PastaJoe Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Obama is calling out Boehner right now for caving to the Tea Party, who are threatening our economy with their extremist willingness to let the government default on our debt. There was a reasonable compromise on the table that cut trillions, including programs that Democrats support, not raise the tax rates, and close tax loopholes. And once again Boehner has backed away because of pressure from the extremists in the House. Clearly Boehner doesn't have the balls to take on the Tea Party for the good of the country. McConnell seems reasonable and willing to compromise on this crisis, but he's not getting any help from his fellow Republicans in the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Sir, please step away from the Kool-Aid® Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 There was a reasonable compromise on the table that cut trillions, including programs that Democrats support, not raise the tax rates, and close tax loopholes. Could you please share with us the details of the reasonable compromise? How many millions would be cut? From where? When would they be cut? Which tax loopholes would be closed? I keep hearing over and over and over about this grand plan that Obama has put forth, and every time I ask for details, I get crickets. Follow this truth: Word leaked that Boehner and Obama were closing in an yet-disclosed plan that MAY have included reform to entitlements. This led to an unexpected meeting yesterday between Obama and his liberal friends (Link here) to keep him from making a deal. After the meeting, according to Boehner, Obama changes the conditions he was close to agreeing on with Boehner. Boehner walks away. Obama runs in front of a camera and starts to throw another temper tantrum. But yeah...I'm sure it was more like that DailyKos rant you posted above. By the way, in case you weren't aware, the ONLY person who will keep little old ladies from getting their social security checks on the 3rd is the one at the podium crying like a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Could you please share with us the details of the reasonable compromise? How many millions would be cut? From where? When would they be cut? Which tax loopholes would be closed? I keep hearing over and over and over about this grand plan that Obama has put forth, and every time I ask for details, I get crickets. Follow this truth: Word leaked that Boehner and Obama were closing in an yet-disclosed plan that MAY have included reform to entitlements. This led to an unexpected meeting yesterday between Obama and his liberal friends (Link here) to keep him from making a deal. After the meeting, according to Boehner, Obama changes the conditions he was close to agreeing on with Boehner. Boehner walks away. Obama runs in front of a camera and starts to throw another temper tantrum. But yeah...I'm sure it was more like that DailyKos rant you posted above. By the way, in case you weren't aware, the ONLY person who will keep little old ladies from getting their social security checks on the 3rd is the one at the podium crying like a baby. Pretty much sums it up. Looks like the old coots have Barry running scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Pretty much sums it up. Looks like the old coots have Barry running scared. After Barry finished his temper tantrum, Boehner came out and explained that they essentially were close to a deal, and then Barry upped the ante at the last minute to require another $400B in tax increases. Way to go, Barry. Tell us again about that plan of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Way to go, Barry. Tell us again about that plan of yours. Phase I: Hope Phase II: Phase III: Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You guys do realize that Pasta isn't being serious and he is baiting you don't you? I mean no one is that dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You guys do realize that Pasta isn't being serious and he is baiting you don't you? I mean no one is that dumb You just don't know PastaJoe. Yes. He's that dumb. Consistently, I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 And yet... that's democracy at work. They were voted in by their districts to reign in federal spending and the deficit and that's exactly what they're making a stand against. Without significant cuts, no ceiling increase votes. Don't like it? F--- off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) You just don't know PastaJoe. Yes. He's that dumb. Consistently, I might add. 9 times out of 10 I can hit Right Control-Mouse at work to go from Virtual La-La-Land to Reality. But then I read post's by PJ, Hedd, & Dave and I'm afraid that I will be stuck in Virtual Retard Right Wing Conspiracy Land. The Boogeyman is scary enough. But the Boogyman who wants to take away my God/State/Gaia handout, now that's some scary schiznit Edited July 23, 2011 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 After Barry finished his temper tantrum, Boehner came out and explained that they essentially were close to a deal, and then Barry upped the ante at the last minute to require another $400B in tax increases. Way to go, Barry. Tell us again about that plan of yours. You believe either of 'em? People seem to forget that this wasn't and isn't just Boehner vs. Obama...it's the House Republicans (who probably don't even agree with themselves) vs. the House Democrats vs. the Senate vs. the White House. Whatever Obama sprung on Boehner, or Boehner sprung on Obama...they still had to sell it to the rest of the House, and negotiate it with the Senate. How easy was that going to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You believe either of 'em? People