Althouse: Boehner: "The deal was never reached, and was never really close."

July 22, 2011

Boehner: "The deal was never reached, and was never really close."

"In the end we couldn’t connect. Not because of different personalities but because of different visions for our country."

70 comments:

Mark O said...: That Constitution is so damned radical. I can see it.; 7/22/11, 5:25 PM
Sprezzatura said...: I blame house Rs for refusing to compromise.

I'm guessing that many here are congratulating them for refusing to compromise.; 7/22/11, 5:25 PM
Pettifogger said...: "I blame house Rs for refusing to compromise."

Let's review the bidding. The Dems wanted to raise the debt limit and to raise taxes. The Republicans wanted to cut spending.

The Republicans agreed to raise the debt limit if the Dems would cut spending and leave things at that. The Dems refused.

And it's the Republicans who refused to compromise? I had forgotten that "compromise" is a code word for "Democrats get their way."; 7/22/11, 5:30 PM
Michael said...: I blame the Democrats for refusing to compromise. Or to produce any specifics of their own. They have had two years to address this. They were flabergasted that raising the debt limit had to have any strings at all. The Democrats wont budge from their insistence on raising taxes, they will not consider it.; 7/22/11, 5:31 PM
Fred4Pres said...: The prediction is Boehner is going to fold next week. If he does, it will be a disaster for this country.

But if Boehner does the right thing? I will send him a box of oranges! Or golf balls. Or maybe have hope the GOP can be an effective force to the excesses of the Democratic Party.; 7/22/11, 5:32 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Mark O, I can see the Constitution right now from my own backyard!; 7/22/11, 5:33 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: The budget could be in balance next week. If Congress were to pass the 2005 budget in its entirety and without amendment, there would actually be a small surplus.

What is it about 2005 the Democrats think is so bad? Except of course for all the lost opportunities to shovel our money to their friends.

"Different vision for the country" ... fucking A it is! The Democrats' vision is that of the standard crony brokerage party, using public money for graft and special deals to their supporters.

Doubt me? Please name one Republican-supporting company to have received an Obama-Care waiver.

And why is the small and medium business sector under ceaseless regulatory and fiscal assault? Perhaps because unlike the big guys, well over 80% of entrepreneurs are Republicans.

A big part of the Chicago Way is to destroy your adversaries' revenue stream.; 7/22/11, 5:37 PM
paminwi said...: pbandj: you're kidding, right? This president has not been serious about our financial issues since he came into office. His BUDGET went DOWN in the Senate (of course you know Democrat majority) 0-97. His own budget guy, when asked about Obama's plan and if he could "score it". Said, "we don't score SPEECHES". When the hell is this guy going to go the record and lay his plan down in writing? The Republicans have in numerous ways. They passed a budget, they passed a debt cap agreement. And just now, he actually has the balls to say "If you want to be a leader, you just have to lead." He, of course, is saying that about the republican leadership. Dude, do you think he could say that about himself? This is not an issue you can just vote "present" on.

God, what an f**king loser we have as a President.; 7/22/11, 5:39 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Chicken!

While the democraps really have nothing to lose. The republicans? They've still got to convince enough Americans "they have a plan." And, are not just playing chicken at the pork barrel.; 7/22/11, 5:44 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The Spartans needed 300.

But the House Republicans holding back the Obama marauders are only about 100.

Its freaking amazing.; 7/22/11, 5:54 PM
Sprezzatura said...: You GOP supporters would be better off making the argument that you are happy the Rs aren't compromising. It's a hard sell to believe the Rs are willing to compromise.

Boehner won't even say the word.

McConnell has been prioritizing 2012 for a while.

They can't now say that the Rs care about compromising and dealing w/ the POTUS.

Sheesh.

P.S.

Boehner notified the media that he was walking away from the POTUS negotiations before he told the POTUS. Playing games with the credit of our country.; 7/22/11, 5:55 PM
Martha said...: BOEHNER has balls.

Thank God.; 7/22/11, 5:55 PM
Curious George said...: Owebama doesn't want a deal. That's clear.; 7/22/11, 5:56 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Better McConnell link.; 7/22/11, 5:56 PM
Revenant said...: And it's the Republicans who refused to compromise? I had forgotten that "compromise" is a code word for "Democrats get their way."

