E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn an interview with Dan Balz of the Washington Post, House Minority Leader John Boehner fired back at Democrats who have seized on the Republican's seeming comparison of the financial crisis to an "ant." (The Boehner-Balz interview was conducted a few hours before President Obama's speech drawing on Boehner's "ant" comment.)
"They're the ones who are out of touch with what the American people expect of Washington," he said of the administration. "The American people want us to deal with the economy and jobs. And what have they dealt with? They've dealt with health care. They've dealt with cap and trade. And then they've gone overboard with financial regulatory bill. Growing the size of government, taking more from the American people at a time when Americans want them to focus in on the economy.
Boehner said his reference to an ant "was not a judgment of the financial crisis. It was how to fix it. Clearly there were holes in our regulatory process and we could have fixed those holes but that's not what this bill does. This bill goes way beyond all of that and puts the federal government in a huge role in terms of how our whole financial system's going to work in the future. That's what I was talking about."
Boehner said he worries that the economy could undergo a double dip recession, saying he fears debt refinancing in Europe later this year could bring "more shocks to the system." But he firmly rejected the administration's course in dealing with the crisis.
"I'm not a Keynesian economist," he said. "I just think that all the spending that they've pumped out there has done virtually nothing."
Leave a Comment:
Boehner; What a loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Must have had one too many for lunch !!! Again ! Or … as usual !
Ya gotta love it, it was the Boehner-Balz interview!! I am surprised no one else has noticed that...what a name to have doing the interview with him in particular!!!
Awww, poor baby had his wittew feewings hurt!
Well hell John why didn't you say what you meant yesterday!
If this is the best you dems have got, November is going to beeven worse for you than I thought.
You ask for dialogue-Boehner made a statement,the White House countered it, and he countered that. It is called discourse.
Now, you can disagree with him on the merits-but do you really think that the voters don't want the focus to be on the economy? if so, you are really living in dreamland-but you resort to name-calling and unproven allegations of drunkenness.
Obamamania at its worst.
Seriously, you call what Republicans have been doing as recourse? Recourse is where you come back with concrete ideas and suggestions. It's really easy just to complain that you don't like what the other guy is doing. Nowher in any of his comments did Boehner have any ideas or constructive criticism.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think you are an eighth grader getting his kicks and dummies like me just keep giving them to you.
NoJo, how come the Repubs went and blocked the unemployment extension if they are worried about the Populace, the Economy and Jobs? Boner is shooting himself in the foot as he stuffs them firmly into his mouth...I reckon he can hit said foot while shooting his mouth off that way, saves ammo.
Everything that the Dems try to do to alleviate the suffering of the jobless and poor the Repus make an all out effort to block, could it be they WANT America to suffer and fail??
I would be terribly ashamed at this point if I had ever voted for one of these two-faced Repub crooks!
No, Boehner made a statement, the White House countered it, and Boehner repeated the same talking points without making any effort to answer their criticism. He might as well have said "LaLaLaLaLaLa" with his ears covered.
1) Because you can't keep spending money you don't have.
2) Because the economy was supposed to be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs a month by now, at least according to Obama and Biden. I guess they were wrong.
3) Because the Democrats passed PayGo which said if you spend more, you have to cut the same amount from somewhere else.
4) Because is it too much to expect that someone out of work for 12+ months might want to take a lesser job, move to where the jobs are, or have retrained themselves to do something else?
And, you liberals spend way too much time worrying about Boehner and the Republicans. I guess it helps distract you from seeing how incompetent the Democrats have been at running the country.
It seems to me what no joe refers to as discourse is dischord. And Boehner and his republican brothers and sisters have particpated in dischord ever since Obama became President.
I have heard Boehner speak many times, tried to give the man the benefit of the doubt. The fact is I just don't think Boehner is all that intelligent of a guy. And I think he is somehwhat peeved and perhaps feeling sorry for himself because it is Rush Limbaugh that runs the republican party, not those like Boehner in supposed leadership roles. So Boehner comes out with these nonsensical idiotic comments now and then to try and keep pace with Grand Marshall Limbaugh. But to no avail. He stumbles and mumbles and falls flat on his orange face.
