But if Obama signs the bi-partisan bill and averts a “crisis” he helped to create wouldn’t he be letting it go to waste?

Well apparently 5 democrats voting for a bill means bipartisan support. So does 9 Republicans voting against it mean that the opposition had more bipartisan support?

Boehner was awesome tonight…soo glad he didn’t cry!…He owned Barry’s @$$ tonight and told the truth……very proud of him!!

Boehner was awesome tonight…soo glad he didn’t cry!…He owned Barry’s @$$ tonight and told the truth……very proud of him!!

Isn’t is nice to see, hear, and listen to a MAN actually give a speech?  what a different; the manchild versus the man.

No, because Republicans that voted against it are now RINO and therefore not Republicans against at all. (beware dripping sarcasm)

I do love the silliness, irony and hypocrisy of ideological purity.

The Whiner in Chief was mad that the Repubs got their voice out there.  He doesn’t like it when people can call him out on his lies. 

Two hour special with Greta tonight on this topic….shewill kick butt in the ratings (well, she always does anyway).

this President stood up their and lied through his teeth again, and got away with it.  pathetic.  For once, I would like Tommy to actually listen and write facts rather than what he is told to write by the WH.

Alot of people are starting to speculate that Obama spend alot of time in Special Ed. when he was a student.

That blank check was worth 3 trillion in cuts including entitlements.

The bigger the government the smaller the people????  What a bunch of slogan gibberish!

Who is Boehner kidding? If you’re running a business, the solution to spending more than you’re taking in is cutting spending AND taking in more money! And Obama doesn’t want to raise taxes on small businesses, he wants to close the corporate loopholes that let GE pay less than me and all of you in taxes last year. So disingenuous.

Who is Boehner kidding? If you’re running a business, the solution to spending more than you’re taking in is cutting spending AND taking in more money! And Obama doesn’t want to raise taxes on small businesses, he wants to close the corporate loopholes that let GE pay less than me and all of you in taxes last year. So disingenuous.

Boehner is trying to protect my wallet.  Obama wants to go  after my wallet with a chainsaw.   Obama keeps trying to blame the most productive because the deadbeats can’t keep up.

Boehner’s response to Obama’s speech was two parts hyperbole and three parts holier-than-thou dogmatism.

The essence of the Speaker’s comments were that:

1) The GOP’s sh*t don’t stink

2)  We’re still gonna try to “castrate, crap on, and bone the middle class”

3) Compromise is for wusses

4)  It’s gonna be our way or the highway, economic repercussions be damned.

The Republican Party made a huge gamble by embracing the often naive, frequently irrational, usually hyperbolic rhetoric of the tea party movement. The GOP leadership stands at a political precipice, contemplating whether to back away slowly, oblivious of the mindless tea party stampede heading straight toward them that will send the entire party over the cliff.

Libs are losing this fight…  Obama suggested that you call your Senators and Congressmen, and I think that is a good idea…  call them and tell them that it will be their asses if they cave now, as everything about Obama tonight, his words, his posture, his whole demeanor showed us that he knows he is beaten. 

You’re really good at debating when you get to make up your opponents argument.

In a business, you’re always trying to take more money in. But there’s a limit. And once you’ve reached that limit, you hold back.

Not that difficult. And Obama wants to increase income taxes, not just increase revenue by getting rid of some loopholes. His plan isn’t on paper, but that’s the plan nonetheless.

 It appears that Boehner has convoluted and distorted as well as taken on a very obtuse view in regard to ‘balancing the budget’. He says the Presidents means no take more and spend more — how obtuse! The President wants to cut more than the Repubs and close loopholes in taxes. The President simply wants to get the US of A not only back on track but to make a strong show of how much America is willing to tackle its debt. Kicking the problem forward another 6-monhs, like kicking the can, may turn out to be America kicking the bucket as the worlds most dependable economy. 

Another message from that alternate universe again.

The gang of 6 plan also calls for closing loopholes for individual taxes too. Many small business owners still file individual tax returns that include their businesses or have to put their own money into their business. Losing deductions would reduce their incomes and reduce the amount that they can invest as well, so it’s actually not untrue. However, I do agree that more money has to be taken in in addition to spending cuts and I think that the individual and corporate loopholes need to be closed. I also think that there needs to be a balanced budget amendment passed with the raising of the debt ceiling. I would like to see the balanced budget amendment and debt ceiling raised through 2011, then congress should immediately go to work on a sending cuts bill and a separate tax reform bill.

The gang of 6 plan also calls for closing loopholes for individual taxes too. Many small business owners still file individual tax returns that include their businesses or have to put their own money into their business. Losing deductions would reduce their incomes and reduce the amount that they can invest as well, so it’s actually not untrue. However, I do agree that more money has to be taken in in addition to spending cuts and I think that the individual and corporate loopholes need to be closed. I also think that there needs to be a balanced budget amendment passed with the raising of the debt ceiling. I would like to see the balanced budget amendment and debt ceiling raised through 2011, then congress should immediately go to work on a sending cuts bill and a separate tax reform bill.

No.  He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top percent.  Something he vowed to the American people that he would do when he gave in to the Republicans the last time.  Even Grover Norquist has said you can’t get away with calling it a tax increase.

I don’t like the new plan, a committee of insiders working to see what can be cut?   

No to raising the debt ceiling.  No to new taxes.  Yes to a balanced budget amendment.

The plan on paper actually lowers taxes and reduces the # of tax brackets from 5 to 3. However, the amount collected in taxes would still increase for all tax brackets due to all the closed loopholes.

lol and democrats that don’t toe the line will be forced to become independents.

lol and democrats that don’t toe the line will be forced to become independents.

The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut

 
Thought the Republicans had been set on not Raising the debt ceiling?
 
Wait..did boehner just say the last one they are sending has a debt limit increase? at 3:50 of defeat speech
So Old Republicans did fold? thought they would..guess best wait a bit longer and hear more..this was useless. Will it matter if he gets a trillion in cuts if he let’s him raise it a trillion? is that washington as usual?
so why did we have to listen to this stuff for weeks? So they worked together to continue spending? oh, and going to create another committee for later..hmmm ohhh ahhh..ohhh hmmm..

The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut

 
Thought the Republicans had been set on not Raising the debt ceiling?
 
Wait..did boehner just say the last one they are sending has a debt limit increase? at 3:50 of defeat speech
So Old Republicans did fold? thought they would..guess best wait a bit longer and hear more..this was useless. Will it matter if he gets a trillion in cuts if he let’s him raise it a trillion? is that washington as usual?
so why did we have to listen to this stuff for weeks? So they worked together to continue spending? oh, and going to create another committee for later..hmmm ohhh ahhh..ohhh hmmm..

LOL the president likes to complain about the corporate Jet loophole…  how many times have we heard about that during the last month, oh, I don’t know maybe a couple of thousand…..  he is the one who put it into code just a year ago as part of his stimulus…  Don’t go on about how great and forward looking this president is, he is done, toast, he has lost this fight and in so doing ruined his chances for election..  He has always been disingenous and the American people have seen him for who he is…  Tonight he came to the American people holding out his hat begging for them to fill it with there support for his continued incompetence… well tomorrow that hat will still be empty…  this guy is done… 

How about we tax the companies that got bailed out?

As a libertarian, that’s probably the only form of a tax hike I’d ever get behind.

I mean, they stole from us first.  The only problem I have with that is, some did not want to be bailed out.

Our federal monsters forced it on them. 

The end of an empire is an ugly thing to watch and there are no perfect solutions.

Oh, wait.  Yes there is.  Vote for Ron Paul and stop wasting our time with losers like President Obama.

What Boehner said was “bipartisan support” and “bipartisan leadership”. When the Senate Democrats got one or two Republicans to go along with one of their schemes, they called it “bipartisan”; so it’s fair for Boehner to characterize the cut-cap-balance vote that way.

As for bipartisan leadership, any Democrat that votes with the Republicans is, by definition, a leader. 

As for the Republicans who voted against cut-cap-balance, I know that Michele Bachmann had pledged not to support any debt-limit increase that did not include a repeal of ObamaCare. I’m afraid she will be disappointed again, but a “no” vote from her is not a vote against deep spending cuts.

Except for the fact that this is a far right crisis instigated for the purpose of undoing a century of legislation… But beyond that you are spot on.

