The Hill is reporting that Boehner has ended negotiations with the White House over raising the debt limit ceiling:
House Republican leaders have called off negotiations with the White House over a broad deficit-reduction deal tied to an increase in the federal debt limit and will begin exclusive talks with Senate leaders to avert a government default on Aug. 2, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced Friday.
Boehner told House Republicans in a letter that President Obama is “adamant” about raising taxes and would not agree to “fundamental changes” to entitlement programs.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Obama’s time in the Oval office to date is nothing but speeches that say one thing followed by policy that does another. To have thought that Obama was serious when he claimed he was willing to cut spending, reform medicare and social security is wishful thinking at best
There isn’t a bone in Barack’s body that’s willing to reduce government spending. The whole of his life has been spent enlarging government for the benefit of the “less fortunate”. I’m convinced Obama can’t envision a world where government shrinks. And reforming the entitlement programs? HA! If he speaks about reforming ’em, he isn’t talking about it in the way that you and I would reform ’em. In his mind those reforms take the shape of ADDING to the revenue side to reduce the deficit of the programs. Again, there is simply no way this man will shrink that aspect of government either.
There is no way that Obama means “spending cut” in any way that resembles reality as it relates to the common everyday American.
So, the fact that Boehner walked on him is the most positive thing that’s happened in a week. Or weeks, for that matter.
With only 1 week before the government shuts down, it looks like we’re facing exactly that; a shutdown. And judging by the reaction in Minnesota, namely — who cares? — and the fact that the Democrat gave in and accepted the Republican’s deal, I say let ‘er go.
America is fed up with the spending and it’s time we address it.
Sometimes I wonder if our “debates” serve any purpose. You live in such an alternate reality that it’s practically unrecognizable to me. Presumably you’d say I’m the one that’s deluded and I suppose it’s possible. But than I see you’ve omitted to mention that the Republicans added a last minute demand that Obama eliminate the individual mandate from health care reform. However you feel about that reform, you cannot possibly explain what relevance it has to authorizing the President to pay down debts that are already owed. This is hostage taking, plain and simple. In a different world, with a rational republican party, it might be possible to have an actual debate about government spending, eliminating excess, paying down our debts, but that is not possible with these nutjobs running things. It is an absolute certainty that were John Mccain in office we’d be undergoing a combination of tax cuts and spending hikes, facilitated by the very Republican party that is suddenly so deficit-conscious, just as what happened under 8 years of President Bush. You and others who support the republicans should be doing a little bit more self-reflection about what you have enabled, instead of trying to pin everything on Obama.
Obama offered over $3 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for $1.2 trillion in increased revenue. What is wrong with that? What is so un-serious about that? 75% in reduced spending and 25% in increased revenue?
Sometimes I wonder if our “debates” serve any purpose.
They do. I enjoy the debates and enjoy your point of view. To some degree, when I discuss this stuff, I am “pulled Left” to a degree. I think that you and others that are more Liberal have an impact on how I think. That I don’t agree with you may remain the same, but the degree to which I disagree with you may change.
But than I see you’ve omitted to mention that the Republicans added a last minute demand that Obama eliminate the individual mandate from health care reform.
I just scanned the most recent NY Times article. I didn’t see that mentioned. Do you have those details?
authorizing the President to pay down debts that are already owed.
We don’t need to raise this debt ceiling to pay those debts. We have that amount of money.
It is an absolute certainty that were John Mccain in office we’d be undergoing a combination of tax cuts and spending hikes, facilitated by the very Republican party that is suddenly so deficit-conscious
And those Republicans were defeated. Many incumbents lost their primary; more are coming soon. We don’t wanna spend like this anymore.
Obama offered over $3 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for $1.2 trillion in increased revenue. What is wrong with that?
Because Obama is a liar. When he says “spending cut” he means “tax break elimination”.
Will you accept that we see a 7.3% revenue increase year over year due to an expanding economy? If we don’t touch tax rates, we bring in 7.3% more this year than last.
Or, put another way, what level of revenue increase do you think we need? What % year over year increase is required to run the government?
25% in PROJECTED revenue increases through tax rate hikes. It is proven economic fact that increasing tax rates does not increase tax revenues. Lowering tax rates spurs economic activity that creates more jobs that create more tax revenue. More taxpayers not more taxes. PROJECTED spending cuts. Future congresses can choose not to follow that plan and eliminate those spending cuts. So what you have are guaranteed tax rate increases (bad) that don’t guarantee more revenues (bad) and no guarantee that the spending cuts will be made (bad). A triple bad recipe for more disaster.
