Boehner lashes out at conservative groups on budget deal

[Cigar]

Boehner lashes out at conservative groups on budget deal (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/11/21863224-boehner-lashes-out-at-conservative-groups-on-budget-deal)

By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News

Republican leaders defended a modest budget deal that would maintain government operations through 2015 amid conservative opposition that could scuttle the legislation in the House.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, lashed out at conservative advocacy groups that have encouraged GOP lawmakers to oppose a budget framework unveiled last night by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," an animated Boehner told reporters at the Capitol. "This is ridiculous."

Ryan and Murray, the top budget officials in their respective chambers, announced an agreement that would set baseline spending levels for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. The agreement calls for spending levels slightly above the cap established by the automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" through a combination of reforms, cuts and new, non-tax revenue.

[iustitia]

Fuck Boehner.

[Cigar]

Fuck Boehner.

No Thanks ... Boehner is The GOP baby ... :laugh: Enjoy

[nic34]

This is what happens when a minority believes it is more important than the will of the majority.

[iustitia]

This is what happens when a minority believes it is more important than the will of the majority.Like the Indians getting in the way of our stuff?

[Blackrook]

Like the Indians getting in the way of our stuff?
Like the Jews getting in the way of the German people.

[iustitia]

Like the Jews getting in the way of the German people.Like those damn slaves not knowing their place.

[Toro]

So ...

... conservatives are analogizing themselves to ethnic groups who've been slaughtered through genocide?

[zelmo1234]

This is no surprise, this budget was going to need Democratic support or it never had a chance.

Conservatives are not going to agree to increases in spending and relaxing the sequester? It will take all those in the so called middle because the far left is not going to go for the cuts to benefits for federal workers.

[Mainecoons]

Someone is finally thinking strategically here. All that matters right now is getting this stuff off the table so as to not distract attention from the ObamaCare ObamaDebacle. That will give the Republicans control of the Congress next year if they don't f*** it up. Then they can hang Obama out to dry.

Barry has forgotten one of the cardinal rules of politics--friends don't last and enemies accumulate. All that partisan rancor he and Jarrett have been spewing for years has a whole bunch of people on the hill wanting to get even. And they aren't all Republicans either.

Bonehead is making the same mistake repeatedly including today. What an idiot.

There are going to be mass cancellations/big hikes in group policies beginning in late Spring. If you think the furor over the individual policies is loud, wait until this hits. Obama is playing right into their hands by not admitting that these regulations piling on all this stuff that people don't want or need are a mistake and working to correct them.

ObamaCare is God's gift to Republicans.

[Cigar]

Someone is finally thinking strategically here. All that matters right now is getting this stuff off the table so as to not distract attention from the ObamaCare ObamaDebacle. That will give the Republicans control of the Congress next year if they don't f*** it up. Then they can hang Obama out to dry.

Barry has forgotten one of the cardinal rules of politics--friends don't last and enemies accumulate. All that partisan rancor he and Jarrett have been spewing for years has a whole bunch of people on the hill wanting to get even. And they aren't all Republicans either.

Bonehead is making the same mistake repeatedly including today. What an idiot.

There are going to be mass cancellations/big hikes in group policies beginning in late Spring. If you think the furor over the individual policies is loud, wait until this hits. Obama is playing right into their hands by not admitting that these regulations piling on all this stuff that people don't want or need are a mistake and working to correct them.

ObamaCare is God's gift to Republicans.

Yep ... Control is far more important that Health Care for those who can't get it. :rollseyes:

Explains everything

[zelmo1234]

it appears that Cigar is catching on, he is figuring out that his party passed a bill that had nothing to do with healthcare but in controlling and redistributing wealth

WE will make a conservative out of him yet :)

[Newpublius]

"This is ridiculous. Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.” - John Boehner

Here's a guy who, with the Republican House, can stop deficit spending "TOMORROW." He's scared to do that though because what he wanted to do was to use the debt ceiling as leverage and the debt ceiling is NOT a good negotiating tool, it is however an excellent condition precedent. Government spending would decrease and the budget would be balanced. Boehner wants us to believe that he still stands for some semblance of Republican principles I suppose, but in reality all he really cares about is his political position. He wants to get re-elected and he's willing to 'toss the Democrats' a bone by conceding back some of the sequester just to get a deal done so that by November, our weak memories will remember that somehow Boehner took a stand that resulted in him being able to negotiate a deal that Republicans can live with.

Here's the thing though. For those of us here who are conservatives. We want LESS government spending. Backloaded savings on ten year plans that we all know aren't going to happen isn't going to cut the mustard anymore. I'm sorry, John, but I'm not for increased government spending, and all your talk about reduced deficits, sorry, I just don't believe you.

