House conservatives: No, we’re not going to oust Boehner

posted at 4:41 pm on October 16, 2013 by Allahpundit

They wanted to try to defund ObamaCare, even if it meant a shutdown, so he tried to defund ObamaCare even if it meant a shutdown. It was never going to work, everyone knew it, and Boehner went ahead with it anyway. If he had followed “don’t blink” any further, it might well have meant hitting the debt ceiling and sparking a crushing new economic downturn for which the GOP naturally would be blamed.

Now they’re going to turn around and fire him? Nope.

“I don’t think Speaker Boehner has anything to worry about right now,” said Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a conservative who refused to vote for Boehner in January.

Speaking at an event with fellow conservatives, Labrador said he was “really proud” of Boehner’s handling of the fiscal crisis and that, over the last 2 1/2 weeks, “he has been the kind of Speaker I’ve been looking for for the last 2 1/2 years.”…

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told The Hill, “Conservatives feel like he’s fought the good fight. … You can quote me on that.”…

“There is absolutely no talk of anything along those lines. No talk,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a former chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee who frequently opposes leadership proposals.

So whom do the tea partiers blame, if not Boehner? You guessed it: The RINOs.

“Actually I think the speaker stood up and said ‘this is what we’re going to do.’ I remember at conference on Thursday he said ‘there’s only one way out of this, and that’s to win.’ Well, that’s not the way it ended up,” says Representative Tim Huelskamp.

“But it’s pretty hard when he has a circle of 20 people that step up every day and say, ‘can we surrender today, Mr. Speaker? Can we just go away? Can we make it easy?’ I mean, whining and whining. I would say surrender caucus, but it’s a whiner caucus. And all they do is whine about the battle, as if they thought being elected to Washington was going to be an easy job,” he says.

Fun fact: Even though there were surely at least — at least — 30 centrist Republicans who knew the “defund” strategy was headed nowhere and wanted to avoid the needless pain of a shutdown, they stuck with Boehner and the tea partiers on floor votes throughout. Whether that was out of party loyalty, loyalty to Boehner himself, or abject fear of being primaried (although in that case, why would they dare criticize tea partiers vocally like Peter King and Devin Nunes did?), the fact remains that a real RINO revolt would have given House Democrats’ discharge petition a fighting chance. It never happened. If anything, grassroots centrist Republicans who never believed “defund” could win have a lot more to be angry about with the RINOs in Congress than grassroots conservatives do with Boehner or House tea partiers. For all their talk, King, Nunes, and the rest of the RINO 30 (or 40/50/100) never tried to build a serious counterweight to tea partiers, which is the only thing that would have given Boehner cover to pronounce this whole thing pointless before the eve of Debt Ceiling Day. They couldn’t do it, whether for reasons of fear or complacency. Which, actually, makes me sort of agree with what Huelskamp says about “whining.” If you’re going to grumble about tea partiers taking over the party and endangering the country but you refuse to vote against them for fear of losing your seat, maybe spare everyone the self-congratulatory blather about how high-minded you are.

Here’s Boehner’s statement this afternoon confirming that the House GOP won’t try to block the Reid/McConnell Senate bill. “We fought the good fight,” he told Bill Cunningham. “We just didn’t win.” The more rounds of phony brinksmanship we go through, the more I think Boehner is a perfect compromise choice between righties and centrists in the caucus insofar as he’s too far to the center to do anything really radical, like hit the debt limit, but he’s sufficiently captive to tea partiers to engage in a pantomime of radical action every once in a while. Then, when it inevitably fails, tea-party members of the caucus can blame the RINOs rather than Boehner for having thwarted them, which is good for their own conservative cred. And RINOs get to exhale and tell themselves with that not too much damage has been done by Boehner’s tactics — certainly not enough to jeopardize the House majority next year. It’s an odd, uncomfortable arrangement, but it works. If you define “works” loosely. The only compelling reason to oust him isn’t because he’s a RINO or because he panders to tea partiers, it’s because he’s … just not that good at negotiations:

If you walk into a car dealership and offer a deal that’s rejected without any counter being offered, you don’t keep unilaterally raising the price you’ll pay. Car salesman have a word to describe a person who does that: sucker. Don’t walk into a car dealership unless you’re prepared to walk out. And before you walk in, you had better know the walkaway price demanded by your spouse.

In short, Boehner’s constant negotiating foibles have eliminated his ability to be an effective negotiating partner with Obama and Reid. He lacks the trust of his caucus, he and his leadership team of Cantor and McCarthy are incapable of counting votes, and Obama and Reid don’t respect him as a negotiating partner.

That’s from Sean Davis, who calls on Boehner and his top deputies to resign and make way for a shrewder negotiating team — which would be fine, if not for the fact that that means a death struggle within the caucus over whether the next Speaker should be a bona fide tea partier or another establishment figure. Can a new odd, uncomfortable arrangement be reached, or would that mean a deeper schism? Exit quotation:


Related Posts:

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 3 4 5

The below link contains a GAO Report (Jun 2013) with list of the contractors on the CMS FFE Contract, starting on Page 35. Aquilent (Private Company) from Laurel, MD appears to be the Web Portal developer @ $5.2M

GAO Report: Status of CMS Efforts to Establish Federally Facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges. (PDF)

luckybogey on October 16, 2013 at 11:18 PM

We have been sold out fella’s check this out…..

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/16/Senate-Debt-Deal-Includes-Provision-Taking-Away-Congress-Power-To-Increase-Debt-Ceiling

Actually I would call it outright treason. Auto debt increases unless you have a super majority 2/3rds vote in the house. WTF

All you guys who have been supporting the old guard saying its only tactics we all have the same end goal. Well how you like those apples from YOUR boys?

C-Low on October 16, 2013 at 11:26 PM

Varmint scopes, even the cheap ones work well.

wolly4321 on October 16, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Forgot to credit Drudge report linked to Bretbart

C-Low on October 16, 2013 at 11:28 PM

Not just “Cave” – “Caves of Capri”, glows blue, you know.

famous amos on October 16, 2013 at 11:28 PM

You are without a doubt, one of the three stupidest humans to ever sully the face of the earth with your utterly worthless existence. Given your apparent lack of even two neurons to rub together and form a spark, I’m surprised you’re able to put letters together to form words, or even able to avoid shitting yourself.

Actually, you’re probably not able to avoid that, as shit seems to flow unimpeded from you at every turn.

Midas on October 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM

You’re quite a buffoon with your inflated sense of intelligence and constant reitertion of political talking points that you conflate with actual knowledge. Only time will tell whether backward idiots like you or Obama supporters including Larry Page and Bill Gates are right. But no one with a brain would bet on you.

bayam on October 16, 2013 at 11:30 PM

We need to Oust all of them! Booner (spelled that way on purpose) and all those with him need to Go! Imagine all those seats with real Conservatives? BOOM! Let Booner cry in his Daddy’s Urinal Cakes!

Tbone McGraw on October 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM

You are without a doubt, one of the three stupidest humans to ever sully the face of the earth with your utterly worthless existence. Given your apparent lack of even two neurons to rub together and form a spark, I’m surprised you’re able to put letters together to form words, or even able to avoid shitting yourself.

Actually, you’re probably not able to avoid that, as shit seems to flow unimpeded from you at every turn.

Midas on October 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM

You’re quite a buffoon with your inflated sense of intelligence and constant reitertion of political talking points that you conflate with actual knowledge. Only time will tell whether backward idiots like you or Obama supporters including Larry Page and Bill Gates are right. But no one with a brain would bet on you.

bayam on October 16, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Appeal to Authority for the (Charlie Sheen) win!

There Goes the Neighborhood on October 16, 2013 at 11:42 PM

bayam on October 16, 2013 at 11:30 PM


I learned this form another HA poster the other day. You really should look into it.

LegendHasIt on October 16, 2013 at 11:42 PM

ApacheWhoKnows:

Is this what you were writing about a while ago?

