Boehner done with negotiating with Obama

[Dittohead not!]

You are wrong. The Republicans have ceded governing to the Democrats because the TeaPublicans, who control the party, do not believe in government. They don't even pretend otherwise.

No, I am not wrong. The Democrat's goal is to hold on to power. The Republican's goal is to get back into power. Neither party is out to solve the nation's problems, but simply to make the other party look bad. Partisanship cuts both ways and has resulted in a dysfunctional Congress.

 

[Wiggen]

Well, libertarianism is just the Tea party philosophy taken to the next level.

 

[longknife]

Male bovine excrement! :flame:

 

[bobnelsonfr]

You fall prey to the media hype. They had plenty of time to at least read the friggin bill. It didn't need to be signed that very minute. With all of the aids these Senators have, they could've divided it up and read through it in a few days. We had that kind of time. Everyone in the media acted as though midnight on Jan 1st was the time that the gov't would turn into a pumpkin, the military would lose billions, and Armageddon would begin. Guess what? At midnight, nothing special happened.

Have you ever seen a real bill? Since it always comes into a thicket of existing law, it is always:
modifying law N° 12345, alinea 7, delete "from the general account", repace with "from the special fund";
modifying law N° 23456, alinea 3, insert "on the conditions defined in law N° 45678, alinea 12;
modifying ...;
modifying ....

In other words... utterly incomprehensible, except to the staffers who pore through existing law to find the points of impact. The whole "they didn't read the bill" mantra is a demonstration that the people who chant it do not know what they're talking about.

 

[MarineTpartier]

no, the tea party needs to crawl back into the hole they came from, boehner needs to realize he has to be serious in negotiations, that he is not going to get everything he asks for...

Serious like offering to close tax loopholes in order to raise revenue and being refused because the Dems and Pres Obama wanted to raise taxes instead? Also, name one thing the GOP got in this deal. No spending cuts were made. The tax loopholes are still there. They got nothing. What DID they get that they asked for?

 

[bobnelsonfr]

Serious like offering to close tax loopholes in order to raise revenue and being refused because the Dems and Pres Obama wanted to raise taxes instead? Also, name one thing the GOP got in this deal. No spending cuts were made. The tax loopholes are still there. They got nothing. What DID they get that they asked for?

No. Serious like "We want to raise revenues by closing loopholes, but we won't tell you which ones."

 

[MarineTpartier]

And there you have the perfect example of why Obama can't find anybody in the Republican Party to negotiate with. The TeaPublicans don't give a damn about the country. Tell them all to screw themselves, Mr. President.

Exactly again. You and other liberals think the country is the government. It's not. The country is us, the people. Our politicians and gov't don't serve us anymore. They serve themselves and their quest for power.

 

[MarineTpartier]

No. Serious like "We want to raise revenues by closing loopholes, but we won't tell you which ones."

Look Frenchy. The point of negotiation is to tell the other side what you're willing to compromise on. That side says, yes, we are good with that too. Then you enter into specifics. If not, our politicians end up doing more needless staff work that was wasteful to begin with.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Have you ever seen a real bill? Since it always comes into a thicket of existing law, it is always:
modifying law N° 12345, alinea 7, delete "from the general account", repace with "from the special fund";
modifying law N° 23456, alinea 3, insert "on the conditions defined in law N° 45678, alinea 12;
modifying ...;
modifying ....

In other words... utterly incomprehensible, except to the staffers who pore through existing law to find the points of impact. The whole "they didn't read the bill" mantra is a demonstration that the people who chant it do not know what they're talking about.

Yes, I've read a bill before. It definitely took me a lot longer than the 7 minutes it took our Senators to read the "fiscal cliff" bill.

 

[bobnelsonfr]

Exactly again. You and other liberals think the country is the government. It's not. The country is us, the people. Our politicians and gov't don't serve us anymore. They serve themselves and their quest for power.

And who, precisely, did "we, the people" just elect to be our national leader?

