Holy Mary, Mother of God - Boehner loses his ever-loving mind

[candycorn]

How is that fiscally responsible? The debts are owed. It is not fiscally responsible to refuse to honor the debts.

And since the debt ceiling was raised o so very many times on Bush's watch - why was he not refused.

He sees the cuts to the military that will take place on 1/1/13 and is trying to backaway from the committments that he and other leaders made when forming the Super Committee. The terms were that if the SC didn't come up with something; autmatic cuts would be made on 1/1/13 and most of them would take place on the defense side of the ledger. Boehner sees this and is trying to wiggle off the hook that he put himself on.

Shockingly (or not), Obama is going to be right there with him on this sooner or later. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/221454-january-1-how-much-you-wanna-bet-nothing-changes.html#post5216534

The ironic thing is that Obama may be the only hope for the next 8 years to get real cuts made. It will take a President or Speaker (or both) who are not encumbered by the need to be re-elected since the moves will be seen as such an unpopular move. Which is why Boehner can't stand by his commitment and Obama (likely) doesn't want the cuts to take place. For all of the right-wing bluster about jobs, the military creates a great many of them and is an economic engine in and of itself. Towns like Fayetteville NC who are basically there only because of the military could be devestated by the cutbacks. At least they don't have gay marriage to worry about eh?

I layed it all out a few weeks ago. Romney wins/Obama wins; nothing will change until we get rid of this two-party system that is ruining the country. What is funny is that those who hate unions because they "set themselves up" between the employer and the employee and serve only to enrich themselves, wilfully embrace the political parties who operate in exactly the same way except they set themselves up between the government and the citizen and serve only to enrich themselves.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself when the last time a 3rd party was invited to a Presidential Debate. What...1992?

 

[candycorn]

Gee, I wish someone had asked that during Reagan's reign.

we're asking NOW moron..

When you didn't ask the seven times Bush raised it? You lost your right to ask.

Willow should consider herself bitchslapped.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently, Standard & Poors didn't realize that, either. Things that make ya go "hmm."

Why do you choose to remian ignorant?

Why do you remain willfully ignorant.

Yes, that's what I asked you. Well?

Further, I will ask:
How does not rasing the debt ceiling necessarily lead to a dufault?

 

[Oldstyle]

How is that fiscally responsible? The debts are owed. It is not fiscally responsible to refuse to honor the debts.

And since the debt ceiling was raised o so very many times on Bush's watch - why was he not refused.

He sees the cuts to the military that will take place on 1/1/13 and is trying to backaway from the committments that he and other leaders made when forming the Super Committee. The terms were that if the SC didn't come up with something; autmatic cuts would be made on 1/1/13 and most of them would take place on the defense side of the ledger. Boehner sees this and is trying to wiggle off the hook that he put himself on.

Shockingly (or not), Obama is going to be right there with him on this sooner or later. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/221454-january-1-how-much-you-wanna-bet-nothing-changes.html#post5216534

The ironic thing is that Obama may be the only hope for the next 8 years to get real cuts made. It will take a President or Speaker (or both) who are not encumbered by the need to be re-elected since the moves will be seen as such an unpopular move. Which is why Boehner can't stand by his commitment and Obama (likely) doesn't want the cuts to take place. For all of the right-wing bluster about jobs, the military creates a great many of them and is an economic engine in and of itself. Towns like Fayetteville NC who are basically there only because of the military could be devestated by the cutbacks. At least they don't have gay marriage to worry about eh?

I layed it all out a few weeks ago. Romney wins/Obama wins; nothing will change until we get rid of this two-party system that is ruining the country. What is funny is that those who hate unions because they "set themselves up" between the employer and the employee and serve only to enrich themselves, wilfully embrace the political parties who operate in exactly the same way except they set themselves up between the government and the citizen and serve only to enrich themselves.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself when the last time a 3rd party was invited to a Presidential Debate. What...1992?

You honestly think that once he is reelected, Barack Obama is going to do something that is unpopular with the progressive base? Sorry, Candy but I think you're dreaming on that scenario. If Barry is reelected then we're going to have another four years very much like the last two. This is going to go down in American history as a "lost decade" economically.

