Associated Press
Just two days after the elections, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made it sound as if he's ready to be serious about policymaking. "I'm the most reasonable, responsible person here in Washington," he said. "The president knows it. He knows that he and I can work together. The election's over. Now it's time to get to work."
And to that end, the Speaker all but gave up on trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act. "It's pretty clear that the president was re-elected," he added. "Obamacare is the law of the land."
That was two weeks ago. Today, the nation's top Republican elected official no longer cares about being the most reasonable, responsible person in Washington.
Democrats are both annoyed and amused this morning by an Op ed John Boehner published in an Ohio paper, in which he made the startling demand that the fiscal cliff talks be broadened to include ... Obamacare. From the Op ed:
"The president's health care law adds a massive, expensive, unworkable government program at a time when our national debt already exceeds the size of our country's entire economy. We can't afford it, and we can't afford to leave it intact. That's why I've been clear that the law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation's massive debt challenge."
As a matter of substance, Boehner apparently has no idea what he's talking about. If the goal is debt reduction, the Speaker ought to love the Affordable Care Act -- it cuts the deficit by over $100 billion over the next decade, and several hundred billion dollars more in the following decade.
"We can't afford" a law that reduces the budget shortfall? That's incoherent. What Boehner is arguing here is that he intends to cut the deficit by making the deficit worse. I don't expect the House Speaker to be a wonk, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask him to at least think this through and understand the basics.
As for the politics, I'll go out on a limb and say this isn't a constructive approach to debt-reduction talks, and the White House won't be amenable to balancing the budget by taking away Americans' access to affordable health care. Call it a hunch.
Leave a Comment:
You guys always find a way to get me to laugh. Thanks!(now excuse me but at my age it don't pay to get cramps)
Just out of curiosity, when is Obamacare supposed to start saving us money?
It is hilarious isn't it, Paul? Obama just swatted it away like the gnat is is/was.
White House Shoots Down Boehner’s Call For Obamacare Cuts | TPMDC
As in, "Get that weak shhit outta here." It'd be better if the White House and other Dems used it to mock Boehner and his merry band of wingnut stooges to the country.
In 1860 the Democratic Party gathered in Charleston, SC for their Convention. At the time it was the conservative party and the new Republican party was the progressive party.
The southern delegates had nerved themselves up to demand a plank in the platform on slavery. It went something like, "Slavery is moral."
The northern delegates said, "No way! I can't go home and explain why I allowed such a plank into the platform." The southerners insisted and threatened to walk out unless it was put in. The northerners stood firm, saying again, "I can't go home if I vote for that, I'll be ridden out of town on a rail."
The southerners did walk out. This split the party and Lincoln won the election with about 40% of the vote.
My point is that now the Republicans in Congress can't help themselves. They can't go home and explain that they compromised with Obama (the socialist or maybe even the Anti-Christ). They would be ridden out of their state on a rail (i.e. defeated in a primary).
So, are they just like the northern delegates in 1860? Are they also, trapped between the folks back home and the situation in front of them. Can they compromise?
It seems like they, some Repub leaders, say encouraging things; but then have to walk them back, maybe after they get an ear full from other Repubs. It seems like the walk-back is their "considered opinion".
If so, then we are going over the "cliff". It's a good thing that that phrase is a lot exagerated. This is because Obama and the Dems have been down this road before and know where it leads. They will NOT CAVE IN this time. They better not anyway!
My eyes... they roll.
Boehner loses his memory when it comes to doing the bidding of his corporate donors. You can claim he's smart all you want but I don't buy it. He's a bubble headed goober who has no depth so cannot see the depth of any situation. His claims are always bogus and dumbfounded plus he is always in opposition to workable solutions...always.
He IS the problem so he can never solve one. You must be laughing in disgust huh.
Don't forget that for GOPs like Boehner, the campaign for the republican nomination in 2016 started before Romney's concession speech. I think that for some it started in September, but open season started Wednesday, November 7. 11/7 also started the 2014 midterm campaign for the GOP for the House and Senate. My point is that this is the center of the universe and the point of existence for Boehner and his ilk. Obama may be trying to govern the country, next week, next month, next year but the only relevance for the GOP is to obstruct this. Yes he is the problem, but he ain't a goober, he is striving to another agenda.
Another reason to "step off the fiscal curb" and let things go on January 1, then come back and straighten the mess out when "Mr. Reasonable" has had the dogcrap kicked out of him, along with the rest of these lying, untrustworthy scum.
I agreed with Bush in 08 and Obama in 09 that pulling the plug on the auto industry per Romney would have dealt a major, damaging blow to the US (and the world ) economy. If Boehner takes the leap in January I believe that US history shows that the impact can quickly become many orders of magnitude worse. The market crash of 1929 was bad, but the GOP's balanced budget for FY 1932-33 required WWII to reverse the damage. If we need to wait a year to get a fix through the House, the damage will be done. I am sorry to say this but I believe that today's GOP is willing to wreck the economy for the good of the one per centers that support them.
