Inconceivable: Boehner Pulls Out

[billisonboard]

Jul 23, 2011 2:31:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...inconceivable?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

;D

A visibly frustrated Obama called Boehner, R-Ohio, to come back to the White House Saturday ...

...

Boehner accepted the invitation ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43864749/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

If Boehner is back in, they still might be able to find fertile ground.

[ugonow]

Should be interesting to see if the public values the loopholes and subsidies as much as he does. I think they will lose that battle.

[billisonboard]

Jul 23, 2011 2:31:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...inconceivable?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

;D

No, not "The Princess Bride"

[privateinvestor]

We need an approach that makes some
serious cuts to worthy programs — cuts I
wouldn't make under normal circumstances,"
he added.

Pay more for college?
But he added it was "not right to ask middle
class families to pay more for college before
we ask the biggest corporations to pay their
fair share of taxes."

And Obama said that "before we stop funding
clean energy, we should ask oil companies and
corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks
that other companies don't get. Before we cut
medical research, we should ask hedge fund
managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate
than their secretaries."

He noted the support of "one of the most
conservative members of the Senate", Tom
Coburn, for a bipartisan debt plan that Obama
said "showed promise."

Private, sometimes-secret negotiations had
veered uncertainly for weeks, generating
reports as late as Thursday that the two sides
were possibly closing in on an agreement to
slash spending.

That triggered a revolt among Democrats who
expressed fears the president was giving away
too much in terms of cuts to Medicare and
Social Security while getting too little by way of
additional revenues.

Obama said his only requirement for an
agreement was legislation that provides the
Treasury enough borrowing authority to tide
the government over through the 2012
election. Boehner said he had little interest in a
short-term extension either.

At the same time Obama and Boehner sought




to define the clash to their political advantage,
their aides provided details of the abortive
talks.

Republican aides said Obama had upped his
demand for higher taxes during the week. The
aides said administration officials had tacitly
agreed to $800 billion in new revenue over 10
years but that the White House backed away
and wanted $400 billion more.

Additionally, aides said the two sides were not
able to bridge their differences over the
triggers designed to force Congress to enact
both tax reform and cuts to Medicare and
other benefit programs by early next year.
Both sides also were apart on the size of cuts
for Medicaid, the health care program for poor
and disabled Americans.

Yet aides on both sides said the negotiations
had yielded agreement for cuts of $250 billion
from Medicare.





The Associated Press contributed to this report.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43864749/ns/politics-capitol_hill/#

[privateinvestor]

That triggered a revolt among Democrats who
expressed fears the president was giving away
too much in terms of cuts to Medicare and
Social Security while getting too little by way of
additional revenues

Do Democrats think this is "caving in" or "compromising"... Whatever the Dems want to call it they are not happy campers and probably will never be unless the President is able to get the additional $400 Billion in tax increases so that the Social Security and Medicare cuts will not be as severe, I guess?? So this is where the rubber will hit the road today in their negotiations again with Boehner...and good luck with that..

[hannah27]

My memory of high school civics may be rusty and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, it is NOT the president's job to create a budget - that responsibility lies squarely with Congress. Why do I constantly see people lambasting Obama for his "failure" to produce a decent budget? What the heck are we paying our elected representatives for? To bicker amongst each other like schoolchildren in this ridiculous high-stakes game of one-upmanship that they're playing and the expense of the American people?

It looks to me like Obama has agreed to concessions that are big enough to anger many of the Democrats, but the Republicans are refusing to budge on the issue of higher taxes aimed at those who can well afford it - and who should be paying more, in my opinion. You can argue that they shouldn't have to pay more, that deeper cuts should be made instead, but the real answer is that we have to do both. Most Americans understand that this is our new reality, so why are the Republicans having so much trouble with the idea?

Random thoughts:

Trickle-down economics is not working in this economy. I have seen it work in the past so I know it's valid - but not over the course of the last decade or so. The trickle-down "benefits" are largely being outsourced. Capitalism works that way and in good times there's enough to go around so it's not a problem. Now it has become an issue that needs to be addressed by import tariffs or some sort of incentive to keep jobs in the US. Carrot or stick, take your pick - I don't care.

Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlement programs and they should never be treated as such in the political arena. All elected representatives should be forced to give up their cushy benefits and instead rely upon SS and Medicare - and no uber-generous defined benefit pensions, either. We'll see how long it takes before these so-called "entitlements" become universally sacred cows.

We can only cut our defense spending to a certain point. Too many people don't seem to understand that we use our military budget in creative ways in our own best interests; ways that may not be obvious. There are too many complete nut jobs out there who would love to see America in ruins - we need to protect ourselves against the lunatics.

Everyone should pay SS taxes on ALL of their income. This one is a no-brainer. No, they're not going to get it all back in higher SS payments when they retire. Too bad, so sad. People pay taxes for all sorts of things that they never use; that's the way it goes.

The Tea Party is attempting to redefine the Republican Party and move them too far to the right. If the traditional Republicans don't cut them loose, they will lose party members to the Independents. The Reps are beginning to look like fundamentalists and most traditional Reps are more centrist. They will leave.

Both parties need to stop pandering to special interest groups at the expense of the majority of the American public. We can't afford the luxury at this point in time. Their lobbyists are probably paying you more in terms of perks than you earn in taxpayer-funded salary, but we can end that gravy train easily enough in the next election.

I'm really beginning to think that we need to vote out all incumbents in the next couple of elections. We need to clean house.

[safeharbor37]

hannah27,

My memory of high school civics may be rusty and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, it is NOT the president's job to create a budget - that responsibility lies squarely with Congress. Why do I constantly see people lambasting Obama for his "failure" to produce a decent budget?

Actually, it's the House of Representatives of which Boehner is Speaker ~so~ that's pretty much what's going on. Boehner is working with the President [who can veto the bill] and the Senate [which has to pass the House Bill].
Now, on the other hand, the President is considered the leader of his Party and, in the case of a "strong President" is expected to propose what the country needs and present it to Congress to consider. There is no reason why the Democrats, when they controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, couldn't have passed a budget. Now that the Republicans control [more or less] the House, some cooperation is required. It's a shared responsibility.
When you said, "it is NOT the President's job to create a budget." you were correct, but it is not possible to pass a budget without the President unless you have "veto-proof" majorities [which only Democrats have enjoyed in my memory] and it is the responsibility of the President to "propose" a budget [through precedent] and the Senate to confirm [after consultation] the budget.
Otherwise, I think you made good points.

[billisonboard]

Jul 23, 2011 9:54:29 GMT -5 hannah27 said:

My memory of high school civics may be rusty and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, it is NOT the president's job to create a budget - that responsibility lies squarely with Congress. ...

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (Pub.L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20, enacted June 10, 1921) was landmark legislation that established the framework for the modern federal budget.[1] The act was approved by President Warren G. Harding to provide a national budget system and an independent audit of government accounts. The official title of this act is “The General Accounting Act of 1921,” but is frequently referred to as “the budget act,” or “the Budget and Accounting Act.”[2] This act meant that for the first time, the president would be required to submit an annual budget for the entire federal government to Congress.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921

and

President Obama submitted a budget blueprint for fiscal 2012 on Monday full of surgical cuts and cautious trade-offs to lawmakers clamoring for bold action to reduce government spending and control a budget deficit expected to rise to a record $1.6 trillion this year. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406234.html

It is probably reasonable for Congress to have set up this system in which the president presents a budget. It should be beyond the scope of presidential power to be as deeply involved in negotiation of budget as is currently happening. Give Congress what you want, Mr. President, and they need to give you a completed bill back for you to sign or veto.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2011 4:37:47 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

As for the "righties" and their 401K's. Personally, let the market crash. It is gonna happen anyway. Let it correct itself and let's all get back to reality. Yeah, it won't be fun. But, i also converted a lot to cash after our Brilliant SuperGenius was elected as my vote of no confidence.

well, that was a dumb decision. i have made about 75% on my money since then.

as is your decision to crash the markets. but i will make money off that, as well.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2011 8:16:53 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

That triggered a revolt among Democrats who
expressed fears the president was giving away
too much in terms of cuts to Medicare and
Social Security while getting too little by way of
additional revenues

Do Democrats think this is "caving in" or "compromising"... Whatever the Dems want to call it they are not happy campers and probably will never be unless the President is able to get the additional $400 Billion in tax increases so that the Social Security and Medicare cuts will not be as severe, I guess?? So this is where the rubber will hit the road today in their negotiations again with Boehner...and good luck with that..

