23rd January 2013, 09:47 AM #1
Brain Dead Boehner:
How did this guy get put in the position he is in?
He has spent 3 years now, "negotiating" with the President over the Debt Ceiling, the Deficits, Spending, taxes, etc., only to end up rolling over at every juncture.
Now, this could be due to several factors, none of them shedding a good light on our GOP Oompa Loompa:
#1. He simply got "out negotiated" by the President. If so, then lets give someone else a chance. In my book, FAILURE does not deserve reward.
#2. He may not have been able to control elements within his own party. If so, then, lets get a LEADER in there! His position is a LEADERSHIP position. IF he can not lead, give someone else a chance.
#3. Obama lied, and/or, would not compromise. If so, then, again, Boehner FAILED in his negotiation skills. In fact, I would prefer to think that Option #1 was the reason, instead of this one. IF Boehner had to simply roll over to a President who would not compromise, then, once more...find someone better suited to respond.
No matter what the facts are in this, the FACT is that Boehner is in over his head, and, lacks any real leadership or negotiating ability, should relegate him back to the Floor. A Committee Chairmanship, at most.
But NOW, he and the GOP have a "new" plan:
"Suspend" the debt ceiling. Oh, yea, that sounds good! I mean, seriously...the same President and Democrats who have consistently shown that they simply do NOT recognize the concept of "too much spending," and, have consistently beaten the Pugs back, forcing them to "put the issue off to next year," will, all of a sudden say "OH, this is only a temporary suspension of the Debt Ceiling, so, we better not spend too much??????" (Right. When drug lords start following gun laws.....)
Now, the "Good" part of this plan, is that, IF a budget is not crafted by April 15, no one in Congress gets paid. I LOVE that part, but, already there are claims that this would be "Unconstitutional." (How ironic: The Congressional Aristocracy can craft legislation that FORCES Americans to buy a service; Congressional Aristocrats can pass laws that LIMIT Constitutional rights; Congressional Aristocrats can raise taxes, at their whim...BUT...ROFLMFAO!!!!..it would be "UNConstitutional" to withhold THEIR pay for NOT DOING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES!!!)
That said, there is always the VOLUNTARY Option, with political grandstanding: As such, I hope that the unthinkable happens, and, Puggers simply REFUSE to accept their own paychecks, IF no budget is passed, all while listing the names of every single Senator or Representative who continues to collect their paychecks after the April 15 deadline. (To be fair, though, they would have to list EVERYONE from BOTH parties. AND, they would also need to list any Democrats who also refuse to accept their paychecks. Wait, did I mention the word "fair" in regards to Aristocratic function????)
OF course, IF Boehner had anything remotely akin to cartilage in his spine, he could simply NOT fund ANYTHING NEW:
--Pay for whatever we are already obligated for, but:
--Strike any and all earmarks off of any legislation. IF required, scuttle any such bill, and re-introduce it, sans Earmarks. Now this may be chump change, but, it amounts to several million, if not billions of dollars of TAXPAYER "chump change..."
--Do whatever we can to cut foreign support, particularly for nations such as Egypt. The fact that we are about to give them billions of dollars in military support, while we are struggling to stay above water is simply ludicrous. DE fund it.
--DO NOT AUTHORIZE ONE SINGLE DIME OF NEW SPENDING, UNLESS...it is for "emergencies," such as Sandy. And, even then...BAN the earmarks. When someone attempts to put an Earmark on such a bill, strike the bill, if you must and...start over.
Again, while I do understand that all of the above is much easier said, than done...that is what LEADERS are for. We pay these arrogant assholes good money and GREAT lifetime benefits (not counting all the 'extracurricular' wealth they recieve, which is likely three times as much!)...It seems to me, that they can put in a little bit of overtime, if required.
The House of Representatives supposedly has control of the Nation's Purse Strings.
If so, then John Boener, in my opinion, counts for little more than Obama's, orange-tanned, velvet gloves...
It is time the GOP either get serious, or, move on.
