Obama to Boehner: 'We Don't Have a Spending Problem'

[Sallow]

Obama to Boehner: 'We Don't Have a Spending Problem' - YouTube

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

Boehner says that there will be no new tax increases over the debt ceiling. “The tax issue is resolved,” he said. And he said that more closed-door negotiations with Obama would be “futile.” It’s a bit too late to recognize that, but better late than never.

Obama need not negotiate on spending. He can just continue to bully Republicans by suggesting that they are the party of the rich – and his media lackeys can pretend that it’s fiscally irresponsible to ask the government to live within its means.

Ben Shapiro

First off..source your article.

Second off..this is all conservative spending that has been crushing us.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are Conservatives?

Really?

You have a point with Pelosi and Reid.

They worked with Bush and the Republicans to spend us into oblivion.

But they did that in the spirit of "Bi-Partisanship".

What happen?

That only works when Conservatives are in power?

 

[Decus]

The ability to comprehend the world around Me.

You seem to have difficulty with it.

Well, I won't stand in the way of your lofty megalomania. Please share your thoughts about what Obama is spending money on. Since the Republicans control the purse strings ( House)
where is Obama's wild spending spree and what is it being spent on?

I've always wondered why Republicans complain about Obama's spending problem when spending bills originate in the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Let me see if I understand your premise:
- If the president is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans
- If the House is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans

That explains everything - Thanks!

 

[Sallow]

Wait.

So Obama did cut Medicare?

Yep

750 billion worth.

Then Mitt called it theft.

Make up your fucking minds.

You guys spent the entire fall on 2012 saying Obama DIDN'T Cut medicare, now you're saying he did

Because he didn't cut it on indivduals.

He cut it on corporate welfare and fraud.

Which drives you guys nuts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First off..source your article.

Second off..this is all conservative spending that has been crushing us.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are Conservatives?

Really?

You have a point with Pelosi and Reid.

They worked with Bush and the Republicans to spend us into oblivion.

But they did that in the spirit of "Bi-Partisanship".

What happen?

That only works when Conservatives are in power?

You must be standing on your head, you have everything upside down and possibly backwards too.

Obama walked into office telling us "we won" and now he refuses to even negotiate, and you see that as a Republican problem.

 

[LilOlLady]

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem due to jobs leaving the country creating unemployment and no tax revenue and the mounting debt the GOP want to pay down by taking from my social security and medicare and programs for the poor that did not create the mess. We have necessar bill to be paid and we don't have the revenue coming in but stopping spending on programs for the poor will only create more spending. Obama said; "If you think you are not going to pay the debt you racked up you got another thing coming? was becasue they want to gut social security, medicare and medicaid and food stamps and unemployent insurance making the poor pay for the two wars and tax cuts for the rich. and Obama no way in hell.
Obamacare and Romneycare are the safety nets Romney talked about that was in place for the needy. We owe it to our citizens to provide affordable healthcare for them. That is who we are and about? Hell we have been providing healthcare for illegal aliesn for decades.

 

[Truthmatters]

Well, I won't stand in the way of your lofty megalomania. Please share your thoughts about what Obama is spending money on. Since the Republicans control the purse strings ( House)
where is Obama's wild spending spree and what is it being spent on?

I've always wondered why Republicans complain about Obama's spending problem when spending bills originate in the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Let me see if I understand your premise:
- If the president is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans
- If the House is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans

That explains everything - Thanks!

the facts are clear if you look at the history.

Republicans champion tax cuts for the wealthy and then champion spending they like at huge levels.

They have not been the fiscal party for decades.

facts are facts

 

[JQPublic1]

lol, they got it from THE CLINTION administration..
you people are joke and will lie about anything

.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Democrat Quotes on WMD

All of this erroneous information concerning WMDs came from US CIA sources. In retrospect, though, it seems that the CIA is just another right wing organization with a political agenda; one tied to their political allies. ANd since there is no "liberal" arm within the organization, perhaps the Congress and the president should pay more attention to data from countries such as France, Germany and Britain. Weighing the intelligence from several sources against that posited by the CIA would be a far wiser proposition.