@bacon331
" I am sorry to say this but I believe that today's GOP is willing to wreck the economy for the good of the one per centers that support them."
I so agree with you !!!
I just hope that after the cliff, a little sanity prevails and some of the cut backs are restored, even if the tax increase can't be dealt with.
John Boehner is a full-on buffoon.
But this "debate" isn't going to be a facts or policy or substance. It doesn't matter if he's got it wrong.
Like so much else, this is going to be about pure politics all the way down. Obama is going to have to win this by campaigning for it -- and he seems to get that this time. Let's hope.
I'm sure many of you are very aware of this, but the Obama team is keeping the campaign machinery going to aid in getting things done through the second term. If you're not already involved, you can get up on it and get involved. Start poking around here:
http://www.barackobama.com/?source=action-bar
"I don't expect the House Speaker to be a wonk, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask him to at least think this through and understand the basics."
I'm sorry, but Bonehead has been in Congress since 1991 and at what point does he NOT understand that the ACA isn't a "government program ala Social Security"?! At what point do WE as Americans stop putting people into office that don't have a clue about basic civics, how government works, how to read for comprehension the bills that they are passing, et.al?!? Is it too much to ask that these people have a clue, buy a clue, hell steal a clue?
As Speaker of the House Bonehead makes $223,500 - is it too much to ask that he actually be intellectually qualified and emotionally mature for that salary? Hey Bonehead - your side lost so instead of behaving like temper tantrum throwing 3 r olds, how about acting like adults that are actually working FOR the American people that pay your salary? How about you and the rest of your caucus WORK FOR Americans instead of your 1% pimps and tea-potty know nothings?
DWIA is right - the Obama campaign is keeping things organized. Get connected. I took their survey this week and am getting micro-targeted information, and they are working to expand OFA and keep it going (like they should have in 2009).
I too took the survey just this morning. Keep organized!
Let everything roll into 2013, the first step is recognizing there is a problem.
The WSJ was too busy for this ink?
Theatre of the Absurd: nonsensical dialogue, repetitive and meaningless actions, and non-realistic plots.
There is a 3.5 percent surtax to help fund Obamacare. That surtax is what the 1% find offensive. It is also why the elites say their taxes are going to go up to 43% and not 39.5%. That is what has the Orangeman's panties in a bunch.
The RWNJs want to return to the way things were in the 1950's. Ok, let's do that and raise the upper income tax back to 90%.
Sure missy. Why don't we just completely kill off the economy.
No that is not what they want Missy, they want people to have respect for one another. To act like they have love left in their hearts for the unborn Baby, for the child on the street, for the children in their homes, for the woman who is working 2 jobs trying to keep a roof over her kids heads while the dope head dad is off spending too much money on drugs.
Too many American's think the junk they see on TV is good and OH It's ok it want hurt the kids to watch it. It's not real. Well looks to me like the fact that hollywood wanted people to have no emotions about preserving human dignity and life, now many of them don't have those necessary traits. Murder rates, abortion rates, rapes are all up and no one seems to really bat an eye,
That is what I heard the Republicans say.
Yeah, Rusty, those high taxes so completely destroyed things. Remember how the economy was just horrible under those terrible, confiscatory, oppressive Clinton tax rates? Yeah, I don't either.
But thanks for the daily demonstration that you people are too ignorant to ever change.
@Debora - Please cite examples of how the Republican Party has shown ANY love or respect for the people who are living under the circumstances that you've provided in terms of policies. The only thing I saw in this last election season was the Republican Party demonizing "the takers" as being beneath contempt.
Really - is that why they demonize Democrats? Is that why they say the President is Un-American, Lazy, Food Stamp President, he is not one of us, and all their other racial comments? Is that why they demean people who are forced to use Food Stamps, Medicaid etc because their employers do not pay them enough to support themselves and their families? Is that why they say things like "47% of the people do not take personal responsibility", that is being respectful? Ryan saying that 30% are takers- that is respectful? Referring to homosexuals the way Santorum did in the preliminary - remember he made reference to dogs. Gee what a RESPECTFUL Party they are.....
MindBend, I'm sorry but your statement:
well all I can say is people put all eggs in one basket and then Stomp them.
God says if you don't work you don't eat. God would be a lot harder on people who chose not to work in comparison to those who really cannot work. You know, the elderly, sick, completely mentally incapable, those who are too young and those who have lost the ability to work due to a horrible accident.
I think you might want to post an example. No nevermind I can only imagine what it would entail and then you would blame ALL republicans
Deborah-
God told me you're full of it.
He told me that those that don't love others as they love themselves will go to Hell. He told me that loving others as you love yourself means building a society where all are cared for and you don't judge others while holding your self up as righteous.
He told me that it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to heaven.
