PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama throws a childish fit and stomps away


Count Zarth
07-13-2011, 06:33 PM
Rather embarrassing for a President.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_walks_abruptly_says_cantor_0LGhRQWWhVmJD7S7dxJoTI


WASHINGTON -- The fourth consecutive day of debt meetings between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders from both parties ceased abruptly with Obama walking out of Wednesday's talks, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said.

Cantor told FOX News Channel that the approximately two-hour meeting at the White House Wednesday "ended with president abruptly walking out of the meeting."

He said Obama shoved back from the desk and said "we'll see you tomorrow."
"We are very far apart right now," Cantor told FOX, adding, "The progress we made seems to have been erased now."

"He [Obama] became very agitated. Said 'Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here. You either have to compromise on the dollar figure or the grand bargain' ... He said 'don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this.'"

A Republican aide described Wednesday's gathering to FOX as the "most tense of the week."

But a senior Democratic source disputed Cantor's account of meeting, telling FOX that the president had instead shut down Cantor's continual interruptions about a possible short-term deal.

"Obama was concluding the meeting, giving the closing remarks and talking about meeting tomorrow," the source said.

"Cantor interrupted him and raised for the third time doing a short-term [after it had already been addressed twice], and Obama shut him down. Cantor was playing the role he's been playing throughout this whole thing -- being not productive."

When asked if they had made progress in the last round of negotiations, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said "no," according to Politico.
"The president is putting a lot of time and energy into getting an agreement, and it's tough," Hoyer said.

Both sides will meet again at the White House at 4:15pm Thursday -- the fifth consecutive day they will have met in an attempt to come up with a deal.
Obama is urging leaders to accept a deal that cuts $4 trillion from the deficit over 10 years, but expectations for an agreement of that size have diminished.

Negotiations in Washington have continued as government leaders seek to ensure the country's debt ceiling is increased before an Aug. 2 deadline. Talks have been grinding along in recent days amid partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans about how to cobble together a deal that both sides can live with.

Wednesday's meeting came as Moody's Investors Service placed the US Aaa government bond rating and related ratings on review for possible downgrade, amid increasing concerns the government might default on its debt -- raising the pressure on lawmakers ahead of Aug. 2.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said, "As Speaker Boehner has warned for months, if the White House does not take action soon to address our nation's debt crisis by reining in spending, the markets may do it for us. This action by Moody's today reinforces the Speaker's warning."

The Obama administration agreed that the rating agency's move was a good reminder of the need to solve the nation's fiscal crisis. However, members put the onus on Congress.

"Moody's assessment is a timely reminder of the need for Congress to move quickly to avoid defaulting on the country's obligations and agree upon a substantial deficit reduction package," said Jeffrey Goldstein, the US Treasury Department's undersecretary for domestic finance.

The Treasury Department has said if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2, the US would default on its debt. Obama has said such a move could pull the US back into a recession.


http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1447930_o.gif

Dave Lane
07-13-2011, 06:34 PM
Good for him about time he developed some backbone with the scum buckets.

mlyonsd
07-13-2011, 06:37 PM
The WH has already said Cantor's statements aren't true.

Which, makes you wonder, why the public isn't invited into these meetings. Remember how transparent Obama was going to make the WH?

If we could see these meetings happening we could judge for ourselves who is being a baby pissy pants.

Fish
07-13-2011, 06:38 PM
"Throws a childish fit and stomps away"? You got that out of the article you posted?

Count Zarth
07-13-2011, 06:42 PM
The WH has already said Cantor's statements aren't true.


And you believed them. LMAO!

alnorth
07-13-2011, 06:49 PM
It took, what... 2 and a half years for him to finally lose his temper in a significant way? Just once? After all we've had happen? I was starting to wonder if he was an alien cyborg.

You don't want an over-emotional hothead who screams at people, but Obama is on the other side of the extreme, probably too calm and dispassionate to be a highly effective leader.

He needs to realize this isn't a philosophical debate on a college campus over tea where everyone is reserved, honest, and respects everyone else's opinion. Once in a while, a leader needs to go off on someone, regardless of rank, when they are being crazily unreasonable.

alnorth
07-13-2011, 06:52 PM
The WH has already said Cantor's statements aren't true.

Which, makes you wonder, why the public isn't invited into these meetings. Remember how transparent Obama was going to make the WH?

If we could see these meetings happening we could judge for ourselves who is being a baby pissy pants.

The "Storming out of the room" bit may not be true since apparently the meeting was wrapping up anyway. It wasn't like it was scheduled to go on for another hour.

All sides agree that Obama was pretty well pissed, though. One dem source described it as "Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence."

VAChief
07-13-2011, 07:00 PM
And you believed them. LMAO!

I must have missed the thread when Cantor walked out a week or so ago. He is a prick (redundant for a politician I know) and he is from my state.

mlyonsd
07-13-2011, 07:02 PM
The "Storming out of the room" bit may not be true since apparently the meeting was wrapping up anyway. It wasn't like it was scheduled to go on for another hour.

All sides agree that Obama was pretty well pissed, though. One dem source described it as "Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence."

The political rhetoric on this is so hot I'm not really going to believe anything until I can see it for myself.

I can see why Obama would be pissed however since he brought this upon himself. That's the way I get when I realize I've made a mistake and are forced to fix it.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 07:03 PM
Good. And Boehner needs to man up instead of being a pussy.


Since pulling the plug on the deal, Boehner has been largely silent in the meetings, leaving House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to present details of the House’s position. On Tuesday, people in both parties said, Obama tried to reestablish Boehner’s primacy.

Cantor, who is advocating a smaller deal, at one point demanded that Obama offer the details of his vision for a “grand bargain.”

“Where’s your paper?” he asked angrily.

Obama snapped back: “Frankly, your speaker has it. Am I dealing with him, or am I dealing with you?”

Ugly Duck
07-13-2011, 07:06 PM
Rather embarrassing for a President.

Obama throws childish fit & stomps away

Pay attention. That wasn't a "childish stomp-away." He was spiking the ball in the Republi's faces....

Wall Street Journal: "Mr. McConnell's plan, unveiled Tuesday, would essentially give the president unilateral power to raise the debt limit. It was practically booed off the stage by House Republicans and conservative activists who saw it as a white flag of surrender in their battle to cut spending."

http://www.yasrsly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obama-speech-he-is-dead-gif.gif

mlyonsd
07-13-2011, 07:09 PM
Good. And Boehner needs to man up instead of being a pussy.Boehner pretty much looks like the only adult in this scenario.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 07:11 PM
The political rhetoric on this is so hot I'm not really going to believe anything until I can see it for myself.

