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  
•       •       •

10264 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:19 PM (1 year 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
 
2012-12-21 12:20:46 AM

Zasteva: 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.


We're not in disagreement on any of this.  But again, we're talking about different time frames.  Rachel Maddow showed a graph tonight that showed projected growth figures for the next two quarters.  If we go off the cliff, growth will go from 3.1% (3Q2012) to 2% (4Q2012) to -3.9% (1Q2013).  That's the time frame we're talking about.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:59 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

How quickly they forget......

[the-american-journal.com image 350x230]

[t0.gstatic.com image 277x182]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 330x270]

[images.sodahead.com image 350x232]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 620x465]

/The Adulterer laughs in your general direction.

I. WILL. EAT. YOUR. SOUL.
[media.salon.com image 750x500]


That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:23 AM
Say what you want about Tom Delay... but he would not have put up with this sh*t. Republican rank and file would be waking up to horse heads.
 
2012-12-21 12:22:26 AM
Make light of Boehner all you like, but the fact is that he probably does want to compromise, and is in reality an OK guy, but his party is loaded with radical fundamentalists now. Nobody is going to be able to work with the mindless radicals, and, as has been said, the GOP is now doomed.
 
2012-12-21 12:22:57 AM

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 doesn't want a deal. The only deal she wants would raise taxes to a point that would sink the future of the Democratic party in order to not make entitlement cuts. Her entire plan was premised on Republicans going over the cliff and taking the blame for it. There is no going around Boehner at this point. There is NO proposal that can pass both houses of congress.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:31 AM

Mentat: We're not in disagreement on any of this. But again, we're talking about different time frames. Rachel Maddow showed a graph tonight that showed projected growth figures for the next two quarters. If we go off the cliff, growth will go from 3.1% (3Q2012) to 2% (4Q2012) to -3.9% (1Q2013). That's the time frame we're talking about.


It's going to be a bloodbath. Short-term investments are going to implode. YEEE HAAAW!

On a positive note, gasoline might break below $3!
 
2012-12-21 12:23:52 AM

cloakandbadger: Say what you want about Tom Delay... but he would not have put up with this sh*t. Republican rank and file would be waking up to horse heads.


Indeed. He'd have 'em convinced he'd rape their dogs and run over their daughters.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:05 AM
kg2095: That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.

Awwww, man... I did NOT need that mental image

/I mean... just..... GAaahhhh!
 
2012-12-21 12:24:19 AM
I'm starting to think that my coworkers decision to move his 401k into bonds and cash on December 1st wasn't so crazy. What does anyone figure, a 5% drop in the NYSE tomorrow?

/still think their monied overlords will put a gun to their political heads and tell them to make it happen
 
2012-12-21 12:24:38 AM
Boehner could have been a winner by championing a compromise. Tea Party 'over lords' would have used their Super Pac(s) money and found another GOP zombie to do their bidding. It's better to go out vindicated, strong and in control. Rather than a weak 'puppet' not taking responsibility. Sad day.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:21 AM

Resin33: 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.


So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:51 AM

Mentat: 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.


Heh, could have saved myself my earlier post if I had seen this first.

Yes, the impact will be negative. Potentially a lot of high paying defense contractor jobs lost. A short term stimulus in other areas could make up for some of that. Plus, there isn't really a shortage of high tech jobs (at least not for people like software engineers), so a good number of those people will just get snapped up by private industry that is having trouble hiring good people.

Regardless it seems like we won't have to speculate about it much longer.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:02 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.


Even better, you don't have the Bush tax cuts anymore, since they expired.

You now have the Obama tax cuts.

If the Republicans were thinking at all they'd realize that.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:36 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


Boehner is a little better as Speaker of the House than this guy was:

upload.wikimedia.org

Theodore_M._Pomeroy
 
2012-12-21 12:26:39 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: kg2095: That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.

Awwww, man... I did NOT need that mental image

/I mean... just..... GAaahhhh!


The fat censors automatically.
 
2012-12-21 12:27:26 AM
Honestly, can we stop feeling sorry for Boehner and his pack of rabid ferrets now? The guy should lead his idiots out of the darkness, Bruce Campbell style. Or just give in...
 
2012-12-21 12:27:54 AM
Serenity prayer ftfw. I seriously loled, then shared it with my bartender for a double-lol. That's how AA folks say "Fark this shiat! I'm OUT!"
 
2012-12-21 12:29:04 AM
i.imgur.com
You mean that our taxes will go up after all?  You and your stupid Tea Party idea!
 
2012-12-21 12:30:08 AM

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

Boehner shouldn't even want the job any longer. The teabaggers set him up, then left him out to hang. He should be thinking "fark them".

If the tea party installs one of their own as speaker, any remaining charade of Republican willingness to negotiate will evaporate. Boehner may be a terrible leader, but he's not a complete wingnut. If they vote a tea party wingnut into the job, it might result in their losing the house in the 2014 mid-terms.