seem to forget that this wasn't and isn't just Boehner vs. Obama...it's the House Republicans (who probably don't even agree with themselves) vs. the House Democrats vs. the Senate vs. the White House. Whatever Obama sprung on Boehner, or Boehner sprung on Obama...they still had to sell it to the rest of the House, and negotiate it with the Senate. How easy was that going to be? The stories on Politico and The Hill this morning pretty much agree that Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal to the extent that they planned to hold a press conference Friday announcing their agreement and pushing both houses to approve it by Wednesday. That was Thursday, prior to the Pelosi/Reid/Feinstein brigade which demanded a meeting with Obama who, after the meeting, sprung the $400B on Boehner on Thursday. In the real world, where you and I live, when you are telling people you are close to an agreement, what you're saying is that not only are the terms acceptable to each other, but you each believe you can get it past your own personal barriers (i.e. I have the downpayment, the bank will fund it, the sellers will take your price and agree to the contingency items, etc). After what was clearly a long and painful exercise for both Boehner and Obama for such a monumental issue as this, what you DON'T say half-a-day removed from a press conference is "Oh, hey, I was yelled at by my peeps yesterday and by-the-by, what do you think about changing one of the numbers by 50%?" Most anyone would walk away from even the suggestion that the other side has once again changed their mind at the last minute because "their wife" was nagging them on the ride to work. And we're not talking about "if you help tie the Christmas tree to my roof, I'll take it" kind of last-minute stupdity. We're talking about overplaying your hand. And that's what he did. Yeah, I'm a hack, but this one is pretty obvious. And has nothing to do with what PJ refers to as "Tea Party Terrorists." Obama's in over his head. And now a deal will be struck without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The stories on Politico and The Hill this morning pretty much agree that Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal to the extent that they planned to hold a press conference Friday announcing their agreement and pushing both houses to approve it by Wednesday. That was Thursday, prior to the Pelosi/Reid/Feinstein brigade which demanded a meeting with Obama who, after the meeting, sprung the $400B on Boehner on Thursday. In the real world, where you and I live, when you are telling people you are close to an agreement, what you're saying is that not only are the terms acceptable to each other, but you each believe you can get it past your own personal barriers (i.e. I have the downpayment, the bank will fund it, the sellers will take your price and agree to the contingency items, etc). After what was clearly a long and painful exercise for both Boehner and Obama for such a monumental issue as this, what you DON'T say half-a-day removed from a press conference is "Oh, hey, I was yelled at by my peeps yesterday and by-the-by, what do you think about changing one of the numbers by 50%?" Most anyone would walk away from even the suggestion that the other side has once again changed their mind at the last minute because "their wife" was nagging them on the ride to work. And we're not talking about "if you help tie the Christmas tree to my roof, I'll take it" kind of last-minute stupdity. We're talking about overplaying your hand. And that's what he did. Yeah, I'm a hack, but this one is pretty obvious. And has nothing to do with what PJ refers to as "Tea Party Terrorists." Obama's in over his head. And now a deal will be struck without him. Given Barry's arrogance and Chicago background, I doubt he put in in such conciliatory and nice terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You instantly lose ALL credibility now and forever by calling the tea party terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You instantly lose ALL credibility now and forever by calling the tea party terrorists. That was lost a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 That was lost a long time ago. Please, it is obvious both of you are partisan hacks. Still, at least you have company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Please, it is obvious both of you are partisan hacks. Still, at least you have company. So does Pasta Joe. He's got pBills, lyrbob, Buftex, Hedd, Frenkle and you, to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So does Pasta Joe. He's got pBills, lyrbob, Buftex, Hedd, Frenkle and you, to name a few. You are an asshat who cannot discern any sort of distinction. Tis really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So does Pasta Joe. He's got pBills, lyrbob, Buftex, Hedd, Frenkle and you, to name a few. Don't lump Frenkle in with those guys. He was a lib but at least he was interesting. Speaking of which, does anyone know if his absence is self-imposed or an act of the temperamental one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So basically, middle class America is being asked by the Tea Party to give up massive amounts of health care, retirement benefits, education funding and everything else government does but the wealthy who have had it beyond great the last few decades will not have to contribute to their country more? Screw that! There is no way that will make it through the Senate let alone get a Presidential signiture. Good! It shouldn't. I don't think anything will get done. If Obama says "Its a good deal!" The Tea Party will instantly turn against it no matter what it is. So its almost pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts