From the Washington Post:
Republicans scuttle negotiations with Obama
A picture is worth a thousand words. Cantor might want to jump ‘ship’ and go back to being a normal Republican.
23 Thoughts to “Cantor sure shows Obama: Cantor, the Tea Party and the debt talks”
Comments are closed.
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
All contents copyright Moonhowlings.net
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
Yes, but those are a thousand words picked at random and strung together in no particular order (it was WashPo, right?). A thousand words from WashPo (are they still whoring out slots to meet politicians?) carry no more weight than a P.M. Dawn song from the 90s.
Perhaps you should have been around for a little Dylan or Joplin. It might bring you great wisdom, or at least understand why the debt ceiling has to be increased.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/polls/2011/Eric-Cantor-Poll
@Big Dog
Repulsive is winning by over 20 points.
How did Cantor vote on the DoD Appropriations bill – http://www.asmconline.org/2011/07/house-passes-fy2012-dod-appropriations-bill/ – $648 Billion dollars – and they could not find anywhere to cut….a few less aircraft? The US DoD budget is more than all other countries combined – and we still cannot find a way to reduce that spending.
If this gets to the Fed’s having to figure out how to pay our debt service or our bills, I hope the first bill that does not get paid is any Congressional expense. Then, non military GPS service, non military NOAA service. You will get everyone’s attention.
@Pat, during hurricane season? re NOAA
Cantor’s an idiot. I’m not opposed to a tax increase, as long as I see some major cuts. But they have to be this year, not pie-in-the-sky maybe next year or the year after, because history tells us that NEVER happens, but tax increases are always forever. I hope McConnell wins this one–then both the tax increase AND the rise in debt ceiling stick like glue to the Democrats.
What a sarcastic cartoon! Perhaps the best reply is more sarcasm. However, let’s start with a little serious discussion.
We have a budget in the neighborhood of 4 trillion dollars. If the only thing Democrats can imagine as a solution is cutting defense spending and increasing taxes, there is no reason to talk to them. Neither of those proposals will put a dent in the deficit.
Ever heard of the peace dividend. We have already cut defense. We could gut the entire defense budget, and we would still have a huge deficit. The only reason we have increased defense spending is because the threat has increased. You don’t believe there is a threat? Then you are arguing for pacifism. That is a different subject. In this context, that is not even worth taking seriously.
Increasing taxes does not always increase revenues. There is a point where tax increase stifle economic growth, and we are there.
Government encourages economic growth only to the extent it helps people to engage in commerce. Such government spending goes into things like defense, law enforcement, public infrastructure, education ( to the extent educators actually educate), and such. However, the lion’s share of our federal budget now involves robbing Peter to pay Paul. With Social Security and Medicare, for example, we rob one generation to give money to another. If any society has enough Peters robbing Pauls, its economy suffers, and that is why we now have a Great Recession. Forget the double dip. We never climbed out of the first one.
So what are Republican suppose to discuss with Obama? Are we suppose to help him transform our nation into a bunch of ravenous beggars, a people well adapted to stealing from and exploiting each other? Is that your solution?
When we have made each other poor, where will we find “rich people” to envy, blame, and rob? Why don’t we just equip our military forces with a Viking code of ethics? We can start the 2nd Dark Ages by ravaging the rest of the world. We can start by envying, blaming, and robbing the Chinese. After all, rumor is that the Chinese are becoming capitalists. How horrid! When they were wholly poor, they use to be good communists. Now that they are turncoats they must have some rich people we can hate.
Pulling facts and figures outta a hat, Tom? Our taxes are proportionately lower than they have been since 1950.
Rich people don’t have to be hated. Just take a percent more of their money while pillaging everyone else.
Emma, I think the most people object to that plan the least…if that makes sense. I don’t necessary want anything to stick to the Democrats. I just don’t want to lose money. The hell with any party loyalties.