/Here's hoping
//We are almost certainly going over the cliff. Now, the Repubicans are going to get all of the blame.
///Popcorn


All I can think of is West Wing after John Goodman's cameo (not to spoil too much.) Long story short, a Speaker they ideologically disagreed with but at least understood comity and decorum lost his gig thanks to the White House, and got replaced with an asshat who disagreed with them AND was willing to play chicken at every turn/purposely screw up intense negotiations to make the other party look bad for expecting good faith from this guy.

Believe it or not, we haven't seen how much BS you can pull off if you completely want to make Congress a fustercluck. And considering they have single digit approval ratings, its not like they're worried about losing public support.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:35 AM

NewportBarGuy: On a positive note, gasoline might break below $3!


I got gas for 2.93 today (with 3 cents off shopping card). Even though I could only put 5.5 gallons in because I saw stations not too far away at 3.29. I assume they're all up there by now.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:41 AM
If I was Boner, I would have said 'f+ck it, do whatever you want'. That way, when and if the economy collapses, the American people can place all blame on the black feller, the repub party is destroyed (which it is already) and Americans will finally create a true nationalist party.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:45 AM
On his way to pay his respects to Inouye, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said he had "no clue" what was happening with Plan B. Asked whether he planned to vote for it, he said again: "I have no clue."

That about sums it up for the GOP.

COMALite J: No, he really is the worst.
Not just in incompetence, but also in sheer evil and willingness to corrupt the process without a hint of shame nor conscience.


Wow... is that video completely legit? Because if it is, man... what a load of bollocks.
 
2012-12-21 12:36:14 AM

Tyranicle: If I was Boner, I would have said 'f+ck it, do whatever you want'. That way, when and if the economy collapses, the American people can place all blame on the black feller, the repub party is destroyed (which it is already) and Americans will finally create a true nationalist party.


[quizzical_dog.jpg]
 
2012-12-21 12:36:26 AM

12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.


Why assume? :)
 
2012-12-21 12:36:55 AM

Mentat: So all of you on the left who were raging at Obama for compromising, this is why I told you to relax.  The GOP is farking clown shoes.


The Teabaggers are the ones who are the ball-lickers. The Democrats are gonna maintain our social safety net while they watch and cry like little whiny biatches. Once we get to Washington and find those Tea Party farks who is holding up progress... we're gonna make them eat our bills, then shiat out our bills, and then eat their shiat that's made up of our bills that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you Senate GOP motherfarks are next.

Love,

Jay and Silent Bob.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:15 AM

fatassbastard: 12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.

Why assume? :)


Because I'm not worried about buying gas for a while now my tank is full.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:36 AM

BeSerious: Wait, he was actually trying to get Republicans to go for the tax hike?
Actually?



Yep. Big Money doesn't want the instability that might be brought on by going over this cliff, and have said as much. They've been urging the GOP to make a compromise. But Boehner has about as much control as a special ed teacher responsible for 50 mentally disabled students running loose in a Lazer Tag arena.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:18 AM

Crafty Bernardo: 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.


Agreed, and now it looks like the only way to get a deal is with the Democrats leading the charge with a handful of defecting moderate Republicans. That means at the very least they'll probably take out the chained CPI to obtain a unified Democratic Caucus.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:49 AM

angryjd: Pelosi doesn't want a deal. The only deal she wants would raise taxes to a point that would sink the future of the Democratic party in order to not make entitlement cuts. Her entire plan was premised on Republicans going over the cliff and taking the blame for it. There is no going around Boehner at this point. There is NO proposal that can pass both houses of congress.



They'll make an end run and go through the Republicans by force, however, they have to wait until the next Congress is seated. New Senate rules, more Democrats, and Pelosi can force a vote on the issue if she has a majority of the votes, which will only take 17 Republicans.

We will go over the cliff...for less than a month. Before February 1st, order will have been restored. This is all going according to schedule.
 
2012-12-21 12:45:11 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!


You have been very funny lately. You are now favorited as "funny for a shellfish"
 
2012-12-21 12:45:34 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rules


Wait, what's in the pipeline with regards to these?
 
2012-12-21 12:46:15 AM
The Republican'ts are blowing their best remaining opportunity to handle this with any amount of leverage. Once we go over the cliff, people will be screaming at them, and they'll have to accept way worse terms (for them) than they can get now. This is the royally screwed, catch-22 situation we all knew they would be in when the automatic cuts and tax increases were originally set up. Likewise, the Dems should just continue to troll them while looking reasonable, offering them slightly better terms knowing full well that the teabaggers won't let the GOP take ANY deal.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:27 AM

sonnyboy11: Resin33: 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.

So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.


It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.

You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.

And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".

Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compromise. The kind who just wants to watch the gov burn and doesn't give a shiat about consequences.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:48 AM

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

Within a year you'll hear conservatives Bob Woodward 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.


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 12:48:32 AM
I'm largely concerned about the cliff because it's going to SERIOUSLY eff up NSF grants. It's only a small cut, but *Because* of the way the NSF structures its grant, my advisor basically explained it's going to *halve* the available grant money. =/.