LegendHasIt on October 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM

It’s incredible that you’re too stupid to understand that Fannie and Freddie didn’t securitize loans into toxic derivatives, that was done by Wall Street

……bayam

You’re completely wrong. Fannie and Freddie were part of the secondary mortgage market. They did not issue mortgages, they purchased them from banks and securitized them, passing them on to investors with an implicit government guarantee. That was the whole point…to deepen the pool of money available to mortgage borrowers. The mortgages they purchased were increasingly sub prime, so banks issued more and more of them knowing F&F would take them off their books. So F&F were guilty at both ends of the market….issuance and poisoning the wider market. The implicit federal guarantee was what drove investors to buy F&F’s paper, proving one thing: that government interference in a market destroys it. We see the same pattern in student debt and will see it soon in healthcare. Prices soar…just as house prices soared and student tuition and right now peoples’ health insurance premiums.

Are all of your economic analyses so wide of the mark?

breffnian on October 16, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Broken freaking record. Mark Levin acolytes are like Daily Kos Kids…dumb and receptive.

Boehner isn’t the problem. Americans wanted to elect a Black President after Bush and the wars. They did. He’s a political genius, during campaigns and a terrible President.

He’s gone in 3 years. Keep the house, gain seats in the senate and Win the Presidency …and the shut the hell up with your RINO BS.

Makes Mark and Sean and Rush multi millionaires but gets us nowhere…quick.

AYNBLAND on October 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM

It’s incredible that you’re too stupid to understand that Fannie and Freddie didn’t securitize loans into toxic derivatives, that was done by Wall Street

……bayam

You’re completely wrong. Fannie and Freddie were part of the secondary mortgage market. They did not issue mortgages, they purchased them from banks and securitized them, passing them on to investors with an implicit government guarantee. That was the whole point…to deepen the pool of money available to mortgage borrowers. The mortgages they purchased were increasingly sub prime, so banks issued more and more of them knowing F&F would take them off their books. So F&F were guilty at both ends of the market….issuance and poisoning the wider market. The implicit federal guarantee was what drove investors to buy F&F’s paper, proving one thing: that government interference in a market destroys it. We see the same pattern in student debt and will see it soon in healthcare. Prices soar…just as house prices soared and student tuition and right now peoples’ health insurance premiums.

Are all of your economic analyses so wide of the mark?

breffnian on October 16, 2013 at 11:54 PM

You’re missing the point. Fannie and Freddie didn’t ‘package’ subprime loans into derivatives based on complex quant formulas that supposedly eliminated all risk, resulting in AAA assets. Perhaps you don’t understand that to any believer in truly free markets (without regulation), there is nothing wrong with wholesale participant enabling Wall Street investors to purchase home mortgage paper from retail lenders.

In other words, the securitization of mortgages in and of itself isn’t problematic, only when it’s done in a way that lacks transparency, preventing investors from assessing the true value of the underlying assets.

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM

We see the same pattern in student debt and will see it soon in healthcare. Prices soar…just as house prices soared and student tuition and right now peoples’ health insurance premiums.

I’d like to know why the healthcare systems in France and Germany deliver high quality services at such low prices. Based upon your overly simplistic view of the world, this shouldn’t be possible.

I agree that in theory free markets without government interference will tend to result in lower prices and better products – services. But in some verticals, this simply isn’t the outcome, especially when the market is intrinsically limited to a small number of players. In healthcare, many municipalities can only support a couple hospitals, at most. In industries with high fixed capital costs, such as broadband and cable, the number of participants is also limited by default. So you end up with the absurd situation where socialist leaning European countries with more regulations have far cheaper internet and broadband than is available to Americans.

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 12:31 AM

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM

And you’re missing the problem. There was a bubble in house prices which drove sub prime lending and borrowing. Everyone got in on the act, lenders dropped standards, home buyers lied about their ability to borrow, people took out home equity and bought and flipped houses and banks fell over themselves to supply this market. There is no shortage of villains here. And mortgage backed securities were popular as long as house prices rose. People thought home prices could never fall. That exuberance is what drove the bubble, not Wall Street shenanigans.

