Cantor pulls out of Biden debt talks

[Wiseacre]

This morning we find out that House Majority leader Eric Cantor is withdrawing from negotiations over the debt ceiling talks, citing the dems unwillingness to move from thir stance on tax hikes. Cantor says a tax hike cannot pass the House and so he pulled out of the meetings.

My opinion, he can spout off about it, but walking away does not look good. Reminds me of the dems that left Wisconsin or Indiana a little bit, you're supposed to keep fighting and talking rather than quit. I'm sure this is an attempt to apply political pressure on the president, McConnell is already saying the president has to lead. Maybe it makes political sense, but could backfire if the public's perception is that the GOP is being too stubborn and uncooperative. People want results not finger pointing.

cantor pulled out because he knows there is no choice but to cut spending AND raise taxes and he doesn't want his name associated with tax hikes.

mcconnell is just a nutcase. useless and angry.

you're correct that people want results. and i think the right would find that people wouldn't have a problem with shared sacrifice... as long as it's actually shared. you can't ask the middle class to carry the cost of the wars and the cost of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent.

Been trying to make sense out of this, I do not believe the House will agree on raising taxes and Cantor knows it. So, this might be a tactic to both play to the TPers and GOP base by saying I won't paqrticipate in thse talks untilt hey stop talking about raising taxes, and also try to expose the Dems as being unwilling to discuss spending cuts in a substantial way. Particularly I think they want to paint Obama as having no real ideas for those spending cuts.

The problem is, I think it makes them (GOP) look uncooperative, like my way or highway. Could come back to hurt them. Maybe it's good politics, but I for one do not like the gamesmanship. I think Cantor and Kyl should stay put and then afterwards come out and say what they're saying now. Don't make it look like you're the one who won't play ball.

 

[DontBeStupid]

WTF??? Do you have to keep your own budget in check?

Yes I do. I also know that if I get a leak in my roof I can charge the repairs instead of waiting 3 years to save up the cash.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

WTF??? Do you have to keep your own budget in check?

Yes I do. I also know that if I get a leak in my roof I can charge the repairs instead of waiting 3 years to save up the cash.

The difference is you have to ACTUALLY PAY IT BACK, not borrow it forever, accruing never-ending interest to the point of insolvency. Secondly, were you to behave as the Federal Government does concerning monetary policy, you would go to jail with a one way ticket.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Translation: A balanced budget amendment would stop us from spending our grandkids' incomes. WAAAaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. Ok, think of it this way.

A balanced budget would prevent us from borrowing to go to war. Meaning, if we were attacked and needed to invade some country (hypothetically of course) we could NOT borrow to pay for that.

Do you want to tie our hands to defend ourselves?

How many more wars is enough for you libs? 5 ongoing conflicts involving US troops right now.Military fatalities under Obama has sky rocketed:

60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009 | CNSnews.com

All we heard when Booooooooosh was in office was war protesters on the left continuously bringing up soldier's deaths.. Now that Hussein Obama has tied our hands concerning the ROE and increased military fatalities, you leftists are strangely silent. Don't preach to anyone about wars, their cost be it treasure or lives.. you libs are an abysmal failure.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The difference is you have to ACTUALLY PAY IT BACK, not borrow it forever, accruing never-ending interest to the point of insolvency.

Not really. I could borrow and pay minimums my whole life and never pay off the balance. As long as I make enough money, I would live quite well that way.

But of course, a person is not a government, nor vice versa. We should not be using microeconomic ideas when discussing a macroeconomic entity.

 

[DontBeStupid]

How many more wars is enough for you libs?

Heh heh, that's cute what you're trying to do there. But we both know supporting NATO and invading Iraq on bad intel are two very different things.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

How many more wars is enough for you libs?

Heh heh, that's cute what you're trying to do there. But we both know supporting NATO and invading Iraq on bad intel are two very different things.

The same intel Bubba had... Reid had.. NOW WHAT ???? You're not very bright.. Now answer the question.. How many wars is enough for you leftists?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The difference is you have to ACTUALLY PAY IT BACK, not borrow it forever, accruing never-ending interest to the point of insolvency.

Not really. I could borrow and pay minimums my whole life and never pay off the balance. As long as I make enough money, I would live quite well that way.

But of course, a person is not a government, nor vice versa. We should not be using microeconomic ideas when discussing a macroeconomic entity.

No we shouldn't.. The Founders intent was that Government would be filled with every day Americans , not elites who live in a bubble.. Washington shouldn't be above the law, shouldn't make their own rules.. What is good for the average American should damn sure be good enough for Uncle Sam.

 

[DontBeStupid]

How many wars is enough for you leftists?

You really just don't want to talk about Cantor running away from the debt talks, do you? Are you looking forward to interest rates sky rocketing when the U.S. defaults?

 

[DontBeStupid]

What is good for the average American should damn sure be good enough for Uncle Sam.