I can see why Obama would be pissed however since he brought this upon himself. That's the way I get when I realize I've made a mistake and are forced to fix it.

How did he bring this on himself?

Bewbies
07-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Obama was against tax cuts before he was for them, which was before he was against them again.

Why does he all the sudden want to cost the economy millions of jobs? He told us a few months ago that's what allowing taxes to go up would do....

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 07:13 PM
Boehner pretty much looks like the only adult in this scenario.

Ok :rolleyes: Obama asked a legit question after being disrespected and Boehner needs to control his pet.

With that being said if it was just Boehner and Obama in the room the deal would have been done a few weeks ago.

alnorth
07-13-2011, 07:14 PM
Good. And Boehner needs to man up instead of being a pussy.

If he doesn't have the votes, he doesn't have the votes. If he tries to man up, it sounds like he might lose the gavel and then eventually his seat. If a large faction of your party is barking mad on an issue and you don't have the votes, there's not much you can do.

This could be a "fine, Cantor's your man, have it your way. If this blows up in your face, I'll be there to say I told you so and pick up the pieces"

Donger
07-13-2011, 07:38 PM
I almost feel a little badly for Obama. The American people know that taxation isn't the issue. Spending is.

Ugly Duck
07-13-2011, 07:41 PM
With that being said if it was just Boehner and Obama in the room the deal would have been done a few weeks ago.

The bosses of the Republis have chastised them - they have to obey & cave. Over 400 CEO signatures are on a letter sent to the Republis. Our credit rating is about to be downgraded. Republis have run up the white flag of surrender:

July 11, 2011 Chamber, Business Groups Warn GOP on Debt Limit Consequences

“The business community in large numbers is saying to our leaders in Washington, ‘Do your job,’” Business Roundtable President John Engler said in the statement. “Failure to raise the debt ceiling would strike an immediate and serious blow to any economic recovery, and failure to make significant progress on long-term debt reduction will continue the uncertainty which is hampering our investment climate.”

“Failure to raise the debt ceiling and the ensuing default and inability of our country to pay its bills as they come due would have harsh implications for the dollar, the international and domestic financial system, economic growth and job creation,” Financial Services Forum President and CEO Rob Nichols said in the statement. “It is critically important that our leaders arrive at a deal to avoid both the negative consequences of a default and address our federal debt and large annual budget deficits in a responsible way.”

mlyonsd
07-13-2011, 07:49 PM
Ok :rolleyes: Obama asked a legit question after being disrespected and Boehner needs to control his pet.

With that being said if it was just Boehner and Obama in the room the deal would have been done a few weeks ago. No, it wouldn't. The House would still have to vote and it appears that Boehner doesn't have them.

You can mock the tea party all you want but they basically boil down to people that are trying to bring sanity to things. Without them undoubtedly we'd already have another Trillion dollar stimulus to nowhere.

I don't agree with them from the tax increase POV. I understand to fix the debt revenues will have to increase. On this I disagree with dems on class warfare tax increases. Everyone should share in our debt reduction. The dems only placing the burden on one class (not that it would really fix things) is just them trying to implement their long range plan to completely socialize the country. It has already been proven they thought their plan for paying for their bogus stimulus would be paid for in class warfare dollars.

The tea party was born because Obama and the dems shoved a health care system down our throats. I find it ironic and funny president pissy pants has his hands tied by a faction he created.

He still has a chance to lead. I once thought he seemed like the kind of guy that would put his ideals aside once they were proven to be harmful. I was wrong.

Obama basically is Hannity from the Left.

Guru
07-13-2011, 07:53 PM
I almost feel a little badly for Obama. The American people know that taxation isn't the issue. Spending is.
Obama will tell you that the American people just don't get it.

Come to think of it, it is almost like watching Herm lead the Chiefs.

Bewbies
07-13-2011, 07:56 PM
Obama will tell you that the American people just don't get it.

Come to think of it, it is almost like watching Herm lead the Chiefs.

Sad but true.

2bikemike
07-13-2011, 07:58 PM
Ok :rolleyes: Obama asked a legit question after being disrespected and Boehner needs to control his pet.

With that being said if it was just Boehner and Obama in the room the deal would have been done a few weeks ago.

Like others have said. Boehner doesn't have the votes in the house to get the deal done. And just because Obama says he is willing to restructure entitlement programs I am not so sure the Democratic Senate is going to follow suit. Which would still leave us with no deal.

This is just a huge cluster F**k brought on by both parties irresponsible behavior.

mlyonsd
07-13-2011, 07:58 PM
Obama will tell you that the American people just don't get it.

Come to think of it, it is almost like watching Herm lead the Chiefs.As of now he should be known as the 'Herm in the WH'.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 07:59 PM
I almost feel a little badly for Obama. The American people know that taxation isn't the issue. Spending is.

Most people agree that we need to cut spending but as I posted yesterday poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe to fix the deficit we have to cut spending AND raise revenue\taxes.

Guru
07-13-2011, 08:06 PM
Most people agree that we need to cut spending but as I posted yesterday poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe to fix the deficit we have to cut spending AND raise revenue\taxes.
I don't believe that Washington will slow down their spending.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 08:07 PM
No, it wouldn't. The House would still have to vote and it appears that Boehner doesn't have them.

You can mock the tea party all you want but they basically boil down to people that are trying to bring sanity to things. Without them undoubtedly we'd already have another Trillion dollar stimulus to nowhere.

I don't agree with them from the tax increase POV. I understand to fix the debt revenues will have to increase. On this I disagree with dems on class warfare tax increases. Everyone should share in our debt reduction. The dems only placing the burden on one class (not that it would really fix things) is just them trying to implement their long range plan to completely socialize the country. It has already been proven they thought their plan for paying for their bogus stimulus would be paid for in class warfare dollars.

The tea party was born because Obama and the dems shoved a health care system down our throats. I find it ironic and funny president pissy pants has his hands tied by a faction he created.

He still has a chance to lead. I once thought he seemed like the kind of guy that would put his ideals aside once they were proven to be harmful. I was wrong.

Obama basically is Hannity from the Left.

IIRC Obama isn't talking about raising rates they are talking about closing all the loopholes and they wouldn't even take effect for 2-3 more years. Yet the dumb tea party and their stupid pledges have boxed them in a corner.

Obama is offering 6-1 spending cuts to revenue increases. The debt commission said it should be 3-1. So who is being unreasonable?