Makes you kinda wonder about the afterlife for Romney - doesn't it?
The "eye of the needle..." thing refers to attachments. They become attached to material things and cannot lay them down and that is what their whole life centers around...owning things...weighted down with pretty gold chains. And if Deborah is hearing God's voice she needs help.
God is not "a" being...God IS being. He doesn't "do" anything...or need anything...He's God...He didn't forget anything...it's all done already and we are witness to all that is...and all that is...IS God...the source which both contains and sustains us. Enjoy Being..and stop with the "God wants" stuff or the "faith through fear of punishment" crap to gain power over others...that voice in your head is not who you are...you are the observer of that voice which is indefinable.ha. "Heaven is in the midst of you"-Jesus. "Behold, I saw a new heaven and a new earth"...and here it comes...a change in consciousness known as consciousness awareness.
We didn't elect Obama again to diddled with the likes of Boehner...we elected him to get our progressive agenda passed not watered down. Obama needs to be talking to those who elected him first...cause all he's going to get from repubs is the same ole same ole.
@Debora
That's what YOU say. Here's what God says (Isaiah 58 NIV):
“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday."
If you're going to put everything in terms of what God wants, then please stick to the script.
Deborah - God told me he was too busy worrying about the outcome of Football games and getting Obama re-elected to spend too much time fretting about who works and who doesn't.
Priorities please
Deborah. Please tell us who all those people that "don't want to work" are. I know many unemployed, due to a major plant outsourcing, but not one of them don't want to work". Just more right wing talking points.
You don't know what god wants or doesn't want. You are making an arrogant assumption about god and god's desires. You do realize that by making this argument you are now asserting that you are on the same level of sentience as god, yes? And that would mean that either there is no god or YOU are also a god. More importantly your framing of this argument is disengenuous. You make it sound as though a great many of those who receive assistance from the government are people who could be taking care of themselves, but are making the choice not to. On what empirical basis do you make this claim? But furthermore who are you to judge that these people aren't working? You do realize that the vast, vast majority of people who receive government benefits ARE people who work, yes? So who are you to assert that "if you don't work, you don't eat?" And WHY would we, as a society, be worshiping a god or passing laws to adhere to the rules of a god that told us that if we don't meet his arbitrary standard then we are to starve and die? So those whom YOU have deemed unworthy must lay down and die so that you can live in your utopia? I get that you are making the Republican argument as you see it, but there are so many logical holes here. So Republicans are upset because they feel that people don't "have respect for each other" yet they show this respect, by your argument, by saying that some people deserve to die? How does that figure? It makes no sense.
I also am curious what Republican policies have specifically been oriented towards helping those whom you claim Republicans want to help. When do Republicans help the unborn? When do they help the poor? When do they help the elderly? And of course I am not talking about Republicans here as meaning an individual who happens to vote Republican. I am talking about the party as a whole- the monolithic being- since that was the context in which the term Republican was being used to which you responded. I am curious when they have shown these policies at least during the current presidency.
Debora...
You mean, those who depend on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - Disability? The same programs the Republicans want to DESTROY?
Hypocrite...
Cartoon, the programs the republicans favor that help people are Planned Parenthood which is the major source of aid for prenatal care for poor women, food stamps which is the difference between starving and not starving for many people who have been thrown out of work by the "job creators," social security that is the difference between living a decent life and poverty for most seniors, Medicare which allows seniors to get the medical care they need, Medicaid which allows many poor kids to get the medical care they need, public schools which are the ladder that allows kids to climb out of their parents' socioeconomic stratum, ...
What? The republicans are trying to do away with those programs??? But Debora said that republicans cared about people! How can they care about people if they are trying to make their lives hell on earth?
Tc- perhaps you can tell us what the great economic results were in the 1950's with 90% tax rates. That's what the premise that missy laid. I'm not for sure how you misread that, it was pretty clear.
Now, let's talk about Clinton, since that's where you want to go. Let's raise taxes across the board, like he did. Let all the bush tax cuts expire. Clinton also reduced capital gains taxes. He also reformed welfare, putting time limits, etc. raised taxes on social security recipients (al gore voting to break the 50-50 tie in the senate). Then, he passed the largest financial system deregulation bill ever (yeah, the one many think precipitated the housing crisis). Remember the economy during the time frame you're talking about? Profits didn't matter, only great Internet ideas, with people being paid in stocks that were going crazy- NASDAQ over 5000. Remember the bubble crashing down in march, 2000. Yeah, figured you didn't.
Yeah, except that all these numbers are the lowest that they've been in decades. Abortion, for instance, is the lowest it has been since Roe vs. Wade. Rape is the lowest it has been since I believe the 90's and murder is the lowest it has been since the 80's.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/21/15338488-us-abortions-fall-5-percent-biggest-drop-in-a-decade?lite
Damn I
hatelove it (sometimes) it when I'm rightI believe there has been 27 states Put abortion restrictions in place just this year. Also, a record number of restrictions.