Is such a belief so unreasonable? What has the government done to earn your trust? Where? How? In my lifetime I have seen year after year of fiscal responsibility, so really at the end of the day when I tell you that I don't believe that the Federal government is not the vigilant guardians of the public trust, the evidence is on my side. All seventeen trillion of it.

Know what I see here?

TWENTY TRILLION. Smart money is on my prediction.

[nic34]

Yep ... Control is far more important that Health Care for those who can't get it. :rollseyes:

Explains everything

.... but it (Health Care for those who couldn't get it) worked so well before....!

[nic34]

"This is ridiculous. Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.” - John Boehner

Here's a guy who, with the Republican House, can stop deficit spending "TOMORROW." He's scared to do that though because what he wanted to do was to use the debt ceiling as leverage and the debt ceiling is NOT a good negotiating tool, it is however an excellent condition precedent. Government spending would decrease and the budget would be balanced. Boehner wants us to believe that he still stands for some semblance of Republican principles I suppose, but in reality all he really cares about is his political position. He wants to get re-elected and he's willing to 'toss the Democrats' a bone by conceding back some of the sequester just to get a deal done so that by November, our weak memories will remember that somehow Boehner took a stand that resulted in him being able to negotiate a deal that Republicans can live with.

Here's the thing though. For those of us here who are conservatives. We want LESS government spending. Backloaded savings on ten year plans that we all know aren't going to happen isn't going to cut the mustard anymore. I'm sorry, John, but I'm not for increased government spending, and all your talk about reduced deficits, sorry, I just don't believe you.

Is such a belief so unreasonable? What has the government done to earn your trust? Where? How? In my lifetime I have seen year after year of fiscal responsibility, so really at the end of the day when I tell you that I don't believe that the Federal government is not the vigilant guardians of the public trust, the evidence is on my side. All seventeen trillion of it.

Know what I see here?

TWENTY TRILLION. Smart money is on my prediction.

Tell you what, you get your guys/gals elected and you can get your way. Looks possible in 2014.

For now, people have spoken. Twice.

[Mainecoons]

And even better, millions losing their health insurance is working fantastically. What an improvement. You two geniuses will really have something to celebrate when the group plans covering millions start getting canceled.

This ranks right up there with your pride over the unprecedented enrichment of the one percent under Obama.

:rofl:

[Newpublius]

Tell you what, you get your guys/gals elected and you can get your way. Looks possible in 2014.

They did, Republicans still have the House. All spending requires House consent. Having the House alone doesn't mean the Republicans can do what they want to do, but it does put them in position to block, quite lawfully I might add, any increase in the size of government and you damn well know it. So when the House Speaker who is a Republican is going to agree to an increase in government spending when the means exist to cut government spending off at the balls, I question the small government credentials of the Republican Party. This alone doesn't make me question it of course, Republican governance itself has resulted in larger government at the Federal level quite consistently.

The Republican Party talks the talk of course, but they don't walk the walk. They claim to be the small government party, but they need to start delivering ... and let's face it, they don't.

I'm a nonpolitician, so as a conservative I want less government spending. I don't need to win elections to advocate for that and my political opinions aren't the result of swinging public opinions.

[Cigar]

And even better, millions losing their health insurance is working fantastically. What an improvement. You two geniuses will really have something to celebrate when the group plans covering millions start getting canceled.

This ranks right up there with your pride over the unprecedented enrichment of the one percent under Obama.

:rofl:

Why is it every time some idiot spouts off that Millions are losing their health coverage, no one ask them to complete the statement?

Why do they never say that Millions of Shit Policies, no matter if you like it or not, because that never mattered any of the other years; why don't they tell the truth that the majority (because we can't speak in absolutes anymore) are getting better policies?

[Cigar]

They did, Republicans still have the House. All spending requires House consent. Having the House alone doesn't mean the Republicans can do what they want to do, but it does put them in position to block, quite lawfully I might add, any increase in the size of government and you damn well know it. So when the House Speaker who is a Republican is going to agree to an increase in government spending when the means exist to cut government spending off at the balls, I question the small government credentials of the Republican Party. This alone doesn't make me question it of course, Republican governance itself has resulted in larger government at the Federal level quite consistently.

The Republican Party talks the talk of course, but they don't walk the walk. They claim to be the small government party, but they need to start delivering ... and let's face it, they don't.

I'm a nonpolitician, so as a conservative I want less government spending. I don't need to win elections to advocate for that and my political opinions aren't the result of swinging public opinions.