Man, how did you forget that? The news reminds you of it every day of the week.; 7/22/11, 5:57 PM
Revenant said...: How exactly does one "compromise" between "tax increases" and "no tax increases"?

That's like saying your wife wanted a baby and you didn't, so you compromised on only sort of getting her pregnant.; 7/22/11, 5:59 PM
garage mahal said...: The Tea Party saved SS and Medicare? Thanks!; 7/22/11, 5:59 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Playing games with the credit of our country.

BS.. the credit card is max out and Obama instead of cutting back wants to ask for more credit wants to borrow more and more putting the country further in the hole.

Obama is the one playing with the credit of the country.; 7/22/11, 6:00 PM
MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...: I am so fucking sick of Obama saying a deal needs to be balanced. Democrats jacked up government spending to 25% of GDP. It's historically been ~20%, give or take a percent or two. The Democrats didn't pay for a penny of this expansion in government with higher taxes. So in a $15 trillion economy, jacking government spending 5% above the "historical average" is another $750 billion in government spending annually. All of it borrowed. Where's the fucking balance in that?

The country saw thd insanity of Democratic "leadership" and changed the composition of the House to stop it. As P.J. O'Rourke has said, the November elections were more like a restraining order than an election.

I've disagreed with presidents in the past, but I've never hated one. I'm really starting to hate this ideologically rigid asshole.; 7/22/11, 6:07 PM
VanderDouchen said...: This is all a distraction. We are not keeping our eye on the ball.

WV: ramonick:

apache, ramonick, ramonick, ramonick.; 7/22/11, 6:08 PM
edutcher said...: Little Zero wants to play the class warfare game with his tax increases. In so doing, the Demos and the Lefties have crossed over into the Never-Never Land that's a corollaty to Dr Goebbels' dictum, "If you tell a lie often enough, you can get anybody to believe anything"; that corollary being, "Eventually, you start believing the lies yourself". The class warfare schtick was originally for the rubes, now they believe it themselves.

As for Boehner, the Tea Partiers are what's holding this tiogether; without them, there would be no fight. He knows that and knows he will be primaried if he folds.

PS PB&J purveys his standard lies, half-truths, sophistry, and disinformation.; 7/22/11, 6:09 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: PB and J,
Just curious, has it been the Republicans' fault for all of the last two budget-free years, or just the last 7 months of that?; 7/22/11, 6:10 PM
pauldar said...: Boehner is my rep here in Ohio. We are all so very damn proud of him doing what we sent him to Washington to do. Went to supper with a rather large group, all seniors (except wife and I) at Cracker Barrel this evening - not one single person was against what he was doing. Every last one of those folks was on Social Security

Not believing the polls for one second; 7/22/11, 6:11 PM
Revenant said...: I'm really starting to hate this ideologically rigid asshole.

I don't know if "ideologically rigid" is the right term. He offered a plan, it was rejected 0-97, and since then all he's done is whine.

Ideologically rigidity suggests a person who HAS a plan and won't budge from it. Obama's only apparent plan is "complain until someone else solves the problem".; 7/22/11, 6:13 PM
Mark O said...: Balance is a function of the weight given to the items weighed. Obama has a thumb on the scale.

Compromise is overrated. It is not something that must be part of every solution. Indeed, it could be exactly the wrong thing to do.; 7/22/11, 6:15 PM
Irene said...: Mr. President, replacing "I" with "We" will not make us think that you are talking about yourself less often.

I am trying to figure out what he meant by "fair" at the end of the press conference. It reminded me of a college freshman who thinks an exam isn't "fair" because he did not do well. Maybe it's the new code for the code phrase "social justice."; 7/22/11, 6:15 PM
Martha said...: Agree with Lem completely:

Obama is the one playing with the credit of the country.

And once again Obama put the blame on those greedy owners of those evil greedy jets.

Give up Air Force One and corporations will give up their jets, President Obama.; 7/22/11, 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I looked all over for Obama's plan-can't find it.

