Sunday, July 10, 2011

What is Wrong Here

I am truly perplexed at Boehner ability to fight the good fight.
As with the 2010 budget deal he worked out after taking the helm of the House from Pelosi, he appears to have no backbone to hammer out this deal, a REAL deal with the Democrat leadership in the Senate and the Whitehouse.

Now of course the liberals will come out on this and say that Pelosi was a better Speaker because she could get things done in a bipartisan manner.
Of course, they will fail to realize that what she got done during her time at the helm was all do that her party had total control of the government legislation.
WOW that  doesn't say much for her, either.

As reported in WoPo, Boehner is now NOT willing to cut a far reaching deal to trim our debt by $4T in a decade, because Obama is not willing to back down from his job killing, social engineering, wealth distribution tax hikes on those making more then $250K a year.

In Boehner words "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,”

Well then Mr Speaker, stand you're ground.
We have less then a month before (as Geithner says) we hit the abyss of our debt limit.... And in a fight for our nations financial future.... YOU DON'T BLINK!

Boehner’s decision leaves negotiators reexamining a less-ambitious framework — aimed at saving roughly $2.4 trillion over the next decade.
-“We cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.-
WHAT BURDEN to the middle class on this deal?
The Democrat control House and Senate cut a deal last December on extending the Bush tax cuts for all and now they want to renege on it?
And pay their 'fair share' (wealthiest)? Paying over twice the amount the overwhelming majority of us pay (15%) is a crock-o-sh*t point of view by the left.

The problem with the Speaker is he doesn't know how to control the debate.
Please, Mr Speaker, do the right thing. Hold their feet to the fire, or Americans who want the government to get serious with our debt, will hold YOUR feet to the fire in 2012.


Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Mark, Not being a fly-on-the-wall in these talks and based on what I hear thus far Boehner is holding fast.

Now I am not a dreamer so I expect a 'deal' with the Americans losing in this but I am sick and tired of hearing this shit about America defaulting. This is simply not the case and all players know it to and including the ones we owe.

Unknown said...

Christopher, this WoPo report is going viral right now. Whether it is true, and until I see something to the contrary, I have to assume he is caving.
If it's not and its the Washington Post way of having conservatives turn on the house leadership, then the war of words between WoPo and the right has just taken a step up.

Whether we are going to default, or not, this debt is not going away. This is solely the reason business are not hiring.

Christopher-Conservative Perspective said...

Mark, I agree on this not going away and all the more reason for cutting, not borrowing and spending more.

My point was the idea of America defaulting is false and all know it. If the House stands as it should in not raising the debt limit our 'government' has NO CHOICE but too cut discretionary spending as it knows damn well our creditors have to be paid, this is not a "moral" obligation but a Constitutional one.

When and if business sees action and or in this case inaction in not raising the debt ceiling they will respond in due course.

Unknown said...

Yes, I understand its' a constitutional one, as I posted a few days ago. I guess what I am trying to get across here is, IS Boehner caving, or not? You've stated that he is "holding fast". Washington Post is laying claim that he is caving and the net is abuzz with this story.

Business is not so much waiting for whether we raise the debt ceiling, but whether they lower the debt obligation with in the deal, far be on any raise of the ceiling.

Christopher-Conservative Perspective said...

Mark,,,"lower the debt obligation"

Your kidding right?

That is not in the cards my friend as a debt taken is a debt owed which is a conservative ideal like it or not.

I do not however think we differ here but on wording we may.

As to "report's" maybe produced from these "talks", I again reiterate Americans wil suffer in more taxation due to no backbone on the House side but right now there is NO confirmation on this, just a news report based on speculation no matter how widespread.

Unknown said...

No I am not kidding. I didn't say walk away from our obligation. I said lower our obligation.
Paying on our debt is lowering our obligation.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is he is asking for nothing to begin with. 2 trillion sounds like a lot, but then you figure that is not 2 trillion in actual cuts, it's 2 trillion out of ten year worth of proposed increases.

Unknown said...

Sure is, Trestin. And now reports are Boehner wants a $2T debt reduction with no tax increase. Straight up cuts.
Obama is insisting a $4T debt reduction, but with a $2T tax increase. Which boils down to job creators will pay for what Obama has spent his first 1.5 years.

Christopher-Conservative Perspective said...


If we owe say $5, well we owe $5 not less but actually more when interest figured in. In this tiny scenario how can you show we owe "lower the debt obligation"?

By using such language, well you get my point,,,I hope.

Unknown said...

Lets put it this way, Christopher. You own $100K on your home, on a mortgage of 30 years, thats an obligation, but by paying on that loan, that reduces the obligation, in dollars, from the initial point.

Right now we owe $14T. Nothing at this point is being done to reduce it. So at this time THIS is the initial point of obligation.

Every time you pay on that $14T (without adding to it), it lessens our overall obligation from the initial point

The more you pay to the principle, the less you pay in interest overall.

So what I am saying is, is what every American has been saying... Paying down the debt.
Hope you get it.

Christopher-Conservative Perspective said...


This is obvious as we both point out, it is the wording that I address.

Really, "lower the debt obligation" is a misnomer.

Of course we owe it but saying we have to pay it down says volumes and is honest to those who actually pay it and are unaware.

That is my point, language

Unknown said...

Christopher, I think you've known my point all along.
You just didn't care for the word I used... obligation.
You've felt it was a misnomer to use it.
I feel it makes the point quite clear.

You originally pointed out that you thought I was talking about walking away from the obligation. And I have numerous times explained I was referring to paying that obligation down.
But you're hung up on the word.
I have made myself clear on this, but you keep pushing it.

Lower the debt obligation=paying down the debt

Chris said...

We are the Republicans backbone. We must keep in touch with our Reps. and hold them up when they try and do the right things. The Tea Party is working hard too keep them honest since it was the Tea Party that got these Republicans in office. They are beholden to us and we need to remind them of that constantly. They listen too us and follow our lead. Thanks to great Americans like you all we have their ear, if we choose to use it

Unknown said...

I am hoping that Boehner is listening to us all. And hoping Christopher is right, they Boehner holds fast.

Chris said...

The Tea Party is busy taking control of the people we put into office rather then protesting. We need to be vigolent with consent reminders though. If there is one thing that rings true it's that the Republican Party can screw it up.

Silverfiddle said...

Why doesn't anyone in the press push back on the marxist rhetoric coming out of this white house?

I'd like someone to ask Ploof and Axelrod to provide us the white house definition of Fair Share.

Unknown said...

Fair share to them starts at $250k or tote the liberal/socialist/Marxist line
Sorry haven't blogged lately. Powers been out.