That's what the causation for the reduction was, isn't that you point, cartoon?
Nope the article accounts for that, but thanks for the lack of reading comprehension.
I read the article. It doesn't account for anything. It's pure numbers of abortions per women of child bearing age. It attributes increased contraception and improved economy. Attributing isn't accounting for it statistically. Once more, the cartoon nomiker is accurate. If you read that, then I don't think you can read.
One more reason to not have ANY talks. It's disappointing to even see Obama and the Dems bother with this.
Let's just go round the "fiscal corner".
Everything is in our favor to do just that.
And how about starting with Tripling the Capital Gains tax as a starting point. And we can throw in removing the payroll cap for Social Security too.
Why is Obama so flaccid?
Obama is "flaccid?"
Hardly.
People who call themselves Democrats or support Obama should refrain from using those terms when describing this President.
Obama has proved himself to be a person who walks softly but carrying a huge stick.
One must not doubt him, because he will continue to make the GOP lose their minds.
conciliatory rhetoric as ruthless strategy. Obama is a master at this.
President Obama knows what he is doing.
I voted for Obama.
I made my own Obama bumper sticker and rode around the OC with it on the back. For those who don't know the OC used to be called Reagan Country so it was an adventure.
I also donated money to his campaign.
I have the right, and the duty to doubt him. He works for me. He is not a saint. He is not infallible.
Obama blew his chance at Single Payer when he refused to even use that as a starting point.
Obama blew it in the debt ceiling negotiations when he caved.
He blew it in the first debate by being flaccid and conciliatory - that almost cost him the election.
It was Obama that put together the Catfood Commision - headed by Simpson/Bowles. what a mess that was.
I don't care if Obama "knows what he's doing". I know what I want him to do - grow a pair.
I am glad that you are an Obama supporter. Many on this thread are Obama supporters who worked tirelessly to get him elected.
Obama knew single payer would never, ever happen. It was wise of him not to push it, because we now have something to hang our hats on, something that will help millions of Americans, and that can pave the way for Single payer in the future.
Obama did not blow the debt ceiling negotiations:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-obama-and-democrats-outsmarted.html
If you think Obama blew the first debate then you are saying that you prefer bullying to that of substance and truth. That seems to be the position of the MSM, so it is hardly surprising that talking point would be parroted.
And whether it almost cost him the election is debatable.
And Simpson/Bowles being a mess? Not true:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/11/duel-triggers.html
And it is clear that you don't care if Obama "knows what he is doing" by your last statement about Obama "growing a pair."
Acting angry is not the same as "growing a pair." Being rigid and holding on to dogma(which is something the GOP did) is not "growing a pair." That strategy failed miserably for the GOP as well.
Obama is smart and never will become that angry black man so many progressives want him to become. It is not his way.
It is also important to remember that Obama did not run as a progressive candidate, so projecting that onto him is not the right thing to do, and is what some progressive liberals have been doing throughout Obama's Presidency.
Sure, it is fine to criticize the President. But to place unrealistic expectations on him, to project what you would have done on him is nonsense.
Being uninformed about what he is doing, how he is working with congress is terrible as well.
David-
Says who? You? It wasn't even used as an opening stance. That was blowing it. The opportunity was ripe for single payer and he didn't even try.
As for the debt negotiations - as Boehner himself said that he got 98% of what he wanted.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being an "angry black man".
Obama won the next two debates by being aggressive. If you call his performance in the last two debates bullying then you're simply not seeing the world as it really is.
Actually he did stake out increasingly progressive positions and that contributed heavily to his winning the election.
Your comments - praising his performance in the first debate, defending the Catfood Commission, defending the results of the debt ceiling negotiations - just tells me you're confused and uninformed.
And willing to settle for whatever half-baked outcomes.
Finally,
directly contradicts your previous statement:
We have to keep the pressure up or Obama will cave again. We can't afford that.
Says who? Were you really following what was going during that time period? Please tell me how the support for single payer in congress was really, really strong and that single payer would happen. Please provide proof of that. But I think that if you were really honest with yourself, you would admit that single payer would have been shot down and nothing further would have been done regarding healthcare.
And again: you are projecting your progressive views on Obama. He did not run as a progressive.
Just because he said so? Not really:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2012/09/remember-i-got-98-of-what-i-wanted.html
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/09/speaker-boehner-in-bit-of-pickle.html
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-obama-and-democrats-outsmarted.html#uds-search-results
These three articles explains very clearly that Boehner got more than 98% of what he wanted:
The Bush cuts scheduled to expire Jan 1st
Budget cuts to the miliatry
The scorn of the public
Yes it does. And Obama did much of what he did the first debate. And to say that he didn't is not seeing the world as it really is.
