Oh my: GOP pulls out of Biden’s debt-ceiling talks

posted at 1:50 pm on June 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Cantor was the sole Republican participant from the House and he quit this morning. Kyl, the only GOP senator involved, followed a little later.

Note to self: Buy gold.

Mr. Cantor, in an interview after a negotiating session he described as bitterly contentious, said he would not be attending Thursday’s scheduled meeting of the bipartisan deficit-reduction leadership group because he believed it was time for the negotiations to move to a higher level.

“We’ve reached the point where the dynamic needs to change,” Mr. Cantor said. “It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We’ve reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance.”

Still, Mr. Cantor remained optimistic about the prospects for a deal. He said the Biden group had already made significant progress and had tentatively identified more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. But he said there could be no agreement on an overall package without breaking the impasse between Republicans’ refusal to accept any tax increase, and Democrats insistence that some tax increases be part of the deal

Mr. Cantor’s move marks a major turning point in the negotiations, which are trying to craft a major deficit-reduction initiative to clear the way for a needed increase in the federal debt limit before Aug. 2. Most participants had expected the negotiations would be passed off to Mr. Obama and higher level congressional leader, but Mr. Cantor’s move may force the shift sooner than many expected.

Who’s the real target of this move, Obama or Boehner? The Democratic spin is that Cantor and Kyl don’t want to commit political suicide with the base by placing themselves on the hook for approving tax hikes, so they’re punting the negotiations to the Speaker (and McConnell) under the pretense of “changing the dynamic” or whatever. Maybe that’s true of Cantor, but Kyl’s retiring so he has nothing to lose. And if it is true of Cantor, then Boehner’s a fool for appointing him to the Biden panel and not anticipating that he’d get squeamish and try to pass the buck once tax hikes ended up on the table. The real strategy here, I take it, is simply to force President Above-The-Fray into the mix, as he’ll be more reluctant than congressional Democrats to take a hard line on broad tax hikes knowing that it’ll make him the face of that position with the election looming. And even if he does, inevitably, endorse limited tax hikes — “tax the rich” always polls well, although plenty of wealthy donors will bristle — it’ll still help the GOP to have O’s fingerprints on a plan that would cut both discretionary and mandatory spending before the Dems’ Mediscare campaign gearing up.

Is there a downside, though, in going so far as to break off talks? Pew’s new poll shows independents almost evenly divided on which side to blame if there’s no debt deal. The fact that it’s the GOP that’s walking away and the GOP that’s refusing to make a key concession in the name of compromise — the Democrats, remember, have already tentatively agreed to something like $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years — makes things nice and easy for The One and liberal spin doctors if there’s no deal and the U.S. ends up defaulting. I doubt it’ll come to that (in fact, McConnell’s already floated the idea of a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to keep talks going if they can’t meet the August 2 deadline), but O can surely do damage on the stump as a personally popular politician hammering the idea that we’d have a grand-ish bargain if only those darned wingnuts would agree to raise taxes on rich people. Exit question via Red State: Isn’t $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years really not remotely equal to the task of making a dent in our debt problem? The debt ceiling was supposed to be the GOP’s big card in forcing major concessions on spending. What happened?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

… and gold may be $1500/ounce, but that doesn’t mean it’s topping out, especially with the EU and dollar so very, very weak. Not as attractive as it was several hundred dollars per ounce ago, but there are people who didn’t buy gold at $1,000/ounce because it was already ‘up’ so much – I suspect they wish they had bought then.

At some point in the future, folks maybe look back and be very glad they bought some at $1500/ounce.

Haven’t quite decided myself yet.

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Agree, but at some point soon I fear it may be meaningless to quote the price of Gold in US dollars.

slickwillie2001 on June 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM

The GOP sucks.

Bugler on June 23, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Indeed

The left are impertinent weasels.

The right are stoneless weasels.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM

And 100′s of billions in cuts can be found by eliminating useless agencies like The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Education, The Department of Energy and The Department of Commerce.

