In recent weeks, we've seen high-profile Republicans struggle with the meaning of some basic words. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) doesn't know what "compromise" means; Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) doesn't know what "hypocrisy" means; Indiana's Richard Mourdock doesn't know what "bipartisan" means; and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) doesn't seem to know what "divisive" means.
Yesterday, however, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested he doesn't know what "threaten" means.
NBC News asked Boehner about his intention to hold the nation hostage again next year when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling. "Whoa, I'm not threatening default."
I don't mean to sound picky, but when you effectively argue, "Give me what I want or I'll push the country to default," that's what "threatening default" means. The Speaker is playing a strange semantics game in which he's declared he'll refuse to raise the debt limit, deliberately trash the full faith and credit of the United States, and push the nation into default, on purpose, unless Democrats cave to his demands.
Now he's also saying, "I'm not threatening default." It seems Boehner (a) doesn't understand his own strategy; (b) doesn't want to tell the truth; or (c) doesn't understand what "threaten" means.
For his part, President Obama met with congressional leaders yesterday, explaining that he's not going to play this game again, and 2013 won't offer a sequel to 2011.
Over the last 72 years -- before 2011 -- Congress raised the debt ceiling 89 times, and in each instance, policymakers resisted the urge to hold America hostage. As far as Obama is concerned, the Republican-created crisis last year was an aberration that will not be repeated.
GOP leaders obviously believe the opposite, setting the stage for an extraordinary game of chicken next year, if Obama's still the president and Boehner's still the Speaker.
Postscript: In the above clip, you'll notice that Boehner also asked for the president's debt-reduction plan. Obama's proposal for $4 trillion on debt reduction has been online for months, and it's actually far more effective and more detailed than anything the Speaker's caucus has prepared on the same issue.
Leave a Comment:
Poor John Boehner. He may be a swell guy and plays a hell of a game of golf but he cannot control hıs own caucus. Fılled as ıt ıs wıth yo-yo's elected ın the red tıde of 2010 who have no sense of what government actually ıs all about, he not only has to contend wıth them but wıth Erıc Cantor schemıng behınd hıs back for the Speaker's job. So, he has to stand before cameras and make a fool of hımself day after day just to keep peace ın the back room.
The fact ıs that for a party that claıms to be a frıend of "free markets," the House GOP leadershıp ıs forced to wreak havoc on the markets by sayıng one thıng one day and somethıng else the next. What a poor excuse for polıtıcal courage.
My Ron Paul supporting nephew posted a statement from "We the People"/America's Freedom Watch that states that under the first 43 presidents (1789-2009) the combined public debt was $6.307 trillion and that under Barak Obama the projected debt will be $6.477 trillion. I am not an economist, but these figures seem fishy to me. Any thoughts on this?
The numbers are "fıshy" ın the sense that your nephew ıs takıng them totally out of context. For example, the natıonal debt on the day Mr. Obama was ınaugerated was greater than ıt ıs today. Moreover, the US debt as a percentage of GDP has actually shrunk under Pres. Obama. Fınally, the sıze of the debt reflects (a) the Bush tax cuts, whıch Steve dıscussed earlıer thıs week, and (b) the Bush-Wall Street recessıon whıch reduced tax revenue whıle ıncreasıng demand for government servıces such as unemployment, food assıstance and ER health care.
the natıonal debt on the day Mr. Obama was ınaugerated was greater than ıt ıs today.
Charley,
I don't think that is correct. If that were true then the past three years would have to have been surplus years budget wise to pay down the debt. The rough numbers I always see is that the national debt was around $9 - 10 Trillion at the end of 2008 and it is now over $15 Trillion.
Sorry, Charlie -- not even as a percentage of GDP, despite GDP dropping dramatically in early 2009.
The DEFICIT is lower today than when Obama got elected, not the debt. A commonly mistaken thing.
National debt = total amount we are in the hole for spending already done that we didn't/don't have the money to pay for
Deficit = amount we will add to the national debt every year because we are spending more than we are taking in
Bolbis,
I think the DEFICITs are also bigger. The stats I see are they have been close to $2 Trillion each of the last 3 years, which makes sense since the DEBT has gone up about $6 Trillion since 2008 (Debt at end of 2008 $9 Trillion, Debt at end of 2011 $15 Trillion). I do believe the past few deficits have been back to back records for the annual deficits. And to me it really doesn't matter at this point who is responsible for the deficit/debt. The fact is we have it.
My understanding is the debt was just shy of 6 trillion when Obama inaugurated. However the economy was actually worse then than now, so the debt using percentage of GDP went down. There's a chart that beaks it down by percentage of GDP: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
Why don't the democrats make it much better known that there is an Obama plan and that it is available online? Every day I hear republicans say: "Where is the president's plan?". I never hear a response. What's up with that? What's wrong with a short response like "It's online; look it up moron"?
