Spoiler alert: the gub’mint that will control every dime your company sees until eternity “requests” that you ignore policy, procedure, and contract and simply give everybody everything they want so they don’t go on Fox News and complain about ObamaCare®.
Republicans are holding the economy hostage because Obama refuses to negotiate on the debt limit.
Step Two comes next week, when House leaders hope to advance a separate measure that will demand a one-year delay in the law’s implementation in exchange for an agreement to avoid a first-ever default on the nation’s debts sometime next month.
Obama responded with an uncharacteristically angry speech in which he accused Republicans of “trying to mess with me” and “holding the economy hostage.”
…………………….Upon his arrival back in Washington, Obama called Boehner and reiterated his refusal to negotiate over the debt limit, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.
AND We’re not a deadbeat nation because, well, we’re not a deadbeat nation. Not because we can afford anything, or because Obama is making certain people can make a living in order to pay taxes. No. We’re just not deadbeats, so we’ll increase our debt to pay our debts.
“We are not a deadbeat nation. We don’t run out on our tab,” Obama said. “We’re the world’s bedrock investment. The entire world looks to us to make sure the world economy is stable.”
And Nancy Pelosi of all people IS willing to negotiate. Nancy Pelosi, who just suggested Republicans don’t like Obama because he’s smarter than them. Good first step there lady.
“This place is a mess,” Pelosi said before the vote. “If the idea is to limit government, let’s work together on that.”
So now, the next step is to hold up the bill in the Senate so that it’s closer to deadline before it goes back to the house because………………………………………….?……………………………………?……………………?
I don’t get it. No matter what Reid will add in the funding and then it goes back to the house. Let the Senate get on record. Can’t the house send it right back with that stripped out again?
So in the end whoever has the hot potato on Oct 1 loses?
If so, then I would think you’d want it out of the senate lickety split.
UPDATE: Hot Air gives it a go. Allapundit seems to think it’s really all about Cruz making up for being called on his bluff by Boehner. While that at least makes sense it certainly dumps his esteem (from me) in the toilet.
What he’s doing here is simply showing that he’s willing to take some heat himself before Reid’s scheme succeeds and the spotlight shifts back to the House.
The Hill has a great column showing how Boehner and McConnell have been winning big time lately.
Don’t tell the Tea Party, but the tag team of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are currently mopping the floor with Barack Obama.
The president convincingly won a second term in November, but since that time, the congressional Republican leadership has outfoxed, outmaneuvered and plain out-strategized him on just about every issue.
It bugs me that “Don’t tell the Tea Party” bit. It seems everyone wants to define the Tea Party. In this instance, those who oppose the traditional GOP. I think of the Tea Party in far more generic terms as those who put their foot down on government spending. If Boehner/McConnell can do that, as they did with this sequester, then all hail Boehner/McConnell.
Protein Wisdom is keeping up on the 2nd Amendment fight in CO. Is it a fight? No, not really….lets file it under elections have consequences, because the 2nd amendment is dead here.
My name for this current assembly can be summed up thus: “How the West was lost.” And with it, a tradition of rugged individualism, struck down with the stroke of a pen from a bunch of effete, cowardly lawmakers riding what they think is a momentous wave of anti-gun sentiment.
And the thing is…..I have no idea if there is a wave of anti-gun sentiment or not. I know longer have faith in “the people”. Today’s Morning Jolt contains this quote from Jim Geraghty has been my thought since the election.
Right now, there’s a conundrum at the heart of the conservative movement. Our entire philosophy is about trusting the people, in faith that they know what’s best for themselves, can spend their own money more wisely than the government can, and find the solutions that work best for their communities . . . and right now, we don’t really trust the people.
Not that I think anyone else other than the individual can make the right choice, but clearly the individuals out there are not to be trusted either.
Drew at Ace of Spades thinks the trust is amongst the GOP and I guess it sort of is, because you used to be able to count on half the country to have their brains in tact, and then we end up with an election that includes a huge amount of people on the right staying home in a snit because Romney wasn’t conservative enough for them. Or those others who thought Obama just needed more time.
Since the sequester barely cut spending to levels seen in just the last few years you would think it would be no big deal. BUT when the government wants to make certain everyone notices, they can.
Denver Police Chief Robert White rejected scores of performance evaluations for civilians who work for the police department, saying the ratings were too high and “not everyone is outstanding.”…………….”It’s so much easier to give everyone something than making those tough decisions. That is part of what we are changing in our agency.”
White said he sent back all of the evaluations after noticing many employees had been given “outstanding” or “exceeds expectations” or “successful” ratings — or 5s, 4s or 3s on the 5-tier scale — entitling those employees to a merit raise……………..You are doing a disservice to the exceptional employee by saying that everyone is exceptional.”……………..”There is going to be a lot of grief,” said Denis Berckefeldt of the Denver Auditor’s Office. “He is not going to be making a lot of friends. Usually everyone gets a satisfactory or above. The agencies don’t downgrade anyone. No one wants to do that. People say, ‘It’s not my money. Why do I care?’”
I suggest that since Obama “won” on the fiscal cliff and taxes were “raised on the rich”, that we all let the media go with that meme.
Paychecks are coming out now and they are all……..lower.
Why? Must be Obama’s clever negotiating. [don't look behind the curtain]
Sure, that’s what did it.
ht Jim Geraghty
Obama is proudly proclaiming that he saved the middle class from a tax hike, and that he only raised taxes on the rich. But since most voters perceive their taxes in aggregate — that is, what’s left on their pay stub after everybody takes their bite — they’ll probably perceive the opposite, that an income-tax hike supposedly targeting the rich made their paychecks 2 percent smaller. Thus, they’ll be even more skeptical than usual, since they’ll think the last tax hike on “the rich” hit them instead.