The cuts and restructuring opportunities exist if only we pull our heads out of the sand.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Thank you. I was going to mention these agencies.

Mirimichi on June 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM

“It is time for negotiations to move to a higher level” Obama and Boehner, a higher level?

Ha! Thanks for the belly-busting laugh.

Forget the gold – you can’t eat it. They’ll require that you turn it in, or face jail and lose all your property anyway. These are not nice folks-these anti-God, anti freedom, anti-life, pro-civilian army, “any means to an end” creatures.

Don L on June 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM

They never take into account the fact that these tax increases will shrink the economy, thus reducing tax revenues.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM

While possible, you cannot treat this as a certainty.

ernesto on June 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Are you trying to tell us that there is no certainty when addressing the concept of punishment and reward?

Are you trying to tell us that robbing people of their hard earned property doesn’t have an adverse effect on their behavior?

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 3:04 PM

My Congressman tried to add amendments cutting various programs. All were defeated.

marinetbryant on June 23, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Forget the gold – you can’t eat it. They’ll require that you turn it in, or face jail and lose all your property anyway. These are not nice folks-these anti-God, anti freedom, anti-life, pro-civilian army, “any means to an end” creatures.

Don L on June 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Lead is my metal of choice.

flyfisher on June 23, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Forget the gold – you can’t eat it. They’ll require that you turn it in, or face jail and lose all your property anyway. These are not nice folks-these anti-God, anti freedom, anti-life, pro-civilian army, “any means to an end” creatures.

Don L on June 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Another option would be to stock up on non-perishable food and get yourself some more ‘Hardware’.

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Also Ernesto-

The CBO’s report assumes budget to GDP peaked already at 23%. It’s on pace to pass 25% this year, even before the past month of growth downgrades.

Even worse- for the Bush tax cuts/AMT to pay for the increases in government healthcare, the rest of the federal budget has to be CUT DOWN TO 20% of GDP in 5 years. That’s $750 BILLION a year at current GDP- almost exactly the size Obama increased spending with the stimulus, as he made the spending levels of TARP and the stimulus the new baseline. Recall those were intended to be one time spending infusions. Not any more.

Not a chance in hell they’ll cut $750 billion a year of spending with Obama in office, sport. Recall the Democrat’s initial offer for cuts was ZERO.

Chuck Schick on June 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM

And 100′s of billions in cuts can be found by eliminating useless agencies like The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Education, The Department of Energy and The Department of Commerce.

The cuts and restructuring opportunities exist if only we pull our heads out of the sand.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Wethal on June 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Wethal on June 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM

It wasn’t a complete list.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Exit question via Red State: Isn’t $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years really not remotely equal to the task of making a dent in our debt problem? The debt ceiling was supposed to be the GOP’s big card in forcing major concessions on spending. What happened?

Wow. 2 Trillion. That’s slightly more debt than we incurred this year alone. But we’re going to undo this in 10 years time. Also, I’d be very surprised if they were actual cuts instead of accounting tricks and voodoo.

Someone let me know when the Democrats get serious about dealing with our financial problems.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Tax the rich

Wade on June 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM

The debt ceiling was supposed to be the GOP’s big card in forcing major concessions on spending. What happened?

The GOP had a peek at the FBI files pulled up by the Clintons back in their day and decided to play ball with the progressives?

AH_C on June 23, 2011 at 3:31 PM

The poll also found Ryan is now the nation’s third most disliked Republican, with net unfavorable ratings that trail only former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. But more than half surveyed said they have no opinion of the Wisconsin Republican.

Talk about an idiotic world and people…

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I think the best we can hope for at this point in time is no new spending and no new taxes. Any cuts are going to be minimal before the next congress and president are sworn in.NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM

How depressing it is that folks still think that “the next election will fix everything”. Bet you thought the 2010 election with it’s landmark repudiation of Obama and leftists was going to make a difference, too – eh?