Except for the fact that this is a far right crisis instigated for the purpose of undoing a century of legislation… But beyond that you are spot on.

Is it true Boehner contacted Limbaugh to make sure his speech was okay?

The Boner pimp-slapped the jug-eared jagoff. DOWN GOES OBAMA! DOWN GOES OBAMA! DOWN GOES OBAMA!

Grover Norquist has said quite specifically that getting rid of loopholes are tax increases, unless accompanied by lowering the actual rate. That’s a lie, kitty.

And letting the tax cuts expire is absolutely a tax hike. Read more.

I believe you are mistaken on all counts.

The Republican position, since April at least, has been that any debt-limit increase would have to be accompanied by spending cuts at least that large, and no new taxes. Nothing had changed, except maybe the Republicans are smarter now and will not accept promises of spending cuts many years in the future. They want cuts now and then a hard spending cap, to bring down spending as a share of GDP gradually over several years. 

That is why the House will not vote for Harry Reid’s phony spending cuts; he claims $2.7 trillion in cuts, but $1.2 trillion is already baked in if troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. And his other $1.5 trillion are soft promises of gradual cuts over 10 years. So it will not shrink the deficit at all, not until 2018 or 2020 and that is too far in the future to satisfy our creditors.

There is no plan. Go ahead, try to dig that one up. Are you making this up as you go along?

Until spending is proven to be under control and the tax code is reformed, I think the debt ceiling should have to be raised yearly to force this issue to be revisited irregardless of whether it’s an election year. That would require the politicians to deal with it instead of claiming (as Obama intends to) that the problem is solved just because the ceiling isn’t an issue for that year while knowing that it’s still just as pressing an issue as it will be when it’s time to vote again.

And big plans that string out cuts over 10 years more are perfect examples of kicking the problem forward.

Sorry I missed it.  I am going to have to print both texts out in the morning and see who has a higher percentage of cliches written into their speech.

At first glance Boehner is in the lead, using “blank check” twice in the first sentence.

Well chity_kitty I did not think that the progressives would implode so quickly….  a couple of years ago it all looked like smooth sailing and sunshine as the progressive agenda was spreading throughout the land…  but as the economy crumbled and Americas cut their own credit cards, stopped wasting money on useless things, actually began to review where the money goes and make corrections, the progressive leadership in the government however continued to spend like drunken sailors, never once looking to economize, never once worried about waste and corruption..  now as the checkbook has dried up America is saying just stop, the progressive answer, is to name a faceless enemy, we can just take what is theirs…  but what most you progressives don’t know about your fellow Americans is that we are basically a fair people, we know the difference between right and wrong…  and this government has not earned the new taxes they are calling for as they have never shown us that they can act responsibly with that which they were already given…In this case the government is wrong,they have not earned the right as they have never stepped up to the fudicary responsibility that the american people had entrusted them with.  You guys are going by the wayside once again in 2012.. 

“…a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.”
I missed it.  Was Boehner wearing a clown nose when he made this statement?

Ron Paul – The only proven principled politician in Washington and the unwitting father of the Tea Party movement. Why should anyone settle for a politician who’s a proven liar because he says that he agrees with your beliefs? He is a liar! I laugh every time someone accuses a republican of being an ideolgue when that politician’s record proves the only ideology he embraces is re-election.

Search simpson-bowles or moment of truth. and read around page 31, I think. That’s the plan the commission came up with and the gang of 6 plan Obama supported was basically lifting the tax change recommendations

Or for the lazy: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

When the American people spoke in the 2010 elections in a land slide president Obummer should have taken note. America wants washington held accountable for this massive over bloated government. The private sector creates the jobs not Washington. For every government job you need to hire 50 people to pay their salary. Business is all about making money not hiring. Take away profit by raising taxes and regulation and you completely obliterate job creation. DemocRATS are such fools.