Obama should "go small". that is the only thing that is going to work. the absolute minimum.

totally sad.

[deziloooooo]

Republicans will not think of any revenue increasing actions, none, even though any one in their right mind knows when one has expenses beyond what is coming in , one needs to raise income, for retailers , it's the price of goods sold, has anyone shopped at a store lately, food, dept store? Same here...he has offered cuts they say NO , NO to all revenue raising even though we are still in a war with no taxes to pay for any of it plus what about the $ spent on the tornadoes earlier this year, the floods , the natural occurrences..none of those were in the budget i believe..but pubs..No on any and all as far as revenue rising..like a broken record..we may really go into default



I believe the only thing in the majority of the pubs elected in Congress is that the Potus will not get another term.,.no matter what and if it means bad hurt for the country..so be it..and also as a side want, if a Democrat is ever elected they can never govern as a Democrat..the country's welfare..last thing on their minds.

There has been plenty of ceiling raising in the past, no biggie..this one, it's the end of the world..as one caller on a radio show I listened to this week, suggested with out actually saying it..is it the issue or the race of the man..and I know , so many will come on and say , here he is , playing the "race card again", ..I guess I am , I do believe the race of the man is more important for to many, and the elected ones too..or their constituents and they are giving into their wants..possible so a second thought is given to not ever having another one of this race as POTUS for along, long, long time...if ever if they got their druthers.

Do I believe this...not sure but don't think it's a off the wall thought.

To even go this long and actually coming up on a possible default , yes I believe all the bad things they say will happen WILL happen, every one and possible even worse, and to have the country go through that and suffer as we will..does not compute unless one is so into this other..race..normal thought and doings is not able to be done..

Otherwise , if it wasn't we wouldn't have been where we are now..just makes no sense.

[henryclay]

It's fine to say "someone else" ought to pay more taxes, , , , unless YOU're that someone else. It's fine to say, "I need another loan so I can pay my bills", unless your loan officer's own business is in a slump and worse, he has heard you say the same thing time after time in the past. You shopuldn't be surprised if the loan committee tells you it is time to choose which bills you can pay out of current income and which ones you have already overextended yourself on.

What it really is, , , is the need for fresh money to pay old obligations, but in order to get more fresh money you have to make new obligations, , ,

. . . . and that is the textbook definition of the Ponzi scheme someone is trying to foist off on the US taxpayer, , , , again.

They met and they talked, and Obama apparently still wants to raise taxes, so having accomplished nothing, , , except possibly hardening their positions, , , they left. They didn't even announce whether they would meet again.

. . . . . But Saturday's meeting ended with no announcement of any accord, or an agreement to keep bargaining, with less than two weeks left to avert a default on

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43864749/ns/politics-capitol_hill/government bonds. . . . .

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2011 12:20:12 GMT -5 henryclay said:

It's fine to say "someone else" ought to pay more taxes, , , , unless YOU're that someone else. It's fine to say, "I need another loan so I can pay my bills", unless your loan officer's own business is in a slump and worse, he has heard you say the same thing time after time in the past. You shopuldn't be surprised if the loan committee tells you it is time to choose which bills you can pay out of current income and which ones you have already overextended yourself on.

What it really is, , , is the need for fresh money to pay old obligations, but in order to get more fresh money you have to make new obligations, , ,

. . . . and that is the textbook definition of the Ponzi scheme someone is trying to foist off on the US taxpayer, , , , again.

They met and they talked, and Obama apparently still wants to raise taxes, so having accomplished nothing, , , except possibly hardening their positions, , , they left. They didn't even announce whether they would meet again.