Yea Yea Yea ... 10 years from now they'll be saying the Democrats ran up the Dept ... :laugh:

[Newpublius]

Yea Yea Yea ... 10 years from now they'll be saying the Democrats ran up the Dept ... :laugh:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." - Then Senator Obama in 2008

Seems the Republicans and Democrats both seem to devolve into invertebrates, don't they? The whole, "But they did it more, or they did it too" gets tiresome, because our children are going to be the ones repaying the bonds. As much as I'd prefer to have a revolution and hang the lot of them. Let's face it, that's not going to happen, in a two party system one of them is going to have to rejoin the vertebrates, grow a fiscal backbone and stop foisting the current costs of government onto people who can't even vote yet (who aren't even born yet).

[Cigar]

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." - Then Senator Obama in 2008

Seems the Republicans and Democrats both seem to devolve into invertebrates, don't they? The whole, "But they did it more, or they did it too" gets tiresome, because our children are going to be the ones repaying the bonds. As much as I'd prefer to have a revolution and hang the lot of them. Let's face it, that's not going to happen, in a two party system one of them is going to have to rejoin the vertebrates, grow a fiscal backbone and stop foisting the current costs of government onto people who can't even vote yet (who aren't even born yet).

So why only the Poor and Middle-Class have Cuts?

Can't The So-Called Job Creators create those Jobs to replace The Cuts in Government Jobs and The Tax-Breaks and Subsidies they are getting from YOU?

[nic34]

They did, Republicans still have the House. All spending requires House consent. Having the House alone doesn't mean the Republicans can do what they want to do, but it does put them in position to block, quite lawfully I might add, any increase in the size of government and you damn well know it. So when the House Speaker who is a Republican is going to agree to an increase in government spending when the means exist to cut government spending off at the balls, I question the small government credentials of the Republican Party. This alone doesn't make me question it of course, Republican governance itself has resulted in larger government at the Federal level quite consistently.

The Republican Party talks the talk of course, but they don't walk the walk. They claim to be the small government party, but they need to start delivering ... and let's face it, they don't.

I'm a nonpolitician, so as a conservative I want less government spending. I don't need to win elections to advocate for that and my political opinions aren't the result of swinging public opinions.

People don't mind government if they get out what they invest in it.

If I was you, I'd be thanking Christie for getting MY money back from DC in the form of expanded Medicaid.....

.... and if I lived in Texas, I'd be telling Rick Perry to get the money I pay the federal govt. and expand Medicaid in THAT state!

Sheeesh, people at least get your money's worth!

[Cigar]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131212-boehner-blasting-liberals-nope.jpg

[Mainecoons]

The debt will never be repaid. It can't be repaid. It will pile up until the country defaults. The lesson of history is very clear on this.

[Newpublius]

So why only the Poor and Middle-Class have Cuts?

Can't The So-Called Job Creators create those Jobs to replace The Cuts in Government Jobs and The Tax-Breaks and Subsidies they are getting from YOU?

The problem here is that in essence everybody is subsidized and everybody gets taxed. I'm a nonpolitican so I'm not beholden to the political interest groups that the Federal government has inevitably carved out with its massive spending/taxing regime.

Name it: its cut. I don't have exceptions. Military, cut it. Agricultural subsidies, cut it...

Government should be at 20-25% of GDP, NO MORE.

[Newpublius]

People don't mind government if they get out what they invest in it.

And we don't because the basic problem with government is that its not their money and they surely act like it. They don't care, they never will. They will never care about that money the way you do because whereas that income to you is the result of the blood, sweat and tears that you put into getting it, they just take it.


If I was you, I'd be thanking Christie for getting MY money back from DC in the form of expanded Medicaid.....

Well, first off, Christie is a RINO, he's a Republican sitting on top of a blue legislature, so really not much he can do about it I suppose. But spending is up, NJ is in more debt now than when he came in office and taxes haven't decreased one iota.

With respect to Medicaid, you know its funny because that's how cooperative federalism really drives expenditures. The Federal government creates the program, in this case, expanded Medicaid of course and the states individually have two choices.

1. They can refuse and the people of NJ will continue to pay taxes to subsidize expanded Medicaid programs elsewhere; or
2. They can accept the terms and in essence 'buy' the benefits at a 50% discount (The Federal government further induces this decision by picking up most or all of the tab in the near term)


.... and if I lived in Texas, I'd be telling Rick Perry to get the money I pay the federal govt. and expand Medicaid in THAT state!

Its rational, GIVEN the system, but its not a rational system.