If you think it’s a proven fact that increasing tax rates does not increase tax revenues and lowering tax rates will necessarily spur economic activity and create more jobs, then you’re one of those people off in alternate reality. What job growth did the bush tax cuts spur? You are repeating absolute falsehoods as fact. That isn’t to say there aren’t instances where tax cuts can act to spur the economy, I’m sure they have been appropriate in certain instances. But we’re talking about a political party whose official position is no tax increases ever.
As for the fact that these are projected spending cuts and projected revenue, the fact is we are having this debate as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. The fact that the spending is projected and may not actually happen is simply the way it has to work, and the way both parties generally want it to work. Only the most insane of the insane republicans want immediate drastic cuts to spending. Even your deity Paul Ryan, for example, wants to phase in cuts to Medicare/Medicaid in a way that doesn’t harm todays seniors. Try and cut 2 trillion in spending tomorrow and see how long the republican party survives.
What job growth did the bush tax cuts spur?
I think that Dubya had the longest consecutive streak of job growth month over month since the end of WWII.
Only the most insane of the insane republicans want immediate drastic cuts to spending.
To be fair, we had immediate drastic RISE in spending since Obama took office. You can not make the case that we can’t go back to the level of spending just 2 years ago. You can make the case you don’t WANT to go back, but we certainly CAN.
I still think they’ll reach a deal. Obama was ready to cut farther but after the “Gang of Six” issued their recommendations — which had the deep cuts Obama wants (and probably can force the Democrats to accept) but also higher revenues (new taxes), it became politically difficult. The Democrats now didn’t want to sign on for huge cuts without getting some more taxes on the wealthy. I think Obama was pushed to move away from his original position by the Gang of Six. That’s what frustrated Boehner, who complained of ‘moving goal posts.’
Obama (who I think is a rather conservative Democrat who does want to cut spending — look who he brought in as his Chief of Staff!), has to get something he can bring the Democrats along with, and Boehner as to do so for the GOP. Just when Boehner thought he had a game plan he could make work, Obama was pushed by his side to try to increase revenues. Right now it’s mostly show. The latest is that Boehner wants a deal by Sunday so as not to spook Asian markets. I think a big deal still is going to happen. You cannot have a big deal without this kind of brinksmanship because both sides need to show that they pushed the other to the edge and were not weak. It’s not all show — it’s real — but Boehner and Obama both KNOW that not passing the debt ceiling increase will cause potential economic calamity. They know it would be horrible for the US. They know they will reach a deal.
And at the very least, if I’m wrong, we all will know that soon too!
“Obama (who I think is a rather conservative Democrat who does want to cut spending…”
Wow! That right there disqualified everything else you said. Biggest increase in spending in history, Socialistic healthcare program, reliance on government spending to stimulate economy, gays openly serving in the military. Obama is so far left he can’t even see conservative Democrats with a telescope.
those damn gays willing to die for their country in the armed services and are so selfish that they want the government not to discriminate against them because of who they are attracted to. They sure have some nerve. Scott is right, you are part of an ever shrinking group of conservatives who don’t yet see that gays are human beings too and deserve to be treated as such with the same rights as everyone else. If obama is so far left for recognizing that then about 70% of the country is pretty far to the left too.
Your lack of thought caused you to jump to a false conclusion. I said “Openly Serve”. The military is not a social club. It’s purpose is to break things and kill people. We need the biggest, baddest, meanest, most capable soldiers possible to carry out the mission. If gays can fit that requirement then they can serve in a combat role. Provided that they can keep their personal proclivities inside their heads and zippers. If special accommodations are needed then they are a distraction. Distractions in the military put yourself and your fellow soldiers in danger. Support roles are perfect for women, gays, blind people, deaf people, and/or anyone else who wished to serve but does not live up to the most physically and mentally capable fighting soldier requirement. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a fine solution in my book. If you fit the requirement your in, just shut up about who you wish to boink. No parades and no pink berets. Just be one of the soldiers and serve. That wasn’t good enough though was it? Incrementally this movement to politically socialize the military will water down and weaken our military machine and put us all farther in danger.
It will certainly come as news to hundreds of thousands of troops and veterans of the armed forces that heterosexual soldiers must abstain from sex while in service. Furthermore, what does a person’s sexual proclivities have to do with their manliness? Is a gay person who doesn’t sleep with men more manly than one who does?