Not really. He made the GOP get more and more extreme in their view points, and what Obama countered back with would sound quite progressive by any reasonable person. But still: Obama did not run as a progressive, doesn't say that he is progressive, because he is not progressive. He is quite willing to compromise with the GOP in ways that will make the progressives very angry.
These comments show that you didn't even bother to read the links I posted in a previous post, so really, who is the more confused and uninformed person here? Sounds like you have a set narrative and you will do nothing to have that narrative changed.
It does nothing of the sort. Anyone can have an opinion about Obama and his policies/choices. Anyone can make those issues known. But to question what he is doing with such nonsense as him "caving" is really ignorant, with a healthy dose of "I think Obama is a true progressive" President. Which he is not.
And "we" can keep the pressure on Obama, but he doesn't respond to that. He will do what he thinks is best. He has done so. And he has been successful thus far. Which shows that President knows what he is doing. And he will surely make some decisions that you don't agree with. But unlike you, I don't doubt that he will do what is best for the country. Realistically dealing the hand he has been given, and not some progressive idealism that will make progress impossible given the present situation in Washington and the current GOP.
On Saturday, July 30,3011, the debt ceiling debacle was reaching full throttle... I wrote and sent the following to the White House...
President Obama, falter not in fear,
For we reflect the ideals you espouse.
Your foolish freshman foes don't want to hear
"You have our full support" in deafened House.
You know, full well, that you possess the right,
The duty to extend expended debt.
Though former leaders failed us in foresight,
Your duty lies in paying charges set.
The Taxed-Enough-Already Party hates
The fact that you were chosen to lead this land.
They refuse to care for these United States,
For "united's" a concept they can't understand.
Invoke the 14th to avoid default,
And don't give in to TEA Party assault.
The next day, I heard he'd given in to the Republicans... I sent him this...
A leader leads by always moving forward,
You can't bring change by simply giving in.
By failing us, you fail to honor your word
And show us that you lack the will to win.
Republicans claim taxes must keep shrinking,
Job makers need more funds to help create
More jobs, yet they refuse to do so, thinking
The unions garnish wages for your slate.
Jesus Christ was never an appeaser,
He often preached the rich should help the poor.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"
Requires that the wealthy should give more.
The government should assist those in need
And not give in to those who worship greed.
But, when the Congress was voting, and I saw how Democrats were so in favour of Obama's compromise, I realized what he was doing...
I felt President Obama's force was weak;
Republicans were taking all they're able.
They swore to gut all programs for the meek
While taxes for the rich were off the table.
The sacrifice the poor would make would seem
To tear the social contract into shreds.
It turns out they were falling for his scheme;
The President was messing with their heads.
It seems the cuts they made were in his plans;
The programs that they hated won't be harmed.
The Tea Party was putty in his hands;
Republicans would learn they'd been disarmed.
The judo of the President was strong;
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong.
Sometimes, being a spectator means you can't see ALL the ramifications of why President Obama does what he does... Like an experienced chess player, he has to think six moves ahead of his opponents...
Boehner raises the question...Does fake tanning cause brain damage?
Boehner answers the question...
Negotiating turf. He knows his repertoire is weak and he'd be signing off on a whole lot of positions put forth by Obama. So this is an attempt to arm himself with something, anything, by which to push the President into a concession or two.
Obama needs to get back that bottle of wine.
But seriously, who didn't know this was coming? Now when Boehner drops it he'll claim he has given something up. It's about time that Democrats learn to react to this sort of bullshhit and, instead of recoil into a defensive posture, go on offense. Obama should simply put the carbon tax AND single payer on the table. Everytime the GOP makes a ridiculous, from-another-planet demand, Obama and the Dems ought to raise the pot exponentially.
Hey, if one can play, then they can learn how ridiculous it is when they're on the other end. I'm actually serious, every time the GOP gets off on another foolish negotiating bender, mock them with one of our own.
And I mean do it in a MOCKING way. These buffoons need to be made fools of to the country. They need to be laughed at out IN THE OPEN; not given faux respect with a phony show of seriousness like Dems are wont to do.
Make them a laughingstock.
While I agree with the sentiment, the Dems do not need to do anything to stick it to the House GOP.
A big part of the fiscal cliff is automatic cuts in defense spending. Most of that will come out of R&D and buying weapons systems not vital to the troops currently in the field. This means big cuts in Air Force and Navy purchases and research.
The firms and workers threatened by these cuts are loyal GOP supporters. If the House GOP wants to hurt one of its core support groups, all they need to do is keep encouraging the Dems to sit on their hands.
Amen to that.
I mean I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED to hear that the Republicans are lying weasels.
http://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME
Maybe Obama and the Dems could learn a little from Sean Connery in the Untouchables
http://youtu.be/xPZ6eaL3S2E
If only they would!!!
Actually, it would probably stimulate the economy by increasing popcorn sales.
Actually, John, it would be preferable to decrease defense spending even more gradually over the long haul than what is in the current sequester.
