Boehner latest lie - debt ceiling

[Luddly Neddite]

John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: 'We're Going To Have A Negotiation'

"Well, you know, I could say the sun's not going to come up tomorrow, but guess what? It is. So the president can say,
'I'm not going to negotiate on the debt limit.' Get over it," he told CNBC, in an interview scheduled to air later Thursday. "We're spending more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit then we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in."

"So guess what? We're going to have a debate and we're going to have a negotiation," said Boehner.

Liar.

In the past, his "negotiations" have consisted of, "my way or the highway" and that's what it will be again. Unless, of course, he can find a way to harm the poorest among us. In that case, the whole GObP will be on board.

 

[Wyatt earp]

John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: 'We're Going To Have A Negotiation'

"Well, you know, I could say the sun's not going to come up tomorrow, but guess what? It is. So the president can say,
'I'm not going to negotiate on the debt limit.' Get over it," he told CNBC, in an interview scheduled to air later Thursday. "We're spending more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit then we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in."

"So guess what? We're going to have a debate and we're going to have a negotiation," said Boehner.

Liar.

In the past, his "negotiations" have consisted of, "my way or the highway" and that's what it will be again. Unless, of course, he can find a way to harm the poorest among us. In that case, the whole GObP will be on board.

"my way or the high way" sounds more like Obama and with the Sequestor, You do have to remember Boehner did back down on tax hikes during the fiscal cliff.. ..

 

[waltky]

Granny says let Obama pay it - she still ain't got her 2nd stimulus check...

$2,001,093,000,000: Fed’s Ownership of U.S. Debt Breaks $2T for First Time
August 19, 2013 -- The Federal Reserve’s holdings of publicly traded U.S. Treasury securities—federal government debt—pushed above $2 trillion for the first time last week, hitting approximately $2,001,093,000,000 as of Aug. 14, according to the Fed’s latest weekly accounting.

The Fed’s accounting for the previous week showed that it had owned approximately $1,993,375,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities as of Aug. 7. Back on Dec. 31, 2008, before the Fed began its strategy of “Quantitative Easing," the Fed owned only $475.9 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. Since then, the Fed’s holdings of U.S. government debt have more than quadrupled.

Launched in 2009, the Fed's Quantitative Easing (QE) efforts have attempted to stimulate the economy. “Under QE,” explains a February 2013 Congressional Research Service report, “the Fed attempts to lower long-term Treasury and MBS [mortgage-backed security] yields directly through purchases that drive down their yields, in the hope that lower Treasury and MBS yields will indirectly filter through to reductions in other private long-term yields. (Lower Treasury yields do not directly stimulate economic activity—they are only stimulative if other yields fall as a result.) This could occur because Treasury securities are considered a ‘benchmark’ against which other private securities are priced, so that other securities are automatically repriced when Treasuries are repriced (although the change is unlikely to be one-to-one).” (In its latest weekly accounting, the Fed also said that as of Aug. 14, it owned approximately $1.299831 trillion in mortgage-backed securities that had been issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Back on Jan. 14, 2009, the Fed owned only $5.6 billion in mortgage-backed securities.)

By law, the Fed is not permitted to buy U.S. Treasury securities directly from the Treasury. Instead it buys them in the secondary market. However, when the Fed buys U.S. government debt even on the secondary market it creates a closed circle: The Treasury pays the Fed the interest owed on that part of the federal government’s debt, and almost all of that interest--considered “profit” by the Fed--is paid back to the Treasury. “Monetizing the deficit refers to financing the budget deficit through money creation rather than by selling bonds to private investors,” said the CRS. “Hyperinflation in foreign countries has consistently resulted from governments’ decision to monetize large deficits. “According to this definition, the deficit has not been monetized,” said CRS. “Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act legally forbids the Fed from buying newly issued securities directly from the Treasury, and all Treasury securities purchased by the Fed to date have been purchased on the secondary market from private investors.” “Nonetheless," said CRS, "the effect of the Fed’s purchase of Treasury securities on the federal budget is similar to monetization whether the Fed buys the securities on the secondary market or directly from the Treasury. When the Fed holds Treasury securities, Treasury must pay interest to the Fed, just as it would pay interest to a private investor. These interest payments, after expenses, become profits of the Fed. The Fed, in turn, remits about 95 percent of its profits to the Treasury, where they are added to general revenues. In essence, the has made an interest-free loan to the Treasury, because almost all of the interest paid by Treasury to the Fed is subsequently sent back to Treasury. “The Fed could increase its profits and remittances to Treasury,” said CRS, “by printing more money to purchase more Treasury bonds (or any other asset)."

As of Aug. 15, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the total value of Treasury securities held by the public was $11,952,073,953,024.85. (The rest of the federal government’s debt is “intragovernmental” debt—n.b. money that the Treasury owes to federal trust funds, such as the Social Security trust fund.) The $2,001,093,000,000 in Treasury securities now owned by the Fed equals 16.7 percent of the U.S. government’s debt held by the public. Another $5.6006 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities is owned by foreign entities, according to the Treasury's latest report on foreign holders of U.S. debt. The combined $7,601,693,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities owned the Fed and foreign entities equals about 64 percent of all extant U.S. Treasury securities. After the Fed, entities on Mainland China are the largest owners of U.S. government debt, holding $1.2758 trillion as of the end of June.

- See more at: $2,001,093,000,000: Fed?s Ownership of U.S. Debt Breaks $2T for First Time | CNS News

 

[asterism]

John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: 'We're Going To Have A Negotiation'

"Well, you know, I could say the sun's not going to come up tomorrow, but guess what? It is. So the president can say,
'I'm not going to negotiate on the debt limit.' Get over it," he told CNBC, in an interview scheduled to air later Thursday. "We're spending more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit then we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in."