Can someone post a link?

I'll check back in....I'm going to go look up the Senate plan.; 7/22/11, 6:18 PM
MayBee said...: I am trying to figure out what he meant by "fair" at the end of the press conference. It reminded me of a college freshman who thinks an exam isn't "fair" because he did not do well. Maybe it's the new code for the code phrase "social justice."

Irene- I think so.
He wants to raise some of the taxes on the rich people, even though the amount raised won't make a difference in the debt or deficit, just so it seems more "fair".; 7/22/11, 6:29 PM
pauldar said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8 Obama's plan for those who do not believe it exist; 7/22/11, 6:30 PM
Phil 314 said...: “Can they [Republicans] say yes to anything?” Obama said. “… I have been left at the altar a couple of times now.”

I believe they said yes to many things but here's the thing saying yes is meaningless (or as meaningless as "2 million jobs created or saved")

Its the details that matter. And it sure sounds like the president was peddling the same old

"here are the clear tax increases...pardon me revenue enhancements that will start tomorrow and here's the task force we'll put together TODAY to plan our spending cuts for 2014"

I'm liking McConnell's plan more and more because it declares:

I President Obama want to increase the national debt; 7/22/11, 6:34 PM
Phil 314 said...: The Tea Party saved SS and Medicare? Thanks!

Garage, I don't know if that's satire or sincerity but it is sad. There is no doubt that major changes will need to be made in Medicare and SS. The math is really very basic.

In the absence of any consistent political will I keep getting visions of Greece in my head.

Why don't the rich (or somebody) give us the money we need!?; 7/22/11, 6:40 PM
garage mahal said...: Garage, I don't know if that's satire or sincerity but it is sad. There is no doubt that major changes will need to be made in Medicare and SS. The math is really very basic.

Medicare yes, SS no. Medicare is expensive because the cost of healthcare is expensive. Do something to bring the costs down. Let the government use its buying power to negotiate prescription drugs. But nooooooooo! Can't do that because big pharma won't allow it - so we pay more. I hope the deal is dead, it sounds like a shit deal to begin with. Just raise the damn debt ceiling yourself and tell Boehner to cram it.; 7/22/11, 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: I think I found the Senate plan-

“I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come on this Senate floor. And I’m not going to waste the Senate’s time day after day on this piece of legislation, which I think is an anathema to what our country is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

“So everyone, understand. We’re going to have a vote tomorrow (Friday)…I’m not going to wait until Saturday. We’re going to have a vote tomorrow, and I feel confident this legislation will be disposed of one way or the other.

“The American people should understand that this is a bad piece of legislation – perhaps, some of the worst legislation in the history of this country.”

I'm not sure if that's a very good plan....I don't see any numbers.

But, I guess you can't say he didn't have a plan.; 7/22/11, 6:51 PM
ricpic said...: BOEHNER has balls.

So far.; 7/22/11, 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm going to be exceedingly annoyed if this nonsense hurts the markets or the economy.; 7/22/11, 6:55 PM
Revenant said...: Mr. President, replacing "I" with "We" will not make us think that you are talking about yourself less often.

I have a sneaking suspicion he's picturing himself in a crown and ermine robe when he talks like that.; 7/22/11, 6:55 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Other than a hissy fit ... even if the "4" can move towards an "agreement." Anything said by Pelosi on TV is a LIE! (Even if she hasn't said it, yet!)

And, even if the president throws a fit ... screams and yells ... all he wants ... there's no deal until Congress makes one. And, then shoves it up to his desk.

Sure. He can VETO.

But he OWNS IT. And, that's why he's terrified. He doesn't want to "own" this one.; 7/22/11, 7:03 PM
george said...: CCB has two thirds support across the political spectrum and even has a majority on the left. 4 Dem votes and a grown-up president is all it would take to pass it. The Republicans have offered a solution the people want and one that would make a structural fix so it would be very difficult to end up in a mess like this again.

What has the left offered pbAndj?