I know we are not supposed to be snarky or to call names, but in cases as Boehner, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Palin and just a few others, I am reserving the right to be sanrky and to call names.
Joanna Smith, don't yo know it's rude (and ineffective) to keep repeating yourself?
As opposed to your, and others of your ilk, constant whining about the Republicans?
Boenher had his chance to clarify his remarks which is quite common with him thats one reason why people think he is a drunk, it always takes him a day or so to figure out what he is saying. But now we have it straight, he didn't say the financial crisis was an ant, it was a big deal, he just meant he doesn't think anything much should be done about it. Is that about right John. The man says this was like using a nuke to kill an ant, but that really meant the three paragraph explanation given today.
Hi I'm John Boehner and I,m not sure if I have a bottle in front of me or a frontal lobotomy.
"1) Because you can't keep spending money you don't have." That's how stimulus works. You also can't grant tax breaks without reducing revenue, but Republicans insist they can.
"2) Because the economy was supposed to be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs a month by now, at least according to Obama and Biden. I guess they were wrong." It's doing better by about 800,000 jobs/mo compared to when Obama took office, but of course someone needs to point that out every day.
"3) Because the Democrats passed PayGo which said if you spend more, you have to cut the same amount from somewhere else." See Stimulus.
"4) Because is it too much to expect that someone out of work for 12+ months might want to take a lesser job, move to where the jobs are, or have retrained themselves to do something else?" You said their aren't any jobs, remember?
JoAnna:
Seems to me if we all were to do a valid evaluation of who it is has done the most whining since Obama has become Presdient it would be you people on the right. Also if we were to do an evaluation as to which side whined the most using backwards logic thinking so that they could justify to themselves their personal dislike for someone (forget the agenda after he took office) it would be you people on the right.
Let's get something clear here JoAnna. I agree that perhaps the Dems and maybe even Obama have whined a bit too much as of late. What they should have done is removed the slugs from any consideration whatsoever and moved forward with their agenda using the 51 vote procedure whenever possible.
But as to the whining on the right even a devoted mother bear would have sickened of the constant whining and banished her republican children to some far off place where no one had to listen to them any longer.
JoAnna Smith
To rebut your points:
1. The Repubs cry about spending money that you dont have, if they were so worried about it then why were Bush's wars 'off the budget', passed massive tax cuts for the rich and wont repeal them now, and ran the budget from a surplus to a 2 TRILLION dollar defecit without nary a word about defecits other than "Defecits Dont Matter"?
2. If the Rich and the Banks would get off their piles of money and start hiring and lending to the small and mid-sized businesses like they were supposed to then the job problem would be self-solving. As it is, these people are siding with the Repubs in trying to make sure that the Dems look bad economically in their bid for power. It is not working because we can plainly SEE who is holding up the job market: The Repubs and their rich bankers and corporatists with their trillions in ill gotten gains.
3. Yes, the Dems passed paygo, actually, broght it back after the Repubs dropped it and spent like drunken sailors (Sorry to my sailor buddies, don't mean to compare you to their level of drunkenness) and now the Repubs kick and scream and will NOT allow any of the tax cuts to be repealed not to add the taxes needed to balance the budget appropriately. There are solid reasons to have passed the Unemployment Extension as it IS an emergency situation, which PayGo allows exemptions to the rule for. The entire bill was sunk over an unfunded $5B, which is less than 2 days spending for the wars, which they have NO problem funding as part of that money is going to their Special Interests.