(guest post from jg)
Latest game….just how cynical can we make the American People?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress in a letter on Wednesday that the nation will hit its statutory borrowing limit on Dec. 31 and Treasury will have to begin “extraordinary measures” to fund the government until the debt ceiling is lifted by Congress. Treasury expects it can avoid default through such measures at least a few week into next year but notes that doing so could be made more difficult if no deal is made to avoid the fiscal cliff.
If we hit the cliff, tax revenues go up A LOT and automatic spending cuts happen, so why on earth are now going to hit the debt ceiling in 5 days?? Do they want the American people to become complete cynics who never believe their govt????
These people have known for months….months when the math will go down for a debt ceiling change and now we get this just because we’re going over the cliff….is he insane?
Right here in the big ol MSM, the truth about those evil “Bush Tax Cuts” has seen the light.
They are now the tax cuts that are an absolute requirement for the good of the country. (except for those rich people’s versions)
President Obama has put the extension of the tax cuts for most Americans at the top of his domestic agenda, a remarkable turnaround for Democrats, who had staunchly opposed the tax breaks when they were written into law about a decade ago.
Next on the MSM agenda will be approval of enhanced interrogation as multiple drone strikes result in lack of intelligence. [click through for a good list of questions that need to be asked]
Walter Hudson writes a column today at PJ Lifestye on 6 Green Lies Threatening to Starve You.
He starts with an unsubstantiated premise suggesting the idea that wilderness has intrinsic value is a lie. It’s number 6 on his list, but he says it’s the most important because it’s the fundamental lie that the other 5 are built on.
In order to think clearly about this issue we need an objective definition of value. Ayn Rand defined value as “that which one acts to obtain and/or keep.” Wilderness does not have intrinsic value. Only when man identifies a productive use for wilderness does it take on value. And to the extent it is altered to suit man’s purpose, it is no longer wilderness.
Funny that. If we go with the Ayn Rand idea and we note that “as a society” we have acted to obtain and/or keep certain amounts of wilderness as wilderness, doesn’t that negate his next sentence saying that wilderness does not have intrinsic value? dude.
You can argue that we have too much wilderness, or public lands, but I don’t think you can argue that it has no value. I would suggest it IS the government’s job to a) protect the borders, b) maintain our laws and c) protect our public properties.
I’ve said before that we have all these different types of public properties from BLM land to Wilderness to local parks and maybe we have too much of some that maybe needs to be privatized but, these public lands include a lot of life that require a certain amount of land too. So how much is too much? Mr. Hudson is not the expert here.
Go read his other 5, but let’s touch on #2.
“Left Free, Man Would Ruin the Earth”
He seems to think that left free, man would keep the earth pristine. Man, in all sorts of little ways will ruin other people’s ground as long as it doesn’t affect him. Not all men, but a big enough group that you sure can’t say that “left free” all the waterways would be clean. From pollution dumped on reservations to sewage pumped into the oceans. I watched the owner of one company poor 5 gallons of oil into the bay because there wasn’t a convenient place to put it. It happens and not just among the poor. And if you consider that most of the world is poor I’m not sure how you can move on to assuming that left free, the earth would be pristine. The laws are there to protect my property from your neglect. I’m good with that.
I just became a Republican in 2012 (though I’ve voted GOP for years) because the thought of aligning myself with the party who thinks it’s a good plan to have a government agency working to kill varmints so that ranchers don’t have to deal with any inconvenience was just too much. Now aligning myself with the party that thinks spending ourselves into an early grave is too much.
Can we get a party of common sense please?
I actually don’t have a problem with having internet companies collect sales taxes. This story in the WSJ by Chistine Gregoire and Sally Jewell basically agrees with me.
Local retailers—who create jobs for our families, friends and neighbors—have long been required to collect and remit state sales taxes. By contrast, online vendors that operate from out of state are under no such requirement, even though the taxes are still owed by the consumer in the 45 states that collect sales taxes. This disparity undermines the competitiveness of the retail marketplace and diverts $23 billion from state and local treasuries every year.
I do have a problem with throwing this in as an addendum to a defense authorization bill. Do you really believe we will ever actually deal with Medicare when we can’t get congresspeople to actually vote on something like this?
In a column by Matthew Yglesias you hear why raising Medicare eligibility to age 67 to keep it solvent is a bad idea. Because if the federal government doesn’t pay for these costs, then somebody has to and it will cost them more than the federal government.
That’s why raising the eligibility age is such a poor policy. Moving a patient off the Medicare rolls and onto the private market doesn’t just shift costs from the government to the patient. It also entails a massive increase in costs.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that lifting the eligibility age from 65 to 67 would reduce federal spending by about $5.7 billion in its first year of full implementation. But that would be offset by $11.4 billion in spending by other parties. That includes $3.7 billion in higher costs for 65- and 66 year-olds, $4.5 billion from employers through company-sponsored insurance, $0.7 billion from state governments, and $2.5 billion in higher average prices for third parties once younger seniors are shifted out of the Medicare risk-pool and into the general population.
Let’s take this a further step. We all need food. If the government, like Walmart, were in charge of negotiating food prices, then it could get the cheapest price available due to it’s negotiating power by covering so many people. Since they don’t, it costs us MORE money than we’d like, so the Federal Government should be covering our food costs.
Same with housing and transportation and cable tv. The government due to their negotiating power can theoretically get better prices on everything, so we really ought to be in even bigger debt and covering more things! YAY government.
I think you generally need a degree to be a journalist, but apparently there is no requirement to actually think.