 

[Oldstyle]

we're asking NOW moron..

When you didn't ask the seven times Bush raised it? You lost your right to ask.

Willow should consider herself bitchslapped.

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

 

[BDBoop]

Why do you choose to remian ignorant?

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Standard & Poor's says it downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating because it believes the U.S. will keep having problems getting its finances under control.S&P officials on Saturday defended their decision to drop the government's rating to AA+ from the top rating, AAA. The Obama administration called the move a hasty decision based on wrong calculations about the federal budget. It had tried to head off the downgrade before it was announced late Friday.But S&P said it was the months of haggling in Congress over budget cuts that led it to downgrade the U.S. rating. The ratings agency was dissatisfied with the deal lawmakers reached last weekend. And it isn't confident that the government will do much better in the future, even as the U.S. budget deficit grows.David Beers, global head of sovereign ratings at S&P, said the agency was concerned about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration."S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. The deal that passed Congress on Tuesday would bring $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time.Another concern was that lawmakers and the administration might fail to make those cuts because Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to implement them.

I'm curious, Boop...when you read that...do you simply not GET the part where S&P says that they were "looking for 4 trillion in budget cuts" but instead got about half of that? All Boehner is saying is that THIS time around if the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling they are going to have to make cuts in the budget somewhere. Failure to do so will most likely result in the second credit downgrade in our country's history...quite an accomplishment for one Administration.

What did S&P specify. In red. As their reason. Anything else is secondary.

And Boehner wants to take us there again.

Fine. Sucks to be him and his party.

 

[WillowTree]

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

I'm curious, Boop...when you read that...do you simply not GET the part where S&P says that they were "looking for 4 trillion in budget cuts" but instead got about half of that? All Boehner is saying is that THIS time around if the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling they are going to have to make cuts in the budget somewhere. Failure to do so will most likely result in the second credit downgrade in our country's history...quite an accomplishment for one Administration.

What did S&P specify. In red. As their reason. Anything else is secondary.

And Boehner wants to take us there again.

Fine. Sucks to be him and his party.

sucks to be you,,, too stupid to answer basic questions.

 

[WillowTree]

When you didn't ask the seven times Bush raised it? You lost your right to ask.

Willow should consider herself bitchslapped.

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

I'm curious, Boop...when you read that...do you simply not GET the part where S&P says that they were "looking for 4 trillion in budget cuts" but instead got about half of that? All Boehner is saying is that THIS time around if the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling they are going to have to make cuts in the budget somewhere. Failure to do so will most likely result in the second credit downgrade in our country's history...quite an accomplishment for one Administration.

What did S&P specify. In red. As their reason. Anything else is secondary....

... to a willfully ignorant partisan bigot.

 

[BDBoop]

Willow should consider herself bitchslapped.

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

And if you put HIS wars back on HIS books, where does that leave him?

And if it is Bad and Wrong to raise the debt ceiling, then my point stands.

Obviously, it is only Bad and Wrong when a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[Dot Com]

The Repug's were never willing to negotiate what w/ Grover's zany pledge. It was a stunt by Boehner (R) & co.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

And if you put HIS wars back on HIS books, where does that leave him?

Exactly the same place, as all deficit figures include both on and off-budget spending.

How can you not know that?

Oh wait... I forgot about your willful ignorace and partisan bigotry. Sorry.

 

[freedombecki]

Aw, the spendthrift party is over. That mean ol' John Boehner is gonna just say no to more spending like there's no tomorrow, and the President sees to it that his superfluous pet rocks are protected by crying about poor people taking the hit. Of course, it's a TOTAL case of crocodile tears that are flowing on Capitol Hill today.

Obama has to make nice with the thrifty US Treasury, and he's not going to do it if he can turn it into votes.

My prediction about using the squawling for votes:

<<<<<THUD!>>>>>

Sorry, Mr. President you have to play nice now with what you have.
​

 

[Zoom-boing]

Apparently, Standard & Poors didn't realize that, either. Things that make ya go "hmm."