4. For most of the population, they do NOT hae the money to move to a new area to be ABLE to job search, and considering that most employers require that new hires have a home and history of paying their bills there, it is highly unlikely that once moved that they would be able to find a job anyway. And besides, WHERE are these places with jobs, from what I can tell, the job market is swamped all throughout this nation, so moving to a new location is not feasible or even possible for most. As far as retraining, that takes money too, which people dont have, and how are they going to eat and pay rent AND pay for training as well?? Most people are barely hanging on to what living arrangements they have now and if you ever had to live on Unemployment you would see that it is not the sort of lifestyle that encourages one to 'not get a job' like you seem to believe.
The Dems have been trying to fix things on so very many fronts, since the Repubs broke us and the bank so nearly completely, and have been making great strides in their doing so. The Repubs keep working to block ANYTHING that helps the populace and make sure that the rich stay richer and richer to the detriment of the rest of us. THAT is why we complain about the Repubs and voice our opinions, with facts to back them up, so loudly and continuously. Stop believing in their lies and great deceits, they are doing America NO good and in fact are trying to drag us down to 3rd world status so they can have their slave labor with no impact to their own lifestyles or income.
B. Honest, great post and my sentiments exactly!
Sounds like someone's suffering from the DT's...hey Boehner, have a drink and relax!
Did I read this right? He made the statement BEFORE the President's speech?
"They're the ones who are out of touch with what the American people expect of Washington," *HICCUP* he said of the administration.
Quickly followed by Bartender I'll have another!
And this time make it a DOUBLE! lol
"Boehner said he worries that the economy could undergo a double dip recession"
I actually agree with Boehner on this point, a double dip recession is looking more and more possible, the reason being people like Boehner with their constant drone of not spending money to help stimulate the economy because of the deficit has scarred most cowardly Congressmen into not taking any further measures to stimulate the economy, this inaction will almost guarantee a double dip recession, which is exactly what Boehner wants. Take the unemployment benefits extension bill that our worthless politicians refuse to pass, every dime of that money will go directly back into the economy, it will be spent immediately stimulating the economy immediately and also helping out those that really need some help, but instead Boehner would rather cut taxes on the wealthiest who will just rat hole it away in some offshore account helping absolutely no one nor the economy, which makes more sense?
w bush:
Plus I think a lot will depend on the status of the Europeon markets. Europe, Greece and now it seems even China are in trouble. If their systems take a big dip then so to will the U.S. economy.
If only we had some history to guide us on what happens when we go on an austerity kick before the recovery is on a sound footing. http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/economic_perspectives/2009/ep_4qtr2009_part2_velde.pdf
Obama and the Democrats are deficit spending at record levels, about $1.5 trillion a year. That's 50% more then the federal government takes in with it's current taxes. And that amount of spending has stimulated the economy how? You'd think there would be something more positive then what we have seen, but that isn't the case. So you think the problem is that we aren't spending enough? How much more do you suggest the feds spend so we can "Spend our way to prosperity"? And who do you suggest pay for all that spending?
OK JoAnnaSmith,
I'll bite on the tax issue.
How about you get the Republicans to bite off on a flat tax rate across the board no exemptions for anyone and or entity let's say 7%. And us that are called liberals or what ever will get the Democrats on board.
I would even be willing to entertain the idea of a national call for this to be put on every ballot across the country, and I'll bet the rich will be the ones screaming the most about this idea!
Terry, that's a fine suggestion, although I don't think 7% (payroll tax, right?) will be enough to feed what the federal government is spending. I also like that it's across the board. The person making a million pays $70,000. The person making minimum wage (around $8.50 depending on the state) pays $1190. That makes everyone invested in their government. Then if you vote for someone that grows the government, your taxes go up just like everyone elses does.
JoAnnaSmith,
I just threw out a number, the number can be whatever as long as there are absolutely no exemptions for anything and no possible way for anyway to add exemptions. If later the number needs to be adjusted then fine but exemptions are non existent. While we are at it, Congress's health care package, gone, they are afforded the same health care system as the rest of the country.
Forgot to add payroll tax is the only option.