At least there's plenty of TA positions. As long as he gets enough money to keep research going, I'll be alright....
 
2012-12-21 12:49:58 AM

LouisXIII: sonnyboy11: Dusk-You-n-Me: sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?

We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.

So in short, this is all a buncha nonsense. Good. Let's go over the damn cliff already! Whatever it takes to get the wealthy back to paying their fair share.

Well, the House will either eat shiat or own the recession. Not a great prognosis.


Let's party like it's 1937!
 
2012-12-21 12:51:02 AM

This Face Left Blank: The Teabaggers are the ones who are the ball-lickers. The Democrats are gonna maintain our social safety net while they watch and cry like little whiny biatches. Once we get to Washington and find those Tea Party farks who is holding up progress... we're gonna make them eat our bills, then shiat out our bills, and then eat their shiat that's made up of our bills that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you Senate GOP motherfarks are next.

Love,

Jay and Silent Bob.


7.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com
 
2012-12-21 12:51:14 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!


It's expensive being world police.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:55 AM
test
 
2012-12-21 12:53:05 AM
Wow, the TP'ers and the rest of the Republicans must be incredibly stupid.
Now Obama, the Dems, and everyone else in the country knows that they're incapable of making even the smallest overtures at compromise, even after Obama made some very reasonable offers to meet in the middle. Either the Democrats will just find a few moderate Republicans (if such a thing exists) and barter for votes to get their plan passed ASAP and in the process probably get more of what they want than with Obama's last offer, or they will go over the cliff. At that point everyone will know that the Republicans are completely responsible for it, and the Dems will be able to negotiate from the standpoint of lowering taxes. Just watch how popular Republicans become if they try and stall tax cuts on everyone in the name of arguing for tax cuts on $250k+ earners.
 
KIA
2012-12-21 12:58:13 AM
Options:

A) It's not a cliff, it's a speed-bump. Going over it isn't going to cause lasting damage, so just do it.

B) It's a cliff, but we just can't see a way to cut spending nor raise taxes so kick the can out about 6 months and let someone else worry about it.

C) Eh, let's keep spending until we go bankrupt and don't have any control over what gets cut, we have to cut it all, so full steam ahead.

D) Take a handful of Farkitol, wake up in February and look for your shadow.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:12 AM

Smackledorfer: sonnyboy11: Resin33: 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.

So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.

It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.

You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.

And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".

Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compr ...


Would you be able to better define the term "cuts" as it is used in your statement here and give some specifics? The last part of your statement doesn't really explain it. And why they are inefficient? It sounds a compelling argument. And if this comes off as lazy, I can certainly go find more details on my own. But it seems like you may have info immediately at hand.
 
2012-12-21 01:02:40 AM

Arcturus72: Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?

Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...

We're completely farked, either way...


Welllll...Obama can. He has the right to call the Congress into a special session. It doesn't happen often, and it seems the last time it was done was in 1948 by Harry S. Truman. I imagine it isn't done is because it would likely piss off a lot of congress critters, at a time where every drop of political capital needs to be nurtured and spent wisely.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:07 AM

NukeEuropeNow: enry:
For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.

You know who else got shiat done?


Clinton?

/What'd I win
 
2012-12-21 01:05:49 AM
I think I'm actually okay with the fiscal cliff and taxes going up now. I sort of see it like the movies where the hero takes the villain over the edge of the building with him. If I go down, you're going down...and I don't really have that far to go, so....enjoy!
 
2012-12-21 01:06:41 AM

Crafty Bernardo: 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.


Good. Maybe he can tack on a check for $300 per person for stimulus. Just for the lulz.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:49 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rules

Wait, what's in the pipeline with regards to these?


Elimination of hand-wave filibusters. Also, simple majority to begin debate, not a super majority. Basically the R's will have to stand up there and talk. They'll have to pick their battles a little more carefully, because once you sit down (or fall down) you don't get to talk again, and once everyone has had their say... simple majority to pass, no cloture vote required.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:24 AM

Zulu_as_Kono: Let's not forget that this is only a week or so after Mitch McConnell maneuvered himself into threatening to filibuster his own bill.


He didn't just threaten it. According to current rules (no talking filibuster) McConnell DID filibuster his own bill. It even woke McCaskill up
link
 
2012-12-21 01:11:09 AM

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


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
 
2012-12-21 01:11:36 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the teabaggers WANT a total collapse of government.

They seriously want it.  I'm not joking.

Many of them have been stockpiling guns and supplies and foodstuffs (just look at the things that are for sale on right wingnut websites) since the Clinton administration.  And, I think it would give them a perverse sort of thrill to be proved right...even if they are the ones almost wholly responsible for the collapse.

The major question I have is whether the Republican party will do what's right and tell its large contingent of lunatics to get lost (thereby relegating the party to minority status for a generation) or whether they'll say, "fark it" and take us down with them.
 
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 »






Report