What would be even better is if the GOP finally took responsibility for their 30+ years of failed conservative ideas and polices and realize it is completely responsible for the difficulties of the economy and represents the true class warfare that has occurred during that time. Then, even better, they should stop obstructing others from doing the work of cleaning up their mess. It'd be best if we didn't have to set off the austerity bomb but if necessary, we must because a return to sane governance is actually more important than giving in to this repeated hostage-taking.
I would be surprised if the defense industry gets cut by more than a token amount. This is a heavily unionized sector and while Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection, democrats do. Republicans don't want them cut.
I agree that we could radically reduce defense spending while remaining secure at home. Since one of our 'boomer' subs carries enough firepower to destroy every major city in every conceivable collection of enemies, and we have several of these subs plus many carrier groups, we can cut A LOT without fear of enemy invasion.
But cuts in purchases mean less pork for defense contractors, many of whom are loyal donors to the GOP. So, the GOP is in the position of having to defend wasteful spending to their supporters or face their wrath. The President and his party should use this situation to encourage more responsible behavior from the GOP while gradually cutting defense spending.
Nice defense plant in your district Congressman, pity if anything were to happen to it. Some weapons systems will have to be cut next year, should it be yours?
Even my conservative friends who know what they're talking about (they're out there, believe it or not) want to see the defense sequester happen - particularly if it involves killing the never-will-work F-35 before it consumes the entire Pentagon budget.
Sounds to me like they want to use guvmint money to create jobs...hey wait a minute.....
John- I believe if you look up the donation records, you'll find the campaign donations to be roughly equal between the parties since 2008, and Romney getting just a slight bit more than Obama. Then, if you add in the defense industry organized labor donations, they swing heavily democratic.
Rusty,
Thanks to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, we will never know who donated how much and to which side in the 2012 election. You get Karl Rove to release all his donor info and THEN we can talk.
What we do know is that Jack Welch, the former head of the major defense contractor General Electric, just about had kittens when the unemployment rate dropped just before the election. His reaction was not atypical amongst corporate titans addicted to defense department pork.
Yeah. Seems interesting that the Left thinks freedom of speech should be limited to people and corporations espousing a Lefty view, such as msnbc, etc
But, it is interesting that you cited as fact your view of who contributed, now explain that you really have no way of knowing.
Republicans don't care about the deficit per se. They care about making government smaller. To that end, the deficit is just a tool, a lever that they created. Seen in this light, Boehner's annoying obsession with Obamacare is at least consistent and rational. The idea that Obamacare extends insurance to 32 million more people, or that it has a chance to reduce the rate of growing medical costs, our biggest budgetary problem, don't seem to count with him. It violates the simple stubborn one-way ratchet on taxes and size of government. That one simple (and simple minded) idea is their north star. No wonder they are lost when it comes to grappling with complex reality.
Actually, GOP has very selective idea of what should get smaller; all New Deal and newer social welfare programs. They all want their bridges to nowhere if it is in their district.
What exactly is fair minded about democrats. I guess it is fair if you take from some to give to others and make us all equal like in the old USSR. Even Russia learned that you can't make everyone equal. And OH aren't the dems doing a smash up job of running the country. Spiraling out of control deficits, stagnant unemployment, debt to other countries and a weakening foreign policy. Billions if not trillions spent on stimulus projects many of which failed and will never repay the taxpayers. On and on and on.Terrorism is rachetting up again despite the fact that "Osama bin Laden is dead and terrorism is on the run" OH SO EXCITED About the direction of our country.
The Repubs want to legislate my vagina. Despite saying they want smaller government, everyone knows they actually don't. It's actually a tool the Dems can use to get more conservatives on board the blue train if they work it properly.
The deficit is going down and has consistently during this presidency since the stimulus
Nope. Employment is going up and unemployment is going down and that has been consistent during this presidency since the stimulus passed
....we have always had debt with other countries. This isn't even the most we've owed another country in terms of our GDP to debt.
How is our foreign policy weakening? I mean first off you'd have to define what it means to be "weakening foreign policy" and then you'd have to explain what has happened to meet that definition. We're pulling out of Afghanistan, we've pulled out of Iraq, Al'Qaeda is decimated in the region and with the exception of some straggler groups is disorganized, and we just this morning struck a new peace deal with Israel and Palestine.
OK the amount spent wasn't in waiver, you do understand this yes? We spent under 800$ billion on the stimulus in total. That isn't "trillions", but it is certainly billions. That money went to the states so that the states could distribute it and as a result we've seen unemployment continue to decline. Now it COULD have been done more effectively- if that is your criticism I agree- but in order to have it done more effectively you would've had to donate the money directly to projects or create a federal jobs program and hire workers for projects directly. This would have usurped the authority of states. Would you have preferred this? Something tells me "no." For the record roughly 1/3 of that stimulus was spent on tax cuts so I don't want to hear about how tax cuts would've not cost us anything or would've been more effective.