JoAnnaSmith:
And most of that debt is caused by Bush's wars, Bush's recession, and Bush's tax cuts. The amount of debt added by Obama initiatives is small in comparison, as the graph at the URL below shows (not that JoAnna will look at it. Wingnuts are as averse to facts as vampires are to garlic).
http://jontaplin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif
Houston that's impressive!
I should have posted the link to the article that I got the graph from:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/30/deflation_kleptocracy_reform/#more
The graph, by the way, merely illustrates in graph form the conclusions of an analysis that was published in the New York Times. Most of the deficit that the media is whipping up hysteria about is due to Bush. That fact seems to get lost in all the hysteria.
The graph is complete BS and the article it appears is short on details for a reason.
From the tax foundation organization
There is no definitive answer to the question of how much the Bush tax cuts cost the Treasury in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010.
First, there is much disagreement pertaining to the feedback effect that resulted from the tax cuts. No tax cut that has significant marginal rate cuts, as the Bush tax cuts did, will cost the Treasury its full "static" score. Static in this sense means that people don't change their behavior when tax rates drop or rise: if a 40% tax rate raises $500 billion, then a 20% tax rate would raise $250 billion. This is wrong because people do change their behavior when faced with such starkly lower tax rates. They earn more money, which generates additional tax revenue. Just how much is hard to estimate.
When the Kennedy tax cut dropped the top income tax rate from 91% to 70%, or when the Reagan tax cut dropped it from 70% to 50%, it is quite possible that the lower rates raised more revenue than the old, higher rates would have. On the other hand, few if any of today's tax rates are so high that cutting them would generate a surge of income-producing activity so large that revenue would rise. There will certainly be a feedback effect, just not such a massive amount. When revenue rises after cuts in a moderate-to-high tax rate, it is usually because of economic activity that would have occurred without the tax cuts. Furthermore, a significant chunk of the cost of the Bush tax cuts has little effect on marginal economic behavior, such as the 10 percent rate creation, the increase of the standard deduction for married couples and the child tax credit increase.
Second, unfortunately, no governmental organization such as Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has done a hindsight look at how much the tax cuts have cost. JCT did score the original tax cuts when they were proposed, but those scores required assumptions about future tax law and economic performance that turned out to be incorrect. However, many people still cite the original JCT estimate, which was that the Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003) would, over the 10-year period, allow taxpayers to keep $1.6 trillion dollars that they would have remitted in taxes under the Clinton-era rates.
Among the various provisions, the largest was the new 10% tax bracket, which saved taxpayers $400 billion, or one-fourth of the total package.
The only place we could find a recent hindsight estimate of the cost of the Bush tax cuts came from the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice who used it as an opportunity to compare the Bush tax cuts' cost to health care reform. According to CTJ, the Bush tax cuts that were passed up through 2006 (the 2001 and 2003 cuts as well as other smaller cuts in 2004, 2005 and 2006) ended up costing the Treasury approximately $2.1 trillion in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010. CTJ claims that if you add interest payments, that number goes up to around $2.5 trillion.
These numbers were calculated using CTJ's ITEP model. From what we could tell from their methodology paper, they assumed no feedback effect that would generate additional revenue. With that caveat, there is no reason to doubt these numbers. Therefore, the $2.1 trillion cost ($2.5 trillion with interest) on the Bush tax cuts is a high-end estimate. Note that also included in CTJ's $2.1 trillion estimate is the cost of annually adjusting AMT, which was technically not part of most of the "Bush tax cuts."
We are still spending money in iraq and afghanistan and much of that money goes to US companies and suppliers, just like a stimulus package of spending.
TARP funding under Bush was about $300 billion, most of which has been paid back with interest.
In the last fiscal year under bush, the deficit was $400 billion and the projected deficit when obama took office was $1.1 trillion, of which $300 was from TARP ( you cant charge bush for the cost and credit obama for the collections) and about $300 was from less than expected revenues due to economic slowdown so almost all of the incremental deficit was due to temporary TARP spending and lower tax revenues, not permanent spending and new entitlemnt programs like those under obama.
and the deficits under the 6 years of bush and the republican controlled congress never exceeded $200 billion and only began to skyrocket when the dems took control.