"So guess what? We're going to have a debate and we're going to have a negotiation," said Boehner.

Liar.

In the past, his "negotiations" have consisted of, "my way or the highway" and that's what it will be again. Unless, of course, he can find a way to harm the poorest among us. In that case, the whole GObP will be on board.

Really?

So the tax increases Obama wanted didn't happen?

Hmmm.....


Report: Boehner Caves on Tax Increases for High Income Earners | The Tea Party News Network | TPNN.com

 

[BDBoop]

This is gonna be fun, boys and girls.

This Time There Really Will Be a Government Shutdown | New Republic

Start with the White House, which has been annoyingly open to concessions even when it has all the leverage. In my own conversations with White House officials (and people close to them) over the past few months, I’ve picked up a clear willingness to allow a shutdown if Republicans refuse to budge. This is unlike 2011, the last time the White House faced a shutdown situation. Back then, a well-connected former administration official told me recently, “the political strategists wanted a deal. [Senior adviser David] Plouffe wanted a deal . . . to increase our numbers with independents.” This time, according to this source, “There’s no constituency for caving.”

That jibes with the change of heart I’ve detected when speaking directly to White House officials. In 2011, they were queasy about the risks a shutdown posed to the rickety economy, which could ultimately hurt the president. This year, they believe a shutdown would strengthen their hand politically, which is almost certainly true given the public outrage that would rain down on Republicans. One official pointed out that the pressure for spending cuts has subsided with the deficit falling so rapidly on its own.

Of course, the president himself isn’t the toughest negotiator in the world. You can’t rule out the possibility that the White House will blink when the deadline gets close. At the very least, one can imagine Obama signing a short-term government funding measure (known as a continuing resolution) that leaves the automatic sequester cuts in place so long as it doesn’t touch Obamacare. But even if he were inclined to do this, Congressional Democrats seem less willing to support him than in the past. They believe they can demand much more in exchange for saving the GOP from a shutdown. “Our leadership thinks the time has come to draw a line in the sand, not do a short-term extension,” a senior Democratic Hill aide told Politico last week. “They’re ready for a flash and a pop.” Bottom line: Democrats across the board are more willing to broach a shutdown than at any other time during the past three years.

 

[Mr. H.]

We
R
Fucked

 

[BDBoop]

Not a problem. I've become a bit of a stoic when it comes to people choosing to fuck the nation as a whole, or shooting up an elementary school, or whatever the fuck is happening these days.

They're gonna do what they have to do.

Of course, they don't have to. They're volunteers, not victims.

And there's not shit I can do about it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is gonna be fun, boys and girls.

This Time There Really Will Be a Government Shutdown | New Republic

Start with the White House, which has been annoyingly open to concessions even when it has all the leverage. In my own conversations with White House officials (and people close to them) over the past few months, I’ve picked up a clear willingness to allow a shutdown if Republicans refuse to budge. This is unlike 2011, the last time the White House faced a shutdown situation. Back then, a well-connected former administration official told me recently, “the political strategists wanted a deal. [Senior adviser David] Plouffe wanted a deal . . . to increase our numbers with independents.” This time, according to this source, “There’s no constituency for caving.”

That jibes with the change of heart I’ve detected when speaking directly to White House officials. In 2011, they were queasy about the risks a shutdown posed to the rickety economy, which could ultimately hurt the president. This year, they believe a shutdown would strengthen their hand politically, which is almost certainly true given the public outrage that would rain down on Republicans. One official pointed out that the pressure for spending cuts has subsided with the deficit falling so rapidly on its own.

Of course, the president himself isn’t the toughest negotiator in the world. You can’t rule out the possibility that the White House will blink when the deadline gets close. At the very least, one can imagine Obama signing a short-term government funding measure (known as a continuing resolution) that leaves the automatic sequester cuts in place so long as it doesn’t touch Obamacare. But even if he were inclined to do this, Congressional Democrats seem less willing to support him than in the past. They believe they can demand much more in exchange for saving the GOP from a shutdown. “Our leadership thinks the time has come to draw a line in the sand, not do a short-term extension,” a senior Democratic Hill aide told Politico last week. “They’re ready for a flash and a pop.” Bottom line: Democrats across the board are more willing to broach a shutdown than at any other time during the past three years.

You act as if that's a bad thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans, on the other hand he's willing to use the US military to support terrorists in Benghazi and Syria

 

[R.C. Christian]

Boehner is a piece of shit. Almost as bad as McCain or sissy boy Lindsey who opens his fat South Carolina mouth way too often.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Im with [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] on this one...gonna be fun

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans, on the other hand he's willing to use the US military to support terrorists in Benghazi and Syria

The warped world of wingnut Frank. The US President supports terrorists? You remind me of what it is warped minds said about the American colonists in the 1700s...

 

[Bern80]

Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans, on the other hand he's willing to use the US military to support terrorists in Benghazi and Syria

The warped world of wingnut Frank. The US President supports terrorists? You remind me of what it is warped minds said about the American colonists in the 1700s...

Consdidering the rebels in Syria are supported by Al Queda, that really isn't a leap. If they stick to their guns this is great move by the Republicans. Two birds, one stone so to speak. They get to help dismantle the debacle that is Obamacare and finally do a little something about the debt.

 

[whitehall]

Ah, the world according to Huffington complete with an unflattering picture of the target. Doesn't the radical left have any ...like ...independent thoughts that aren't sponsored by Media Matters and Huf/puff?

 

[BDBoop]

Ah, the world according to Huffington complete with an unflattering picture of the target. Doesn't the radical left have any ...like ...independent thoughts that aren't sponsored by Media Matters and Huf/puff?

And yet you'd probably be the first to reference 'lame stream media.'

So, what then. You think everybody should be reading The Blaze and watching FOX? What's your recommendation.