Jeez! These nutzoids chant "we the people" all the time... but totally ignore what "we the people" clearly choose.

 

[Mycroft]

'dismissed'. Whenever you use that word, it means 'You win. I have no counter to you because you are correct'.

Thanks, but I already knew that.

Ummm...

No...whenever I use that word I use it in the military sense. It means "This is the end of our conversation...you may go".

 

[MarineTpartier]

And who, precisely, did "we, the people" just elect to be our national leader?

Jeez! These nutzoids chant "we the people" all the time... but totally ignore what "we the people" clearly choose.

I'm not just talking about Pres Obama bro. That's an inaccurate assumption for you to make about my comment. I said politicians, not POTUS. Almost all of them serve themselves. Almost all of them serve for more power.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm not just talking about Pres Obama bro. That's an inaccurate assumption for you to make about my comment. I said politicians, not POTUS. Almost all of them serve themselves. Almost all of them serve for more power.

and that's the real root of so many of the problems with the federal government.

Our founding fathers understood that the government was a necessary evil. Today, we think of it as necessary, but forget that it is a potential evil and why a separation of powers was built in from the beginning in order to keep one person or one group from getting too much power. As a result, the government keeps getting bigger, more expensive, and more powerful.

 

[Diogenes]

Tell them all to screw themselves, Mr. President.

He's been doing that for the last four years. Are you happy with the result?

 

[Diogenes]

I'm not just talking about Pres Obama bro. That's an inaccurate assumption for you to make about my comment. I said politicians, not POTUS. Almost all of them serve themselves. Almost all of them serve for more power.

Well said. They come to DC to do good, and stay to do well.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Boehner is not and has never been the problem...

I have no problem with what Boehner said/did... He went into good faith negotiations with the president, but the president has proven time and time again he is not a good faith negotiator... And when the president constantly belittles and mocks your side, and refuses to budge on anything... It's time to leave the president to his own vices and end those negotatiations...

I'm glad the public is coming around to this fact, too... if only a bit late... This weekend MOST of the pundits on the talk shows were laying blame for this where it squarely belongs... on the President... and not Boehner or McConnell...

The president ran to be the one to lead through this crisis... and nothing he has done has reflected leadership on the issue... more like petulent spoiled child who refuses to play ball unless its on his own court... He failed to push through a grand compromise which could've gotten things accomplished... He refused to push for significant cuts to spending to put us on a better path towards a balanced budget... he refused to address mandatory spending in any way... He basically threw all the Simpson-Bowles suggestions out the window... And just tried to play Robinhood... and now the common people are resentful because their taxes went up...

Fail on President Obama...

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Ummm...

No...whenever I use that word I use it in the military sense. It means "This is the end of our conversation...you may go".

I know where you're coming from... but to his point... that military type of dismissal also comes within a chain of command... as in I'm dismissing you... and you are subserviant to me... Do you see where it has the negative connotation to it?

However, I will definitely say there are A LOT of times when many of these conversations that drag on because some kid on the other side just feels a need to make a response, regardless of the fact that theyre saying so little... and they ought to be ended with such a dismissal... from numerous past discussions Wiggen seems to be a deserving recipient of such a reward...

I was just pointing out to you how that can offend someone and lead to confrontation...

 

[Mycroft]

I know where you're coming from... but to his point... that military type of dismissal also comes within a chain of command... as in I'm dismissing you... and you are subserviant to me... Do you see where it has the negative connotation to it?

However, I will definitely say there are A LOT of times when many of these conversations that drag on because some kid on the other side just feels a need to make a response, regardless of the fact that theyre saying so little... and they ought to be ended with such a dismissal... from numerous past discussions Wiggen seems to be a deserving recipient of such a reward...

I was just pointing out to you how that can offend someone and lead to confrontation...

The thing that should mitigate any offense one might feel from being dismissed by me is that I always explain WHY I am dismissing them.

shrug...