In 1999, people were calling the “30,000 Dow”. Today they say the federal government can borrow as much as it want. Federal debt is the next bubble to burst and this will be the mother of them all.

breffnian on October 17, 2013 at 1:04 AM

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 12:31 AM

At more than 10% of GDP, I wouldn’t call German or French healthcare cheap. And don’t compare them to the US model, the US does not have a “private” healthcare system. Our healthcare is provided by third parties according to a fee for service model designed by Medicare. Opening up the system to real competition would create huge savings. Instead of municipalities restricting the number of hospitals which only helps incumbents, they should be busting the monopolies that exist in many healthcare markets and drive up prices..

Re broadband, its cheaper and faster in some European countries and famously Sth Korea because these governments have invested in fiber optic infrastructure and the US hasn’t, not because of socialist regulation.

breffnian on October 17, 2013 at 1:32 AM

The economically insane are running the asylum… and they all think they are Napoleon.

Their Moscow will be the balloon of their phony money game blowing up in their crooked faces.

A disaster that will hurt millions of Americans, but from which the political class has pre-insulated itself by way of their own slimy manipulations (like exempting themselves from ObamacareTax with a subsidy that they are not unqualified for under the law).

Thus, the politicians don’t care about the results of their madness, since they will not suffer from it, swaddled in golden parachutes.

We live in the disunited states of Delusion.

And the proverbial fan will be covered with fiscal fecal matter before the end of the decade.

profitsbeard on October 17, 2013 at 1:52 AM

Another important educational lesson for you, bayam.

The problem wasn’t that investors couldn’t determine value of the underlying assets. The problem was that this value was simply based on comparable analysis

Your flunkee educational lessons certainly are an impressive display of ignorance unleashed.

It’s painfully obvious that ‘comparative values’ are misguided in a bubble of any kind, but cling to the hope that you’re making a valuable point.
LTV and credit score do not fully express mortgage risk when greedy lenders open the flood gates to liar loans. Once lending standards are lowered, income and asset verification are required to assess the ability of the debtor to repay over any significant timeframe.

It wasn’t a transparency issue. It was a manpower issue. It wasn’t worth sending an analyst out to look at every home or to break open the paperwork of every loan.

You are quite the dolt. There’s no transparency when low level data collection is required to assess value.

It was correctly believed that the diverse aggregation of these loans eliminated the risk of individual defaults.

On what class of tranche? Another oversimplification based on false assumptions.

For idiots like you that don’t understand basic math and science everything is considered a complex quant formula.

Given Warren Buffet’s observation that even to him the derivative calcs driving valuations were incomprehensible, 99% of professional investors had no capacity to perform independent analysis of value, not to mention buffoons of your stripe.

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 2:38 AM

No Mas RINOS.

2Tru2Tru on October 17, 2013 at 2:44 AM

We need to Oust all of them! Booner (spelled that way on purpose) and all those with him need to Go! Imagine all those seats with real Conservatives? BOOM! Let Booner cry in his Daddy’s Urinal Cakes!

Tbone McGraw on October 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Control your plundering zeal and imagine all those seats with hard core liberals.

rplat on October 17, 2013 at 3:16 AM

imagine all those seats with hard core liberals.

rplat on October 17, 2013 at 3:16 AM

Thanks to our current leadership (*snicker*) in the GOP, we don’t need to “imagine all those seats with hard core liberals.”

Won’t fight against ObozoCare.

Won’t fight against flagrantly unqualified Supreme Court appointments.

Won’t fight for actual, meaningful reductions in the federal budget.

Won’t fight against amnesty for illegal aliens.

Won’t fight to hold anyone — ANYone!!! — responsible for catastrophes such as “Fast and Furious,” Benghazi, etc., etc.

Won’t fight against Obozo’s continued illegal appropriation and assumption of powers never even remotely accorded to the President of the United States.

Crone Pelosi herself couldn’t conceivably inflict any more real or long-lasting damage upon this nations than have Boehner and Co.

Screw ‘em.

Kent18 on October 17, 2013 at 3:46 AM

“nations” = nation.