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM

$2 trillion in reductions needs to occur EVERY SIX MONTHS or so just to address the new bullsqueeze Obama & Co are adding now – much less address the rest of the problem.

$2 trillion every 10 years? Laughably unserious.

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM

It did make a difference. No new spending so far. Republicans control the House and that’s it. What exactly do you expect to get done?

I personally was never confident that there would be any major spending cuts with the Dems still controlling the Senate. Granted, $100 billion was an awful starting point. But honestly the best we can hope for until the next election is gridlock.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Democrats don’t negotiate, they demand that you toe their line and keep repeating their demand. Demean, denigrate and demonize their opponents until they finally get their way and deny all their opponents want – this is what they think a negotiation is – just like their union thug buddies.

Why the GOP would sit down with them in the first place is beyond comprehension.

Continuing to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

PJ Emeritus on June 23, 2011 at 3:44 PM

$2 trillion over ten years? Don’t we have a $1.3 trillion deficit just this year alone?

csdeven on June 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Since they are hell bent on taxing the rich to satisfy the so called have nots that vote for them are they giving waivers to the rich big donors?

docflash on June 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

It did make a difference. No new spending so far. Republicans control the House and that’s it. What exactly do you expect to get done?

I personally was never confident that there would be any major spending cuts with the Dems still controlling the Senate. Granted, $100 billion was an awful starting point. But honestly the best we can hope for until the next election is gridlock.

NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Be sure to tell that ‘no new spending’ part to the feds with their approaching $2trillion deficit this year, the 3 million new folks we’re finding out are going to get free medical care, and… who was it that Obama just said in the last week or so we’d be sending billions of dollars in new foreign aid to?

“No new spending so far…” Dude, good grief, really? Or are you using the same mindset that argues that Obama “saved or created bajillions of new jobs” and suggesting that despite the ever-increasing annual deficits, it would’ve been worse, so viola – the last election kept us from having a $3trillion deficit in 2011 – yay!

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Talk about an idiotic world and people…

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Yeah, I wonder how popular Democrats and politicians in general will be when we have a financial collapse due to all the debt?

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM

$2 trillion over ten years? Don’t we have a $1.3 trillion deficit just this year alone?

csdeven on June 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

$2 trillion in reductions needs to occur EVERY SIX MONTHS or so just to address the new bullsqueeze Obama & Co are adding now – much less address the rest of the problem.

$2 trillion every 10 years? Laughably unserious.

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Come on guys, take your stupid math somewhere else.

I’m sure crr6 will show up any moment to parrot NYT/DNC talking points that our national financial solvency is just a ‘tax the rich’ tax hike and cut military spending budget away!

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, I wonder how popular Democrats and politicians in general will be when we have a financial collapse due to all the debt?

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM

No less popular than today with many of their supporters, unfortunately.

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM

We are the highest taxed nation in the world. It’s time to tell the dim bulb dems to shove it.

Thanks to them the economy is destroyed and all they do is demand more spending and more taxes.

In other words, they are completely INSANE.

dogsoldier on June 23, 2011 at 4:07 PM

This bickering over a few bucks is a joke. People have to understand that you’ll always have the poor, the student and the retiree. For every dollar you borrow today to pay out in entitlements you are spending two dollars (principal + interest) of tomorrow’s tax revenue that will be diverted from entitlements.

We’re used to borrowing yesterday, today AND tomorrow, rolling the debt snowball, which will roll back over us with a vengeance in a few short years and we won’t be able to borrow anything, only monetize our debt and destroy the buck. People need to feel the pain of every dollar spent WHEN it is spent; no more kicking the can through debt.

The argument I like most is the most absurd. Somebody needs to propose a ballanced budget, ballance this way: First, for better or worse, repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Take that bit of contention off the table. That’s about $200 Billion more in revenue annually, which leaves about $1.4 trillion in deficit, whose burden to close would be divided equally between further tax increases and huge spending cuts ($700 Billion more in tax increases, $700 Billion in spending cuts). Sound fair, right?