Why do you choose to remian ignorant?

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Standard & Poor's says it downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating because it believes the U.S. will keep having problems getting its finances under control.S&P officials on Saturday defended their decision to drop the government's rating to AA+ from the top rating, AAA. The Obama administration called the move a hasty decision based on wrong calculations about the federal budget. It had tried to head off the downgrade before it was announced late Friday.But S&P said it was the months of haggling in Congress over budget cuts that led it to downgrade the U.S. rating. The ratings agency was dissatisfied with the deal lawmakers reached last weekend. And it isn't confident that the government will do much better in the future, even as the U.S. budget deficit grows.David Beers, global head of sovereign ratings at S&P, said the agency was concerned about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration."S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. The deal that passed Congress on Tuesday would bring $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time.Another concern was that lawmakers and the administration might fail to make those cuts because Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to implement them.

Congress didn't seem to grasp that 4T is what was needed to keep the AAA rating; anything less than that was guaranteed to downgrade our rating. Fail on both Rs and Ds.

S&P doesn't have any confidence that the U.S. will be able to remedy this either, they believe that we will continue to have problems getting our finances under control. If drastic spending cuts aren't implemented -- and note, everything should be on the table, no free passes for anyone -- then we will see another downgrade. I don't get your calling Boehner a putz over this . . . someone has to draw a line in the sand and he did. Hopefully this time around both sides can act like grownups, make the necessary cuts so we keep our rating.

What are Rs suppose to do? Roll over and just raise the ceiling like the Ds want to do? How does that solve anything? 4T was needed last time, they came up with 2+T . . . there's still 2T (or more) in cuts that need to be made.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that continuing to borrow in order to foot the bill will not work, that eventually we will implode? Why is it so wrong to cut spending? Why is it wrong to live within our means, within our budget? Oh, that's right we don't have no stinkin' budget.

 

[BDBoop]

Why do you choose to remian ignorant?

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Standard & Poor's says it downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating because it believes the U.S. will keep having problems getting its finances under control.S&P officials on Saturday defended their decision to drop the government's rating to AA+ from the top rating, AAA. The Obama administration called the move a hasty decision based on wrong calculations about the federal budget. It had tried to head off the downgrade before it was announced late Friday.But S&P said it was the months of haggling in Congress over budget cuts that led it to downgrade the U.S. rating. The ratings agency was dissatisfied with the deal lawmakers reached last weekend. And it isn't confident that the government will do much better in the future, even as the U.S. budget deficit grows.David Beers, global head of sovereign ratings at S&P, said the agency was concerned about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration."S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. The deal that passed Congress on Tuesday would bring $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time.Another concern was that lawmakers and the administration might fail to make those cuts because Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to implement them.

Congress didn't seem to grasp that 4T is what was needed to keep the AAA rating; anything less than that was guaranteed to downgrade our rating. Fail on both Rs and Ds.

S&P doesn't have any confidence that the U.S. will be able to remedy this either, they believe that we will continue to have problems getting our finances under control. If drastic spending cuts aren't implemented -- and note, everything should be on the table, no free passes for anyone -- then we will see another downgrade. I don't get your calling Boehner a putz over this . . . someone has to draw a line in the sand and he did.

What are Rs suppose to do? Roll over and just raise the ceiling like the Ds want to do? How does that solve anything? 4T was needed last time, they came up with 2+T . . . there's still 2T (or more) in cuts that need to be made.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that continuing to borrow in order to foot the bill will not work, that eventually we will implode? Why is it so wrong to cut spending? Why is it wrong to live within our means, within our budget? Oh, that's right we don't have no stinkin' budget.

Bolded - I didn't. That's not a term normally found in my vocabulary, even.

 

[WillowTree]

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

And if you put HIS wars back on HIS books, where does that leave him?

And if it is Bad and Wrong to raise the debt ceiling, then my point stands.

Obviously, it is only Bad and Wrong when a Democrat is in the White House.