Kent18 on October 17, 2013 at 3:47 AM

Well then I guess it’s a good thing Boehner works for we the people and WE can fire him… There needs to be be some serious reminding to those in Congress and the White House you represent NOT rule us… You are temporary civil servant employees and NOTHING more

Caseoftheblues on October 17, 2013 at 6:36 AM

Hey it’s really nice how Mitch McConnell handed more power over to Obama in this debt ceiling thing. Nothing like giving up your constitutional authority to a wannabe dictator for a kick back.

Yeah.. a billion or so for his home state in turn for helping melt the nation just a little more.

JellyToast on October 17, 2013 at 6:42 AM

GOP : 1854 – October 16, 2013

cause: VICHY REPUBLICANS

Czar of Defenestration on October 17, 2013 at 6:56 AM

It’s painfully obvious that ‘comparative values’ are misguided in a bubble of any kind, but cling to the hope that you’re making a valuable point.
LTV and credit score do not fully express mortgage risk when greedy lenders open the flood gates to liar loans. Once lending standards are lowered, income and asset verification are required to assess the ability of the debtor to repay over any significant timeframe.

bayam on October 17, 2013 at 2:38 AM

In fact over at the FDIC Peter J. Elmer and Steven A. Selig did a long term analysis of mortgage rates over time and what was causing them. What is interesting is that it was done in 1998 when the FDIC could no longer figure out what was driving home mortgage values… the so-called ‘bubble’, and they wanted to find out what the main drivers were. That long-term analysis goes back to the 1950′s and examines the traditional mortgage system under the S&Ls. This was before the formation of GNMA and allowing large commercial banks to enter the home loan market. S&Ls were restricted in what they could invest in and usually had portfolio managers that understood local businesses and economic conditions and could tailor loans to individuals and families. So if you want to cite predatory lending it must begin after the securitization of loans with federal backing under GNMA and the changes in banking rules that removed the barriers for large commercial banks to use their financial backing to go into the local home market.

That was in the 1970′s, BTW.

Here’s an early part of the in-depth analysis, since they had found a stable housing market going into the late 1960′s, although the backing of ‘Urban Renewal’ under Truman and then the work of Johnson to destroy old poor urban communities by tearing down housing and putting up government assisted apartments that had no value in them, also played a role, albeit a very minor one in the shift of population, but the housing market at the local scale was resilient:

All theories of mortgage default stress a key role for homeowner equity, and empirical analysis supports this emphasis. Since the most direct measure of equity is the loan-to-value ratio (LTV), we expect to observe a positive relationship between LTVs and foreclosure rates, although the relationship may not surface until several years after mortgage origination. As Figure 3 illustrates, rising LTVs explain several, but not all, aspects of the foreclosure rate trend. In the early 1950s mortgage lending was remarkably conservative, as witnessed by an average LTV of only 58 percent in 1952. Rising LTVs throughout the 1950s suggest a transition to modern-era lending practices, when LTVs have averaged over 70 percent. This transition explains the exceptionally low default rates of the 1950s as well as rising rates in the early 1960s. Unfortunately, LTV trends fail to track foreclosure rates for two decades after the mid-1960′s. A possible relation reappears in the late 1980s and 1990s, as slowly rising LTVs again follow rising foreclosure rates. However, this most recent relationship is questionable because of the close relationship between conventional and FHA rate trends, as noted in Figure 1. That is, since FHA mortgages have had high LTVs for many years, and the FHA patterns in Figure 1 are very similar to conventional patterns, it seems unlikely that rising LTVs are solely responsible for the rising long-term trend in mortgage foreclosure rates.

Instead of doing larger scale analysis one can do simple graph analysis to see that there are some major changes going on with unexplained factors driving the housing market… in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s, the point where the ‘bubble’ started:

A second variable that effects homeowner equity is the rate of appreciation in house prices. High home appreciation expedites the buildup of equity by reducing the current LTV, i.e, loan to current value. Other variables being equal, high home appreciation is expected to reduce defaults as current LTVs decline and wealth increases. As shown in Figure 4, to indexes of house appreciation increased in the late 1960s, remained high until the early 1980s, then dropped to much lower levels until the present time. These trends suggest that house appreciation is especially useful in explaining the relatively low rates in the 1970s and some rise in the early 1980s. However, the relative stability of appreciation rates through most of the 1980s and 1990s is difficult to reconcile with the continued rising trend in foreclosure rates as well as with the plateau apparent in the mid-1990s.