Those who are against the tax increases would need to make the case for spending cuts in excess of the $700 billion already proposed (which, outside of debt service, is a 25% accross-the-board cut).

Those who are against the spending cuts would have to make the case for tax increases above the $900 Billion already proposed, increases which would be deeply affecting the middle class and working poor well past the point of pain.

In short, each side arguing passionately for more tax cuts or for more spending cuts would come across as the most extreme of extremists, making the “mere” $700 Billion in spending cuts and $900 Billion in tax increases appear middle of the road.

shuzilla on June 23, 2011 at 4:07 PM

No less popular than today with many of their supporters, unfortunately.

Midas on June 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM

That’s what I’m afraid of. This could throw us into full-on socialism.

But fortunately I think a majority of people even now know that we are on the brink and that something must be done.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Personally, I fully expect Boehner and the rest of the sackless wonders to cave and raise the limit with no spending cuts at all. The GOP has become a party of talking tough to put on a show, then folding as soon as someone calls them a name. As long as they don’t lose their job, they give exactly 2 squirts about the rest of us.

search4truth on June 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM

They never take into account the fact that these tax increases will shrink the economy, thus reducing tax revenues.
NotCoach on June 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM

While possible, you cannot treat this as a certainty.

ernesto on June 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Are you trying to tell us that there is no certainty when addressing the concept of punishment and reward?

Are you trying to tell us that robbing people of their hard earned property doesn’t have an adverse effect on their behavior?

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The point is that despite repeated attempts, there’s never been any evidence that increasing tax rates by a few percentage points causes people to work any less harder.

When the US has the largest military in this history of the world, and spends 5 to 6 times more than even China, while keeping nearly 1mil troops engaged in active combat, it’s hard to see how taxes are “robbing” from you unless you’re staunchly opposed to the current US military budget.

But cutting the military budget isn’t enough- domestic spending needs to face the axe also.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Those who are against the spending cuts would have to make the case for tax increases above the $900 Billion already proposed, increases which would be deeply affecting the middle class and working poor well past the point of pain.

In short, each side arguing passionately for more tax cuts or for more spending cuts would come across as the most extreme of extremists, making the “mere” $700 Billion in spending cuts and $900 Billion in tax increases appear middle of the road.

shuzilla on June 23, 2011 at 4:07 PM

You have to understand that some people think that they represent a great moral authority and will always refuse the voice of reason and compromise. Those people came close to winning in Greece, and the same type of person just might win in the US.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Forget gold. Unless you’re simply trying to make your balance sheet better.

If you live in an urban area, move.

If you’re in the suburbs, buy yourself a good gardening book and the tools necessary to grow some food.

Then get a good basic carpentry book and tools.

You should already have at least one gun, if it’s suitable for hunting. . . learn to hunt this upcoming season. If it’s not suitable, buy one that is.

Get a basic spincast reel and rod and a set of tackle suitable for your area and start learning to fish.

Good luck everyone.

Jason Coleman on June 23, 2011 at 4:23 PM

“We’ve reached the point where the dynamic needs to change,” Mr. Cantor said. “It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We’ve reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance.”

.
“Where In The World Has President Obama Been?”

“It’s worth asking: Where in the world has President Obama been for the last month? Where is he? What does he propose? What is he willing to do to reduce the debt? And to avoid this crisis, that’s building on his watch?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said today.

mrt721 on June 23, 2011 at 4:30 PM

The point is that despite repeated attempts, there’s never been any evidence that increasing tax rates by a few percentage points causes people to work any less harder.

When the US has the largest military in this history of the world, and spends 5 to 6 times more than even China, while keeping nearly 1mil troops engaged in active combat, it’s hard to see how taxes are “robbing” from you unless you’re staunchly opposed to the current US military budget.