On the other hand, I really don't have any control over what might cause others offense...as long as I don't go out of my way to deliberately offend them. I try not to do that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's not as if Boehner or Obama came to the table with major spending cuts to propose. Obama wanted his tax hike for millionaires, and got it. Boehner wanted to cut... what again? What major cuts did anyone suggest? 500 billion over ten years in the face of an annual deficit twice that amount? What's that? It's like a family spending 10,000 more than they make every year trying to balance the budget by coming up with $5,000 in savings over the next decade while getting a raise of 20 cents an hour. It doesn't pencil out. Both of them know it doesn't pencil out. All they're doing is pandering: Boehner to the boneheads who still believe that the Republicans want to cut spending, and Obama to the boneheads on the other side who seem to believe that raising taxes on millionaires is somehow going to balance the budget.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not as if Boehner or Obama came to the table with major spending cuts to propose. Obama wanted his tax hike for millionaires, and got it. Boehner wanted to cut... what again? What major cuts did anyone suggest? 500 billion over ten years in the face of an annual deficit twice that amount? What's that? It's like a family spending 10,000 more than they make every year trying to balance the budget by coming up with $5,000 in savings over the next decade while getting a raise of 20 cents an hour. It doesn't pencil out. Both of them know it doesn't pencil out. All they're doing is pandering: Boehner to the boneheads who still believe that the Republicans want to cut spending, and Obama to the boneheads on the other side who seem to believe that raising taxes on millionaires is somehow going to balance the budget.

Actually, Boehner has specified cuts to SS and Medicare, but he's also talked about other items and has, in fact, said that everything is on the table. The problem for him is that no Democrat will ever get pinned down on what cuts they will be willing to consider...except defense, of course.

That should tell everyone that Democrats are not seriously interested in cutting government spending. In fact, they are more interested in increasing government spending. Somehow, a lot of the American people let themselves be convinced the Democrats are telling the truth when they spout their lies.

Oh, well.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Actually, Boehner has specified cuts to SS and Medicare, but he's also talked about other items and has, in fact, said that everything is on the table. The problem for him is that no Democrat will ever get pinned down on what cuts they will be willing to consider...except defense, of course.

That should tell everyone that Democrats are not seriously interested in cutting government spending. In fact, they are more interested in increasing government spending. Somehow, a lot of the American people let themselves be convinced the Democrats are telling the truth when they spout their lies.

Oh, well.

Yes, Republicans are willing to make minor cuts to Social Security/Medicare, while Democrats are willing to make minor cuts to defense. Neither side is telling the truth when they talk about supporting any meaningful cuts.

Everything has to be on the table, and not just for "we were going to raise it by 10%, but only raised it by 5%, so that's a 5% cut" sort of cuts. Real cuts.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Yes, Republicans are willing to make minor cuts to Social Security/Medicare, while Democrats are willing to make minor cuts to defense. Neither side is telling the truth when they talk about supporting any meaningful cuts.

Everything has to be on the table, and not just for "we were going to raise it by 10%, but only raised it by 5%, so that's a 5% cut" sort of cuts. Real cuts.

I think you somehow miss the fact that "minor cuts" to Social Security isn't what they're making... They're making minor changes to the structure of the program, which then makes it sustainable through the Baby Boomer crisis... which is the real problem...

Cutting a few dollars here or there at the moment may effect 1 budget, but it won't solve the pending fiscal cliff... the real one... not the one the media has distorted reality for most Americans to believe it is... The fiscal cliff had nothing to do with tax rates at the end of the year... The fiscal cliff is 2014... the point of no return for the Baby Boomer retirement... There are already a bunch of early retiring Baby Boomers... However in 2014 the Baby Boomers BEGIN to reach retirement age... that will continue on for a decade or so... until ALL of the Baby Boomers are collecting full retirement benefits... without an equal number of workers in the workforce contributing to their end of the pyramid scheme. Thus it's all going to collapse, which is forecasted to be in 2030...

So the BIG issues to deal with are restructuring Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/ObamaCare...

Obama went in only concerned with getting a tax rate raise on rich people. That's all he got. He thinks he won the battle... The Republicans set him up with the opportunity to do something about Social Security or Medicare. They caved on tax rates for the rich, and pointed to the president and said lead on this issue... get the Democratic Party to concede to restructuring those programs. He didn't... They didn't... and everyone sees the failure of this "deal" was that it didn't handle restructuring the mandatory spending... and both Simpson and Bowles were all over the network shows this weekend hammering the president for it...

My only hope is now that political pressure is mounting for something to be done... over the course of the year... with the media circus out of the way... they will find a way to fix the exponential increase in mandatory spending...

 

[bobnelsonfr]

So the BIG issues to deal with are restructuring Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/ObamaCare...

No.

The ACA (Obamacare) launched a number of policies designed to reduce costs, whose effects will only begin to be felt when the full system goes into effect in 2014. It is either ignorance or malevolence to engage other health-care economies before those effects are known.

Meanwhile, the national security budget is more costly than all safety-net programs combined. The US spends almost half of the world's total military budget... while all but two (Russia, China) of the other "big spenders" are American allies.

The "defense" budget is crazy:
- The US is spending $200 million per aircraft for the new F35, despite there being no serious competition for the previous generation of aircraft... and despite the fact that there is a probability that the next air war will be fought by pilotless planes (cheaper and better-performing because there's no need to care for a pilot).
- The US has eleven of the world's twelve nuclear aircraft carriers (the 12th is allied, French)... but "must" build a new generation because the existing ships are "too big" for the dispersed, world-wide strike capacity we will need over the next few decades. (Yes, that same need for a dispersed, world-wide strike capacity more or less renders the aforementioned F35 obsolete...)
- The US still has thousand of troops stationed in Europe. (??!!)

... and so on...

THIS is "the BIG issue". Useless spending of hundreds of billions on arms systems that we know are obsolete before they are built.

And to maintain this arms spending, the GOP would cut social services... Shameful!

 

[Mycroft]

No.

The ACA (Obamacare) launched a number of policies designed to reduce costs, whose effects will only begin to be felt when the full system goes into effect in 2014. It is either ignorance or malevolence to engage other health-care economies before those effects are known.

Meanwhile, the national security budget is more costly than all safety-net programs combined. The US spends almost half of the world's total military budget... while all but two (Russia, China) of the other "big spenders" are American allies.

The "defense" budget is crazy:
- The US is spending $200 million per aircraft for the new F35, despite there being no serious competition for the previous generation of aircraft... and despite the fact that there is a probability that the next air war will be fought by pilotless planes (cheaper and better-performing because there's no need to care for a pilot).
- The US has eleven of the world's twelve nuclear aircraft carriers (the 12th is allied, French)... but "must" build a new generation because the existing ships are "too big" for the dispersed, world-wide strike capacity we will need over the next few decades. (Yes, that same need for a dispersed, world-wide strike capacity more or less renders the aforementioned F35 obsolete...)
- The US still has thousand of troops stationed in Europe. (??!!)

... and so on...

THIS is "the BIG issue". Useless spending of hundreds of billions on arms systems that we know are obsolete before they are built.

And to maintain this arms spending, the GOP would cut social services... Shameful!

Between Defense and Social Services...which is mandated by our Constitution.

Since you are in France, I'll assume you don't know so I'll give you a hint: It's not Social Services.

 

[bobnelsonfr]

Between Defense and Social Services...which is mandated by our Constitution.

Since you are in France, I'll assume you don't know so I'll give you a hint: It's not Social Services.

I did not write "Social Services". I wrote "social services". If I had meant "Social Security", then I would have written that. Please learn to READ English, before trying to give lessons.


Oh, and... the preamble to the Constitution,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
... mandates "the general Welfare" immediately after "common defense".

So... please learn the actual content of the Constitution before trying to give lessons.

;-)))))))))))))