The FDIC is worried because it has to back up accounts, and how those accounts are being used and what they are being used for was changing in the late 1990′s and the FDIC had no real idea of the scope of what was happening. They ran across the change in risk valuation of home ownership, as driven by financial policy put in place by Congress. One of the major changes was that of the 401(k) plan system which was replacing the home as a place of financial security: homes were no longer a shelter with low expectation of making money off of them and by no longer shielding them in bankruptcy proceedings the idea of a home as just another unsecured ‘investment’ took hold. This had huge ramifications for the entire housing market and it was driven by federal policy NOT predatory lenders. When you expect more than a 1%/yr rise in home value due to home ownership (after eating maintenance costs annually, plus mortgage payments) then the private lending market responds to that. Houses start to go into play as shorter term investment vehicles with some expectation of decent return year on year. This starts to throw the LTV out of whack as people start to think that their homes are worth more (thus increasing valuation) but they are making about the same amount of money, which requires changes in money down to secure a larger loan.

The predatory lending in the late 1970′s was aimed at the S&Ls who could not meet this changing market, while the larger commercial banks could. A major fallout of the formation of GNMA and allowing commercial banks to purchase government graded loan vehicles was the destruction of the traditional S&L system which had been stable for decades.

They looked at the lack of health insurance and the problematical federal systems for providing health services, and found that individuals changed their spending and saving habits to take this into account. What you have is another part of the risk assessment schema, particularly for the pre-Boomer generation because of multiple factors:

The coincident rise in mortgage default and personal bankruptcy rates is also intriguing from the standpoint of society’s attitudes toward leverage and financial risk. That is, the trends are consistent with the notion that households have increased their risk posture by opting for greater leverage and lower net savings. Of course, these trends also reflect the willingness of lenders to take on greater risk by increasing the availability of credit to highly leveraged households. Lenders and borrowers must both embrace these changing attitudes towards risk before an increase in risk can be contracted at market prices.

Note who wants greater leverage in the LTV equation: borrowers.

And they GOT IT.

More on this:

The advent of mortgage securitization in the 1970s changed the borrower/lender relationship breaking apart the various functions that had been performed by the banks and thrifts. In particular, it becomes much less common for the same organization to both originate a mortgage and retain it as a portfolio investment. Lenders with traditional ties to the borrowers were replaced by national service organizations with no tie to the borrower apart from the mortgage and with servicing policies based on national rather than local standards.

And where does NATIONAL policy come from on banking, lending and bankruptcy? Congress.

Congress changed those standards through multiple vehicles and each of them done due to the first changes in securitizing mortgages via GNMA. Any analysis of the security of loan vehicles MUST take GNMA into account as it is the standard setter and it must weigh loan vehicles by standards set by… Congress, not the banking system.

By the late ’90s and early ’00s if there was ‘predatory lending’ of any sort it is because it was sought by borrowers who lobbied Congress to get changes in regulations so that they could be predated upon by the very large banks that Congress had allowed into the local markets utilizing loan vehicle ratings set by Congress and performed through GNMA. The conclusion from 1998 is interesting:

The rising long-term trend in foreclosure rates is at least partially explained by a variety of variables. Although traditional determinants of default, notably house appreciation and LTV explain some portion of the long-term trend, they appear to stop short of explaining the more recent, unsettling, rising trend. In an effort to explain the remaining portion of the trend, we have explored the notion that the incidence of shocks to individual lifestyles or “trigger events”, such as divorce have increased. A related, but distinct, hypothesis is that the risk posture of individuals has increased, especially as individuals increasingly leverage their homes as part of a broader strategy of managing their overall wealth portfolio. Although evidence exists supporting both hypotheses, the risk posture hypothesis appears more consistent with a variety of disparate incentives and trends relating to household financial management.

