Boehner lashes out at conservative groups on budget deal

If Republicans were smart, they'd just sit back and let Obamacare suck. Which it does and will continue to do so. With no help needed from them and probably nothing the Dems can do....it's going to be a purely reactionary process, IMO. See where the holes are, then try to patch them as thousands or millions make their displeasure known. Or even worse, continue to tell people to just 'try it and see, it's just growing pains.' In other words, just do it. That's not going to sit well either.

I think the republicans are just lazy. They gave up their major bargaining chip so that they won't have to bargain. We're running out of reformists.

Perotista said:

Apparently not, sometimes it takes experience along with the school of hard knocks. I remember back in 1964 campaigning and voting for Barry Goldwater. There were quite a lot of people who told me he couldn't win, that the Republicans needed to nominate someone who could win. But I wouldn't listen, none of us Goldwater supporters would listen. We celebrated big time when he won the California Primary and then the nomination. We were totally unprepared for the election results that November.

I learned, so too should the tea party have learned from their Aiken, Mourdock, Angle, O'Donnell nominations that cost senate seats. Apparently not.

Click to expand...

:agree: We will know soon enough, though. :shrug:

eohrnberger said:

On this I agree with you.

While not the greatest deal, it's a deal none the less, and should be taken, rather than another fiscal meltdown and, yet another, government shutdown of non-essential personal - (although, I have to ask, if they aren't essential, what are they doing there to being with? Why is the tax payer stuck paying more for government fat?)

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you think is essential. For all the lip service to "paring government down to essentials" there was an awful lot of outrage over no tours at the White House and the grounding of the Blue Angels. My own personal thought is that trick flying at air shows isn't "essential," though I see why WH tours are nice (but "essential" may be going too far).

polgara said:

:agree: We will know soon enough, though. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Yep, it will make for a very interesting election season to be sure. So keep tuned to my blogs and predictions. I already made some changes for the 1 January update number 5 to a senate seat and the house. Yes indeed, it will be a very interesting election.

Perotista said:

Yep, it will make for a very interesting election season to be sure. So keep tuned to my blogs and predictions. I already made some changes for the 1 January update number 5 to a senate seat and the house. Yes indeed, it will be a very interesting election.

Click to expand...

I read your blogs with an almost religious fervor, but you know that! :lol:

rocket88 said:

I guess it depends on what you think is essential. For all the lip service to "paring government down to essentials" there was an awful lot of outrage over no tours at the White House and the grounding of the Blue Angels. My own personal thought is that trick flying at air shows isn't "essential," though I see why WH tours are nice (but "essential" may be going too far).

Click to expand...

Agreed, tours and Angles are clearly non-essential (but I'm glad to have the Angles this summer at Traverse City). But these expenditures are more to the minor end of the scale when it comes to wasteful government spending, and we all know it.

The entire shutdown was raft with examples of administration discretion, or rather the administration's grossly poor judgement. When additional funds need to be expended for closing unattended (setting up barricades) open air venues such as road side scenic turn outs or the WW II veterans memorial, or someone on duty turning people away, when normally an unattended venue, and especially so when select few are barred yet liberal / progressive groups are allowed to demonstrate on the Mall, it's all rather stinky, and the administration has that stink on them.

Of course the complicit lame stream media was far more interesting in trumpeting the democrat / administration / Obama talking points rather than to hold the administration accountable for all this chicanery. But there ya go.

This is a recurring pattern from this president and this administration, as when the sequester cuts were first instituted, they tried to make good on their rhetoric that the sky was going to fall but needlessly increasing the pain level on the electorate wherever and whenever they could. This has been documented. Nice to know that this president and this administration feel free to use the electorate as pawns in their political games.

rocket88 said:

I guess it depends on what you think is essential. For all the lip service to "paring government down to essentials" there was an awful lot of outrage over no tours at the White House and the grounding of the Blue Angels. My own personal thought is that trick flying at air shows isn't "essential," though I see why WH tours are nice (but "essential" may be going too far).

Click to expand...

Links to the "awful lot of outrage" regarding White House tours and the Blue Angel's being grounded?

I remember an awful lot of outrage over public monuments that aren't routinely staffed and are open air locations being barred from the publics presence...I cna't say I remember an "awful lot" of complaints about hte blue angels. But since you've made the claim, I'm sure you can provide evidence to back it up.

Getting two years of extra sequester cuts on some areas in 2022 in exchange for losing sequester cuts on many areas in 2014 is not a good deal. Sorry Don, I don't buy that spin. If you buy it, give me a $100....I promise you than 10 years from now someone will pay you back $110.

J. Wellington Whimpy is the mascot for these kind of deals



If you want a "compromise" bill, then you work for one that decreases the Sequestration hit mildly for the next year and go from there. You don't remove nearly 2/3rds of the immediete sequestration savings in exchange for extra savings 10 years from now....IE, savings that will likely never see the light of day.