Look at what's happening, the states run each individual state's Medicaid program. You, the taxpayer, pay taxes to that state and the Federal government of course. And then the Federal government turns around and pays the state to help it operate its Medicaid program. Exactly how NOT to run things. You should pay your state and then the state should run it. The current system is roundabout, convoluted, bizarre, creates favoritism between states since different states get different contribution percentages (different fmaps) and its part of the reason we're $17 trillion in debt because the states are driving spending decisions based on subsdizied costs instead of fully loaded costs and it should obviously be the latter.

[Cigar]

The problem here is that in essence everybody is subsidized and everybody gets taxed. I'm a nonpolitican so I'm not beholden to the political interest groups that the Federal government has inevitably carved out with its massive spending/taxing regime.

Name it: its cut. I don't have exceptions. Military, cut it. Agricultural subsidies, cut it...

Government should be at 20-25% of GDP, NO MORE.

As a Business Owner, I know the basics ... Consumers Consume when they have Money.

Bill Gates don't have to spend another dime for the rest of his life if he don't what to, so tell me why do I "need" to give him, yet another tax break, when he's spending the rest of his days trying to give money away?

[Cigar]

John Boehner flips out on conservative activists
"When you criticize something and you have no idea what you’re criticizing, you’ve lost your credibility"


At his press conference on Thursday, Speaker of the House John Boehner took some big rhetorical shots (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366155/boehner-conservative-groups-have-lost-all-credibility-andrew-stiles) at the outside, grass-roots conservative organizations that are mobilizing in opposition (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/11/conservatives-slam-ryan-murray-budget-deal/) to the proposed Ryan-Murray budget deal.

Making reference to the fact that many of these outside groups — like the Club for Growth or Heritage Action — came out in opposition to the Ryan-Murray deal before its details were released, Boehner said, “When groups come out and criticize an agreement that they’ve never seen, you begin to wonder just how credible those actions are. Frankly, I think they’ve lost all credibility.”

When asked by a reporter whether he believed these outside groups should stop organizing against the deal, Boehner was dismissive. “I don’t care what they do,” he said.

Boehner’s rant comes on the heels of a similar jeremiad (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/john-boehner-budget-deal_n_4425979.html), delivered on Wednesday, during which Boehner said that conservative groups were “using our members and…the American people for their own goals. This is ridiculous,” he added.



Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/12/john_boehner_flips_out_on_conservative_activists/

All it took was one Skinny Man ... to make it go BOOM :laugh:

[nic34]

National debt doesn't need to be repaid in the same way that private debt is repaid. Most government debt is in the form of short-term Treasury bills that mature every 90 days. When the T-bills mature the govt pays them off by selling more.
As long as it offers competitive rates on safe bonds, the government can refinance or "roll over" its debt indefinitely. As a result, we need not worry about burdening our children with repayment. They won't repay the debt. Like us, they will refinance and pass it on.

[Cigar]

The debt will never be repaid. It can't be repaid. It will pile up until the country defaults. The lesson of history is very clear on this.

When I go ... I'm leaving Bills :laugh:

[Cigar]

National debt doesn't need to be repaid in the same way that private debt is repaid. Most government debt is in the form of short-term Treasury bills that mature every 90 days. When the T-bills mature the govt pays them off by selling more.
As long as it offers competitive rates on safe bonds, the government can refinance or "roll over" its debt indefinitely. As a result, we need not worry about burdening our children with repayment. They won't repay the debt. Like us, they will refinance and pass it on.

We Print our own Money ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/USDnotes.png/252px-USDnotes.png

[Mainecoons]

Yes you do. So did Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.

I know it will be a real mental challenge for you two Great Intellects, but try and do a little reading on how interest payments on the debt increase over time and what those payments would look like if T bills just went up a couple of percent to levels of just a few years ago.

While you're at it, see if you can learn something about exponential rates of growth and where they end up.

:rofl:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/imagecache/chart_content/Cost of the Debt Drives Lon-Term Spending Explosion.jpg

[Newpublius]

National debt doesn't need to be repaid in the same way that private debt is repaid. Most government debt is in the form of short-term Treasury bills that mature every 90 days. When the T-bills mature the govt pays them off by selling more.

We Print our own Money ...

Basically, in summation, don’t worry, we can borrow from Peter to pay off Paul (indefinitely) and we can just print it.
That’s precisely the mentality that is worrisome.

First off the debt structure isn’t quite so short term as you’d like. Frankly, we’ve been in debt for so long it doesn’t really matter, does it? There is always going to be bonds maturing and in the face of a deficit more bonds will be floated. It doesn’t really matter if you’re replacing a 30 year bond or a 30 day bill or a 2 year note. As long as you can handle the financing on whatever debt is outstanding, you’re fine. Until the day you can’t and frankly even if you can you still have to pay the vig. Right now interest rates are at historic lows. Fantastic. That’s good for us. Each percentage, 1% additional, obviously averaged over the entire debt structure, currently represents $170bn in interest per annum.