Donger
07-13-2011, 08:11 PM
Most people agree that we need to cut spending but as I posted yesterday poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe to fix the deficit we have to cut spending AND raise revenue\taxes.

Raise taxes on themselves? I doubt it. That's the distinction, Dirk.

You don't need to raise taxes if you are spending within your means.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 08:20 PM
Raise taxes on themselves? I doubt it. That's the distinction, Dirk.

You don't need to raise taxes if you are spending within your means.

I would support it and I know mylonsd has stated before he would support it as long as it was across the board.

But let's be honest we wouldn't be talking about this today if we hadn't had a financial\housing\jobs crash that dropped revenues off the cliff and where we had to spend trillions of dollars to keep our economy from going under.

Donger
07-13-2011, 08:24 PM
I would support it and I know mylonsd has stated before he would support it as long as it was across the board.

But let's be honest we wouldn't be talking about this today if we hadn't had a financial\housing\jobs crash that dropped revenues off the cliff and where we had to spend trillions of dollars to keep our economy from going under.

I wouldn't mid paying a few more % in taxes if I KNEW that it was going to go directly to pay down our debt. I don't and I don't believe that I ever will, honestly.

Brock
07-13-2011, 08:26 PM
Most people agree that we need to cut spending but as I posted yesterday poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe to fix the deficit we have to cut spending AND raise revenue\taxes.

No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

Donger
07-13-2011, 08:29 PM
No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

LMAO

God Bless America

HonestChieffan
07-13-2011, 08:34 PM
Let him hang. What a jackass.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 08:36 PM
No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

Yes

A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_060511_ATMIDNIGHT.html) found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll (http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/) found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll (http://images.coloradoindependent.com/report.SOCIAL-SECURITY-WORKS.CO_.-MEDIA-VERSION-fREV.050211.pdf) of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rD5K5bhaPEac) found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10715) found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595) found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.

Brock
07-13-2011, 08:38 PM
Yes

No.

Mine is July 13. Your stuff is woefully out of date.

Donger
07-13-2011, 08:39 PM
Yes

A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_060511_ATMIDNIGHT.html) found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll (http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/) found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll (http://images.coloradoindependent.com/report.SOCIAL-SECURITY-WORKS.CO_.-MEDIA-VERSION-fREV.050211.pdf) of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rD5K5bhaPEac) found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10715) found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595) found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.

Oh, so yes, people agree with raising taxes on those other than themselves. Got it.

HonestChieffan
07-13-2011, 08:39 PM
Proof what a phony he is. Leaders do not throw a hissy fit and walk away.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 08:41 PM
No.

Mine is July 13. Your stuff is woefully out of date.

Yes. The gallup polls title even says it people are open to Tax Hikes

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

Out of the 5 choices given equal wins out

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

Brock
07-13-2011, 08:42 PM
Yes. The gallup polls title even says it people are open to Tax Hikes

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

Out of the 5 choices given equal wins out

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

I think you need to bone up on your math.

Guru
07-13-2011, 08:45 PM
God I love people that cling to polls. Polls are designed to get the result they want.

Guru
07-13-2011, 08:47 PM
Even if they did a 50/50 spending/taxes Washington will never hold up their end of the bargain but you can bet your ass they will make sure we do.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 08:57 PM
Anyone who claims to know what happened is just talking out of their arse. The sad thing is that these bozos don't care about fixing the problem anymore -- it's all about casting blame which is why the Dems are freaking out and evoking Newt Gingrich to describe Cantor and why the GOP is attempting to cast Obama as a petulant child.

This is why you don't let politicians handle issues like balancing the books or managing health care. Their natural instincts take over. They can't help themselves.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 08:58 PM
I think you need to bone up on your math.

I have always sucked at math but As gallup states mostly spending or mostly with tax increases includes tax increases and spending cuts.

So based on the first graph it would be 69% favor some kind of combination of spending cuts and increase in revenue\taxes. ;)

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:03 PM
Even if they did a 50/50 spending/taxes Washington will never hold up their end of the bargain but you can bet your ass they will make sure we do.

This times about 10 billion.

It's all political theater at this point.

Everyone knows Obama is asking for tax increases because he thinks it's the "fair" thing to do and he knows that politically it will kill the GOP if they agree.

Everyone knows the GOP is asking for massive discretionary cuts because they hate big government and they know that politically it will take away one of the Dems most potent vote-getting cards if they agree.

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:05 PM
We have to be insane to trust the government on another Wimpy deal. We'll pay mroe taxes today for the promise of spending cuts next Tuesday. Yea, right.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:10 PM
The Ringleader 10-Year Budget Plan:

Decrease corporate taxes immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Decrease capital gains tax rate for next 2 years immediately (Dems give 1)

SS and Medicare reform immediately (Dems give another 1)

Keep payroll taxes at lower rate (which everyone agrees on)

Discretionary spending cuts per Biden plan immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Raise taxes on individuals (S Corps excluded) on revenue over $250K beginning in year 6 (contingent on the above tax decreases and spending cuts/reforms) ONLY if the revenues anticipated by tax increases don't materialize (i.e., let the GOP prove that this kind of plan can expand the economy and, if it does, no new taxes) (GOP gives a big one - but only if their supply-side philosophy doesn't work)

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:13 PM
The Ringleader 10-Year Budget Plan:

Decrease corporate taxes immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Decrease capital gains tax rate for next 2 years immediately (Dems give 1)

SS and Medicare reform immediately (Dems give another 1)

Keep payroll taxes at lower rate (which everyone agrees on)

Discretionary spending cuts per Biden plan immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Raise taxes on individuals (S Corps excluded) on revenue over $250K beginning in year 6 (contingent on the above tax decreases and spending cuts/reforms) ONLY if the revenues anticipated by tax increases don't materialize (i.e., let the GOP prove that this kind of plan can expand the economy and, if it does, no new taxes) (GOP gives a big one - but only if their supply-side philosophy doesn't work)

See, I just don't like the tax us now, hope we get our spending cuts from another President and another Congress in 10 years. Seems to never really work out the way it is sold.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 09:16 PM
This times about 10 billion.

It's all political theater at this point.

Everyone knows Obama is asking for tax increases because he thinks it's the "fair" thing to do and he knows that politically it will kill the GOP if they agree.

Everyone knows the GOP is asking for massive discretionary cuts because they hate big government and they know that politically it will take away one of the Dems most potent vote-getting cards if they agree.