Either Stand and Deliver, or, Stand and Fall.
Sit and Play politics, and I will be one ROC voter who will choose not to waste MY valuable time and effort supporting and/or voting for these fools.....
23rd January 2013, 10:30 AM #2
I don't have a problem with any of this.
Originally Posted by Rorschach
However, raising the debt ceiling directly relates to your item number one, and what most people do not understand about the debt ceiling.
Congress has already authorized X-amount of dollars to be spent by the various government offices and departments, as well as needing to pay for interest on the debt, emergencies like Sandy, etc.
When that authorized amount exceeds what revenues come in, in the form of taxes and fees, they need to raise the debt limit in order to be able to borrow enough funds to cover the money they have already spent, or authorized to be spent. Most people do not understand this. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling means that someone, usually bond-holders, are not going to receive the money they are due, when they turn in their savings bonds and other interest-bearing treasury instruments. That's bad, because it would show the US is not willing to honor it's obligations. All sorts of chaos would ensue.
The only thing sadder than the average US citizen not knowing how the debt ceiling works, are Congressmen and Senators who either don't know how it works, or know and do not understand the consequences, or know and don't give a damn about the consequences.
The thing is, we should have a better idea of how much revenue we have coming in each year, and work to adjust spending and/or taxes so that spending matches those revenues. Even so, with emergency spending and such, there are going to be ceiling raises, and Congress shouldn't bew playing games with this in such a manner that that threatens our ability to borrow in the future, should we need it.
Last edited by NiteGuy; 23rd January 2013 at 10:35 AM.
23rd January 2013, 10:40 AM #3
Unfortunately, I am comming to the realization that in America, we all SPEND out money FIRST....THEN start thinking about how we are going to pay for it, or, if, we even have the money.
America has taken "spending on credit" to an incredibly ludicrous level.
(Not just in government, but, in our daily lives as well...)
Congress needs to PAY their existing bills, then, STOP PAYING for "new" stuff.
The only problem with that, is that in doing so, a few might lose their comfy positions, after the Democrats call them "mean..."for whatever cuts in future spending they make.
23rd January 2013, 10:52 AM #4
Stomping RW Trolls
Boehner is there because he's just not one of the stupidest of his caucus, like the TeaBaggeds.
23rd January 2013, 03:10 PM #5
To late, he's already been re-uped.
Originally Posted by Rorschach
23rd January 2013, 04:38 PM #6
if someone called Obama brain-dead, someone else would call that person a "racist".
23rd January 2013, 05:21 PM #7
Your racist! Boner is brain dead and does not know it.
Originally Posted by Oscar99
23rd January 2013, 06:07 PM #8
You know, your little rant ws kinda funny, except for one little flaw: the portion that I highlighted in red? It isn't true.
Originally Posted by Rorschach
As you can see from the graph, Obama has been spending less than his predecessor; not holding the line, mind you, but actually reversing the outrageous spending trend of that guy that Republicans go absolutely bat-shit, if his name is even mentioned. So, when you, and other Republicans keep talking about the "runaway spender that is Obama", all you do is make yourselves, again, sound like the party that is completely divorced from a world informed by facts.
23rd January 2013, 06:40 PM #9
err...even I know this is false.
Originally Posted by Czernobog
Bush passed a budget for FY2009 that had a deficit of $400 billion.
Under Obama, this ballooned to $1 trillion.
Since then, spending every year has had a consistent deficit of $1 trillion or more.
this is a much larger deficit than Bush EVER had.
now, part of this is due to the serious reduction in revenue we had in FY 2008 and FY 2009, but that doesn't even cover half of the $800 billion in extra spending Obama has desired every year more than Bush.
23rd January 2013, 06:59 PM #10
The Republican Agenda
Ya. Don't let the facts fool you.
Originally Posted by Oscar99
I think the two wars and Bush's Socialist Medicare Part D program had something to do with it. The graph is factual. Spending is on the decline.
government spending per capita.jpg
Tags for this Thread