. . . . . But Saturday's meeting ended with no announcement of any accord, or an agreement to keep bargaining, with less than two weeks left to avert a default on

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43864749/ns/politics-capitol_hill/government bonds. . . . .

i am willing to pay more to cover the deficit. and these negotations are VERY VERY CLOSE. i think we will have a deal soon.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/white-house-we-thought-we-were-down-to-the-details.php?ref=fpblg

[hannah27]

Jul 23, 2011 12:20:12 GMT -5 henryclay said:

It's fine to say "someone else" ought to pay more taxes, , , , unless YOU're that someone else.

We are ALL that "someone else" at this point in time.

The Bush tax breaks should have been allowed to expire. We all need a health economy and we'll all have to sacrifice to some degree to get there.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2011 12:54:09 GMT -5 hannah27 said:

Jul 23, 2011 12:20:12 GMT -5 henryclay said:

It's fine to say "someone else" ought to pay more taxes, , , , unless YOU're that someone else.

We are ALL that "someone else" at this point in time.

The Bush tax breaks should have been allowed to expire. We all need a health economy and we'll all have to sacrifice to some degree to get there.

the dirty secret of the negotiations is that Boehner has already offered to let the tax cuts expire.

[henryclay]

The "Inconceivable" part of this tragic comedy is that while the government is collecting less taxes because they made bad laws that tanked the economy, they are the only one still adding employees. While the rest of the country has lost millions and millions of jobs, adding new people who have always played by the rules to the ones who can't pay their rent and buy food for their families, Washington is adding to it's own problems by hiring people, , ,

And at the same time refusing to relax any deterrent to private sector jobs. Incredibly they want to raise taxes on employers instead.

I hope Mr. Boehner stands his ground.

But for some, watching Saturday morning kids playtime is theraputic, so let's watch Obama use the "L" word.. . . . _{In reference to himself, of course}

[formerexpat]

President Obama submitted a budget blueprint for fiscal 2012 on Monday full of surgical cuts and cautious trade-offs to lawmakers clamoring for bold action to reduce government spending and control a budget deficit expected to rise to a record $1.6 trillion this year. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....1021406234.html

And how:

The improving economy would help next year's deficit recede to $1.1 trillion, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar budget gaps, but Obama's policies would do nothing to further reduce next year's deficit.

Meanwhile, Obama would rely heavily on new taxes to improve the government's finances in the longer term. His budget calls for $1.6 trillion in fresh revenue over the next decade, primarily through higher levies on businesses and the wealthy.

Obama has no problem spending us into bankruptcy and any "cuts & trade offs" could easily be eliminated by a stroke of a pen by future politicians.

We also won't get into the projections that his people put together included GDP growth as high as 6% per annum over the next 8 years to synthetically increase projected revenues and thereby decrease the deficit.

I want to see a government that lives within its means like most Americans. Our black card is being revoked. Balanced budget.

I want to see the shut down. I want to see DC's response and prioritization of payments.

I want to see severe cuts that no longer allow the government to spend 40% more than it makes.

Some of you might not care since you're old and going to die in the next 20-30 years. Some of you may not even care about the debt that is passed on to future generations and eats into their standard of living. I'm not some of you.

I've got 50+ years to live and 2 children that are under 3 that I'm raising to be independent and responsible adults that don't need government making every decision for them in life.

If Obama is concerned and interested in investment, then clearly he is open for decreasing Medicare and SS spending. This is dead money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The boomers are not, under any circumstances, going to get the promised benefits that they've voted to themselves. The smart boomers will prepare now for that fate. The longer DC waits, the worse it will be for the boomers.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 23, 2011 14:44:08 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

I want to see severe cuts that no longer allow the government to spend 40% more than it makes.

Slight nipick but it is actually closer to 67% more than they take in.

[formerexpat]

Slight nipick but it is actually closer to 67% more than they take in.

You really know how to bring a brotha down.