But cutting the military budget isn’t enough- domestic spending needs to face the axe also.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Raising tax rates on the rich – the people who invest in and run businesses and employ everyone – certainly do change their behavior when their taxes go up. You can’t run a business if it’s not profitable. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the ‘free’ world and if you don’t think this creates serious drag on our economy then you are smoking something.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:30 PM

You have to understand that some people think that they represent a great moral authority and will always refuse the voice of reason and compromise. Those people came close to winning in Greece, and the same type of person just might win in the US.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM

What’s the ‘reasonable compromise’ when we have 14 Trillion in debt, have 140 Trillion in liabilities and we are pushing head-long into INCREASING our rate of debt accumulation?

The Democrats are seeking a ‘compromise’ which will still bankrupt us. Only a fool would call this reasonable.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM

The Democrats are seeking a ‘compromise’ which will still bankrupt us. Only a fool would call this reasonable.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM

No single party is to blame for our problems. It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

Everyone needs to take responsibility, and the only way an agreement will be reached is when both sides accept things that neither side wants. The balance of power is this country is shared by 2 parties.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Tax the rich – yeah that will work!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/31/bill_whittle_on_eating_the_rich.html

Even if you confiscated all the wealth being generated by our economy you couldn’t sustain our spending (pretending for a moment you could keep re-confiscating the wealth every year).

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

No single party is to blame for our problems. It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

Everyone needs to take responsibility, and the only way an agreement will be reached is when both sides accept things that neither side wants. The balance of power is this country is shared by 2 parties.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Both parties certainly bear responsibility but at the moment it’s the Democrats who are dragging their feet. I also have no doubt that there are Republicans who don’t want to do what is necessary to keep America solvent but at the moment Republican leaders appear to be making an effort.

Also for comparison, the debt accumulated last October nearly exceeded the debt accumulated the entire last year of the Bush presidency. The Democrats are the party of super massive government and the Republicans are the party of big-but-not-that-big-government. The Republicans also have a constituency and politicians who actually support what needs to be done. The same can’t really be said of the Democrats so to suggest that the Republicans need to give into Democrat demands to ‘meet in the middle’ is ridiculous. As I’ve already stated – the Democrat path (even the compromised one) still leads us to bankruptcy.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Republicans and a majority of Americans: We need to get our financial house in order so we won’t go bankrupt.

Democrats: We need to build lots of trains. Why do you want to kill grandma?

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Well, let’s do the math here – $2 trillion over 10 years = $200 billion a year in cuts. Against over $1 trillion a year deficits. Only about 1/5 of the cuts we need.

Note to self: sell gold. Buy food and seeds, solar battery chargers, water purifiers, small non-US silver coins, bulk salt.

(remember, the government confiscated gold once before)

ElRonaldo on June 23, 2011 at 4:51 PM

No single party is to blame for our problems. It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Does a single truth ever pass your lips?

Chuck Schick on June 23, 2011 at 4:53 PM

You’re not going to find anyone on here defending Bush’s spending habits.

blink on June 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM

As I remember it, the Democrats – including Obama – nearly had aneurysms when talking about the debt Bush was accumulating but now that Obama and Pelosi’s Congress has outstripped Bush debt by an order of magnitude they don’t seem to care so much.

It’s astounding that a return to Bush’s level of spending is such a radical change to where we are now that the Democrats would never go along with it.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:54 PM

It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

And if a Republican were to suggest Clintonian levels of spending they’d be called an extremist tea-bag nut case.

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 4:55 PM

The point is that despite repeated attempts, there’s never been any evidence that increasing tax rates by a few percentage points causes people to work any less harder.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:17 PM

That’s ON TOP of all the other taxes people have to pay.

So, bottom line, no matter how much you punish someone, it will not have an effect on his or her behavior?

How do you explain the economy as it is? ‘Bad vibes’ or something?

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM

How do you explain the economy as it is? ‘Bad vibes’ or something?

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM

It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Boooooosh!

gwelf on June 23, 2011 at 5:02 PM

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:17 PM

That’s ON TOP of all the other taxes people have to pay.

