If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Boehner aborts Plan B, Plan C is to go home for Christmas   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 485
    More: Fail, Boehner, christmas, Harry M. Reid, GOP leaders, House Speaker, Eric Cantor  
•       •       •

10273 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



485 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 11:56:10 PM  

Weaver95: RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

eric cantor?


Never, ever, say that again!
 
2012-12-20 11:56:18 PM  

InmanRoshi: Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!

He can't even take Obama's deal, because he can't deliver votes on it.

At this point, Obama is better off going around him and working with Pelosi to reach out to whatever small sliver of sane moderates are left in the GOP to strike a deal that will get them to join the Democrats to get enough vote to pass the House. I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.


Pelosi does not have the power to call anything to a vote. If Boehner even thought about sided with dems and trying to get enough votes from moderate republicans he would have a revolt on his hands and lose the speakership. Then again the teaparty just buried a dagger in his back so it looks like a republican civil war is on.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:38 PM  
www.akawilliam.com

We are so boned.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:47 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.


Pelosi accomplished a hell of a lot more in her two years as Speaker than Boehner has.  She would have accomplished a lot more if not for the Senate.  Where Obama was at fault was in negotiating with himself before the negotiations began.  At the time, he still believed the GOP were rational actors.  He clearly doesn't believe that anymore.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:48 PM  
In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:09 PM  

Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.


Let's not forget that this is only a week or so after Mitch McConnell maneuvered himself into threatening to filibuster his own bill.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:23 PM  

Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.


From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:37 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: enry: For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.

You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.


That is completely not true.

The Affordable Care Act got watered down because Obama and Reid refused to use reconciliation until the very end. They could have had the whole thing wrapped up before the summer recesses, but instead they let Max Baucus play pussy foot with Olympia Snowe all summer in the Finance Committee, then they wasted another month or so trying to get Blue Dog Senators onboard.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:45 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Weaver95: RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

eric cantor?

Never, ever, say that again!


hey, if we're gonna implode the country we might as well do it right.
 
2012-12-20 11:58:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.

From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.


But the proposal isn't to reallocate the money, its to eliminate it entirely.
 
2012-12-20 11:58:55 PM  

Gosling: In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.


Ughhhhhh.... I don't want to see another election for at least a decade.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.


This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: But the proposal isn't to reallocate the money, its to eliminate it entirely.


Right, but that wasn't the point he made. Not all domestic spending is equal with regards to jobs.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:10 AM  
Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:11 AM  

Gosling: demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.

This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.


but then the GOP won't want to ever make a deal with Obama ever....oh, right.  well then f*ck it, he should do what you guys said.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:28 AM  

incendi: Clearly, this just shows how unwilling Obama is to compromise.


Within a year you'll hear conservatives saying that Boehner made such significant concessions in his counteroffer that the Republican party couldn't support it, so that is proof that Obama didn't compromise enough if Democrats would still vote for his offer.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:37 AM  
But because it also would have permitted tax rates to rise for about 400,000 extremely wealthy families, conservatives balked, leaving Boehner (Ohio) humiliated and his negotiating power immeasurably weakened.

Couldn't even make it out of the House. You sir are a complete failure.

But go ahead, blame it on Obama. I know you will.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:38 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.

From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.


You're right, but again, that's too long term for what we're talking about.  We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.
 
2012-12-21 12:01:09 AM  
images.politico.com

I SUCK AT MY JOB DICK
 
2012-12-21 12:01:22 AM  

Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.


That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:57 AM  

thornhill: BionicCrab: This is pretty amazing. JB's proposal only raised taxes on millionaires, literally, and the baggers told him to stuff it. Incredible.

This is really it -- the GOP provided clear proof that they rather see everyone pay more in taxes than just millionaires. House members in safe districts are going to be ok come 2014, but it could end up being a very awkward cycle for Republicans running statewide.


The operating theory in the GOP right now may be:

1) Presidents own the economy.