Obama is not asking for increase in tax rates just to close all the loopholes or at the very least the worst of them.

And at the meeting tonight Republicans have backed off on cutting anything in the defense budget. That shows they are really not serious.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:16 PM
See, I just don't like the tax us now, hope we get our spending cuts from another President and another Congress in 10 years. Seems to never really work out the way it is sold.

It doesn't. Which is why the GOP should use the Dem playbook on this one.

This way the cuts happen now and the taxes only appear if the efforts to expand the economy don't work.

I realize this will never happen because the current trillions in cuts everyone is talking about are just vapor -- as evidenced by the GOP asking the OMB guy during the meetings how much the value of the proposed cuts the Dems were offering would be next year. The number quoted in the room, according to reports from both sides, was $2 billion. In other words...nothing...

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:17 PM
The Ringleader 10-Year Budget Plan:

Decrease corporate taxes immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Decrease capital gains tax rate for next 2 years immediately (Dems give 1)

SS and Medicare reform immediately (Dems give another 1)

Keep payroll taxes at lower rate (which everyone agrees on)

Discretionary spending cuts per Biden plan immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Raise taxes on individuals (S Corps excluded) on revenue over $250K beginning in year 6 (contingent on the above tax decreases and spending cuts/reforms) ONLY if the revenues anticipated by tax increases don't materialize (i.e., let the GOP prove that this kind of plan can expand the economy and, if it does, no new taxes) (GOP gives a big one - but only if their supply-side philosophy doesn't work)

And actually I want the Capital Gains Tax raised. Why? Because it promotes stability in the market. People are less inclined to start taking what would otherwise be minimal profits if they have a higher tax to pay. I can't say this has been quantified but just my observation from being an astute market person and active in trading, etc., it seems when we lowered the CG tax it was a green light for people to sell when they normally would not have thus creating or adding too volatility. It pretty much put a dent in long term investing.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:19 PM
Obama is not asking for increase in tax rates just to close all the loopholes or at the very least the worst of them.

And at the meeting tonight Republicans have backed off on cutting in anything in the defense budget. That shows they are really not serious.

Well, truthfully, I don't know why they'd agree to any cuts in their pet projects when the Dems have reportedly taken all the entitlement spending off the table. But at this point it's all a joke. Neither side is serious.

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:21 PM
Well, truthfully, I don't know why they'd agree to any cuts in their pet projects when the Dems have reportedly taken all the entitlement spending off the table. But at this point it's all a joke. Neither side is serious.

In all the finger pointing I love how the media has failed, intentionally of course, to point out that it is the Democrats who did not produce a budget for 2 years.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:24 PM
And actually I want the Capital Gains Tax raised. Why? Because it promotes stability in the market. People are less inclined to start taking what would otherwise be minimal profits if they have a higher tax to pay. I can't say this has been quantified but just my observation from being an astute market person and active in trading, etc., it seems when we lowered the CG tax it was a green light for people to sell when they normally would not have thus creating or adding too volatility. It pretty much put a dent in long term investing.

Well, if you raise the capital gains tax rate you'll promote less activity. People aren't going to pay a tax that is nearly 100% higher when they know they can wait until the next administration and get a lower rate.

If you tax something you'll get less of it 9 times out of 10. Whether it is apples, gas, capital gains or productivity.

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:26 PM
Well, if you raise the capital gains tax rate you'll promote less activity. People aren't going to pay a tax that is nearly 100% higher when they know they can wait until the next administration and get a lower rate.

If you tax something you'll get less of it 9 times out of 10. Whether it is apples, gas, capital gains or productivity.

I agree. That is somewhat my point. If I have to pay more in tax I am going to hold until I have a larger gain to make it worth my while. Volatility in the market may be good for day traders and CNBC headlines but it is really bad for everyone else. Including those who invest in 401k's and such.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:26 PM
In all the finger pointing I love how the media has failed, intentionally of course, to point out that it is the Democrats who did not produce a budget for 2 years.

Or that we're spending a trillion a year more than we take in for as far as the eye can see.

Or that even if the GOP budget was fully inacted we'd still be running trillion dollar deficits.

Or that we're actually out of borrowing power so we're now borrowing from ourselves.

It's all a joke.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 09:29 PM
Well, truthfully, I don't know why they'd agree to any cuts in their pet projects when the Dems have reportedly taken all the entitlement spending off the table. But at this point it's all a joke. Neither side is serious.

I hadn't heard that Obama took those off the table, I know Pelosi was against any kind of cuts.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:30 PM
I agree. That is somewhat my point. If I have to pay more in tax I am going to hold until I have a larger gain to make it worth my while. Volatility in the market may be good for day traders and CNBC headlines but it is really bad for everyone else. Including those who invest in 401k's and such.

Well that gets back to whether you want economic policy that promotes higher revenues or lower revenues. I put this in evidence to explain part of the reason why we're having the issue we're having at the moment...

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WpSDBu35K-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've said before that Obama won and gets to do what he wants to do within his constitutionally-imposed powers. But why you'd want less revenue to work with just to make a point is really stupid when you take a step back and really think about what he says in the clip above. It also ignores history...

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:32 PM
I hadn't heard that Obama took those off the table, I know Pelosi was against any kind of cuts.

Neither do I but that's what was being reported today that supposedly caused the Boehner "jell-o" comment.

dirk digler
07-13-2011, 09:34 PM
Neither do I but that's what was being reported today that supposedly caused the Boehner "jell-o" comment.

He hasn't taken them off.


Proposed Social Security, Medicare changes draw fire from AARP and others
July 13, 2011 12:50 PM


White House officials said yesterday it's still possible that President Obama and congressional leaders could reach a deal to reduce the deficit by as much as $4 trillion over a decade -- meaning cuts to Social Security and Medicare are still on the table.

The potential cuts to the possible entitlement programs have senior and health care advocates sounding out in alarm, while the Democratic and Republican parties are already crafting messages to blame the other side for potentially hurting the programs.

The nonpartisan AARP is spending millions of dollars to launch a television ad nationally and in local markets today, urging Congress and Mr. Obama to take Social Security and Medicare off the table.

Mr. Obama said on Monday he was prepared to "take heat (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078464-503544.html)" from his liberal base for accepting changes to the programs as part of his deficit reduction deal with Republicans. "If you're a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great... then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term," he said.

When asked yesterday whether reports that Mr. Obama would support raising the retirement age were accurate, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "A lot of the reporting about what has been under consideration has been accurate."