The only problem is is that Obama doesn’t support it..  he has been completely non-commital throughout the entire process, there is nothing written on the Democratic side except this POS that Reid and Schumer came out with today… and that won’t get out of the Senate..  there is no plan, in the end they will take whatever it is that Boehner gives them because they are just way to late to get into the game…  they just thought that they could let the Repubs do all the work and then push them around by demanding changes to whatever the republicans brought forward, the dems have done no work on this just as they have not produced budgets…  now they see that Boehner won’t be pushed and the Dems are left empty handed…  so the president asks us to call our Senators and Congressmen, and much to the president’s chargrin, the Tea Party is all over that as the phones are ringing off the hook…  Funny how things work out..  Obama never earned the right to not do the hard work…  he just thought he was so special that he could move mountains with a couple of speeches that his mismanagement of this country would never catch up with him…  well he was wrong..

At this point, compromise would probably have to be considered a cliche as well.

If even ONE stiinkin’, BABY KILLIN’, SODOMITE LOVIN’, PIECE OF FECULENT WASTE OF A DEMONCRAT votes for it that make it BI-FREAKIN-PARTISAN, numbnuts! That’s how your people have been using ARLEN SPECTOR, LINDSEY GRAHAM and LAME MCCAIN for YEARS! All of a sudden your dumb ass is about a “head count”. Go suck eggs beyotch. 

Sarcasm ain’t what’s “dripping” beyotch. It’s your gay boyfriends BABIES drippin’ onto your UPPER LIP.  No go off to NY and get your gay ass married!

Sarcasm ain’t what’s “dripping” beyotch. It’s your gay boyfriends BABIES drippin’ onto your UPPER LIP.  No go off to NY and get your gay ass married!

Can you say Joe Lieberman?

Can you say Joe Lieberman?

He won’t get away with it. The lack of enthusiasm from Chrissy Hotpants and even Larry the DICK O’Donnell, tell the story. If these two BEND OVER AND TAKE IT UP THE HERSHEY HIGHWAY FOR OBAMA cheerleaders, are lukewarm on it, it was an unmitigated DISASTER.

He won’t get away with it. The lack of enthusiasm from Chrissy Hotpants and even Larry the DICK O’Donnell, tell the story. If these two BEND OVER AND TAKE IT UP THE HERSHEY HIGHWAY FOR OBAMA cheerleaders, are lukewarm on it, it was an unmitigated DISASTER.

He won’t get away with it. The lack of enthusiasm from Chrissy Hotpants and even Larry the DICK O’Donnell, tell the story. If these two BEND OVER AND TAKE IT UP THE HERSHEY HIGHWAY FOR OBAMA cheerleaders, are lukewarm on it, it was an unmitigated DISASTER.

False.  Corporations are making more money than ever.  You don’t take away profit by raising taxes.  You invest in your county’s infrastructure.  Take away regulation and you get what we got – a recession caused by de-regulated Wall Street.  Don’t worry though, as middle class America was foreclosed on and declaring bankruptcy, Wall Street raked in the dough. 

False.  Corporations are making more money than ever.  You don’t take away profit by raising taxes.  You invest in your county’s infrastructure.  Take away regulation and you get what we got – a recession caused by de-regulated Wall Street.  Don’t worry though, as middle class America was foreclosed on and declaring bankruptcy, Wall Street raked in the dough. 

You mean like “HOPE AND CHANGE” or “YES WE CAN”?

You mean like “HOPE AND CHANGE” or “YES WE CAN”?

You are a f-ing idiot.  If you’re running a business and you’re spending MORE MONEY THAN YOU ARE TAKING IN, according to YOUR construct. You are unable BY DEFINITION to affect the amount COMING IN or the PROBLEM wouldn’t exist. MORON. 

 And there ladies and gentlemen we see the problem with the weak assed liberal mind. He thinks that if he just closes his eyes and clicks his heels HE’LL BE BACK IN KANSAS. Money will just MAGICALLY appear. Liberalism IS a mental disease. Whatta maroon.

I was a little worried myself, if he cried then he might as well have turned off the camera and called it a night.  However, he didn’t and what followed was the bitch-slap hear ’round DC.

oops, seems you accidentally typed “progressives” instead of “conservatives” a few times. Do you remember who was president when the economy crashed, TARP began, and our deficit ballooned? Remember the whole “deficits don’t matter” thing? …didn’t think so.

It must be nice to have such a simple view of the world. Let me guess, you think all muslims are terrorists too?