On what basis do you make this claim? Terrorism can never be stopped, you do understand this yes? But what we can do is put Al'Qaeda on the run (which is what he actually referred to thank you very much) and hopefully eliminate either the structured power the organization has or even potentially eliminate them entirely. Al'Qaeda will continue to have counter-attacks until they are dead. This does not mean that they are growing stronger.
jes, "Take from some and give to others"
This has been the republican program from day one. They take from the workers and keep it for themselves. Witness how much of the gain in productivity in recent years has gone to the workers (roughly 10%) and how much has gone to the takers (roughly 90%). That's the reason that wages have remained flat, even decreasing, while income at the upper levels has increased by over 100%.
cartoon
President Obama is increasing the debt to fund a plan to revive the economy in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, FM and FM brought to you by Frank and Dodd.
Cognitive dissonance. The GOP has said government is evil so many times it is hardwired into the neural structure of their brains.
So for them to admit that a large government program will save us all money "Does not compute"
Just like crack dealer being exposed to his own product while cooking it, so has the GOP been brainwashed into believing the lies that they spread through their propaganda.
Given enough time and enough repetitions you can make people believe pretty much anything. Look at the repetitive structure built into all successful religions. That same structure is used by educators. It is a function of the basic human learning process.
It's really silly on our part to think that suddenly enlightenment will spread through out the GOP. Deprogramming is an immensely difficult task.
EVERYTHING should be up for discussion. Why is it when Republicans agree to raise taxes they are reasonable but when they want to lower spending they are holding us hostage? Just because you take the money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare does not mean it reduces government spending, any CPA without a political agenda could say the same.
Wingnut wrongism. Romney already beat to a pulp on that one. Back under your rock:
MITT ROMNEY IS THE "MEDICARE" LIAR:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf
Safe to ignore this one folks. Just a harmless wingnut suffering from the crushing blow of learning his worldview is entirely wrong.
Good luck with your recovery, Mr. Irrelevant.
I will take my information from the CBO's bottom line not from your political websites or anyones "projections". You seemed to forget the doctor fix and the admin costs. Irrelevant is an interesting word you use, considering your lack of understanding on the budget. I am glad you brought up Ryan's budget, but where is the Obama alternative?
I take it you were one of those who voted for all the losers in Seattle?
@Tom not from Seattle -- it's right here and has been posted online for the better part of a year:
The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
And to answer your other question - because the ideas the GOP offers to "reduce the deficit" actually achieve the opposite effect -- they explode it. Boehner knows this as well as anyone, yet he still puts his name to a litany of the same old Republican lies that wastes everyone's time.
Maybe you're not getting a complete version of the news, Tom. The President has offered billions in reduced spending, only to be met up to now with folded arms and "no new taxes" from the GOP; when they finally agree to talk about additional tax on the top income earners, they're just coming to the table FOR THE FIRST TIME.
Again, you've got it wrong. You're mixing two stories. Yes, $700 billion has been earmarked to be cut from Medicare, because it was found to be unnecessary and an overpayment. The headlines on that were that Romney campaigned on a claim that Obama was cutting $700 billion in benefits to seniors. No one is claiming that this same money, rescued from unnecessary Medicare costs, will reduce government spending if it gets funneled into Obamacare, instead. There are other cuts that add up to reduced spending.
Please get your facts straight before you start blasting away.
Well, lookie there. Tom -- is his name really Tom, or is it Tim, as in the dickweed Tim Eyman -- the wingnut is giving everybody lessons on the budget! Hahahahahahahaha...,
Looks like I got here late to the party but others have just beat it further into Tim's, err Tom's head what the links I provided alredy said. If Tim, err Tom, were really up with his CBO, he would know the CBO predicts the ACA will decrease the deficit. Oh well, whaddya expect from a wingnut, even if he is surrounded by a lot of good liberals out there in Seattle.
Again, safe to ignore this one folks. Just yet another harmless wingnut suffering from the crushing blow of learning his worldview is entirely wrong.
I again wish Tim, err Tom good luck with his recovery from irrelevance. Say hey to Tim for me. And give a shout out to all my friends over at Seattle University if you would. Then go dunk yourself in Lake Washington. Hahahahahahahahaha...
i hope they keep it up. at some point, the msm and an invincible share of the electorate is going to accept the modern republican party for what it is, a sham collection of wingnuts, religious fanatics, and unscrupulous plutocrats. any attempt to reason with them should be viewed as suspicious by fair minded democrats. to hell with the g.o.p., we've got a country to run.
Aren't you the optimistic one! The MSM? The only way more of the electorate understands the GOP is a malignancy on the country is if the Dems keep up with the campaign. There is probably only one person who can make that come about and that is Obama.
No prob...THAT was for Ohio...he'll get slapped when he gets back to DC.