How high should the debt ceiling go?

 

[BDBoop]

How is that fiscally responsible? The debts are owed. It is not fiscally responsible to refuse to honor the debts.

And since the debt ceiling was raised o so very many times on Bush's watch - why was he not refused.

He sees the cuts to the military that will take place on 1/1/13 and is trying to backaway from the committments that he and other leaders made when forming the Super Committee. The terms were that if the SC didn't come up with something; autmatic cuts would be made on 1/1/13 and most of them would take place on the defense side of the ledger. Boehner sees this and is trying to wiggle off the hook that he put himself on.

Shockingly (or not), Obama is going to be right there with him on this sooner or later. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/221454-january-1-how-much-you-wanna-bet-nothing-changes.html#post5216534

The ironic thing is that Obama may be the only hope for the next 8 years to get real cuts made. It will take a President or Speaker (or both) who are not encumbered by the need to be re-elected since the moves will be seen as such an unpopular move. Which is why Boehner can't stand by his commitment and Obama (likely) doesn't want the cuts to take place. For all of the right-wing bluster about jobs, the military creates a great many of them and is an economic engine in and of itself. Towns like Fayetteville NC who are basically there only because of the military could be devestated by the cutbacks. At least they don't have gay marriage to worry about eh?

I layed it all out a few weeks ago. Romney wins/Obama wins; nothing will change until we get rid of this two-party system that is ruining the country. What is funny is that those who hate unions because they "set themselves up" between the employer and the employee and serve only to enrich themselves, wilfully embrace the political parties who operate in exactly the same way except they set themselves up between the government and the citizen and serve only to enrich themselves.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself when the last time a 3rd party was invited to a Presidential Debate. What...1992?

Bolded; can I get a link?

 

[BDBoop]

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

And if you put HIS wars back on HIS books, where does that leave him?

And if it is Bad and Wrong to raise the debt ceiling, then my point stands.

Obviously, it is only Bad and Wrong when a Democrat is in the White House.

How high should the debt ceiling go?

If it's balanced by inbound revenue along with cuts, it shouldn't have to go any higher.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why do you remain willfully ignorant. Why did we get downgraded. What was the specific quote. Oh, here. Let me supply that for you.

S&P officials defend US credit downgrade - Yahoo! Finance

Congress didn't seem to grasp that 4T is what was needed to keep the AAA rating; anything less than that was guaranteed to downgrade our rating. Fail on both Rs and Ds.

S&P doesn't have any confidence that the U.S. will be able to remedy this either, they believe that we will continue to have problems getting our finances under control. If drastic spending cuts aren't implemented -- and note, everything should be on the table, no free passes for anyone -- then we will see another downgrade. I don't get your calling Boehner a putz over this . . . someone has to draw a line in the sand and he did.

What are Rs suppose to do? Roll over and just raise the ceiling like the Ds want to do? How does that solve anything? 4T was needed last time, they came up with 2+T . . . there's still 2T (or more) in cuts that need to be made.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that continuing to borrow in order to foot the bill will not work, that eventually we will implode? Why is it so wrong to cut spending? Why is it wrong to live within our means, within our budget? Oh, that's right we don't have no stinkin' budget.

Bolded - I didn't. That's not a term normally found in my vocabulary, even.

Just a figure of speech but you're right, those weren't your exact words Greg. You called him crazy.

That's it? Hmmm ...

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've long been on record saying that W. was just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending. The reason the Republicans lost their asses in 2008 was because they were no longer perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility. The only reason that the Democrats were crushed four years later was that THEY were even worse.

well history has proven you wrong. Bush upped the deficit about 4.8 T in eight years,, and obama has upped it 5T in 3 short years.. so W isn't and wasn't just as bad.

And if you put HIS wars back on HIS books, where does that leave him?

And if it is Bad and Wrong to raise the debt ceiling, then my point stands.

Obviously, it is only Bad and Wrong when a Democrat is in the White House.

It's ridiculous to arbitrarily raise the ceiling without addressing cuts no matter which party is in charge.