Kudos to Boehner

[billvon 3,085]

Good for him for standing up to the tea partyers and other extremists within the conservative party! If he keeps this up the republicans might just become a force to be reckoned with during the 2014 elections.

============
Boehner Lashes Out at Anti-Spending Groups Fighting Budget
By Derek Wallbank December 11, 2013

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at groups that ally with Republicans on spending cuts for mounting a campaign against a budget agreement.

“They’re using our members, and they’re using the American people for their own goals, this is ridiculous,” Boehner said today at the Capitol as he backed the deal that would remove the risk of a government shutdown. “If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”

Boehner has been willing to let Republicans follow the lead of organizations including Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth, which urge deeper cuts than Democrats and some Republicans endorse. Such groups egged on Republicans to defund the health-care law, creating an impasse that helped lead to a government shutdown in October.

The groups’ complaints about last night’s budget agreement mark the latest round of Republican divisions that have made it difficult for Boehner to hold his caucus together on fiscal issues as both parties look ahead to next year’s midterm elections.
============
Boehner lashes out at conservative pressure groups

WASHINGTON — Speaker John Boehner sharply criticized outside conservative groups opposed to year-end budget legislation on Thursday and said the measure "takes great steps in the right direction."

Hours before a scheduled vote on the bill, Boehner repeatedly denounced tea party-aligned organizations for their opposition, saying they were seeking to further their own objectives, not those of the Republican Party or the country.
Advertisement

"Frankly, I think they're misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our members into places where they don't want to be. And frankly, I just think that they've lost all credibility," Boehner said at a news conference.

"You know, one of them, they pushed us into the fight to defund Obamacare and shut down the government," he said in an apparent reference to Heritage Action.
===============

[rhaig 0]

so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or a revenue problem?

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 2]

rhaig

so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or a revenue problem?

It's both. Always has been. Always will be.
OK, who buys the next round?

[normiss 867]

Meanwhile across the isle....

"Embrace the suck"

Classy.

I wish DC would stop acting like spoiled blue blooded children.

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]“If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”

That's utter bullshit. The reason I became a libertarian 20 years ago was because of this shit. This plan is forecast to drop the deficit by $22 billion over the next ten years. $2.2 billion per year cut in the deficit.

To put that in perspective, the US government ran a $135.2 billion deficit. Last month. Yes, November, 2013 had a deficit of $4.5 billion PER DAY. Thus we see that the deficit reduction means that over the next ten years, the government has done the equivalent eliminating 5 days of deficit spending.

3653 days of deficits. Let's cut five of them. That's such a big huge deal. Yay! Woo hoo! What a big and strong powerful move! Let's cut 0.13 percent of the projected deficit. No, not spending. The DEFICIT! Meaning that the national debt keeps on growing, but we can expect $22 billioon less of national debt in ten years than we would have otherwise had.

Wow. That's some groundbreaking deficit hawking. And what a great way to tell Simpson and Bowles to go fuck themselves.

I'm stunned there is anybody out there who thinks this is actually good for anything except widening a schism in the GOP.

Edited to add: it means that 99.9% of the expected deficit will remain.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,085]

>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

Yep. And the $800 billion in new taxes over the next decade the president proposed for the 2014 budget is balanced by the $22 billion in deficit reduction.

So we can get an idea of exactly what the priorities are. "Bring in more money. Spend a lot more money. But spend a drop in the bucket less than we said we wanted to."

Balancing by deficit cuts amounting to 2.75% of tax increases isn't seeming like a two-sided issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

lol everytime the GOP goes left and spends, they lose in elections. This isn't a win for them at all. They'll either lose in the primaries or conservatives will stay home figuring there's no use to vote for two sides of the same coin (truth).

Anyway, we don't have an tax (income) problem, we have a spending problem, plain and simple. Take everything from all the rich and corporations, and after your scorched earth policy, you fund a year's worth of crap. Of course, once you've pillaged everything, you can't fund the next year, but hey, who's paying attention?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

We all know in 10 years these supposed cuts will never come and the promises are bull.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 3,085]

>Anyway, we don't have an tax (income) problem, we have a spending problem, plain and simple.

We have both, plain and simple. Any realistic solution has to fix both problems. This is a start. A very small one, but a step in the right direction. Much better than the Tea Party's "destroy the country" approach.

[rehmwa 2]

wait wait - we're not done yet

we haven't heard the 'spending cut' deal yet.

you know, the one where we raise spending in the next ten years, and then 'plan' bigger cuts from year 11 to 20 and then call the plan spending cuts over the 20 year period.

yeah, because they won't revise the plan when it comes to years 11 to 20 (or even next budget)

kick the can

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

We have both,

no, the spending aspect is primary and top pareto and the big boss.

the revenue side is meaningless because no matter how much you take in, the SPENDING PROBLEM, just spends more than you take in, and more than the more that you try to take in.

If you give the patient a pint of blood, it doesn't help it you simultaneously cut both femoral arteries at the same time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Boomerdog 0]

Argo....

[lawrocket 3]

***This is a start. A very small one, but a step in the right direction.

It's not a start. It's not a step. It's a stall. A stalling maneuver designed to say, "We took a step." A step backward is a step forward.