I was not in favor of the last shutdown and thought it was politically ridiculous and fiscally ridiculous based on what they were doing and the legitimate chances of their gamble paying off.

HOWEVER...

I don't see that scenario playing out exactly the same way if we go into the deadline saying "We'll offer a clean 1 year CR at sequestration levels" and the Democrats are the ones refusing. After pushing a narritive for weeks about "clean" CR's, if the Republicans offer up such a thing and the Democrats refuse because they don't like the fact the last "budget" that it would be based off of isn't fat enough for them then it's FAR easier to point the blame in their direction. This is not the same thing as the Republicans refusing to pass a budget unless it defunds Obamacare....it'd be the Republicans saying "Hey, we'll continue doing the EXACT SAME THING we've been doing for the past year" and Democrats going "No, we want it larger".

Sequestration was supposed to be in place as a means of getting real, tangiable, lasting fiscal reform. A plan for savings largely backloaded 10 years out is none of those things.

Zyphlin said:

Links to the "awful lot of outrage" regarding White House tours and the Blue Angel's being grounded?

I remember an awful lot of outrage over public monuments that aren't routinely staffed and are open air locations being barred from the publics presence...I cna't say I remember an "awful lot" of complaints about hte blue angels. But since you've made the claim, I'm sure you can provide evidence to back it up.

Click to expand...

It's all here on DP. Apacherat was having a fit. Not to mention the Fox stories about that poor kid who couldn't go to the White House because of the sequester.

Did I hurt your feelings, or do you just feel like being an ass today?

rocket88 said:

It's all here on DP. Apacherat was having a fit. Not to mention the Fox stories about that poor kid who couldn't go to the White House because of the sequester.

Click to expand...

1) So a single poster on DP equates to an "awfult lot" of complaints? This is the standard you use?

2) You made a claim, still anxiously awaiting for you to post up a few links.

Did I hurt your feelings, or do you just feel like being an ass today?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that asking you to verify your claims is "being an ass".

polgara said:

Pero, I don't agree with the TP on trying to "primary" out those that voted for the shutdown! Wrong thinking, IMO, when the big picture is considered! Don't they see this? :doh:

Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no "big picture" when the current Republican leadership only pays lip service to fiscal responsibility. What is the point of winning elections if you are just filling the positions with more Republicans who wilt under pressure or spend like drunken sailors? The Republicans won the hell out of the 2004 election and all we got was Medicare Pt D. Who needs two Democratic Parties?

beefheart said:

Someone in the party has to be a grownup and quell the tea party rabble.

They are killing the party, time to send this fringe folk home.

Click to expand...

Let them kill the party. At this point, since it is a disgrace to the real conservative movement, it deserves to die.

Zyphlin said:

1) So a single poster on DP equates to an "awfult lot" of complaints? This is the standard you use?

2) You made a claim, still anxiously awaiting for you to post up a few links.



I'm sorry you feel that asking you to verify your claims is "being an ass".

Click to expand...

Due To The Sequester Money Molester Obama, Navy Officially Cancels Blue Angels? 2013 Season | Opinion - Conservative

King Obama Issues More Sequester Punishment: Justin Timberlake Concerts For Me… But No Blue Angels For Thee | The Gateway Pundit

rocket88 said:

Due To The Sequester Money Molester Obama, Navy Officially Cancels Blue Angels? 2013 Season | Opinion - Conservative

King Obama Issues More Sequester Punishment: Justin Timberlake Concerts For Me… But No Blue Angels For Thee | The Gateway Pundit

Click to expand...

Well, thank you for the links. I appreciate you backing it up. It also helps. That actuallys explain why I didn't remember it happening; because you responded to someone talking about the government shut down, and used terminology relevant to the shutdown in terms of "essential" and "non-essential", and then referenced something from 6 months BEFORE the shutdown that had zero to do with the shutdown or the status of something as "essential or not".

Perotista said:

Apparently not, sometimes it takes experience along with the school of hard knocks. I remember back in 1964 campaigning and voting for Barry Goldwater. There were quite a lot of people who told me he couldn't win, that the Republicans needed to nominate someone who could win. But I wouldn't listen, none of us Goldwater supporters would listen. We celebrated big time when he won the California Primary and then the nomination. We were totally unprepared for the election results that November.

I learned, so too should the tea party have learned from their Aiken, Mourdock, Angle, O'Donnell nominations that cost senate seats. Apparently not.

Click to expand...

In any attempt to effect change there will be some degree of failure. However, to succeed means reviewing those failures and figuring out how to overcome them. You will never succeed if you choose, instead, to cease your pursuit simply to avoid failure.

polgara said:

I read your blogs with an almost religious fervor, but you know that! :lol:

Click to expand...