Dammmmmmn! lol

You are a lying idiot. You really should be required to post a LINK with your bullshit, kitty. If the tax code has been at 35% for ten years and then it goes to 37%, that is an INCREASE moron. The problem is that you’re a stupid liberal who looks at the Carter years of 70% tax as some kind of NORM and everything after that just an impediment until you and your demented cohorts in the media can convince the nation to return to it. That and you’re just plain STOOOPID. 

I actually hope so, the Repub. leaders have been caving far too much and Rush would make sure that it didn’t happen.

OBAMA DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS OWN COMMISSION IDIOT. 

No he wasn’t but Obama was wearing overalls and a propeller hat while complaining that the Republicans are meanies.

And ALL PARTS RIGHT. Obozo is a nothing, with NO PLAN. Where’s his plan , show me ONE PIECE OF FREAKING PAPER that would constitute “Obama’s plan”, He doesn’t HAVE ONE because he is TOO STUPID TO WRITE ONE, not being an economic whiz, preferring to lie about his “constitutional scholarship ROFLMAO, he is at least SMART ENOUGH NOT TO PUT HIS STUPIDITY ON PAPER! Gotta give the lying sack that one!

Dude a couple of years ago they were looking to change the TWO-TERM law! They thought they had a messiah for life. Instead they got the usual FLEA-BITTEN liberal POS that we’re used to!

But WHY DID IT TANK? Because of a STUPID LIBERAL HOUSE AND SENATE, with a STUPID LIBERAL DESIRE, to give houses to a bunch of STUPID LIBERALS, that COULDN’T AFFORD THEM. 
Bam. You bin PWNED by the best, beyotch!

But WHY DID IT TANK? Because of a STUPID LIBERAL HOUSE AND SENATE, with a STUPID LIBERAL DESIRE, to give houses to a bunch of STUPID LIBERALS, that COULDN’T AFFORD THEM. 
Bam. You bin PWNED by the best, beyotch!

Nah.  I play by true cliche rules.  Boehner’s speech was much shorter, so I’ll have to play the percentages.

OBAMA DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS OWN COMMISSION IDIOT

The gang of 6(7) used most of the tax recommendations of the commission and Obama supported that. IDIOT.

Good to know that someone believes in Congressional committees that do “the hard but necessary work of dealing with tough challenges…”  LOL!

Fedup,
It may be that the you’re right about how it will go down. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think it’s the president’s job to come up with a plan. It is congress’ job and Obama never should have tried to engineer the outcome. Now he’s said so much trying to shape the narrative and win reelection points that he’s painted himself into a corner. He’s left himself no choice but to sign whatever ends up in front of him.

Funny when the dems get even 1 republican they call it a bipartisan bill.

lol if you listen to Obama’s speeches/press conferences and the talking heads over the last weeks you may have to add it.

lol if you listen to Obama’s speeches/press conferences and the talking heads over the last weeks you may have to add it.

Did you intentionally write your comment with the grammar of
a first grader? You used the incorrect form of their, it should be there.
Furthermore, you failed to apply the conventions of common English, such as:
capitalization and spacing. Ultimately your inability to use these conventions makes
your comment difficult to decipher and should never have been “liked”
by BigEddieGuy and the other 4 individuals who did so.

On a more important note, your ideological failure to see through the basic
formulaic nature of the response speech is humorous and frightening. Saying
that the President of the United States, “stood up their (incorrect, see
above) and lied through his teeth against, and got away with it” fails to
actually understands the issues at hand. The President’s speech placed the
issues on the table; there is a crisis that is coming and it is not one that
can be solve by the House GOP plan by allowing the problem to persist for
another six months. How can we continue to hope that the economy will recover
and our credit rating can remain in tact when it will come down to a vote in
six months? How can a policy of creating a voucher system for elderly care be
an acceptable approach to solving a budget crisis? How is it possible to say
that implementing a system of capping the budget be deemed appropriate when it
may, in fact, create a impediment for military spending in a time of war?

Open your eyes, and see the actual issues that are being
discussed, and move outside your bubble insulated by misconceptions and
illusions.