It puts the issue down the road for someone else to deal with. Who will then kick it down the road, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 236]

lawrocket

***This is a start. A very small one, but a step in the right direction.

It's not a start. It's not a step. It's a stall. A stalling maneuver designed to say, "We took a step." A step backward is a step forward.

It puts the issue down the road for someone else to deal with. Who will then kick it down the road, etc.

Until someone, who thinks they're kicking it down the road, kicks it over the cliff.

[rhaig 0]

billvon

>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

Absolutely true. A reduction in spending is a vital part of solving our budget problem.

Yet, you support someone who is "lashing out" against those would like to reduce spending. Based on what you posted, I can only make assumptions about why you might do that.

--
Rob

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rhaig

***>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

Absolutely true. A reduction in spending is a vital part of solving our budget problem.

Yet, you support someone who is "lashing out" against those would like to reduce spending. Based on what you posted, I can only make assumptions about why you might do that.

Untill some one comes along and proposes a straight 50% to 60% cut in Defense (Attack?) spending, I will consider anything else just political gamesmanship.

(Obviously along with many other cuts)

[normiss 867]

Foreign aid too please.
NOW.

[swisschris62 0]

+1
I've always had a real hard time understanding how they can't come up with money to build a new bridge but can find hundreds of millions of bucks to hand off to corrupt foreign governments ...that don't even like us.
Who does that?!...i know....we do.

What happened to those "shovel ready" jobs? Other then the usual construction there wasn't a big rebuilding program happening.
Now it's not even talked about. Money's gone, nothing was built...move along folks, nothing new to see here.
Now they got smart...they want to throw a shit ton of money into some pre k program and no kid left behind...
It's easy to see if bridges are being built or not....tons of dollars are going to be wasted and there won't be a damn thing to show for it.
Maybe we'd be way better off letting parents parent children in their early years instead of shipping them into yet another institution.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Foreign aid too please.
NOW.

military - yes
social entitlements - yes
foreign - yes
everything else - yes

1 - we need a policy that cuts spending - not cuts from projected increases, but cuts from current numbers - not cuts from inflation adjusted numbers, but cuts from current numbers

2 - EVEN MORE, (a nod to Billvon's clear logic) we need a policy that does take in more dollars. BUT for every dollar taken in, we need a ratio'd CUT in total dollars spent. 1 in and 3 cut. or 2 cut, or 4 cut. (In otherwords, I'm ok with more taxes, BUT it MUST be contingent upon 'real' cuts). and not promised future cuts, cuts RIGHT NOW, at the same moment more dollars come in.

3 - any program that wants more money? well, they have to go get it from someone else's existing budget. (at the same ratio as item #2)

keys - prioritize the whole freaking list, see how much money we have, and where the money can't cover the list, everything below the break even line is cancelled. If you need the next couple on the list, then find the money from the other budgets.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhaig 0]

SkyDekker

******>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

Absolutely true. A reduction in spending is a vital part of solving our budget problem.

Yet, you support someone who is "lashing out" against those would like to reduce spending. Based on what you posted, I can only make assumptions about why you might do that.

Untill some one comes along and proposes a straight 50% to 60% cut in Defense (Attack?) spending, I will consider anything else just political gamesmanship.

(Obviously along with many other cuts)

the last time I ran the numbers it was 56% across the board (excepting self funding items like SS -- if it's self funding, leave it alone)

--
Rob

[winsor 236]

SkyDekker

******>so you back a pro-spending agenda? Do you think we have a spending problem, or
>a revenue problem?

Both. We are spending more than we are taking in. That's the problem - and it has two sides to it.

Absolutely true. A reduction in spending is a vital part of solving our budget problem.

Yet, you support someone who is "lashing out" against those would like to reduce spending. Based on what you posted, I can only make assumptions about why you might do that.

Untill some one comes along and proposes a straight 50% to 60% cut in Defense (Attack?) spending, I will consider anything else just political gamesmanship.

(Obviously along with many other cuts)

Wholeheartedly agree. The amount necessary to provide for the common defense is a small fraction of the budget necessary to be "Team America: World Police."

The U.S. Gov't tends to piss away cash in a fashion that would put any self-respecting drunken sailor to shame, but compared to the "Defense" Department the rest of the Gov't is made up of rank amateurs.

[billvon 3,085]

>Untill some one comes along and proposes a straight 50% to 60% cut in Defense
>(Attack?) spending, I will consider anything else just political gamesmanship.

A 10% across the board expenditures cut combined with a 10% across the board tax hike would zero the deficit this year. Of course neither side will ever agree to that because neither side would "win."

[billvon 3,085]

>If you give the patient a pint of blood, it doesn't help it you simultaneously cut both
>femoral arteries at the same time.

Yet we still give patients pints of blood even when they are bleeding - because it can save their life. Saying "we're not going to give anyone blood until you stop the bleeding!" would result in a lot more dead people.

Good doctors, of course, do both.

[billvon 3,085]

>Yet, you support someone who is "lashing out" against those would like to reduce spending.

I support someone who passes actual spending reduction legislation over someone who would rather see the country's economy destroyed so they can blame Obama for it, yes.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>If you give the patient a pint of blood, it doesn't help it you simultaneously cut both
>femoral arteries at the same time.

Yet we still give patients pints of blood even when they are bleeding - because it can save their life.

read my words next time - or give me an example of a doctor that slashes and leaves open arteries that bleed out faster than the transfusions

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants