Skip to main content

John Boehner
Full video of Boehner's press conference
John Boehner yesterday, addressing a national television audience during his press conference:
We had an agreement on a revenue number. A revenue number that we thought we could reach based on a flatter tax code with lower rates and a broader base. [...] There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday when the president demanded $400 billion more which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people

John Boehner yesterday, addressing House Republicans in a letter to individual members of Congress:

Along with Majority Leader Cantor, I have also engaged the president in a dialogue in recent days. [...] During these discussions -- as in my earlier discussions -- it became evident that the White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children's future. A deal was never reached, and was never really close.

So, they "had an agreement" on revenue when Boehner was speaking to the nation, but they were "never really close" to a deal when Boehner was speaking to House Republicans. Hmmm. Could both statements possibly be accurate, if not altogether true?

Perhaps the answer is to be found in the qualifying language Boehner used to describe the alleged "agreement" on revenue. It was, he said, an agreement on "a number that we thought we could reach based on a flatter tax code with lower rates and a broader base."

There's a big difference between identifying a number you think you can reach and actually agreeing to plan on how you will actually achieve that number. So Boehner's statements aren't as incompatible as they may have initially seemed: agreeing to a number is not the same as reaching a deal.

But even if Boehner's statements were part of the same truth, they were clearly designed to emphasize different aspects of it. Speaking to a national audience, he sought to emphasize his willingness to raise revenue. Speaking to his fellow House Republicans, he sought to emphasize his unwillingness to compromise.

One other point: Boehner said that the White House had "moved the goalpost" by insisting on $400 billion in additional revenue beyond tax reform. But if they moved the goalpost with that figure, they moved it in Boehner's direction. The key thing here is that there's two components to Obama's revenue plan; one was tax reform, the other was ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Ending those upper-income tax cuts completely would save something like $1 trillion, so in offering $400 billion, Obama was making a substantial concession. But John Boehner still couldn't bring himself to say yes.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:42 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And unfortunately for Boehner, the President (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, Vicky, Inland

    sucks up the national press coverage.

    Or used to, before the President was Obama.

    We'll see if there are updates on the Sunday talks to see who the Village thinks won this round.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:48:24 AM PDT

    •  Nah, David Brooks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satrap, Vicky

      had already given the village permission -- he's like the village hall monitor for giving the OK to be fair about GOP duplicity -- to call this one squarely.

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:35:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  did you watch Brooks last night on (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Involuntary Exile, Vicky, wishingwell

        PBS Newshour?  he basically said that the President was 'insulting' the repubs by insisting they come up with a plan and summoning them to the WH this morning and shouldn't have held his press conference, it was petulant politics!!  Now this is the man who said Paul Ryan's plan to destory Medicare was exactly the prescription the nation needed!!!

        If they keep this up PBS isn't going to need the Congress of defund them, the people will do it for them! Shame on Sheilds and Brooks!

        Fortunately Lawence O'Donnell used an extra hour of time on MSNBC in RM's Friday slot which is usually 'Lockup' which actually would have been appropriate last night. LOL, to convene his own summit with David Corn, Gene Robinson, Richard Wolfffe to explain to the nation( liberals anyway), why the President was right and Bonehead wrong!

        Watch selectively and make up your own minds! Don't be Sheeple, be People!!!

        •  Brooks was laughable... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Paul Krugman played him like a toy piano. Brooks has mastered the facade of appearing almost reasonable...until his fee-market, corporatist bullshit starts slipping out. These clowns are all the same. They worship their free-market ideals like a religion. Blind faith in e gnomic methods that are proven disasters...particularly hurtful in a time of recovery. Sad part is that they know that their methods decimate the working class, cause hyperinflation and only actually benefit the elite few but they just don't care. They all lie and try to convince the populace that their failed economic theories will work this time...they swear. Just gotta "incentivize the job creators" just a little more.

  •  Boehner is a mealy-mouthed idiot. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, CTMET, mmacdDE

    I wanted to scream when I saw him talk this trash.  Actually, I did scream.

    Eliminate the tax breaks for the rich allfuckingready.  None of the "deals" discussed are anything near "balanced" like people are yammering about.  The only balanced deal would be 100% revenue, because the larger scale this is weighing on is already so far tipped toward slashing the government.

    The thing is, you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear. Dig? - The Rock Man

    by BalanceSeeker on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:52:57 AM PDT

  •  Boner.....Dude's under a lot of pressure. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Whenever I hear "lower rates, broader base" (8+ / 0-)

    I know that I'm being sold supply-side bullshit.

    •  It actually makes sense (7+ / 0-)

      Look, what everybody complains about are instances when, for example, due to exemptions/deductions, etc., some huge corporations pay little or no federal income taxes.  On the other hand, some smaller corporations pay lots of federal income taxes -- they can't take advantage of those deductions/exemptions, etc.  And, while our statutory tax rate on business is high compared to many other countries, the effective tax rate -- what business actually pays -- is less, due to the exemptions/deductions.  It makes sense to lower the statutory rate but eliminate exemptions and deductions, so everybody pays something closer to the same effective rate -- you don't have a situation where smaller business pays really high effective rates but huge corporations pay much much lower effective rates.  

      I actually support that kind of tax reform.  The sticky question is how much to lower the statutory rates -- you can lower it to one level, where you lower rates, eliminate deductions/exemptions, and get more overall revenue (because those who relied heavily on deductions and exemptions are now paying more).  It's not a supply side argument.  It's an increase on those who had big deductions/exemptions, and a smaller decrease for those who had few deductions/exemptions.  That's the Democratic position.  The Republican position is that the statutory rates should be lowered enough so that there is no overall increase in revenue -- the taxes on those who had few deductions or exemptions are lowered sufficiently to offset the increased taxes on those who formerly had lots of deductions/exemptions.  

      No matter what political view you hold, it makes sense to do that kind of overall tax reform.  The sticking point between Democrats and Republicans is whether you use that to increase overall revenue to the federal government.  

      •  If small businesses are paying lots of federal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        income taxes as you claim, then they should be collectively suing their tax advisors for malpractice.  Speaking as a former accountant (retired) I know it is soooo easy for a business, large or small, to decrease it's tax liability.  I realize most businesses would see it as a last resort, but if it's swimming in profits it can always distribute bonuses to workers or make contributions to charitable causes and thereby decrease it's taxable income down to zero if it so chooses.  I know, I know.  It's anathema to current capitalistic thinking, but it's an alternative readily available to the income tax allergic.

        "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

        by Involuntary Exile on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:44:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By "small business" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I did not necessarily mean mom and pop shops. There are smaller publicly held corporations, for example, that pay a higher effective overall federal corporate income tax rate than some major international corporations.    Not every corporation is Exxon.  

          •  It is even easier for small corporations to reduce (0+ / 0-)

            their tax liability than it is for Mom-N-Pop proprietorships and partnerships.  If you do not know this than you really know little about accounting and/or tax law. Either way, small Corp or Mom-n-Pop, the easiest way to reduce tax liability is to increase paid wages and salaries or charitable contributions or both.  Any business, regardless of it's form of organization, can reduce it's tax liability to zero by paying out all would-be profit in the form of bonuses.  The tax liability then passes to each individual bonus recipient commensurate with her/his total income.  I know this is anathema to current capitalistic thinking, but it is a readily available solution for the income tax-allergic

            "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

            by Involuntary Exile on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  No it doesn't. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Involuntary Exile, justmy2

        The reason we have these exemptions is because they are easy to create. Once you have a tax, you will have exemptions. If you have a rate of 10%, there will still be exemptions. If you have a rate of 55, there will still be exemptions.

        Don't buy the idea that lower rates will lead to no exemptions. What will happen is that the rates will fall, but the exemptions will remain because too many people have a vested interest in keeping them, but nobody has a vested interest in tax rates. Again, everybody has a vested interest in exemptions, but NOBODY has a vested interest in tax rates. People have been talking about this crap for years. lower the rates and eliminate the deductions. It never happens because nobody is in favor of it in reality. It only looks good on paper.

        For example. I own a house. I get a mortgage interest deduction. I pay a 28-30% effective rate of taxation. If you lower this number to 25%, I'll still want my mortgage interest deduction. Mainly because it was a significant incentive to purchase the house in the first place. I gather the real estate industry, especially the REIT owners, will say exactly the same thing. Who has more muscle...them, or medicaid recipients? Just lower my rate to 25%, ill keep the deduction, and you go cut medicaid. That's exactly what will happen once you get into this "lower rates, broader base" bullshit.

        Another example. Lower the tax rate on families, but also cut the child tax credit. Right now, that's about a thousand bucks each child. I have two girls. Now say, just for simplicity, that I get that credit their whole lives. That amounts to $36,000. Are my taxes going to go down $36,000 this year? No. Furthermore, what if I give up the child care deduction now, but then you turn around and raise the rates on me later? No deal.

        The tax code is complex, but considering the high rate of voluntary compliance in this country, it isn't overly so. If anything, it needs heavier enforcement and much, much higher rates on the wealthy and corporations.

        •  A little bit of history proves you wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          Remember the Tax Reform Act of 1986? Some of the many deductions and exemptions eliminated by that Act resulted in some upper middle class/well off families (those who had relied heavily on deductions/exemptions/tax shelters) paying more in actual dollars to the federal government than before, even though statutory rates were lowered.  That was largely a Democratic Bill.  It was designed to be revenue neutral.  It could have easily been designed to increase revenue by slight adjustments to the statutory rates.

          Reform which actually DOES eliminate deductions/exemptions/shelters has happened, and can be done again.  The question is whether Congress -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have the political will to eliminate deductions/exemptions/shelters that are heavily favored by their own constituency.  

          I support a reform of the Federal Income Tax Code that includes simplification, elimination of deductions/exemptions/loopholes with a lessening of statutory rates so as to broaden the tax base.  Deductions/exemptions/shelters are openings for people to game the tax system and ways for the federal government to favor some over others, often based on who has the best lobbyists.  

      •  Precisely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Vicky

        I re-post this article (from last December, back when Obama was floating an '86 style tax reform) every time the discussion comes up.

        If you want to solve budget problems from the revenue side and if you want to re-weight the tax burden off of the middle class, this approach should be embraced, not scorned.  Forget the headline rates and bracket machinations, the 1986 tax reform shifted the tax burden upwards.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:46:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Works for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue in NC

    It got the BFD killed, looks like.

    •  I'll second that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TJ, blue in NC

      Maybe now we can talk about the unconstitutionality of the friggin' "debt ceiling limit" and why the Prez doesn't just ignore Congress and unilaterally increase whatever borrowing he needs to increase to pay the bills the idiots on Capitol Hill already incurred.

      "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

      by Involuntary Exile on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:23:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep! Champagne time... (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, why did anybody think we even had to bother having a BFD over this? This was the time to raise the friggin debt ceiling and handle the rest of the BS later.

      Of course, it was Boner and Can'tor and the rest of the Rethug idiots who tried to exploit the necessity of raising the debt ceiling to ram through their massive Norquist-approved cuts to our essential domestic programs and our nation's safety net, but Obama could have saved himself - and the rest of us - a lot of time and heartburn by just saying "NO BFD...NO NEGOTIATION. This is about the debt ceiling. ONLY.".

      Obama's "new deal" - adequate debt-ceiling headroom until after the 2012 elections is the only thing that should have been on the table in the first place. Good for him. Now, let's hope he sticks to his position.

      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

      by blue in NC on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:34:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where does that $1 trillion number comes from? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdkipp, gramofsam1

    Everything I've seen says that the Bush tax cuts on individuals over $200,000 and families over $250,000 equals about $70 billion a year, or $700 billion over 10 years.  So, Obama's position was likely to repeal the Bush tax cut on families over maybe $500,000?  

    Or maybe he was proposing something like Bernie Sanders' millionaire surcharge, which would be about $40 billion a year -- right at that $400 billion number (since they generally are using 10 year figures?

    At any rate, the President knows that Republicans are never going to agree to decouple the Bush Tax Cuts on families over $250,000 from the Bush Tax Cuts on everyone else.  There's no way that kind of thing gets through the House.  If that's what he is proposing, I suspect there really will be no deal, because I can't see any scenario under which that gets through the House.

  •  Trick question (5+ / 0-)

    Boehner NEVER tells the truth.

    Al Queda and Chinook salmon have a lot in common. Everything is fine until the seals show up.

    by Grannus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

  •  At least he didn't cry this time (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdkipp, karmsy, OldDragon, satrap

    Juan de Naranja didn't cry today. I guess he's finally on anti-depressants.

  •  I, Mudd: Everything he tells you is a lie (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seabos84, OldDragon, justmy2, boadicea

    Reminds me of the Star Trek episode I, Mudd:

    [trying to confuse an android]
    Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. Everything he says is a lie.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.

    Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!

    Just substitute, Boner for Harry Mudd and this is exactly what is happening.

    •  EXCEPT when he tells you he's lying ;) that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      would work perfectly for

      the entire republican leadership
      the entire DC press corps
      the entire village of VSPs


      Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

      by seabos84 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  John Boehner, increasingly, (8+ / 0-)

    seems a pitiful figure. A deluded, played, washed-up man.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:22:30 AM PDT

  •  you're ridiculous. Thug Leaders LIE, ALWAYS. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Churchill


    pretending that there is any honor or anything OTHER THAN LIES SO RICH PIGS CAN STEAL -

    is a sign of:

    - political childishness & naivete,
    - political incompetence,
    - political sell outs.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:22:32 AM PDT

  •  I turned that lying sack of sh*t off (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I got so disgusted by his lying speech.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:26:25 AM PDT

  •  No doubt (0+ / 0-)

    DC reporters are rushing to ask him to explain this contradiction as we speak.  Amirite? longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:26:57 AM PDT

  •  If the tax rates were lower... (0+ / 0-)

    If the tax rates were lower, but the base were broader, does that mean the plan would follow Coulter's idea of requiring more of the poorest to make at least some income tax payments?  Was that Obama's idea for raising revenue - raise taxes on the poor?  It wouldn't suprise me.  Obama is exactly like a bowl of Jello.

  •  I know! I know! (0+ / 0-)

    The one that isn't orange.

    Now, what do I win?

    But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

    by banjolele on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:32:44 AM PDT

  •  What a stupid nightmare. (5+ / 0-)

    This morning I got a call from a client who was quite alarmed at the prospect of default.  He has over $1 million in assets invested at a mutual fund company, and thinks the market will drop 3,000 points if the country defaults.  So he plans to sell all of his securities and park it until this is resolved.

    Ordinary people (ok, ordinary people with $1 million) are panicking about this.  I don't blame them.

    If there isn't a deal announced on Monday, the markets will go balistic.  And not in a good way....


    •  Good. I thought the 'markets' were (0+ / 0-)

      a Republican stronghold.  Aren't they going to take care of their charges by raising the ceiling?

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:46:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they atr already creaming their Armanis' trying (0+ / 0-)

        get their idot children to see the writing on the wall.

        All the Tea partiers say is 'dont' worry, be happy'. Incredible? and what do you bet we'll go and elect them again? (if this place is any indication anyway!!!) and give them Romney or Bachmann to make them feel better.

        This is up to the the sheeple/people now basically and i frankly don't see many signs that anyone is learning any lessons yet.

    •  One of the reasons I have been playing close (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      I planned on moving to cash yesterday if things looked bleak, but it wasn't until 5:30 that info started to roll out.  Now I have to decide what to do Monday morning.  These folks really are ridiculous.

      The ratings agencies are interesting.  They said that economics are less of a risk than the concern that our politics are so screwed up that a deal may never be made.

      That is on Americans for electing tea partiers and moving the Republican party so far right.  And Democrats have not helped by refusing to push back.

      The RW noise machine is literally putting the country at risk.

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  he's better hurry up then! (0+ / 0-)

      and he'll have a long wait in the desert until things get better!

    •  Don't blame him (0+ / 0-)

      I only had $2100 left in stocks.

      They are out of the market now.

      I think this is an effective way to get the message to Republicans.  If we run the market for 3 days, they will get scared and you can buy back in on Thursday for some fire sale deals.

      They wouldn't think twice about taking your savings.  Why worry about whether the market crashes.  That will be an effective message for Republicans.  They don't read polls, they read the ticker.

      "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's starting to worry me too. (0+ / 0-)

      Mostly because of how little it worries teabaggers and the pols who pander to them.

      Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

      by Inland on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:17:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So will Obama finally realize the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    can't be negotiated with? Probably not.

    •  Clearly the answer is NO (0+ / 0-)

      He instead falls for every wacky idea they come up with. Do you believe your ears when the Pres says "NOW is the time to worry about the Debt Ceiling!" The answer to that statement is an unqualified NO but Our President has bought into this RETHUG propaganda. Why is he doing this my question?

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:58:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Still needs to get ~30-40 votes in the House to (0+ / 0-)

      get anything to happen.

      Somehow, you have to get some Republicans to vote yes on something.  If they stick to their guns, you better cut a big hole in your mattress to put your gold and silver in.

      "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:12:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  do you have kids? if you did you would understand (0+ / 0-)
  •  The interesting part of this (0+ / 0-)

    is people are going to have to decide about two diametrically opposed theories.

    1.  The President never wanted a deal and brilliantly inched the goal posts out every time Republicans looked to be coming close to conceding.

    2.  The President wanted to make the overall deal but Republicans never played ball.

    This is based on the WH saying on the record they requested the additional $400 billion.  The question on the table is was it to stop the deal, or was it to get the deal past Democrats.

    There is still a lot left to be written about the ongoing story.

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:42:07 AM PDT

    •  And they Republicans didn't keep moving the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      It was a message to Republicans who adamantly added a F**KING Constitutional Amendment with no discussion at all in the last week.

      What the hell was that about?

      I suspect that they will give Obama the right to change the Debt Ceiling himself and that will be the end of this nonsense forever.  There will be no debt ceiling and that may not be the worse solution.

      You want to control debt?  Don't get into it in the first place.

      Unfortunately, we will have no budget, no continuing resolutions after October and government shutdown department by department after November starting with the EPA, NSF, NOAA, Dept of Education.

      "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:16:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  your answer suggests you believe option 2 (0+ / 0-)

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:42:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  what does President Grover Norquist think? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crashing Vor, satrap, eddieb061345, Inland

    80 % of success


    showing up! ! ! !

    by Churchill on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:42:20 AM PDT

  •  The results speak for themselves. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is no agreement.  There has been no agreement.  There will be no agreement.  Until there is an agreement.

    •  No thanks to the Pres (0+ / 0-)

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:59:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the agreement will be that the President Just Does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It and let the fur fly where it will and the cookies crumble all over the table!  Let the Supremos decide.

      Or he will just sign whatever he had to to to save the country form default, then watch the same thing happen.

      That's the way American politics works, hadn't you noticed?
      I am most interested watching to see whether the Murdoch debacle will bring David Cameron  down?  Nick Clegg is keeping Mum on the matter, not much courage being shown over there either.  Ed Milliband, the Labour leader is being opportunistic however and ranting against the Tories!.

      Meanwhile Fox News over here seems to be reading a different newspaper?  tomorrow's Fox news Sunday is a must watch to see what koolaid they are drinking this week!!

  •  Probably the one that brought all the jobs bills (0+ / 0-)

    to the floor of the House.  What?  There are none of those?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:42:55 AM PDT

  •  Which John Boehner was telling the truth? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, mmacdDE

    How about neither?  Neither work for you?

    Because neither is working to uphold either the U.S. Constitution, or the people its supposed to protect.

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos. Come join other Texas Kossacks at TexKos.

    by boadicea on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

  •  The GOP has fucked itself into a corner (0+ / 0-)

    Too bad the rest of us will get dragged over the cliff with them.