[privateinvestor]

BREAKING NEWS: Boehner says leaders hope to have plan within 24 hours to avert default

[henryclay]

Obama wants to coast through the election without any more debt limit talks. Is that for the good of the country or is that a political ploy by a politician with a slippery record?

If he doesn't get what he wants handed to him, it looks like Reid can engineer the process for him so he can get it anyway. Is this a new twist that just suddenly popped up out of the blue?

Reid could start floor action Monday by filing cloture on a joint proposal with McConnell to allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion himself if, ultimately, more than two thirds of both chambers did not stop him.

Maybe the best thing would be to let him have it, hang the entire thing around his neck and let him try to get re-elected with it hanging there.

www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/boehner-wants-debt-plan-in-24-hours-20110723

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 23, 2011 15:17:33 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Slight nipick but it is actually closer to 67% more than they take in.

You really know how to bring a brotha down.

...lol... ;D

...but sad, yes, sad...

[marshabar1]

;D

[billisonboard]

Jul 23, 2011 17:40:59 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

;D

Is this a sign that Marsh has me on ignore since I have already posted this?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 23, 2011 18:41:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 23, 2011 17:40:59 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

;D

Is this a sign that Marsh has me on ignore since I have already posted this?

...to help with this question, I'm quoting you... on the chance that I'm NOT ignored...

[privateinvestor]

Leaders seek debt deal before Asian markets open

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., holds his hand up as he whispers to House Speak...
By CHARLES BABINGTON, AP
Sun Jul 24, 9:00 AM EDT
Congressional leaders planned to work on a fiercely hot Sunday in Washington to try to reach a bipartisan accord to avert a debt-ceiling crisis on Aug. 2.

Aides will be darting in and out of meetings in the usually empty Capitol. Top leaders of the House and Senate will be conferring as well. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he wants to announce the outlines of a plan by 4 p.m. EDT Sunday, to assure investors of the nation's financial and political stability before Asian stock markets open Monday.

Boehner met Saturday with President Barack Obama to try again to find a balance of major spending cuts and revenue increases that could win passage in the GOP-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate. Also at the meeting were Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House budget director Jack Lew.

The four lawmakers met later in the Capitol, without Obama or his aides. Boehner is seeking as much as $4 trillion in cuts over a decade as a condition for raising the nation's debt limit. Reid accuses GOP leaders of intransigence, suggesting the two sides still have sharp differences.

Despite the looming deadline, White House and congressional officials said several proposals were still being discussed. A "grand bargain" would cut spending by up to $4 trillion over a decade and raise up to $1.2 trillion in new revenues. Other plans envision smaller revenue increases and spending cuts of $1.2 trillion or so.

All the proposals face a basic obstacle. Many House Republicans refuse to vote for higher tax revenues; most congressional Democrats consider higher revenues essential if government spending is to be cut so deeply.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi have said they will not support a proposal that does not solve the debt-ceiling problem at least through 2012. Both parties scheduled top officials to appear on the Sunday TV news shows.

xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-finance/20110722/US.Debt.Showdown/print/

[zipity]

the people seem to me to be fed up and want a balanced budget and lower taxes.

These people you mention need to wake up and realize that they can have one or the other... Time to choose.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 22:20:26 GMT -5 zipity said:

the people seem to me to be fed up and want a balanced budget and lower taxes.

These people you mention need to wake up and realize that they can have one or the other... Time to choose.

indeed it is. i think this would be a GREAT time to debate national priorities. but we are too busy bickering about general principles.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2011 14:51:13 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jul 23, 2011 14:44:08 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

I want to see severe cuts that no longer allow the government to spend 40% more than it makes.

Slight nipick but it is actually closer to 67% more than they take in.

true. i think he meant "40% of what they spend, they borrow".

[henryclay]

"......... i think this would be a GREAT time to debate national priorities. but we are too busy bickering about general principles. ....."

Maybe not everyone is too busy, dj. Why not you lead off and see if you can get something going. I'll help. The government should not spend any more money in peacetime than it takes in. And in time of war, the government should not expand old social programs or start new ones. The government should never take the earnings from some Americans and give them to any other HEALTHY Anybody.