, less regulation platform so Boehner cannot tell then how to vote, but rather is at their mercy, which is why Boehner is holding firm on 'no new taxes'.  I thought it was a rather profound comment coming from such a retard channel with idiot guests as PMSLSD.

413 what the heck are "revenue increases"?  i assume this is a euphemism for taxes, but everyone who's ever been in business knows that increasing prices doesn't equate to increased revenue, and although different, it remains true for goverment in the realm of tax increases.

414 oh, and i should add that "closing tax loopholes" is a tax increase.

415 oh yeah, people who call tax increases "revenues," don't understand the nonlinear nature of taxes. Anyway, on the wishcasting side of the liberal world, there's a progressive day dream that Clinton totally totally owned Gingrich by shutting down the government, and therefore Obama should do the same thing. Of course, it sucks how lefties hold the most valuable services a government provides hostage, they suspend fire service, but the useless bureaucracy isn't hurt.

416 And the funny thing about the left's wishcasting about Clinton-Gingrich-shutdown, is that Clinton's touted accomplishments came about from Gingrich's side of teh deal

417

How corrupt can American government be?  They do not represent the concerns or interests of the people.  They do not care about your future or your family's welfare.  They only wish to pick your pocket to further their goals of some "utopia" or expanding the government to reward their special interests.

Is democracy the covert deals conducted between closed doors by rival mafia factions?  Is good government policies whose details are secret until the public has no idea what is being done or what the details are?  Are unending lies and misformation accented by carefully parsed lawyer talk what the American people merit?

 

Is a media that assists in these lies by refusing to ask the unpleasant questions that will illuminate the truth to be considered anything than a willing accomplice to these criminal factions?

 

Are the so called "conservatives" who do not take action to derail the elitist legacy GOP's plans to lay more burdensome taxes on the backs on the backs of working people to be considered as more honorable than those who conspire behind closed doors?

Can anyone not laugh when the GOP increases your tax burden because it did not increase taxes by raising rates but does so by eliminating your deductions?

 

Can anyone stomach more smoke and mirror economics that would have made Elmer Gantry blush with shame?

Read the Declaration of Independence and ask yourself if our government is better than the one that our founding fathers rebelled against?

 

 

 

418 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

419 great article,thanks for your sharing!