I trust the cbo numbers more than a liberal blog site using dated charts with cherry picked and inaccurate info.
you need a drink...like Boehner!
The "fix" in Boehner's analogy that he likened to a nuclear weapon was financial regulation. The "ant" in his analogy was the financial crisis that has nearly destroyed the economy. Nuke = financial regulation. Ant = financial crisis. Does he really think people are so dumb that they can't understand the simple (and idiotic) analogy he was making? Well, maybe Republicans are.
Glen Beck is in a one lie after another meltdown right now on my teevee.the man is dangerous
No, only people who pay attention to him or any of the talking heads are dangerous. He is simply an entertainer with a schtick, to be taken as seriously as Jay Leno, or Bill Maher. Turn it off and read a book.
That's what all the bullies of right wing talk claim. They expect to be taken seriously except when they don't. If you believe what they say they're informing. If you catch them in a lie it was just entertainment. Just like any other bully who pushes and shoves and belittles until someone gets mad, then gets in one more dig by saying "You have no sense of humor!" Pathetic.
Really? They say "Turn me off and read a book"?...I stand corrected...
Did it occur to you that the rhetoric of Maher, Olbermann, (your name here) et al is no different to the extremists on the other side? It is entertainment on both sides, designed to garner ratings and advertisers. The only people who rant for and against their ilk are the tiny percentage of americans who bother to tune them in. And if your counter is that "they lie! my side tells the TRUTH, with FACTS!"...I will realize that I was wasting my time, mistaking you for a reasonable person...
Rodney please!
Olbermann may have a bias, but he supports it with facts, and when he and Rachel make a factual error they are quick to correct it in real time or the next night's program. If Fox Noose were to try to correct their errors, factual errors alone, there would be no air time left over for them to spread anymore of there half-truths and lies. It really ought to be the law that News outlets have to get it right or waste air time "unringing the bell" for getting things wrong. Dan Rather paid the price, Fox Noose should be no different.
You are so full of it. Fox is a licensed station subject to the same rules as everyone else and NO news organization is allowed to lie or mislead. Don't you think that the FCC would fine or suspend Fox if it violated any laws like you claim. Fox is not different and does not get a free pass, which only proves that the liberal attacks are baseless and without merit.
And who do you think owns fox and its affiliates? Murdock and what do you think he wants his news organizations to do report the real stuff or report what he wants? Since he has so many my bet would be on the way he wants it.
If Faux is so truthful, then how come even a Comedy personality can make them state retractions and corrections, REGULARLY, to their BLATANT lies? Faux has been caught in so many lies, Econ101, that it makes your statement totally irrelevant as it is either a lie as well, or you do not really watch their programming and just pass on your lack of actual knowledge.
Fox is a licensed station subject to the same rules as everyone else and NO news organization is allowed to lie or mislead. Don't you think that the FCC would fine or suspend Fox if it violated any laws
What truth laws, who at the FCC watches and fact checks every newscast, what about Dan rather, and CBS the FCC did not debunk his story or punish anybody.
That sounds as nutty as squirrel poop.
Boehner has a strong challenger this year. http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/
yea, just like "targeted" tax cuts usually miss their mark.
Econ 101
Sorry to burst your bubble but the FCC does NOT require news organizations to get their stories right. In fact a Federal judge has ruled that News organizations HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO LIE TO YOU. Strangely it was a local Fox affiliate in Florida thats set that legal precedent, it involved growth hormones in milk and how the dairy industry corrupted the end product of the report (by working the "news" executives) to the point that the investigative reporters did not wish to give or sign off on the piece.
News organizations are not required to tell you the truth! Fox's business model is based on that fact.
Boehner is the face of the Republican party, and it's quite an ugly and egotistical face indeed. Keep speaking your ignorance and arrogance, Boehner, to show the Nation how out of touch and childish you and your party are. What a disgrace!