Of course we’re not balancing any time soon, so there will just be more and more debt. Now, the CBO projects that interest rates will rise (either they will or they won’t, I don’t control them anymore than you do), but let’s face it, they have only ONE DIRECTION to go and that’s up.

So, what happens at 5%, when, as you say the debt incrementally rolls over and our carrying costs increase. At 5% @ $17tn we’ll need an additional $600bn just to float the debt.

Get something like an oil shock, like the early 1980s…..what happens at 10%? That of course is the low probability high impact event. Even so reasonable interest rates impose a nasty debt malaise greater than the contraction imposed by the Great Recession itself.

Fact: the more debt that you put into any institution’s financing structure (I don’t care who it is), the riskier that structure becomes.

But don’t worry, we can just print it….



TABLE B–87. U.S. Treasury securities outstanding by kind of obligation, 1973–2011


[Billions of dollars]


End of year or month
Total Treasury securities outstanding 1
Marketable
Nonmarketable


Total 2
Treasury bills
Treasury notes
Treasury bonds
Treasury inflation-protected securities
Total
U.S. savings securities 3
Foreign series 4
Government account series
Other 5


Total
Notes
Bonds


Fiscal year:















2011.
14,790.3
9,624.5
1,477.5
6,412.5
1,020.4
705.7
......
......
5,165.8
185.2
3.0
4,793.9
183.7



Above is the debt structure as of 2011, it will obviously have changed from then until 2013.

[Cigar]

I was Joking when I said that ... :laugh: and besides ... this isn't just any Financial Structure.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fleet-of-ships-620x412.jpg

If we need some money ... we can go get it.

[Newpublius]

If we need some money ... we can go get it.

You know, I know you're writing that tongue in cheek, but that too is worrisome, a beefed up debtor will bust the knees of his creditor, I suppose, right? But think about this, in WWI and WWII we seized and nationalized German assets. I'm not saying we went to war to do that, but let's face it, a conflict with China means we cancel China's bonds....its not that far fetched.

[Mainecoons]

No, I think he actually believes this based on his personal experience of having it handed to him because of his color.

:grin:

[Singularity]

You know, I know you're writing that tongue in cheek, but that too is worrisome, a beefed up debtor will bust the knees of his creditor, I suppose, right? But think about this, in WWI and WWII we seized and nationalized German assets. I'm not saying we went to war to do that, but let's face it, a conflict with China means we cancel China's bonds....its not that far fetched.
I'm watching events in the China Sea with bated breath, for certain. That region is a giant bomb hiding under a pressure plate.

[Codename Section]

I was Joking when I said that ... :laugh: and besides ... this isn't just any Financial Structure.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fleet-of-ships-620x412.jpg

If we need some money ... we can go get it.


Who's "we", dude? I'm tired of "going and getting it" for a bunch of lazy ass chicken hawks.

[Singularity]

I knew Boehner's frustrations as Speaker could only go on so long. These outside interests have systematically disrupted his entire agenda as Speaker in the name of their own interests, and it is really hard to argue that Democrats have not directly benefited from that. Now they actively moved to scuttle the budget compromise before they really understood what was in it, and that rightly seems to have set him off.

The right wing had a death grip on the House before this week. Now, that is not so certain...

[bladimz]

I'm tired of "going and getting it" for a bunch of lazy ass chicken hawks.This is what happens every time we involve our troops in another war. The (chicken) hawks are almost always the ones who scream for war, demanding action. But check their personal resume... few of them ever served; most of them would do anything to keep their kids from serving.

[zelmo1234]

Why is it every time some idiot spouts off that Millions are losing their health coverage, no one ask them to complete the statement?

Why do they never say that Millions of Shit Policies, no matter if you like it or not, because that never mattered any of the other years; why don't they tell the truth that the majority (because we can't speak in absolutes anymore) are getting better policies?

actually??? NO I am quite sure that the people that have to pay more for higher deductibles and a lot of crap that they don't want are not in the best of moods.

But here is the skinny so far, we have about 4.3 million people that have lost there insurance due to Obamacare?

And according to the administration we have about 1.2 million people that have signed up? How is this helping the situation out?

[zelmo1234]

Yea Yea Yea ... 10 years from now they'll be saying the Democrats ran up the Dept ... :laugh:

And they will be right!

[Codename Section]

No, I think he actually believes this based on his personal experience of having it handed to him because of his color.

:grin:


3. No racial or bigoted attacks on members: please lay off referring to his color in your remarks. Thank you.