2) Parties in opposition to the President typically do well in off-year elections, especially in a second term.

That would seem to indicate continuing a strategy of deliberately tanking the economy, even though that failed in this year's election.

And it might actually work, depending on how desperate the electorate is in 2014.

Add to that the fact that every GOP member has a group of lunatics back in his or her home district looking for an excuse to primary them and run with someone slightly to the right of Franco, and you've pretty much got the recipe for the situation we're in right now.
 
2012-12-21 12:03:32 AM  
Nelson.jpg
 
2012-12-21 12:03:45 AM  

RobertBruce: Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.


Social safety nets are a good thing. They can help provide long term care for those that have eaten too many lead paint chips, like yourself.

We got ya bro.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:16 AM  

Mentat: We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.


Fair point. Full disclosure: I work in defense. The big wigs and their lobbyists are wailing about the end of the world, and it's in their interest to do that, but it really isn't the end of the world.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:19 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Also, as I understand it, Fiscal Cliff is really more of a Fiscal Steep Grade. I wonder if it would push off the next debt limit crisis.


No, it would still leave a deficit of roughly 560 Billion for 2013 alone.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:49 AM  

thornhill: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.

That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.


Once again, we're arguing about different time scales.  I absolutely agree that in the long term, domestic spending is better because it represents an investment that will generate greater returns than what we put in.  But in the immediate term, a sudden loss of government spending is going to have a negative economic impact.  RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent, only that it's being spent.  If that happens, it's going to have an immediate negative economic effect.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:07 AM  

thornhill: The Affordable Care Act got watered down because Obama and Reid refused to use reconciliation until the very end. They could have had the whole thing wrapped up before the summer recesses, but instead they let Max Baucus play pussy foot with Olympia Snowe all summer in the Finance Committee, then they wasted another month or so trying to get Blue Dog Senators onboard.


You may be right (I certainly remember the whole Olympia Snowe saga), but it was also the House Democrats that sunk many of the more ambitious proposals. Pelosi failed to get them to shut up and line up at the critical junctures, and they had to peel back more and more.

Americans love nothing more than success. If they had passed a big, ambitious healthcare act with a government option and all the other bells and whistles, those Blue Dogs that got wiped out in 2010 probably would have stood a better chance.

But that's a hypothetical, so meh...
 
2012-12-21 12:06:57 AM  

Mentat: You're right, but again, that's too long term for what we're talking about. We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.


The jobs lost in defense contracting will be hard to replace. They are incredibly well-paying jobs. The pain will be there, but we can't justify the level of defense spending we have based upon what we can do with a smaller force.

All cuts are painful in some way. I'd rather we do it there than cutting Medicare Part D or food stamps.

The very same people who complain about the government meddling in business simply won't get out of the way of government reducing their influence in the economy through arms dealing. Propping up a bloated defense industry is ok, but bailing out the auto industry with a one time investment is evil.

This is why I'll never understand their economic message. It's just pants on head retarded.
 
2012-12-21 12:07:16 AM  
Tonight's abandonment of Plan B just shows Obama is a very bad negotiator.
 
2012-12-21 12:07:26 AM  

RobertBruce: Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.


Fark that. Just get rid of the $##% cap!
 
2012-12-21 12:07:45 AM  
Has there been a weaker Speaker of the House in my lifetime (since Reagan)? This guy can't get anything done with his party so polarized in the House. This was a chance for Republicans to at least try and take control of the narrative regarding who is responsible for middle-class taxes rising if we go off the cliff, and they scuttled it because half of them are stump dumb.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:22 AM  
Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?
 
2012-12-21 12:09:23 AM  

Weaver95: Gosling: demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.

This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.

but then the GOP won't want to ever make a deal with Obama ever....oh, right.  well then f*ck it, he should do what you guys said.