The “no new taxes” thing is political suicide. And at last count, we had three (and counting) unfunded wars, thanks to our spineless legislators. But I do fear that any tax increase will not be used to finally pay for those wars, but will provide more payback for friends and creation of vast and unaffordable social programs, like the Healthcare “Affordability” Act. And let’s not forget the vastly ineffective “stimulus” and “cash for clunkers” programs–all done on borrowed cash to make them look like rousing successes. Since the Democrats are offering future tax cuts that we know will never happen, how about we also put the brakes on this healthcare plan for just a few years, and maybe, just maybe, we agree to fully fund it then? Hey, a promise is a promise, right?
@Citizen Tom
@Emma,
I don’t think the ‘stimulus package’ was totally ineffective. I think it might have been implemented better. Cash for clunkers–probably not the best use of resources.
I have no problem with designated debt pay off. Frankly, so much is floating out there, I can’t keep up with it. I don’t know anything about future tax cuts.
Why is it lost that, for the most part, cast of characters that are standing up for their fiscal conservative rights, are the very same, for the most part, individuals who have voted to raise the spending over the past 20 years? Cantor voted for the unfunded Medicare Part D – why did he not want the funding for the spending – because he wants to spend other peoples money.
Moon – yes, NOAA – it does sound foolish, but so does the threat of a default.
I am annoyed because it is blackmail. They know they debt ceiling has to be raised. So just do it and stop the hystrionics and posturing.
M-H,
“Eric Cantor is repulsive” is now ahead by thirty points.
(And this in an on-line poll conducted by a newspaper
covering his home district).
If history is a guide, the Republicans have absolutely no incentive to compromise:
1) When Ronald Reagan was president, budget negotiations similar to those going on today took place between Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Eventually a compromise was hammered out in which taxes were raised, but for every dollar increase in taxes, there were supposed to be three dollars in cuts. The tax increase took place, but the promised future cuts never did.
2) After George Bush I made made a pledge not to raise taxes (‘read my lips, no new taxes’), he eventually agreed to a compromise bill with the Democrats in which he agreed to a tax increase. Of course as we all know, he was later defeated by Bill Clinton.
3) Speaking of Bill Clinton, the famous budget negotiations between Clinton and Newt Gingrich and series of government closures resulted in the Republicans blinking first and a budget compromise. Clinton’s popularity rose dramatically after that and he went on to win easy re-election the following year.
In each case, all the pundits indicated that the Republicans had to compromise or they would be blamed for the ensuing damage to the economy. In each case, the Republicans caved first and were taken to the cleaners.
As they say, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result. I would like the Republicans to prove that they are not insane.
@Kelly,
At what point do we look at what is good for the Country and the American people rather than perceived paybacks political party?
I think we have a financial dragon breathing fire at us and we need to start thinking like Americans and just get the job done.
I think we can all agree that we need to cut spending. There is huge disagreement over the need to raise taxes. It seems to me that the “right” things to do are those which we all can agree, which is to reduce spending and raise the debt limit. Both things would be good for the country.
@Kelly,
But some of us also think that the very wealthy need to do a little more. Right now, we all know that those with more money get to tap into certain tax loopholes which reduce taxes and lower one’s tax bracket. We want the loopholes shored up some for the very wealthy. Is that a tax increase? Depends on what you call it. Is returning to something that existed 10 years ago a tax increase? I didn’t realize the Bush tax cuts were permanent. Why do they need to be continually renewed if if they were permanent?
Is the goal to get an R or a D into the Presidency, or is the goal to help our Country and our economy?
We need comprehensive tax reform – why is the middle class saddled with AMT, and the high income earners are not? Cantor acts like all this spending was before his time – it was not – he voted for the spending. He kicked the can down the road – he voted for Part D, tax cuts, Wars, etc – all the while, not funding any of it.
Spending needs to be reduced. The debt limit needs to be raised. We need tax reform. We need loop holes closed.
When the Bush tax cuts were put into place, they were his stimulus plan – they were also not funded – meaning that we were in deficit spending then, and the idea was that the reduced taxes would spur increased revenue – that did not happen, and the Congress continued to spend more than we had.
The Bush tax cuts were temporary because A) they were not deficit neutral and B) they were advertised as a stimulus package. Remember, Bush also borrowed money to pay for the tax rebates, which were also a stimulus package – so, the US borrowed money from the Chinese to send to most tax filers, who in turn went out and bought Chinese products.
AMEN!