Americans were taking more risky loans as a matter of course in their lives: their appreciation of risk had changed significantly from where it started pre-GNMA. If you want to deal with the housing problem one good way would be to get the commercial banks out of home loans and abolishing GNMA and incentivizing local firms for a period of time to take on local risk and understand their local markets. Unless you really love the big banks, there is no reason to mix the commercial and residential banking systems… if you want a federally controlled and dictated banking system that hurts the individual, then you want more government in control. Government played a significant role in the housing bubble and it didn’t start in the 1990′s but in the 1970′s and you can see the bubble starting back THEN.

ajacksonian on October 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Boehner should go. IT’s not about moderates or the tea party, it’s about leadership. A Leader wouldn’t have allowed the Republican Party in the House to get into a fight they couldn’t win. That’s the first thing. Secondly, the fight could have been won, but it had to be fought over 2 years ago with a larger majority and a bit of moral authority. Pushing 40 votes to repeal Obamacare isn’t a strategy, it’s obviously not a winner. The only winner is the budget and Boehner refused to FORCE the Senate to produce a budget.

Boehner should go.

bflat879 on October 17, 2013 at 7:35 AM

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 10:32 PM

The offer you cant refuse. yeah they are that stupid:

McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $3 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project

In a follow-up e-mail, McConnell’s office told the radio station the GOP leader did not request Alexander put wording to raise the authorization for funding in the bill despite McConnell’s support for earmark funding in the past.

John Boehner’s Unreal Moneychest:

Click on the open secrets link and scroll down to the chart titled “Total Money Raised versus Average Money Raised”. Compare what Boehner collected in 2012 versus Congressional average fund raising

The Boehner money pump went off the charts 2012

Maybe all that money got Boehner confused.

Next they are going to play the Senate game on Amnesty. This requires Boehner to play ball and McConnell there to catch the pass and forward it to guess who?

Some are trying to say Reid set up McConnell with the big buck payoff, but if McConnell hadn’t played ball, the deal wouldn’t look like a payoff. If McConnell hadn’t played along, he wouldn’t be getting the deal. I call that a deal you cannot refuse. Eat it McConnell. You will take it. You wanted Obamacare, You wanted Cruz down. And you want Amnesty too. Give McConnell a standing O.

Boehner may play weepy boy, but Batman Boehner has cold blooded objectives

Ditto Batman’s boy wonder Ryan, who is probably rehearsing the all due sincerity part of his next speech

entagor on October 17, 2013 at 9:04 AM

ajacksonian on October 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Excellent analysis

Risk posture could be the way to analyze the entire societal collapse

Politicians leverage public fears by promising to lower risk.

In the fifties divorce was legally difficult, and survival without a partner was difficult for all but the rich. Welfare withheld aid to two parent households. Single parenthood was frowned on.

When no fault divorce came in, it was because most churches had loosened on divorce. Culture shift came from the public, not the politicians, but the politicians move in like sharks

Banks were still allowed to make decisions based on perceived risks, but they were already under the heel of federal currency manipulation and banking rules, which carry the taint of political opportunism

I remember a neighbor having to prove she could not have any more children, so her income could be used with her husband’s to qualify for a mortgage. Try that now

The politicians won’t allow it, but ultimately it is because they are working the risk aversion of the public, for risks the public increasingly permitted itself

The public is shifting more of the risk to the State for its own risky behavior, but takes no responsibility for the result. So Obamacare penalizes smokers, but not Aids patients. Unprotected sex is the government’s fault

What’s a politician anyway? Just a more perfectly corrupt member of the public

entagor on October 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Sadly, limp Boehner caved. IN the final analysis it is true that RINOs lost another one and Limp Boehner is a RINO as is the rest of the GOP leadership in both house and Senate.

Quartermaster on October 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Boehner sucks on his thumb so much it has developed extreme curvature.

Matches his pouty face quite nicely.

Sherman1864 on October 17, 2013 at 8:21 PM

bayam is not very smart.

Bmore on October 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Oh great! A victory for Boehner at last! He get’s to keep his job.

“Cave-man” is probably a good term for him: nobody has found more ways to cave than this Speaker.

virgo on October 19, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5