I thought it was the Senate that had to be in recess for the POTUS to make recess appointments.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:26 AM  
I do appreciate the responses guys. Thanks. It's not that I have not been paying attention. But these "alarms" get sounded all the time and, as I have gotten older, experience tells me anytime someone (or some political party) is trying to ram something through on the Hill, it's to satisfy a specific agenda. And it's rarely something in the best interests of the majority. Again, appreciate the insight.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:43 AM  

Funk Brothers: Tonight's abandonment of Plan B just shows Obama is a very bad negotiator.


Why? He can wait for the new year and make a deal with the Republicans retroactively when they have even less leverage than they do now, which is basically none.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:57 AM  
Thank God for the Tea Party. Who else is going to stand up for the multi-billionaires?
 
2012-12-21 12:11:42 AM  
But it would have allowed taxes to rise by about $300 billion over the next decade compared with current law.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding by the author. Under current law, the tax cuts expire, and spending cuts go into effect.

It would "allow taxes to rise by $300 billion over the next decade" relative to an extension of 2012 policy. NOT current law.
 
2012-12-21 12:11:48 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:12:26 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


They were not bad (save for a few decisions...which decisions depends on who you ask). However, jumping 20 years in single bound is not the best of ideas.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:56 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


Because EVERYONE benefitted economically. You know, Socialism.
 
2012-12-21 12:13:17 AM  

Carn: Why?


I think he was kidding. But you're absolutely right. The Senate passed an extension of the <$250K tax cuts back in July. They can pass those again and force the GOP to make a decision. Cut taxes for 98% of Americans or vote against tax cuts - and at the same time vote against their entire political philosophy for the last 30 years.
 
2012-12-21 12:14:11 AM  

Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:06 AM  

sonnyboy11: Again, appreciate the insight.


i48.tinypic.com

"I'm surrounded by crazy people! Michele Bachmann actually believes the sh*t that vomits from her mouth! How am I supposed to make these people see reason? It's like herding f*cking cats! In fact, that would probably be a whole helluva lot easier!"
 
2012-12-21 12:16:12 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naivete, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


Because the president was a black Democrat.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:46 AM  

Mentat: sonnyboy11: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Take away politics for a minute.  Defense cuts represent a significant amount of spending that's suddenly going to go away.  Not reallocated, gone.  That's going to have an economic effect.  One of the straw men that conservatives use regarding the Great Depression is that it was war spending that got us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.  But by every measure, New Deal spending and defense spending had the same effect on the economy.  From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.


That's not entirely true. Money that is spent on weapon systems does not have the same positive effect on the economy. Compare building an fighter to building a road, for example. In both cases, you get benefits of the pay going to workers and spending on materials. But with the fighter, the benefits stop there. The road, on the other hand, provides ongoing economic benefits to everyone who uses it long after it is built.

That's not to say that that you can't waste money on a useless road, or that you don't get some benefits from security provided by a fighter. But currently we have plenty of fighters, and an aging and often inadequate infrastructure in many other areas.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:48 AM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


Apparently we can because that is precisely what's going to happen.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:14 AM  
Obama's offering this guy a lifeline by trying to give him cover with an increase to $400k and chained CPI on social security...

All Obama has to do is wait for the "cliff" to happen and then come back and say "OK, how about tax cuts for everyone making under $250k, huh? Maybe I'll give back half the automatic Pentagon cuts, too.. You gonna go on record voting against tax cuts and military spending, Republican House members? Hmmm...

I think Boehner wants to take the deal today, but his constituency, and many House republicans, are cray-cray and he knows it.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:15 AM  
I miss the old fark counter that said every thread was even politically.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:13 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:20:38 AM  

sammyk: I thought it was the Senate that had to be in recess for the POTUS to make recess appointments.


Either house, really.

Which reminds me: pro forma sessions are something we ougnt to take care of at some point. Those are the things where every three days, a chamber comes in and holds a bullshiat 5-minute session to prevent an official recess from taking place and preventing recess appointments from happening. (Currently, you have to be out for three days to be in official recess.)
 
Displayed 50 of 485 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report