I agree. Our side has been way too quiet. Jolting Joe was hot yesterday, We, need to stay on our game sharing the truth with our friends and family like he did
The Tea Party Terrorists' goal is to destroy America however possible, and ruining our good credit rating is just one of the ways they will go.
And what purpose would that serve, even for those yahoos? I always hear that one side or the other wants to destroy America and I would really like to hear/read what is the next phase after the destruction. Dictatorship? King? Anarchy?
An excellent question, Skip. I won't pretend to know the answer. Besides, I'm sure it's a rhetorical question anyway. But it raises a good point - nobody will ever be 100% satisified with the way things are in this country. Least of all, the folks out on the fringes of the two main ideologies. The sooner everybody realizes this, the sooner we can get back to the type of compromise and cooperation that made us so prosperous from the end of WWII into the sixties. Focus on common goals and shared effort/sacrifice is how we make the country better - not extremism and tantrum-throwing. I truly believe the common goals are what Obama has been trying to get us back to since his first campaign, but too many others - including some on the blue side of the aisle - are bent on preventing that.
It's called a plutocracy, skip--a country governed by the wealthy. There are some on the right who already think that you should have to own property to have a vote.
And with the new voter suppression laws, they're going to make blacks 3/5 of a person-just like it says in the Constitution.
So they hate the 14th amendment? It seems that some of them do, because the slave labor is really, really good for business. Like Delay said Saipan is a perfect petri dish for capitalism. 2005, not so long ago. The permanent Republican majority:
http://www.ucpanews.com/index.php/news-alerts/247-the-hammer-gets-tossed-former-rep-tom-delay-convicted-in-texas-of-money-laundering.html
http://www.ncrp.org/files/rp-articles/PDF/RP-Summer-2005-The_Story_of_Saipan.pdf
Of course the more recent defense of corporations having rights with money being speech and foreign corporations (nations) being able to influence Congress with money, being there is no transparency is quite outrageous! The voters being suppressed and corps having rights is just disgusting. Anti-democratic activity should be called out more and more people should be concerned about it.
Mr Grandma told me when I was a kid that "you've always got to fight back against the bully, because if you give into them once they keep coming back" - hopefully by NOW every person in America realizes that the GOP is nothing more than a bunch of bullies - and they desperately NEED a smack down! Here's hoping that this time they get one!
I started to watch the video, and then decided I could not stomach another Exxon-Mobil ad.
I understand your economic pressures as a business, and their desire to co-opt the left.
The truth is that they are wilfully destroying the climate. This is currently an issue recognized almost exclusively by the left, but that will change.
Oil companies are part of the continuing release of CO(2) into the atmosphere, and while I don't have a few billion dollars to change the system, they do. Let's see them lobby against subsidies for oil and for subsidies to renewables. Then we'll talk.
In the meantime, I will bike, use public transport, and yes, occasionally drive.
Please keep comments relevant. MSNBC needs to pay their bills just like you and I. There is this incredible invention called the mute button, learn to use it.
Now Bolbis, sometimes you just need to vent.....
Orwell was right in seeing a future where words used by the powerful have lost all connection with truth, but he was 28 years off. The R's are simply saying anything that appears casts aspersions on whatever and whomever they don't like, to confuse the public and to benefit from any attacks that stick, with no regard for truth, consistency, logic, or avoidance of hypocrisy. Bush and Rove were merely occasional dabblers, while Romney* and other Republican leaders are at the forefront of a widespread Republican replacement of reality with a universe full of their fantasies and fears.
(* A great phrase I just encountered: The Lying Sack of Mitt.)
Folks, just take a quick minute here and look at boehner and his nonsense on a personal level - his political games are going to cost you and I again - we'll bear the brunt of his foolishness because our 401's will, once again take a hit as a result of his political games. If that doesn't make you angry, what will?
Word-smithing, are we? No, I never said the word threaten, just that if we don't get the cuts we want, we will do what we did last time. The result was Standard and Poors dropped U.S. credit rating!!! That is a big freaking deal and it threatens America!
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/sp-drops-credit-rating-aa-fannie-freddie-follow/story?id=14244259#.T7U9ao7N65Q
The difference is, this year is an election year. Last year they could count on people forgetting about it with no real recourse towards doing anything about it. This year, we can hit back.
And will.
Boehner is doing political theater. The problem is that his words may come back on him when undecided voters go to the polls in November. These type of threats may work with the base which is a very small group. But mainstream Republicans need to decide if they are going to let the TP run the party or take back the party before there are huge election losses because moderates are voting against the radicals.
Hey, it is NOT a threat! It is a PROMISE!