Also, you’ve equated being openly gay with sleeping with men while in combat. Being openly gay is an identity issue it is not necessarily a pledge to have sex with men while serving. Similarly, someone being openly straight doesn’t mean they sleep with every woman that walks by. I think your own biases against gays are creeping into this discussion.
Several Senators have already said that they wont vote for this debt-ceiling increase unless there is a plan to address long-term shortfalls in the federal budget. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Economist Paul Krugman estimate that Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy added about 1.7 to 1.8 trillion to the deficit..When the Presidents spending freeze was first announced members of the House Appropriations and Budget committees said they would not go along. They warned that freezing spending now would further damage the economy.
Most conservatives in Europe support their national health care systems, and they are more comprehensive than the one passed. This isn’t really a left-right issue (my own view is that states should be given incentives to develop their own system, I generally agree with the Europeans that modern industrialized states should not allow people to go bankrupt due to health bills — over 60% of our bankruptcies are due to that — and should cover everyone, but I worry about too large a bureaucracy, especially in a country this large).
There was a stimulus passed due to the recession, but that followed economic theory. Remember that while Reagan (supposedly conservative) was President total debt went from 30% of GDP to 60 of GDP (and oil was dropping in price) creating a hyper-stimulus to that economy. The growth in the 80s was built on debt and cheap oil. Gays in the military is simply a freedom and equal rights issue, I know many conservatives who support that. Anyway, that’s part of cultural change, within a generation gay marriage won’t even be controversial. Also note that the left wing of the Democratic party has been the biggest critic of Obama’s willingness to deal with the GOP. If you focus too much on hyper-partisan blogs or talk radio, you’ll get a warped view. Obama is a pragmatist and he wants a debt reduction deal, and what’s on the table is pretty good for the GOP. In fact, the problem Obama is likely to face is with his own party (though I think he can get enough to go along in the Senate).
I also think Boehner is a pragmatist. As an independent I can like both Boehner and Obama easily. It’s much easier to think independently if you break away from partisanship!
Agree with much of what you wrote. I do think Boehner would be more likely to make a deal if he thought he could sell it to his party, but the fact is much of the republican caucus in the house is far to the right of him and won’t go along with any deal that involves a penny increase in revenues.
Most conservatives in Europe support their national health care systems, and they are more comprehensive than the one passed.
I tend to think that most social programs are nothing more than variants on:
1. No more homework
2. Longer summer vacations
These are the platitudes given to the masses by the Class President.
Who ISN’T for cake and ice cream? But the fact of the matter is, we debate the wrong thing. And, as a conservative, I am continually infuriated over the fact that “my side” loses the framing of the debate.
See, the Left is successful in making the debate about the program, not the goal. Imagine how different the debate, and the policy, would be if we were talking about how best to deliver medical services to all people rather than the merits of the program. It’s as if we’ve already concluded that the only way to achieve the goal is the program in question.
When phrased in such a manner, it’s straight work to demonstrate that Federal, or State, programs to deliver medical care are vastly inferior to other more free market solutions. For example, I can imagine someone thinking that we need to deliver food to our people as well. I don’t know one single individual who would claim that the Federal Government could do it better than the free market system we see today.
And food is a much MUCH more important facet of our lives than medical care.
Europeans like their health care system because they have it. Not because it’s a good idea or that it works.
They like their system because: a) it’s efficient and relatively cheap; b) there are no medical bankruptcies (over 60% of ours come from medical bills); c) they see health care as akin to education or police protection as a basic service the state should make sure all people in an industrialized society receive; and d) they are generally satisfied. “C” comes from the fact that European conservatives tend not to be so free market oriented as American conservatives. I think this relates to the cultural history of European conservatism — it emerged in opposition to liberalism, which at that time was democracy and capitalism (so callec ‘classical liberalism.’) It stressed traditions and social order. It was a more collectivist ideology, though not socialist. American conservatism meshed more with free market liberalism.
DADT meant, however, that if someone slipped up and let their sexuality be known, they could be kicked out. It also meant that while straight couples can be open, gay couples could not (a soldier can talk about his wife and family). That is also unequal treatment. Gays serve openly in most of the world’s top military organizations, including Isreal’s IDF. I daresay our soldiers are as professional and competent as those in these other countries. There is no reason to fear this weakening our military unless you think our military is substandard in terms of its personnel and their professionalism compared to other militaries across the industrialized world.
Look at this chart:
Maybe Obama isn’t the heavy spender people think, most of the debt comes from Bush era programs and spending.