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Well that gets back to whether you want economic policy that promotes higher revenues or lower revenues. I put this in evidence to explain part of the reason why we're having the issue we're having at the moment...

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WpSDBu35K-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've said before that Obama won and gets to do what he wants to do within his constitutionally-imposed powers. But why you'd want less revenue to work with just to make a point is really stupid when you take a step back and really think about what he says in the clip above. It also ignores history...

I am not arguing that it increases revenues but at what expense? It increases revenues because it generates more trading. Wall St. loves it. Traders love it. Main St. though feels the effects of it and not in a good way. We can't cut off our nose to spite our face all the time.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Put in perspective --

The last year we actually recorded a surplus was 1957. The last year that a "paper" surplus was recorded in 2000 (which amounted to $230 billion according CNN) we still raised the total deficit by more than $100 billion. In 1999 we incurred the lowest addition to the deficit in modern history (less than $20 billion) based largely on capital gains tax revenues.

But Obama wants fairness so I guess we shouldn't count those... ;)

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:40 PM
I am not arguing that it increases revenues but at what expense? It increases revenues because it generates more trading. Wall St. loves it. Traders love it. Main St. though feels the effects of it and not in a good way. We can't cut off our nose to spite our face all the time.

That's a pretty broad generalization -- my point is that I don't think the Dems are asking for more taxes because they're trying to stabilize anything -- they're trying to concoct new revenues because they don't want to shrink government.

Conversely, the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes because they know if they do they'll be committing suicide as a political party. That's the price you pay when politicians are responsible for giving out goodies (or taking them away)...

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:41 PM
Put in perspective --

The last year we actually recorded a surplus was 1957. The last year that a "paper" surplus was recorded in 2000 (which amounted to $230 billion according CNN) we still raised the total deficit by more than $100 billion. In 1999 we incurred the lowest addition to the deficit in modern history (less than $20 billion) based largely on capital gains tax revenues.

But Obama wants fairness so I guess we shouldn't count those... ;)

Everything is a balancing act though. Too much of anything is bad. I think when it comes to CG's we are a little too low on the rate given then resulting impacts it can have on the economy overall. The answer is probably not to go back to 28% but again, I am looking at this from a broader scope, not just tax revenues.

petegz28
07-13-2011, 09:42 PM
That's a pretty broad generalization -- my point is that I don't think the Dems are asking for more taxes because they're trying to stabilize anything -- they're trying to concoct new revenues because they don't want to shrink government.

Conversely, the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes because they know if they do they'll be committing suicide as a political party. That's the price you pay when politicians are responsible for giving out goodies (or taking them away)...

I agree with that 100%.

listopencil
07-13-2011, 09:46 PM
GoChiefs appears to have thrown a childish fit and stomped away from this thread.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:53 PM
He hasn't taken them off.

From what I read today they've advised the GOP not to count on them -- at least until the Dems in Congress meet with the Prez for a meeting on whether or not to include them.

Again, this is all PR-speak at this point but I don't know why Obama would agree to them without getting his sacred cow (higher taxes)...and the GOP knows if they agree to higher taxes they are official dead as a party...it's all politics on both sides with a bunch of kids blaming the other side for why the milk has spoiled...

Count Zarth
07-13-2011, 09:54 PM
GoChiefs appears to have thrown a childish fit and stomped away from this thread.

I'm going to the people of Chiefsplanet on this.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:57 PM
Everything is a balancing act though. Too much of anything is bad. I think when it comes to CG's we are a little too low on the rate given then resulting impacts it can have on the economy overall. The answer is probably not to go back to 28% but again, I am looking at this from a broader scope, not just tax revenues.

The government doesn't have a lot of power to spur economic growth. They tried it under Obama by spending a bunch of money to "buy" jobs (I never understood why smart people throught that the government could create jobs -- it can hire people but when the government spends $1,000,000 it will hire 4-5 people...when a private company invests $1,000,000 it might hire 4-5 people or 9-10...but subsequent years it might employ 20, 50, or 100 people). That didn't work out so well. The other way is to raise and lower taxes and (by extension) the Fed can raise and lower interest rates. All of this is designed to get money circulating as you know.

Personally, I'd be less adverse to a means-tested tax increase if it weren't for the fact that no matter how much you raise taxes you're not going to put a dent in the deficit until you stop giving away money we don't have.

listopencil
07-13-2011, 09:59 PM
I'm going to the people of Chiefsplanet on this.


Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit there and post that.

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 09:59 PM
BTW, I miss rapping with all of you here. I don't get a lot of time to spend discussing things with everything going on in my life but I still think this place has some of the best discussions from some of the most well-informed people on the Internet...

listopencil
07-13-2011, 10:00 PM
BTW, I miss rapping with all of you here. I don't get a lot of time to spend discussing things with everything going on in my life but I still think this place has some of the best discussions from some of the most well-informed people on the Internet...


I was happily surprised to see you posting.

go bowe
07-13-2011, 10:04 PM
I wouldn't mid paying a few more % in taxes if I KNEW that it was going to go directly to pay down our debt. I don't and I don't believe that I ever will, honestly.

it can't go directly to the principal debt...

until deficits are brought down to zero, we will still be borrowing money and increasing the debt, pretty much...

and after we default, the cost of borrowing will be so enormous that the debt will grow even faster...

or not... :bong:

RINGLEADER
07-13-2011, 10:09 PM
One other quick observation from a completely skewed political perspective...

Efforts to portray the GOP in the way they did in 1995 are likely to fail this time for a number of key reasons:

1. The public is much more concerned with the debt and deficit-spending now;

2. The GOP doesn't control a majority of the arms of government;

3. The chief Mr. Know-It-All being portrayed by some as being too smart for his own good is leading the Dems this time...

KILLER_CLOWN
07-13-2011, 10:25 PM
If so many people weren't out of work, the Idiots at Sodom on the Potomac would get more tax money instead of relying on bid daddy gubment. Bloated military budget and Corporations control the government, we're in great shape i tell ya.

Direckshun
07-13-2011, 10:45 PM
You clearly haven't been to Wal-Mart in eons, because that is not even in the neighborhood of a childish fit.

Direckshun
07-13-2011, 10:45 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HB4zA8BRvuQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
07-13-2011, 11:11 PM
Most people agree that we need to cut spending but as I posted yesterday poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe to fix the deficit we have to cut spending AND raise revenue\taxes.