We have enough money to pay entitlements, the military and the debt. If the checks don't go out it will be because Obama chose not to send them out. It will be because other things are a higher priority to him. Frankly, if there is no one to arrest people trying to go to work on oil rigs in the Gulf I think I will still be able to sleep at night. If TSA employees have to go back to molesting people against their will for free I think we will survive it somehow.

Since Obama has never been responsible for a budget in his life I think it is time for him to learn. We have operated without one since he has been in office and he has never balanced one in his previous existence as a professional rabble rouser either. But for better or worse this is who the left chose to lead us so he needs to take off his diaper and sit on the big boy potty.

And frankly if he chooses not to send out some or all of the SS checks all I can say is, "tough shit." The generation drawing checks now had plenty of opportunities to reform or end Social Security and Medicare. Just because the jig is up and they have put themselves in a position to rely on a Ponzi scheme that allowed them to beggar their grandchildren for their own benefit doesn't mean we have to feel sympathy for them.

Everyone has to grow up and start acting responsibly at some point. I don't think it is commendable at all that they managed to postpone that day until their retirement. I don't think it worthy of sympathy that they allowed such a fraud to be perpetrated on a once great nation. They tried to pawn off their responsibility to save for their own retirement on the con men and thieves that make up the government and it is ending the only way such things can ever end.

Everyone talks about old people as if they had no hand in making their own plight when exactly the opposite is true. They have had more to do with where we are than any other age cohort. They have had the most time to fix things or screw them up. They were at work creating this situation before many of us were ever born.

It was never a secret that there is no SS trust fund. It was never a secret that the government was amassing more debt than it could ever possibly pay. They failed us and let it happen.

What we do now will determine whether the next generation can say the same about us.

On the bright side it would be interesting to see just how many SS checks we would need to send out if we did a little means testing for Social Security. I bet we would be just fine.; 7/22/11, 7:23 PM
Phil 314 said...: Medicare is expensive because the cost of healthcare is expensive. Do something to bring the costs down. Let the government use its buying power to negotiate prescription drugs. But nooooooooo! Can't do that because big pharma won't allow it - so we pay more.

I know it would fit your world view to say that some big, evil corporation like BIG PHARMA is the reason for rising health care costs. Unfortunately pharmaceuticals account for less than 12 percent of overall expenditures.

While that's not chump change the big targets are hospitals and doctors, and to a large degree US

We like to buy healthcare, and we especially like it when we don't pay for it. So yes cost containment is key but please don't assume that PPACA or Medicare is or will do anything to control costs. They may try price controls but that won't control costs.; 7/22/11, 7:34 PM
edutcher said...: pauldar said...

Boehner is my rep here in Ohio. We are all so very damn proud of him doing what we sent him to Washington to do.

Not believing the polls for one second

The last CBS poll only had 22% of its sample Republicans. Do the math.; 7/22/11, 7:35 PM
Jim Bullock said...: Medicare is expensive because the cost of healthcare is expensive. Do something to bring the costs down. Let the government use its buying power to negotiate prescription drugs. But nooooooooo!

So "the government" employing some number of thousands (I estimate) of people to negotiate many, many prices, in money they don't personally pay, for services they don't personally need will be effective at driving down prices. Indeed, these commisars or at least their masters get reelected in part based on how much largess they shovel at people. Drugs look expensive it looks like a bigger benefit being provided. (Perverse incentive, much?)

Meanwhile, 300+ million people, each intent on relatively few prices, in money they personally pay, for services they personally need (perhaps desperately), do not put pressure on prices or delivery?

That's what you are saying?

Oh, it's about size.

Big companies have dedicated purchasing agents to negotiate bulk deals because nobody really cares about the prices because it isn't their money. (They have some leverage, sometimes, and often vendors will fire them as a customer for bing too much of a PITA. I leave generalizing that effect to government health care as an exercise.)

Small companies, especially family-owned, well, nobody negotiates harder. Can we turn a few tens of millions of family budget-managers loose on medical price tomfoolery and see what happens, please?

Peter, the third-generation owener running the diner round the corner from me knows to the penny the price of every component on every dish. He knows when to buy whole chickens in bulk to butcher them in-house for better price & quality plus making their own stock. Why? Because it's his money. It's his customers. It's his business.