    "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity." --W. B. Yeats

    by Pragmatus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:49:03 AM PDT

  •  I never thought I'd say this (0+ / 0-) (0+ / 0-)

    but THANKYOU REPUGLICANS. Our President was a sellout and willing to give in on the big three! SS,Medicare and Medicaid. I dont care if the cuts were not that bad they were CUTS!. We have no right to touch these programs just to fulfill some Grand bargain to solve a NON-problem. This President seems to buy into every wacky problem the Rethugs come up with! There is NO debt problem that requires cuts to the Democratic Soul the Big three. Mr President try to remember you are a Democrat!!

    Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

    by eddieb061345 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:50:18 AM PDT

  •  Nothing Boner says will ever make sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    because he is the mouthpiece for bratty children who don't know what they want from one moment to the next.

    "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity." --W. B. Yeats

    by Pragmatus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:52:20 AM PDT

    •  And that is the real problem. (0+ / 0-)

      When you've decided that you can't agree with anything the other party will agree to, you will NEVER reach an agreement.

      If Boehner thinks Obama is like jello, it's only because he won't take a good offer when he sees it - even if it's what HE asked for, or better.

  •  The Boner lied-- (0+ / 0-)

    imagine that!  I'm shocked!!

  •  Boehner is not in charge. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The "Koch Bros." are calling the shots.

    My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine

    by irate on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:02:33 AM PDT

  •  I feel sorry for Boehner (0+ / 0-)

    Country Club Repub whipsawed by Teabaggers

    I feel contempt for Cantor
    In it for the advancement, no core values at all

    But I am keeping my eye on Joe Walsh
    A True Believer and Bomb Thrower who is making his bones during this crisis. This is a guy whose career needs to be stopped in 2012, or he is going to be a force in Repug politics for years to come....

    "Reason is six-sevenths of treason," said one of his neighbors. "Intelligence is what the enemy uses," said another.

    by Misterpuff on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:12:02 AM PDT

  •  Last night Boehner retweeted Cantor (0+ / 0-)

    I made the comment that even Charley McCarthy was smarter.   The puppet should never point out the man who is pulling the lever.

    "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

    by captainlaser on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:18:27 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I noticed that too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At best, Boner is complaining that Obama made him a really REALLY sweet deal, that Boner rejected, and then Obama took off the table.  

    In a negotiation, if you reject an offer, it destroys the offer.  there's no rule that you get to accept the offer later: you might get something better, or something worse, OR NOTHING AT ALL.   It's a chance you take whenever you say "no".

    Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

    by Inland on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:15:47 AM PDT

  •  John Boehner Is A Fool (0+ / 0-)

    Let's stop pretending, shall we, that politicians like Boehner have anything close to the integrity or aptitude we'd like to see in the people leading our Nation. In a sane culture a person like this would be recognized as the conniving bastard that he is, and would be sent to the village Shaman for healing, not placed in a position of authority.

    The sooner we are willing to take a stand and call out people like this directly and without hesitation the sooner we will live in a sane country.

    "Without LOVE in the dream it will never come true..." -Hunter/Garcia

    by US Blues on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:23:26 AM PDT

  •  John Boehner, a.k.a. "Orange Pinnocio‏". (0+ / 0-)

    Hey Boehner and the Republicans: WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS YOU PROMISED????

    by LamontCranston on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:26:56 AM PDT

  •  Boehner is lying when his lips are moving but (0+ / 0-)

    it's still important to document the prodigious dissembling of him and the rest of his counry wrecking crew.

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:57:08 AM PDT

  •  That's Boehner trying to have it both ways ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    just like he always does. There's something in there that might resemble the truth, but then there's the red meat he's got to throw out to Fox News (we know which story they'll run with) to appease the TeaPartiers. It's all quite predictable.

    Has anyone seen the president I voted for?

    by RevJoe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58:19 AM PDT

  •  Commander-in-chief Boehner would never tell a lie (0+ / 0-)

    To paraphrase the most startling bit flung by the Orange Rhesus at last night's poo-fest:

    The president and I took the same oath of office.  The president and I have the same responsibilities.
  •  Did Boner lie, absolutely........ (0+ / 0-)

    he is able to talk out both sides of his mouth and blow wind at the same time. I think he forget which audience he is talking to.

    No jobs yet Mr Boner....your times running out.

    by Camp on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:31:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site