I'm surprised that it took Boehner so long to reveal the real Republican agenda. After all, it's over 2 weeks since the election! Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be the best strategy; after all, the expiration was built into the original bill by the Republicans.
Funny, Boehner was elected to represent the 8th district of Ohio. The people of his district re-elected him with 83% of the vote (a mandate by any definition). Not too many people do not know what Boehner's stance on issues are. So if the people of the 8th district elected him, their views should be represented.
Agreed.
Let their views be represented.
And Boehner and the folks who voted for him will remain marginalized.
And I thank them for their views and wanting to be represented. It is what helped Obama get re-elected.
Always nice to have another one of the little idiots using Mommy's computer when she's not looking to go pee on the fire hydrants.
TCinLA, watch the name-calling. Seriously.
TCinLA, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Mr Benen. Ive been reading your blog posts for going on a year now. I admire the work you do and your willingness to tell it like it is. However, do you ever get tired of preaching to the choir(and a few trolls)? Does any of what you write here make it out into the world where it might do some good? Does anyone in the Obama administration read this and maybe take away some good ideas now and then from either you or your commenters? Does anyone on the GOP side read this and sometimes think to themselves "Hey, he has a good point". I just think that if it werent for your regulars all that you write would be lost for ever.
I've wondered the same thing since Steve was at the Washington Monthly. Does anyone with the power to change things ever think about what he says?
Seems apparent by comments made the past few days my Boehner and McConnell that they are digging their heels in that no deal on budget unless Obama care is eliminated and tax reductions for the top 2% stand. Its obvious that President Obama needs to hold his ground and let all tax reductions expire at end of Dec and then push a bill that gives a tax reduction to the bottom 95% as has been pushed and then let the GOP say NO
I am thinking the same thing. It sounds like Republicans are throwing up roadblocks so they can claim the Dems refuse to compromise. Let the tax cuts expire and the sequester go into effect. Then the Dems can talk to the Republicans who will be under great pressure from their constituents and their campaign contributors because their taxes went up.
I have thought every single time I see Boehner speaking that it isn't really him speaking. I always think he looks like a pained-faced puppet. I think he leaves little breadcrumb clues about his REAL point of view, but he's always yanked back by the GOP machine. I never feel like he's sincere about what he's saying: he's just acting all the time. JMO
Obviously, Boehner and the Republicans want to go off the so-called "fiscal cliff" (or a "fiscal three-inch drop," as it woul more appropriately be called, given what it is).
Good. Let's do it, guys. Then, the Dems will have some REAL bargaining power.
Lawrence O'Donnell refers to it as a "fiscal curb"...
I, too, am in favor of "going over the fiscal cliff" (a misnomer, by the way). Let all the taxes go up and start using the sequester program. AND let's start those defense department cuts in the backyards of the obstructionist Congressmen.
It could be sweet . . .
Would any of you expect your elected officials to go to Washington and do the opposite of what you elected them to do? I don't think so, although some of the bums do exactly that. There were many republican canididates elected to hold the line on socialism in Congress. For them to do anything less would be against the framework of our system of government. We elect our representatives to represent us. All we can expect is that they do just that and then live with how the results shake out. They would be less than honorable if they went against their elecorate. They should do their best to get a compromise that gives everyone something that they can agree with, but it would be wrong to give up all. Anyone who doesn't believe this didn't study their civics lessons very well.
I hope they do hold the line on socialism. Every socialist bill I hope they prevent from being passed. Of course socialist bills aren't presented, let alone likely to pass very often so I dunno how this is relevant.
Yes but their electorate isn't just the people who voted for them in their district. They make policy for the entire nation which means that they also have to keep in mind how their bills will effect everyone- not just their state. You should try to hold out for the best benefit for your state, but not the detriment of policy and NOT to the detriment of the rest of the nation. Doing so is irresponsible and against the philosophy of representative government.
One thing you're forgetting is that by a wide margin, Democrats in the House got more votes than the republicans did. The only reason that there are more republican congressmen is gerrymandering. If we apportioned positions in the House on the basis of total votes, it would be overwhelmingly Democratic. So since the majority of people voted for the Democratic program, it is up to the Senators and the Representatives to follow that program. I'm glad to hear that you agree.
Since conservatives are too stupid to explain this for you Steve let me try.
Any money the Government spends, even if it is totally covered through revenues, is money spent less well than that same money spent through the private sector, where it can be taxed (at ever lower marginal rates).
Thus does Boehner imagine that eliminating the ACA 'reduce' deficits.
I agree that that's the republican theory, but when you actually look at what happens in the real world, you find something quite different. But don't expect republicans to acknowledge ugly facts that destroy their beautiful theories.
What actually happens, as illustrated so well by Mitt, is that the money that would otherwise go for taxes and be spent in the economy instead goes to places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and just sits there in an account hiding from the IRS and doing nothing beneficial for the economy. It just sits there in the moral equivalent of under a mattress.