Get him going about employee health care costs & he's livid ... that because it's bulk deals only, there's nowhere he can get what his employees want, leave what they don't and deliver it as effectively as possible.

How about, maybe get out of the way, of Peter & of families & individuals doing the same thing? Is this hard?; 7/22/11, 7:41 PM
Revenant said...: Medicare is expensive because the cost of healthcare is expensive.

Well, no.

Medicare is expensive because healthcare is expensive AND we have promised to help seniors pay for it even if they've got plenty of money.

And most do.; 7/22/11, 7:45 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Medicare and soc security only seem very expensive and that is because the govt spent the money people paid in for the last 30-40 years.

Maybe they should fix it by putting back the $3.7 Trillion they "borrowed" from the soc sec tax receipts and then we can see if it is sill broke?

Medicare is a bit different but it's primary fault, like soc sec, is they started a retirement benefit program but it too was a govt sponsored Ponzi scheme.; 7/22/11, 8:09 PM
Hagar said...: This negotiating technique of adding just one more thing when you sense the opposition is about to go along with the deal as it stands, well, sometimes it works for the moment, but it always leaves a bad taste, and your opponent will never trust you again, but that is how Obama works.
This time he may already have done it once too many, and it is not going to help that he has "summoned" the Congressional leaders for another meeting tomorrow. In the past, even the Democratic leaders would not have put up with that kind of language without firing off a few rounds of their own.; 7/22/11, 8:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Obama's only apparent plan is "complain until someone else solves the problem".

That sounds a lot like voting present.; 7/22/11, 8:31 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Medicare is expensive because the cost of healthcare is expensive. Do something to bring the costs down.

Salary caps on medical care providers. It works everywhere else.

Just because someone spends 6-8 years in higher education and incurs a few hundred thousand in debt to get a medical degree is no reason to make 5-10 times the national average.; 7/22/11, 8:34 PM
Carol_Herman said...: But you can write tomorrow's script, all ready. Unless events in Norway knock Obama off the front page!

Pelosi is going to come out to the camera. And, she will probably say there's a deal ... but she can't tell you what it is, yet.

(Merkel hasn't exposed her deal, either, to the german people.)

It's almost like waiting for a frigid woman to finally have her first orgasm.

We're not at August 2nd, yet.

This whole thing is just a stupid dance.

While Norway blew up on Obama's "dance."

McConnell? Reid "tops him" by 3 seats. It's not exactly what you'd call much of a contest. Because more democraps are worried that obama has no coattails. (As if they've just figured that one out.) Naked emperors usually have nothing you can hang onto. It's in the story's description.

But we're supposed to believe Obama is holding these cards ... And, being called into the white house ... is supposed to hurt. Huh?; 7/22/11, 8:35 PM
Carol_Herman said...: There once was a time in medicine, all a doctor needed, besides office furniture. And, two telephones ... was a nurse. Who gave you the needles.

Today? You've got front office. And, back office. And, paperwork out the ying-yang.

Probably, today, you can make just as much money doing computer programming ... as you can make out of medical school. And, your debt is less.

If you want people to come to your aid, anytime, day or night, you'd be smart not to tamper with their remuneration.

Or? You can just drag kids off the streets ... to play hoops. They can even practice at midnight.

But that's not the way it works when money's involved.

What really sucks, however, is the ZOMBIE ECONOMY! What are you going to invest in for your retirement? Everything sucks.

It's the economy that's flat line. Patients, however, are doing better.

Plus, there are two qualifiers for medicine. One, is dedication. Because you're not going to be getting lots of sleep. And, the other is math skills. Which reduce the pool of qualified people.

No math skills? Well, you could become a lawyer.; 7/22/11, 8:42 PM
Revenant said...: Salary caps on medical care providers. It works everywhere else.

I can't tell if you're kidding.; 7/22/11, 8:52 PM
Synova said...: I'm just starting to look at this a little bit. I watched Boehner's press conference.

According to Boehner they had an agreement on specifics and were ready to finish up and Obama asked for some billions of dollars more that weren't included in the cuts agreed to so that taxes would have to be raised. $400 billion in revenue.