A compromise is necessary between the Democrats and Republicans. The
Republicans need to move into a more moderate understanding of what needs to be
done. If the windshield fluid of a car does not work, there is no reason to
replace the whole car, simply add fluid. The only way to solve the actual
crisis at hand is to place all the options on the table: revenue increases,
increase in age for Medicare and social security, decreases in military
spending, etc. If people will allow for all topics to be discussed, and
consider the need for an agreement, a true policy to solve this issue can be
done. The words of people such as you, “TinafromTampa”, do not assist
in solving the issue, but only exacerbate the incapabilities of modern America.
From now on, (1) learn to use correct conventions in your writing; and (2) move
beyond your party politics into a world of rationality and understanding.

Much appreciation.

Did you intentionally write your comment with the grammar of
a first grader? You used the incorrect form of their, it should be there.
Furthermore, you failed to apply the conventions of common English, such as:
capitalization and spacing. Ultimately your inability to use these conventions makes
your comment difficult to decipher and should never have been “liked”
by BigEddieGuy and the other 4 individuals who did so.

On a more important note, your ideological failure to see through the basic
formulaic nature of the response speech is humorous and frightening. Saying
that the President of the United States, “stood up their (incorrect, see
above) and lied through his teeth against, and got away with it” fails to
actually understands the issues at hand. The President’s speech placed the
issues on the table; there is a crisis that is coming and it is not one that
can be solve by the House GOP plan by allowing the problem to persist for
another six months. How can we continue to hope that the economy will recover
and our credit rating can remain in tact when it will come down to a vote in
six months? How can a policy of creating a voucher system for elderly care be
an acceptable approach to solving a budget crisis? How is it possible to say
that implementing a system of capping the budget be deemed appropriate when it
may, in fact, create a impediment for military spending in a time of war?

Open your eyes, and see the actual issues that are being
discussed, and move outside your bubble insulated by misconceptions and
illusions.

A compromise is necessary between the Democrats and Republicans. The
Republicans need to move into a more moderate understanding of what needs to be
done. If the windshield fluid of a car does not work, there is no reason to
replace the whole car, simply add fluid. The only way to solve the actual
crisis at hand is to place all the options on the table: revenue increases,
increase in age for Medicare and social security, decreases in military
spending, etc. If people will allow for all topics to be discussed, and
consider the need for an agreement, a true policy to solve this issue can be
done. The words of people such as you, “TinafromTampa”, do not assist
in solving the issue, but only exacerbate the incapabilities of modern America.
From now on, (1) learn to use correct conventions in your writing; and (2) move
beyond your party politics into a world of rationality and understanding.

Much appreciation.

In light of your desire for a citation, please review this website and post an actual understanding of the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html

Oh, but the Huffington Post is liberal right? Is Politico accepted: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59555.html.

oups…  that one there was a gooden Kyle…  guess you got me on that… LOL

Did it cry?

Atreyue, I appreciate your patience in talking to people here. I don’t think that the president ever really picked a plan as asked that it serve as the basis for a deal, as neither his commission or the gang of six seem particularly happy with the process..  At any rate this issue should have been settled some months back as we knew this day would arrive.  His whole presidency has been like this, bills having to be rushed through to avoid some sort of crisis, proper debate and amendment process not afforded as time is running out on the clock..  it is not the proper way to run the country and I think that the president has been so far very content with this type of process as he has always seemed to get what he wanted when things were done this way.  I don’t think it is going to work for him this time. 

Wow..  An a$$hole english teacher. 

Right, that’s why the Democrats, who controlled BOTH houses of Congress, haven’t sent a budget to Obama’s desk in 800 days.

Riddle me that.

No they’re be forced to get work in the private sector, perhaps for the first time in their lives.

lmao If only that were true! Most of the ones that are not 1st generation rich never needed to work a day in their lives in the 1st place. Maybe that’s the problem with our political system, it’s filled with the wealthy and the nouveau rich. I guess politics is the new catholic church.