So, bottom line, no matter how much you punish someone, it will not have an effect on his or her behavior?

How do you explain the economy as it is? ‘Bad vibes’ or something?

Any response?

Chip on June 23, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Biden. Can you imagine sitting across a table from that guy and trying to have a serious conversation? You get better results talking to Governor LePetomane.

curved space on June 23, 2011 at 5:59 PM

No single party is to blame for our problems. It was Clinton who reduced the deficit to nearly zero before Bush decided to reverse our course AND triple the national debt.

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM

You conveniently forget that Clinton left Bush an internet bubble that was about to burst.

He also left Bush his corrupt colleagues in Fannie Mae. Their actions, not Bush’s, are why we’re in the housing mess we’re in now.

But most importantly, Clinton left Bush the worst attacks on US soil in the country’s history. The fact that later his own National Security Advisor was caught stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives proves where the blame lays.

You can yell “It’s all Bush’s fault” all you want. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to the facts.

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I love when Redstate is cited, that is my second favorite blog behind hot air

Pawlenty, the new Lunesta on June 23, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Isn’t $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years really not remotely equal to the task of making a dent in our debt problem? The debt ceiling was supposed to be the GOP’s big card in forcing major concessions on spending. What happened?

Without majorities in the Senate and a Republican in the White House, we don’t have the power we need? We can only force the Dems to do as much as they’re willing to do so they can pretend to be deficit hawks? It could be foolish to use the debt ceiling because Obama probably doesn’t give a flip if our economy (and the world economy) totally tanks and sends us into the worst depression evah – because he can blame it on Republicans, retake the House, and keep the White House and Senate (not to mention opportunities to push through more “emergency” agenda items)? Because he knows he’s going to lose the White House in 2012 anyway unless he can blame the GOP, so this is an opportunity for him, not an obstacle? Because the elites/political class will always have jobs and benefits for themselves and their crony friends and relatives no matter what, so who cares if the rest of us and the world end up destitute?

And yes, I realize this sounds more than a wee bit conspiratorial, but I have seen nothing from him that indicates he cares about creating conditions for economic growth (and I put nothing past these corrupt, Authoritarian, Leftists). Their motto isn’t By Any Means Necessary for nothing.

Buy Danish on June 23, 2011 at 7:22 PM

To bad Hussien Sr. didn’t pull out.

wheelgun on June 23, 2011 at 7:58 PM

But most importantly, Clinton left Bush the worst attacks on US soil in the country’s history.

It never said it was all Bush’s fault. Read my post- I said that both parties were to blame.

Too bad Bush didn’t listen to the CIA and especially Richard Clark, who detected signs of an imminent attack against the West and attempted to warn Bush. His requests to make terrorism a higher priority were rejected. Sure, it wasn’t Bush’s fault at all!

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Too bad Bush didn’t listen to the CIA and especially Richard Clark, who detected signs of an imminent attack against the West and attempted to warn Bush. His requests to make terrorism a higher priority were rejected. Sure, it wasn’t Bush’s fault at all!

bayam on June 23, 2011 at 8:05 PM

I’d like to see you support this assertion with some facts.

JSGreg3 on June 24, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Remember when booosh haters looked relevant? I am sort of feeling sorry for them anymore.

Sort of…

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM

This is nuts. These people are not conservatives.

lexhamfox on June 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Excellent news. There should be no deal to raise the debt limit, because the debt limit should not be raised. Nor should taxes be raised. In case there’s any confusion, we should also refrain from slashing ourselves with bread knives, drinking bottles of acid, or buying bags of magic beans from passing peddlers.

GalosGann on June 24, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Great Job, Rep Cantor and (my wonderful senator) Kyl. Can you so called talking heads please blow these lying SOB’s out of the h2O this weekend. This economy is owned by, written by, and embraced by B.O. and ALL u democRATS.

mmcnamer1 on June 25, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2