Is that as much as it sounds like? Is it as little as it sounds like now that we're thinking in terms of several trillions of dollars at a time?

What was the idea? That Obama put this in at the last minute expecting Boehner to agree, thus giving Obama a symbolic "last word" and dominance? So he says something like "won't they say yes to anything?" because it's just a little thing and they ought to have said yes?

If it really was that sort of gamesmanship I'm amazed that all Boehner allowed himself to say (while saying how he respected Obama, etc., and trusted him as a negotiator) was that Obama was the one who backed out and that Obama moved the goal posts.

As for the "compromise" thing... looks like Boehner agreed to up the debt limit. I think that *counts* as a compromise.; 7/22/11, 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Either this is

1) political theatre and this is the last gasp before passing something

Or

2) We're all doomed.; 7/22/11, 8:57 PM
Synova said...: I mean... imagine if instead of Boehner it was Allen West responding to a political opponent who was jerking around an important process in order to get symbolic dominance.; 7/22/11, 9:02 PM
damikesc said...: I blame house Rs for refusing to compromise.

You can't "compromise" when one side is not providing a plan in the first place.

The House R's have proposed and passed two plans. The Dems? Zilch. Not one. Obama's plan went down 97-0 in the Senate.; 7/22/11, 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm having a hard time caring about the partisan politics when we're so close to a monetary catastrophe.

The dollar is the world reserve currency. But we really could loose that status. If the US pushes the markets into a panic, there is no guarantee that banks/investors will come back to the dollar.

There's a reason that the letter was released after markets closed today. They better have something ready Monday morning sharp.

playtime is over.; 7/22/11, 9:15 PM
edutcher said...: Synova said...

I'm just starting to look at this a little bit. I watched Boehner's press conference.

According to Boehner they had an agreement on specifics and were ready to finish up and Obama asked for some billions of dollars more that weren't included in the cuts agreed to so that taxes would have to be raised. $400 billion in revenue.

Is that as much as it sounds like? Is it as little as it sounds like now that we're thinking in terms of several trillions of dollars at a time?

What was the idea? That Obama put this in at the last minute expecting Boehner to agree, thus giving Obama a symbolic "last word" and dominance? So he says something like "won't they say yes to anything?" because it's just a little thing and they ought to have said yes?

A half trillion isn't exactly chump change.

It seems the issue is that Little Zero is playing games for the sake of political one-upmanship and Boehner's getting fed up.

Zero seems to feel it necessary for his class warfare chops to get some tax increase, but also to drag this out so it's a real 11th hour finish, so he can grab as much credit as possible.; 7/22/11, 9:43 PM
Hagar said...: There has to be a little more to it than what they are telling us. If it was only Obama demanding an additional 400 billion dollar tax hike, all Boehner needed to do was say, "No, we are not going to do that."
So there has to be something more that caused him to say publicly that he was through talking to this guy, and he was going to talk to the Senators tomorrow, presumably to see if they can come up with something that the President will have to sign.; 7/22/11, 9:44 PM
SunnyJ said...: What's such a big deal about the "Gang of 6"...the House sent you Cut, Cap and Balance by the gang of 234, with more bipartisan support than Olympia Snowe for Obamacare!

It is getting the choke hold on spending with the balance budget act in the constitution that really scares the Dems. They think this Tea Party is a speed bump on their way to a euro socialist America. The constitutional ammendment casts the Tea Party in stone, in their faces for a much longer time than the next election. We here in Wisconsin know the Dems will just keep holding elections until no one shows up and they take their ball and go home.; 7/22/11, 10:19 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "...I can't tell if you're kidding...."

Heh. Yeah I should have added a /sarc tag.; 7/22/11, 10:37 PM
Lance said...: @Browndog
I looked all over for Obama's plan-can't find it.

Can someone post a link?

The President has been very careful not to discuss any concrete proposals in public. The linked Politico article had the most detail on the President's position that I've seen.; 7/22/11, 11:46 PM
Curious George said...: garage mahal: "Just raise the damn debt ceiling yourself and tell Boehner to cram it."