I definitely agree with you about the way Obama has run the country. This may be a bit cynical, but I think they did things this way strategically. Since they’ve already lost the house and almost lost the senate, they want to keep control of the senate through the next election cycle. Since Obama seems pretty set to win reelection just on the strength of the Republican field (which is seriously weak, you have to admit), he is the one best poised to take negative criticism. So the senate is instructed to do nothing while Obama takes the lead and establishes the narrative that everything is the House republicans’ fault and anything that originates in the house is terrible because it will never pass the senate and avoid presidential veto. The narrative says that this is evidence that the republicans are unwilling to compromise. Make sure liberal news outlets ignore the polls but repeat the narrative ad nauseam. Once the poll numbers begin to turn in Obama’s favor due to his frequent use of the bully pulpit and complicit media, mention the new poll numbers ALL THE TIME. Then Obama demands that the debt ceiling must go through the next election and gives up on anything else on the grounds that anything less is republicans playing politics and that it will be even harder to do anything during an election year. Somehow we’re not supposed to think that this is him making sure he can claim a democratic victory in “taking care” of he problem. So far, the senate hasn’t done anything. When the plan comes out of the house and is tabled by the senate instead of voted on, Obama and the talking heads claim that it’s because a republican bill is just doomed to fail and not even worth consideration. It’s no coincidence that the first you hear from Harry Reid is a bill that’s supposed to be a big compromise, since there are no tax increases or tax reform. After all, everyone knows that democrats want to get rid off the evil Bush tax cuts that they have extended so far. So they manage to cast the senate as the responsible party and send the message that you really don’t want to see a republican-controlled senate. At the same time, they make sure to throw senate republicans a bone by contrasting them with the selfish house republicans.

Sorry for meandering a bit. I wrote this post while watching an hour of tv. I think this gambit will work unless the republicans refuse to cave on only extending the debt ceiling through this year.

I definitely agree with you about the way Obama has run the country. This may be a bit cynical, but I think they did things this way strategically. Since they’ve already lost the house and almost lost the senate, they want to keep control of the senate through the next election cycle. Since Obama seems pretty set to win reelection just on the strength of the Republican field (which is seriously weak, you have to admit), he is the one best poised to take negative criticism. So the senate is instructed to do nothing while Obama takes the lead and establishes the narrative that everything is the House republicans’ fault and anything that originates in the house is terrible because it will never pass the senate and avoid presidential veto. The narrative says that this is evidence that the republicans are unwilling to compromise. Make sure liberal news outlets ignore the polls but repeat the narrative ad nauseam. Once the poll numbers begin to turn in Obama’s favor due to his frequent use of the bully pulpit and complicit media, mention the new poll numbers ALL THE TIME. Then Obama demands that the debt ceiling must go through the next election and gives up on anything else on the grounds that anything less is republicans playing politics and that it will be even harder to do anything during an election year. Somehow we’re not supposed to think that this is him making sure he can claim a democratic victory in “taking care” of he problem. So far, the senate hasn’t done anything. When the plan comes out of the house and is tabled by the senate instead of voted on, Obama and the talking heads claim that it’s because a republican bill is just doomed to fail and not even worth consideration. It’s no coincidence that the first you hear from Harry Reid is a bill that’s supposed to be a big compromise, since there are no tax increases or tax reform. After all, everyone knows that democrats want to get rid off the evil Bush tax cuts that they have extended so far. So they manage to cast the senate as the responsible party and send the message that you really don’t want to see a republican-controlled senate. At the same time, they make sure to throw senate republicans a bone by contrasting them with the selfish house republicans.

Sorry for meandering a bit. I wrote this post while watching an hour of tv. I think this gambit will work unless the republicans refuse to cave on only extending the debt ceiling through this year.

yeah , and “caving” means “getting everything you want and then…….rejecting it”

Darladoon’s a seemingly rare commodity on Mediaite in that their every utterance seems so ripe and promising for ridicule.

Since it only makes for political fodder, what is the point?

Wow!

So the Republican leadership is doubling down on lies, false equivalencies, misrepresentations, nutball economic theories, personal attacks, disrespect for voters, and irresponsibility.

Clearly a winning strategy. Except that we get to pick up the pieces of their sanctimonious mumbo-jumbo. They’re good at that — pass the boodle to their masters and leave someone else with the bill.

Boehner lied:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/boehner-s-response-is-work-of-political-fiction-jonathan-alter.html

He wants to do both.  Now the increase you speak of is the “Bush Tax Cuts” which amounted to $550 million a year in lost revenue. By the way that is 5.5 trillion over ten years.  This may have been done back in 2003 to help stimulate the economy and in possibly good faith at the time or if I’m a class half full guy to scratch the back of a few US firms.  Regardless it has failed.  The economy did not improve it continued down the slippery slope, but the rich got richer.   What makes us think by reversing what was done in 2003, economic times would be any different?  Oh the light bulb just came on: “Greed” on the part of those corporate fat cats that got some of our GOP elected. Such as the Koch Brothers.