You clearly don't understand what's going on.

There is a study of personal finances, as it applies to people and their every day lives. Then there is the study on a larger scale, as it pertains to states and countries. There are two different field of studies because there are very large differences between a person and a government. For example, can you legally declare war on a country? Nope. Can you bail out a business? Nope. Can you borrow $1T from China and build high speed rail? Nope.

So don't compare a person to a government.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

How many wars is enough for you leftists?

You really just don't want to talk about Cantor running away from the debt talks, do you? Are you looking forward to interest rates sky rocketing when the U.S. defaults?

You go from one stupid remark to the next. You accused Boooosh of bad intel when your boy Bubba had the same EXACT intel, as well as the libs in congress.. so why the hell bring it up other than you have no real argument?? I called Cantor on walking out today.. Did you do the same with the Wisconsin Dems?? If so, provide the link plz..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

What is good for the average American should damn sure be good enough for Uncle Sam.

You clearly don't understand what's going on.

There is a study of personal finances, as it applies to people and their every day lives. Then there is the study on a larger scale, as it pertains to states and countries. There are two different field of studies because there are very large differences between a person and a government. For example, can you legally declare war on a country? Nope. Can you bail out a business? Nope. Can you borrow $1T from China and build high speed rail? Nope.

So don't compare a person to a government.

OMG roflmao THERE IT IS, the IQ of the liberal voter.. Excuse me for a moment.. "WE THE PEOPLE," IS THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Unfucking real .. and you BOZO's vote.

 

[mudwhistle]

This morning we find out that House Majority leader Eric Cantor is withdrawing from negotiations over the debt ceiling talks, citing the dems unwillingness to move from thir stance on tax hikes. Cantor says a tax hike cannot pass the House and so he pulled out of the meetings.

My opinion, he can spout off about it, but walking away does not look good. Reminds me of the dems that left Wisconsin or Indiana a little bit, you're supposed to keep fighting and talking rather than quit. I'm sure this is an attempt to apply political pressure on the president, McConnell is already saying the president has to lead. Maybe it makes political sense, but could backfire if the public's perception is that the GOP is being too stubborn and uncooperative. People want results not finger pointing.

Doesn't make any sense to sit down and negotiate with Termites when they're destroying your house.

 

[whitehall]

Get some perspective: democrats defended the Wisconson cowards who fled to another state rather than vote on a bill. Cantor didn't go anywhere he just got fed up dealing with a half-wit like Biden and stopped showing up for useless propaganda lectures.

 

[Gadawg73]

Good for Cantor. Obama sends Biden to do his bidding.
If Obama comes to the table look for Cantor to be right there.
The Buck Stops Here was promised by Obama yet he does not live by that.
Time to back up the talk.
That is what this is 100% about. Getting Obama to the table and cut out the wasted time with the messenger boy, Biden.

 

[DontBeStupid]

"WE THE PEOPLE," IS THE GOVERNMENT.

Ok, you clearly don't understand economics at all. That's fine. It does explain why you would be in favour of a balanced budget amendment. I recommend you do some reading on macroeconomics. Paul Krugman has a great blog on the topic and is a Nobel Prize winner. You could start there.

And the war reference was purely to demonstrate to you why an amendment would be bad. Since you're so fixated on recent wars, think back to WW2. We were defending ourselves and had to build up our military in the process. The war was almost 100% financed by borrowing and going into debt. Ever heard of War Bonds? That was the government borrowing. A balanced budget amendment would have prevented all of that. Which is not good.

 

[boedicca]

It doesn't make sense to negotiate with people who are not doing so in good faith.

If the premise of the negotiations is spending cuts, then bringing up tax increases is "bad faith". As the GOP has no intention of agreeing to tax increases, they are perfectly rational to wait until the Dems agree to the scope of the negotiations.

 

[Dot Com]

Reminds me of when Hatch (R) walked- out/quit. "Bi-partisan" means just that. It wasn't called a tax-cut commission Whatever the question to a conservative, the answer is always 'tax-cuts' Why do conservatives idolize "quitters"?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"WE THE PEOPLE," IS THE GOVERNMENT.

Ok, you clearly don't understand economics at all. That's fine. It does explain why you would be in favour of a balanced budget amendment. I recommend you do some reading on macroeconomics. Paul Krugman has a great blog on the topic and is a Nobel Prize winner. You could start there.

And the war reference was purely to demonstrate to you why an amendment would be bad. Since you're so fixated on recent wars, think back to WW2. We were defending ourselves and had to build up our military in the process. The war was almost 100% financed by borrowing and going into debt. Ever heard of War Bonds? That was the government borrowing. A balanced budget
amendment would have prevented all of that. Which is not good.

Don't even try to preach economics to me when you're GROSSLY ignorant. Only in a liberal world is balancing the budget a bad thing..