Are you under the impression they're trying to fix the deficit with these talks? That's not the case. They're negotiating about taking a small first step or, if that fails as it seems is the case, maybe a teeny weeny first step instead.

alnorth
07-13-2011, 11:21 PM
they're trying to concoct new revenues because they don't want to shrink government.

Conversely, the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes because they know if they do they'll be committing suicide as a political party. That's the price you pay when politicians are responsible for giving out goodies (or taking them away)...

Lets get real here. The american people dont want to shrink the government, either. The problem is, generally speaking the american people are, collectively, a group of drooling retards. That, or woefully ignorant.

FACT: We can not continue as we are without either 1) tax increases on everyone. Not just the rich, I mean everyone. 2) big reductions in social security, medicare, medicaid, and/or defense.

FACT: If you ask the american people if they want tax increases, they vote no.

FACT: If you ask if the american people if they want cuts to social security, medicaid, or medicare, they will bay for your blood. (Cuts to defense will help too, but we cant balance the budget just by throwing out the army)

FACT: Given facts #1 through #3 above, our electorate is woefully ignorant and/or a bunch of drooling retards, collectively speaking. So, any appeals to victory in an argument by citing polls is dumb, because you are citing dumb people who will vote against you if the wind shifts the other way. (you are a republican who campaigned on fiscal discipline, you'll eventually lose on wanting to make grandma eat dog food. You are a democrat who campaigned on protecting grandma, you'll be thrown out on your ass for being a commie pinko who believes in tax increases. (to pay for the social security which the republican was thrown out for being perceived as attacking. God, the american voters can be stupid sometimes))

We need a combination of tax increases and moderate spending cuts, because the people sure as hell wont go for massive cuts no matter what that friggen idiot Hannity or Limbaugh says, and you need both parties in on it to provide cover for the needed taxes and cuts.

RINGLEADER
07-14-2011, 04:41 AM
We need a combination of tax increases and moderate spending cuts, because the people sure as hell wont go for massive cuts no matter what that friggen idiot Hannity or Limbaugh says, and you need both parties in on it to provide cover for the needed taxes and cuts.

The people aren't going to have a choice when it comes to cuts given the path we're on (even if you enact all the spending cuts that Ryan proposes, for example, you still have enormous unsustainable deficits). Eventually, the politicians will dither and the whole thing will come crashing down. There will be a big reset and anyone with currency or investments based on existing currencies will be in a world of hurt.

You can't create such a fiscally irresponsible house-of-cards like social security and not have to make changes when people live longer and the number of people taking from the system expands at a rate that outstrips the number of people funding the system. It is impossible to sustain in its present form. I don't care how much you tax or how minor you try to make the cuts. It cannot work in its present form.

Amnorix
07-14-2011, 08:00 AM
Obama will tell you that the American people just don't get it.

Come to think of it, it is almost like watching Herm lead the Chiefs.


You guys can think what you like, but when The Economist is bashing the Republicans, I'm not sure your insular view is reflecting reality.

Amnorix
07-14-2011, 08:07 AM
BTW, I miss rapping with all of you here. I don't get a lot of time to spend discussing things with everything going on in my life but I still think this place has some of the best discussions from some of the most well-informed people on the Internet...

Hey, welcome back. Hope you can stay awhile. While our views are rarely aligned, you've always been a strong plus to have around here.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 08:15 AM
Good for him about time he developed some backbone with the scum buckets.

:LOL:LMAO

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 08:18 AM
Good for the GOP Reps about time they developed some backbone with the scum bucket.

It's all about viewpoint.

Ugly Duck
07-14-2011, 08:35 AM
Decrease corporate taxes immediately (which everyone agrees on)

Tough to decrease what corporations are paying cuz they pay WAY less than the listed rate. Pay way less or actually get money from us taxpayers instead:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com, ProPublica here and Treasury.)

3) General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years and, thanks to clever use of loopholes, paid no taxes.(Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of negative $19 million.)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University,and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News, ProPublica here, Treasury Department.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, ProPublica, Treasury Department.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127.)

10) Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits over the past five years, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Chiefshrink
07-14-2011, 08:54 AM
I almost feel a little badly for Obama. The American people know that taxation isn't the issue. Spending is.

Nothing personal Donger but seriously? Obama's been giving "the bird" to "We The People" for 3yrs now and even moreso since the 2010 elections. Telling us to "eat our peas" and "don't call his bluff". This POTUS is a "MAN CHILD"


Obama caved to We The People" only once since taking office and that was extending the Bush Tax Cuts in which he took it in the arse hard for that from his "commie base". He can't afford to give in to "We The People" a 2nd time or he will lose a significant part of his "commie base".

The WH is pulling out alllllllllllllllllllllllllll the stops everything from SS checks not going out to Moody's credit rating to "taking my ball and going home" posturing to Cantor because they are panicked. Why are they panicked?

Because the WH knows the majority of "We The People" are on to his BS and do not approve of his dealing with the economy with his poll #'s at 37%. If Obama continues not to play ball past Aug 2nd(still insisting on tax increases regardless) and the stock market takes a severe dive and Moody down grades our credit and maybe there is also some mayhem in our streets; the Marxist Dems and Marxist Media can "Alinskyize" the Repubs all they want but it won't work this time. Why? For two reasons:

1. The majority of "We The People" are on to O'Marxist and his "man-child" antics.

2. The most important reason and what both parties realize about American politics is "what ever party is in office" when the economy tanks(even further now) gets the blame. The WH can't afford to let O's numbers slip even further. They are bad enough as it is especially on the economic side.

Bottom line: Obama can't afford to play "chicken" if there is any chance he wants to get re-elected and he knows it, hence all the "man-child antics".

From a therapist perspective on O's narcissism he could go either way. I can see him finally give in because he wants a chance to be re-elected and loves "being" President rather than "doing" President.

But if his narcissism is that "out of control" in which I think there is a high probability that it is and he continues to play chicken; I can see him saying "f it". "I don't care about a 2nd term and I will let "We The People" who I despise greatly enjoy their economy EVEN MORE in order to speed up the "socialist utopia" through economic mayhem."

Stay Tuned!!:thumb:

Chiefshrink
07-14-2011, 08:55 AM
Tough to decrease what corporations are paying cuz they pay WAY less than the listed rate. Pay way less or actually get money from us taxpayers instead:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com, ProPublica here and Treasury.)

3) General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years and, thanks to clever use of loopholes, paid no taxes.(Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of negative $19 million.)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University,and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News, ProPublica here, Treasury Department.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, ProPublica, Treasury Department.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127.)

10) Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits over the past five years, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Flat rate for all cures everything.