This is a GOP smoke screen. I would like someone out there to prove me wrong.

If the Republicans are smarter now why don’t they admit the “Bush Tax cuts” are a failure and not doing at all what was sold to the American public back in 2003.  That would throw about $2-3 trillion back in the revenue futures.

Name one Financial firm  that did not want to be bailed out and we force fed them! 

Thus speaks “dik gozinya,” well known for his probity and wit.

The House Republican position is to handle taxes separately, as part of a comprehensive tax reform. 

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were not, in my opinion, the best way to go to encourage economic growth. They were, however, what could be passed in a Congress where the Republicans in the Senate only numbered 49 or 50 or 51 members. The House Republicans suffered from poor leadership, too — I mean, who was it that thought Dennis Hastert was the best person to be the Speaker. He was nearly as bad as Nancy Pelosi, maybe even worse. So the tax bills that came out of the conference committees were not nearly as good as they could have been.

It is time to fix the tax code — it is long past time. But this is not the time to raise taxes indiscriminately, according to whether the persons or businesses being taxed are popular or not. The mediocre tax bills of 2001 and 2003 should not be superseded by another mediocre tax bill in 2011.

” The House Republicans suffered from poor leadership, too”  That is understatement Tom Delay Majority leader resigned do to criminal money laundering.  A fellow Texan to Bush. I think your kidding yourself if you think GOP will ever agree to the reversal of the “Bush Tax Cuts”.  This is what frustrates me they talk out both sides of their mouth.  One side of the mouth is reduce spending which basicly means to the GOP cut Social programs, but the other side of the mouth is saying can’t touch the Bush Tax cuts that will kill jobs. Bush tax cuts will not kill jobs, they may result in a few less Republicans not getting reelected. Face it a pricing model of a product includes all overhead related to that product which include taxes.  Did you see the price of goods go down in 2003 when the Bush Tax cuts were adopted?  I didn’t.  Like wise if we increase the Tax they will try and pass through the cost to the consumer and some people would argue that is an indirect tax hike to middle American. The flaw in that argument is I don’t have to buy their product.

Typical Republican double think… yes is no, pay the bills means don’t pay the bills … boner is pro America … all part of the same bovine scatology that has divided our nation for a very long time. Isn’t it about time we rid our Congress of these people and got patriotic Americans in our legislative branch?

“…that has divided our nation for a very long time.”

Since 1790 or so. That’s how long we’ve been debating about the size and scope of government, what it should and should not do… how much power for the executive and the legislative, how much power for the states… who should pay taxes and how much… and so forth.

If you are running a business that is spending more than it takes in, you cut spending AND look for new ways to exploit your assets to bring in more revenue. Only bad businesspeople are unable to create new revenue streams and predict sales trends.

There is a limit to the amount of money businesses want to take in? Really? (Of course this is where the analogy between business and government breaks down – they aren’t the same thing.) It’s true that Obama wants to raise some taxes, but this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. After all, Reagan and Nixon raised taxes many times.

Unfortunately the gang of 6 plan looks like it won’t have much effect on what ultimately gets passed.

Tax increases (and cuts) necessarily have a mixed effect. Raising some taxes may indirectly discourage a few businesses from hiring, but a burgeoning national debt is a threat to the economy as a whole and can also have a definite effect on unemployment. (Tax codes can be written to provide stable revenue AND encourage businesses to hire workers and invest as well, of course, but we’re not living in the ideal world where tax proposals can actually make complete sense and pass Congress.) A balanced budget amendment, I think, would be a big mistake. The U.S. would never have made it through World War II or the Cold War with a balanced budget amendment in place. It would tie the hands of future presidents and legislators facing national crises. I agree that we should work urgently toward a balanced budget, but I don’t think we should mess with the Constitution.

Or it would force people to stop using the excuse of a crisis to justify spending. How many national crises have we had since 2008? I don’t believe that all the Cold “War” spending was justified either and it’s easy enough to add a provision that allows the amendment to be superceded by a two-thirds vote or something like that to defeat party line votes.