Roger that. It is nice to know the time I put into the research is not for nothing. Things keep changing, slowly, but they do.,

Lutherf said:

In any attempt to effect change there will be some degree of failure. However, to succeed means reviewing those failures and figuring out how to overcome them. You will never succeed if you choose, instead, to cease your pursuit simply to avoid failure.

Click to expand...

Exactly, But as Kenny Rogers once sang, "You got to know when to hold them and you got to know when to fold them." One has to know how to pick and choose one's battles. Now is not the time for another government shutdown. Sometimes one just has to go with the flow while keeping his eyes on the big prize. A couple of steps back can be a good thing if it leads to a great leap forward.

iliveonramen said:

Because it makes life pretty easy for them when they have a responsible guy they can criticize for making government work while they can demagogue to win their tea party base. If he was REALLY as unpopular on the right as you are led to believe he'd be gone. There's only one thing the Reps in Congress fear more than their Tea Party base...that Tea Party actions will cause massive damage to the country and the Republican brand

Click to expand...

Give the stupid and inaccurate TP meme a rest. Only 18 house members are TP members. You've been reading from an old script, try something new.

clownboy said:

Give the stupid and inaccurate TP meme a rest. Only 18 house members are TP members. You've been reading from an old script, try something new.

Click to expand...

Yes...sooo inaccurate...I mean we just had a government shutdown because of hardliners on the right.

iliveonramen said:

Yes...sooo inaccurate...I mean we just had a government shutdown because of hardliners on the right.

Click to expand...

Of whom, again, only 18 were TP reps. Go ahead, we'll wait, google how many republican seats are in the House, you'll see how silly the meme is from the get go.

clownboy said:

Of whom, again, only 18 were TP reps. Go ahead, we'll wait, google how many republican seats are in the House, you'll see how silly the meme is from the get go.

Click to expand...

So Tea Party influence stops beyond the 18 House members that caucus with the Tea Party? Sorry...that's numerically impossible for 18 House members to force a government shutdown. Boehner stated there were not enough votes for a "clean" spending bill to end the shutdown. Using the Hastertt rule that means that at least 117 House members supported the TP stance

Perotista said:

Exactly, But as Kenny Rogers once sang, "You got to know when to hold them and you got to know when to fold them." One has to know how to pick and choose one's battles. Now is not the time for another government shutdown. Sometimes one just has to go with the flow while keeping his eyes on the big prize. A couple of steps back can be a good thing if it leads to a great leap forward.

Click to expand...

I agree with old Kenny's addage there. However, I disagree that this is a "fold them" situation.

Last time...when you're pushing for the removal of Obamacare, then the defunding of it, then the delaying of it when you KNEW there was VERY little chance that it'd succeed even with a shutdown and that by being the people demanding a change from the status quo you'd be viewed as more at fault...THAT's a time to fold.

This time, if the focus is pushing for a "clean" CR that simply keeps spending at the exact same levels across the board as it has been for this year, then I don't agree that such would be a time to fold because that is a much better hand than was dealt back in October. In that instance, it would be the DEMOCRATS being the ones demanding a change from the status quo to come on board and thus would likely bear the greater brunt of a shut down in that instance.

Zyphlin said:

I agree with old Kenny's addage there. However, I disagree that this is a "fold them" situation.

Last time...when you're pushing for the removal of Obamacare, then the defunding of it, then the delaying of it when you KNEW there was VERY little chance that it'd succeed even with a shutdown and that by being the people demanding a change from the status quo you'd be viewed as more at fault...THAT's a time to fold.

This time, if the focus is pushing for a "clean" CR that simply keeps spending at the exact same levels across the board as it has been for this year, then I don't agree that such would be a time to fold because that is a much better hand than was dealt back in October. In that instance, it would be the DEMOCRATS being the ones demanding a change from the status quo to come on board and thus would likely bear the greater brunt of a shut down in that instance.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that if the first shutdown hadn't happened. I said back then if the shutdown had been over spending I would have been onboard, but not over defunding Obamacare. I do not think the American people are ready for another shutdown this close to the last one, what ever the reason. I do not think it matters as to who is at fault or what it is all about, the Republicans would be tarred as the culprits who caused it. All you would hear from the public is, "Oh no, not again."

iliveonramen said:

So Tea Party influence stops beyond the 18 House members that caucus with the Tea Party? Sorry...that's numerically impossible for 18 House members to force a government shutdown. Boehner stated there were not enough votes for a "clean" spending bill to end the shutdown. Using the Hastertt rule that means that at least 117 House members supported the TP stance

Click to expand...

Heh, you have it with "at least 117 House members supported the TP stance". Doesn't mean they are controlled by the TP nor does it mean they are with the TP reps on everything. But you seem to be unaware of what you're saying - that it wasn't the TP that "forced a government shutdown". They are a exceedingly small part of the house and are not leadership.