Baby Lee
07-14-2011, 08:57 AM
Obama will tell you that the American people just don't get it.

Come to think of it, it is almost like watching Herm lead the Chiefs.

So, he's getting folks elected who'll be the core of better times in the future? ;)

thecoffeeguy
07-14-2011, 09:15 AM
Proof what a phony he is. Leaders do not throw a hissy fit and walk away.

He never has nor ever will be a leader.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Its all about the game.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dems-new-strategy-isolate-eric-cantor-as-face-of-gop-intransigence/2011/03/03/gIQAYh4AEI_blog.html


Dems’ new strategy: Isolate Eric Cantor as face of GOP intransigence
By Greg Sargent
Last night, President Obama and Eric Cantor exchanged harsh words over the debt ceiling, and on the Senate floor just now, Harry Reid uncorked a harsh attack on Cantor that suggests Dems are embarking on a new strategy: Isolating Cantor as the new public face of GOP intransigence.

Reid’s remarks are worth quoting at length:

Even Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell seem to understand the seriousness of the situation. They are willing to negotiate in good faith, which I appreciate, and the country apppreciates.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has shown he couldn’t be at the table, and Republicans agree he shouldn’t be at the table. One Republican told Politico last night, “he lost a lot of credibility when he walked away from the table. It was childish.”
We had negotiations going here in a room a short jog from here, and he walked out on the meeting...It was childish. Another Republican said Cantor is putting himself first. He said: “He is all about Eric.” End of quote.
The time for personal gain and political posturing are over. It’s time to put our economy and our country first. The risks we face are simply too great. We don’t need to take my word for it. More than 300 respected business leaders wrote to Congress night before last to make it clear how serious this crisis really is.
Accounts of what happened last night vary, but the one thing they all agree upon is that Cantor played a lead role in telling the President that revenue increases simply aren’t going to happen, and that Obama didn’t react kindly to it. As Reid’s remarks suggest, Dems now seem to be seizing on this episode to elevate and isolate Cantor — who by many accounts is more adamantly opposed to revenue increases than even Boehner is — as the primary obstacle to compromise.

That’s why Reid is singling out Boehner and McConnell as operating “in good faith,” implicitly suggesting that Cantor isn’t, while simultaneously drawing attention to the grousing among anonymous Republicans that Cantor is damaging the GOP’s credibility and cause. According to one account, even Obama himself privately told Cantor that at this point he seems to be actively looking for ways to scuttle the possibility of compromise. The Dem message this morning is all about driving a wedge between Cantor on one side and Boehner and McConnell on the other by painting the latter two figures as the unlikely new faces of GOP reasonableness and flexibility.

But will divide and conquer work? The problem is that it’s unclear whether this damages Cantor in any meaningful way. It’s true that Cantor has taken a hammering from some commentators for refusing to budge on taxes. But Cantor has assigned himself the role of the GOP’s leading anti-tax warrior. If his intransigence on revenues is earning him high profile criticism from Beltway journalists and from the Senate Majority Leader and even the President, this will only turn him into more of a crusading anti-tax hero in some people’s eyes.

Either way, the harshness of Reid’s attack on Cantor doesn’t bode well for the likelihood of a deal.

Cave Johnson
07-14-2011, 09:38 AM
Lower tax rates with no loopholes cures everything.

FYP.

Cave Johnson
07-14-2011, 10:19 AM
Lets get real here. The american people dont want to shrink the government, either. The problem is, generally speaking the american people are, collectively, a group of drooling retards. That, or woefully ignorant.

Apparently they're starting to wise up.

Bruce could have also pointed out that <b>only a fourth of Republicans want to reduce the deficit with spending cuts alone. </b>Nate Silver goes there:

If we do take the Republicans’ no-new-taxes position literally, it isn’t surprising that the negotiations have broken down. Consider that, according to the Gallup poll, Republican voters want the deal to consist of 26 percent tax increases, and Democratic voters 46 percent — a gap of 20 percentage points. If Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/give-the-people-what-they-want-higher-taxes.html

Quickie
07-14-2011, 10:32 AM
Once again, Obama tells a lie, and nobody bothers to do the math, they just do what he wants them to do-- spread fear and hate and polarize voters.

NEWSFLASH: The federal government takes in $200 billion in tax revenue every month. I'll say it again, that's $200 billion dollars cash that the federal government has to spend on entitlements.

The interest paid on the national debt is $29 billion a month.

Social Security payments come to about $49 billion a month.

That still leaves the federal government with roughly $120 billion dollars in cash for the entire of month.

Furthermore, SS is MANDATORY SPENDING.

Frankie
07-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Good for him about time he developed some backbone with the scum buckets.

That's exactly what I came into this thread to say. :thumb: He has given up the store to these RW bullies. My big frustration and displeasure with Obama was that he cannot negotiate before giving up his best card to the opposition. Maybe all in the spirit of the "change" he was promising. A lot of people forget that the "change" promised in his campaign meant bringing on an era of bi-partisanship and political cooperation.

Hopefully he is now finally figuring out that with bullies sometimes you have to talk their own language. Hopefully.

F*** the "change" Mr. Prez. Do what your voters elected you to do, bullies be damned.

Iowanian
07-14-2011, 10:38 AM
What a pussy.

Obama is everything that everyone who thought he'd be a terrible President thought he'd be. Pathetic.

Frankie
07-14-2011, 10:39 AM
Once again, Obama tells a lie, and nobody bothers to do the math, they just do what he wants them to do-- spread fear and hate and polarize voters.

NEWSFLASH: The federal government takes in $200 billion in tax revenue every month. I'll say it again, that's $200 billion dollars cash that the federal government has to spend on entitlements.

The interest paid on the national debt is $29 billion a month.

Social Security payments come to about $49 billion a month.

That still leaves the federal government with roughly $120 billion dollars in cash for the entire of month.

Furthermore, SS is MANDATORY SPENDING.
Why did you feel you had to come in with a mult to say all this?

HonestChieffan
07-14-2011, 10:46 AM
His performance is being recognized.....

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ccxm9paauk2i4zsr5cey-a.gif


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rmmehaidouminbwqv9pn9g.gif


http://www.gallup.com/poll/148475/Satisfaction-Slides-Two-Year-Low.aspx

Quickie
07-14-2011, 10:49 AM
What a pussy.

Obama is everything that everyone who thought he'd be a terrible President thought he'd be. Pathetic.

:clap:

Detoxing
07-14-2011, 11:12 AM
Watch all of you bicker and make excuses to support your agendas like children....then call the POTUS a child....Irony....