Weren't you the douchenozzle that said this less than 24 hours ago?

"So fuck the historical processes and the rule of law".; 7/23/11, 12:10 AM
David said...: Thank God for the transparency that the Obama administration has brought to the political process. Because of the openness of these negotiations, and the clarity of President Obama's very specific public proposals, we can all judge for ourselves what really happened.; 7/23/11, 12:17 AM
David said...: "
It's almost like waiting for a frigid woman to finally have her first orgasm."

Carol, you are a wicked, wicked woman.; 7/23/11, 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: I blame Obama for refusing to compromise.; 7/23/11, 1:41 AM
Toad Trend said...: In the end, progressives hate the constitution because IT IS the set of regulations for government.

As much as progressives love to micromanage everyone else's life, they HATE limits on their own mischief.

Zero's vision for this country amounts to the choking control of socialism and the cynical march of corruption which would ultimately render it unrecognizable, if left unchecked.

He is a dangerous ideolog that packaged his way into the white house, aided by so many dupes that are the Prius and pet-rock buyers out there.

Ignorance really is our most plentiful resource, today.

Wake up, people. Wake up.

The debt will crush us. The progressives must be put on an austerity diet. Obamacare must be vanquished, as must its supporters in the court of public opinion and at the polls.

WAKE UP!; 7/23/11, 7:07 AM
Toad Trend said...: @ pbandj

"I blame house Rs for refusing to compromise.

I'm guessing that many here are congratulating them for refusing to compromise."

You ARE an idiot.

The democrats have no plan. They served up 'Obamacare', which took them a year and a half, and they had the necessary votes to do it. Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with actual CARE for real people, it only addresses how elites will CONTROL who gets what. Its called 'redistribution'. So, that IS the D plan. Its as plain as day, dolt.

So now, you and all the other progressive dolts expect the R's to negotiate with themselves while the D's sit back and cherry pick the details.

Elections have consequences, you are in the minority.

STFU and eat your peas.; 7/23/11, 7:18 AM
galdosiana said...: I definitely think that some people here need to look up the word "compromise" in the dictionary, and then see if they can apply it to real life.

The Republicans in the House have already voted on and passed TWO plans in the last several MONTHS. The latest plan and talks between Boehner and Obama include a compromise: the Rs agree to raise the debt ceiling if the Ds agree to cut spending. And who is it that refuses to compromise on that deal? (A deal, by the way, that over 2/3 of the adult population agrees with.)

Meanwhile, it's been over EIGHT HUNDRED days since the democrats have passed a budget. Hmmmm...; 7/23/11, 8:36 AM
Seeing Red said...: Fair, good deal, hmmm, let's see:

Average historical spending was around 18-18.5% & it turns out no matter what they do they can only historically wring 20% out of the despised ATMs.

But the lefties want a new average of about 22-25% spending.

Or was this good deal the pubbies said no to really $1 trillion in cuts w/$1.2 trillion in new spending

umm, doesn't that mean more spending, more deficit

with under $700 billion in tinkering?

And this will improve the economy cos the ONLY thing holding all that money back is the "uncertainty" of the deal?

Via Vodkapundit:

The new British fiscal plan was very similar to the “grand bargain” being advocated by the Obama administration. It supposedly consisted of 77% spending cuts and 23% revenue increases. However, some crucial tax rates were increased, including a hike in the top marginal capital gains tax rate from 18% to 28%.

The tax increases derailed England’s economic recovery. GDP growth over the next three calendar quarters averaged only 0.77%. This was 70% lower than the growth rate during the 9 months prior to the tax hikes. The percentage of British adults with jobs, which had been rising, plummeted after the tax increases. It has since stabilized at a lower level

The bamster asked for a 24% increase in the EO's budget in his unanimously voted down budget, didn't he?; 7/23/11, 9:12 AM
Seeing Red said...: Almost 800 days, where is Harry's budget?; 7/23/11, 9:14 AM
Seeing Red said...: The bamster wanted to wring another $400b out of the loathed ATM?

Can't wait to see what other taxes were raised in the deal Bonehead agreed to.; 7/23/11, 9:43 AM