 

[JQPublic1]

Republicans and their propaganda machine, the Heritage Foundation, have perpetuated the fallacious contention that all Democrats are big spenders, but none worse than President Obama, and it is unclear if their predisposition to lie is because the President is a Democrat or a Black man. Regardless their reason(s), President Obama has presided over the lowest spending since Eisenhower and five times less than Reagan or Bush II. The ARRA (stimulus) did amount to an increase in spending, but not only did it create millions of jobs and add to GDP growth, it contained tax cuts for 95% of working families, and it is one of those pesky facts Republicans and the Heritage Foundation consider an “utter failure.”
politicususa.com/obamas-record-destroys-republicans-big-spending-democrat-propaganda.html]Obama's Record Destroys the Republicans' Big Spending Democrat Propaganda[/COLOR]

I have never seen so much retarded mixed with race baiting in my life. This is f*cking epic. If obama has presided over lower spending than all those you listed how does his spending now exceed all presidents since Washington combined? How is that possible?

Yes. that would be impossible. And it is. because, you see, it is not true. Which is why you posted your opinion without a link.

The link you tried was edited in the original post and corrected. Please click on the corrected link!

 

[Decus]

I've always wondered why Republicans complain about Obama's spending problem when spending bills originate in the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Let me see if I understand your premise:
- If the president is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans
- If the House is Republican, it's the fault of Republicans

That explains everything - Thanks!

the facts are clear if you look at the history.

Republicans champion tax cuts for the wealthy and then champion spending they like at huge levels.

They have not been the fiscal party for decades.

facts are facts

I understand and will try to hold Democrats blamess on all accounts. In fact I will try to remember a couple of simple rules:
Rule # 1. Democrats are never to blame
Rule # 2. If Democrats are to blame see Rule # 1

I have a feeling that this will allow us to become BFF.

 

[BlindBoo]

So it doesnt matter that the whole congress was lied to by Bush?

man, how comforting you are saying your elected Representative are TOO STUPID to find out information for themselves..

you people are a JOKE AND THIS thread is about YOUR DEAR LEADER...

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers.

.....

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

 

[Seawytch]

Congress has already cut 1.5 trillion in spending. $700 billion was reduced in Medicare spending. All this with no counter in revenue increases.

Wait.

So Obama did cut Medicare?

Yes, $718 billion worth of waste, fraud and abuse.

 

[Stephanie]

Congress has already cut 1.5 trillion in spending. $700 billion was reduced in Medicare spending. All this with no counter in revenue increases.

Wait.

So Obama did cut Medicare?

Yes, $718 billion worth of waste, fraud and abuse.

damn, you believe anything

 

[TNHarley]

Wait.

So Obama did cut Medicare?

Yes, $718 billion worth of waste, fraud and abuse.

damn, you believe anything

Kinda what I thought. Didn't he take that and give it to obamacare? Hence, Romneys "Thieving"?

 

[JQPublic1]

So it doesnt matter that the whole congress was lied to by Bush?

man, how comforting you are saying your elected Representative are TOO STUPID to find out information for themselves..

you people are a JOKE AND THIS thread is about YOUR DEAR LEADER...

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers.

.....

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

After reading your link, my opinion of the CIA has improved. It seems the CIA operatives did their job by reporting faithfully and truthfully that there were NO WMDs in IRAQ. The Bush administration ignored their reports and, instead, heeded false reports from other sources that told him what he wanted to hear.

Bush was solely responsible for propagandizing and marketing the IRAQ war to the American people. I remember when he admonished European leaders for not joining him in a coalition aimed at war with IRAQ. All refused citing that their intelligence had disclosed no WMDs in IRAQ. This chain of events was especially intriguing since inspectors were allowed to inspect cites where the WMDs were supposed to be. Noting was found but that didn't stop Bush from his singular act of retribution against Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, some of our troops perished in that vendetta!

 

[JQPublic1]

.

Estimates on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan range from $3.2 to $4.0 TRILLION.

Money we didn't fucking have in the first fucking place.

Not to mention the thousands of lives, limbs and minds lost by our troops.

Not to mention the thousands of lives, limbs and minds lost by innocent civilians.

$3.2 to $4.0 fucking TRILLION, which is roughly 20% to 25% of our horrific fucking debt.

.

And the worse part is, we got nothing in return for that investment!

Why would anyone support spending so much money on something with no benefits?

I challenge anyone to tell me how average American's have personally benefited from these wars!

Anyone supporting these wars should be tried for sedition.

That goes for all the DEMOCRATS who voted for it?

Not so fast! It seems that those Democrats were unwitting dupes of Bush's propaganda. Throw in a little jingoism and male congressmen of either party will believe anything! If Bush controlled information from the CIA he controlled how it was disseminated and what to report from it!