ROFL ROFL ROFL

RINGLEADER
07-14-2011, 11:32 AM
Well it looks like Cantor played this wonderfully from a political perspective.

GOP: Obama walked out of the debt meetings.

DEM: Cantor was rude to the gracious president as the meeting would down.

GOP: Obama threatened to not call his bluff (as an aside, if true, isn't that an admission that the really isn't any "there" there - he's admitting that he's bluffing?)

DEM: Cantor is a child and shouldn't be participating.

That's what it's come to folks -- who can make the other look more petulant.

Count Zarth
07-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Well, I guess I learned a valuable lesson today. If you think you can incite DC with a catchy thread title and a semi-controversial news item, BAH GAWD DO IT!

RINGLEADER
07-14-2011, 02:18 PM
For those who want to get really depressed and have the stupidity of this exercise put into big round balls...

http://npr.org/news/graphics/2011/07/gr-pm-debt-savings-462.gif


Even if we did EVERYTHING that Obama wants to do we're still nearly $20 trillion in debt as the next decade begins...

go bowe
07-14-2011, 02:54 PM
For those who want to get really depressed and have the stupidity of this exercise put into big round balls...

http://npr.org/news/graphics/2011/07/gr-pm-debt-savings-462.gif


Even if we did EVERYTHING that Obama wants to do we're still nearly $20 trillion in debt as the next decade begins...

well, i gotta say you got some balls...

Cave Johnson
07-14-2011, 02:55 PM
well, i gotta say you got some balls...

Might want to have the enlarged red one checked out.

go bowe
07-14-2011, 03:10 PM
Might want to have the enlarged red one checked out.

i bust out laughing and my wife wants to know what's so damned funny, cause i startled her... LMAO LMAO LMAO

Frankie
07-14-2011, 11:29 PM
well, i gotta say you got some balls...

He seems to be a lefty too.

Bewbies
07-14-2011, 11:35 PM
This is great political theater, but I do grow tired of people screaming about how OTHER people need to pay more...It's a bold move to spend other people's money for them.

RINGLEADER
07-15-2011, 01:17 AM
This is great political theater, but I do grow tired of people screaming about how OTHER people need to pay more...It's a bold move to spend other people's money for them.

How dare you try to kill old people.

Didn't you know that everything you make is the property of the US government and that they're letting you keep too much of it? Obama told me so...

HonestChieffan
07-15-2011, 06:14 AM
How dare you try to kill old people.

Didn't you know that everything you make is the property of the US government and that they're letting you keep too much of it? Obama told me so...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uI3SYph-cWY/Th_p1I4QHyI/AAAAAAABF90/jc-CQEtQ_hA/s400/Groucho%2BHarpo%2BBarack%2BO.jpg

Jaric
07-15-2011, 06:45 AM
Might want to have the enlarged red one checked out.

He can't. I slashed the healthcare budget in that game they posted in that one thread. I'd suggest a time tested remedy called "Try not to think about it."

Cave Johnson
07-15-2011, 09:24 AM
He can't. I slashed the healthcare budget in that game they posted in that one thread. I'd suggest a time tested remedy called "Try not to think about it."

It'll probably go away on its own.

RedNeckRaider
07-15-2011, 09:40 AM
Lets get real here. The american people dont want to shrink the government, either. The problem is, generally speaking the american people are, collectively, a group of drooling retards. That, or woefully ignorant.

You are full of shit as many in this country want much less government. Although there is a large group of drooling retards or woefully ignorant people. This is why these shitbags were put in power to begin with~

mlyonsd
07-15-2011, 09:43 AM
You are full of shit as many in this country want much less government. Although there is a large group of drooling retards or woefully ignorant people. This is why these shitbags were put in power to begin with~He's probably talking about the ones that don't pay income tax.

Like half the country. Throw in the tax paying liberals that actually love government intervention and he's probably right. ;)

ROYC75
07-15-2011, 09:48 AM
He's probably talking about the ones that don't pay income tax.

Like half the country. Throw in the tax paying liberals that actually love government intervention and he's probably right. ;)

Well, this world is full of nuts!;)

bevischief
07-15-2011, 06:34 PM
Someone needs to give him a good spanking and ground him.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-15-2011, 09:28 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bobarackasposter.jpg

cardken
07-15-2011, 11:08 PM
Boehner pretty much looks like the only adult in this scenario.

Except where he cries at the drop of a hat.

Aries Walker
07-16-2011, 07:12 AM
I can't imagine Cantor not having exaggerated that report.

Honestly, my view on the whole debt ceiling thing is that it'll get resolved, somehow, around August 2nd, but both sides are just milking it for as much political clout as they can grab. It's a big opportunity for everyone to try and make the other side look like shit for as long and with as much contrived drama as they can.

I think the best chances to get this worked out are with Obama and Boehner. Let all the court jesters of both parties take the day off, lock the two leaders in the Roosevelt Room with a pitcher of beer and some General Tso's, with the cameras off, and I'll bet they could wrap all of this up in a few hours.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2011, 07:59 AM
Stick to sports, Clayton. Cause your political insights are lamer than lame. Just sayin'.

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 11:46 AM
Someone needs to give him a good spanking and ground him.

Along with Mitch:

President Obama must be grinning from ear to ear.

Not only has the news reported yesterday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is scheming to raise the debt ceiling with no real spending cuts, but if this plan goes through, Senator McConnell will have handed yet more power over to the Executive Branch - just because the Senate GOP Leadership doesn't want to have to "deal with it" again!

In addition to surrendering more of Congress' power to President Obama, there is no timetable for the cuts in the bill - so they're rendered effectively meaningless.

And the ceiling will be raised "automatically" THREE TIMES during this Congress alone!

If this plan goes through, Senator McConnell will have betrayed you, me, and every other freedom-loving patriot in America.

That's why it's vital you sign the petition urging your representative and senators to oppose Mitch McConnell's raw deal - and any other phony compromise on the debt ceiling - IMMEDIATELY.

Worried about what could happen to them should they actually KEEP THEIR PROMISE to the American people to cut spending, McConnell and the Senate GOP Leadership are just deciding to hand off the responsibility of hiking our nation's debt to President Obama.

The truth is, when I first read the news, I could hardly believe it.

Instead of even bothering to try to cut spending, Mitch McConnell just wants to give President Obama a free pass to keep our deficit skyrocketing.July 13, 2011

Republicans are traitors!

This was from an email sent to me by Ron Paul.