Obama Says "NO" To Boehner's Offer To Negotiate With House Republicans

Now, just which one is the party of "NO"? The Democrats, that's who:

Boehner Asks White House to Negotiate, but Obama Declines Invitation

December 22, 2011
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, phoned President Obama this morning and asked him to send members of his economic team to the Capitol to end the political stalemate and negotiate a path toward a one-year extension of the payroll tax credit. The president declined the offer.

"With Sen. Reid having declined to call his members back to Washington this week to join the House in negotiating a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, the speaker proposed that the president send members of his economic policy team up to Congress to find a way to accommodate the president's full-year request," a senior aide to the speaker said. "The speaker explained his concern that flaws in the Senate-passed bill will be unworkable for many small-business job creators. He reiterated that if their shared goal is a one-year bill, there is no reason an agreement cannot be reached before year's end. The president declined the speaker's offer."

According to the White House, the president told Boehner "the only viable option" is the two-month extension, but Obama "is committed to begin working immediately on a full-year agreement once the House passes the bipartisan Senate compromise that prevents a tax hike on 160 million Americans on Jan. 1."



http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-asks-white-house-negotiate-obama-declines-invitation-173155206.html

 

I believe turnabout IS fair play and Obama had the Boner on the ropes. Why negotiate when public opinion has already turned on Boner? Besides, he already caved.

 

Yep! I am afraid Boehner blew this one. Gee, I wonder why I have never seen any such comments from the left.

 

Who is "the Boner"? I've never heard of that person.

 

So Boehner signs off on the bipartisan proposal passed in the Senate, and life is good until when he gets back to ranch and finds that the Baggers have a little surprise for him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7110573867064702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

How many times do I have to explain it to you? John Boner is the Republican version of that guy with the clown nose that you use as your avatar.

 

Oh, Osama?

 

Is he Osama? I thought he was Mao this week. Somehow I had the understanding that he was going to be Osama next week. But then I don't get the official RW calendar so I tend to lose track.

 

Exactly. The LW calendar only has the weekends and holidays printed; the workweek is entirely left out.

 

Well of course. Those are the fun days. The rest of the time we're working. Unless we happen to be temping, in which case Saturdays and often Sundays tend to be work days too, at least in my business. Besides, Obama wouldn't be on the LW calendar anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure it's spelled Usama...by people who know him best.

 

You're probably right. Believe me, I know all about variations in how one's name is handled.

 

As I understand it, the payroll-tax credit's purpose is to put more money into our hands in order to stimulate the economy, and the economy could use the help. What I don't like is that this credit reduces the amount of money that funds Social Security. I understand that benefits are not being reduced, at this time (an argument can be made that benefit reduction in the future as a direct result of this credit is highly probable), but I don't like the idea of underfunding such a critical program, it smacks of Republican ideals. Another thing I don't like is that Democratic politicians seem ok with the idea. Again, I understand how this helps the economy, but my argument is that the effect this credit has on the economy is minimal compared to the effect it has on funding Social Security.

This seems like a win-win for the Republicans to me... they get lower taxes (while simultaneously underfunding Social Security) and can attack Democrats who want to reinstate the original rate.

So, someone earning $50,000 a year gets to keep an extra $40 every two-weeks. Is that the same rate for lower incomes? Say at $25,000 that would be an extra $20 in someone's wallet every two weeks. At $12,500, an amount typically earned by a significant group of people in my area, the amount is $10 every two weeks. $5 a week. (points finger into the air and twirls it) Woo.

 

I knew you, Tack-a-Gee, would understand.

(runs) ......I mean Takiji...Takiji!!!......

 

Actual fact I can talk to. "it smacks of Republican ideals"? How funny. Every democrat voted for it and BO demanded it, but the majority of the Republicans voted against it.
"Again, I understand how this helps the economy" Another interesting comment. I wonder what you would have said if it were called Reaganomics because that is pretty much what it is.
And just to make it Democratic, it is another bill no one has read. (Someday, that practice will really get somebody in trouble.)

 

I consider lower taxes and messing with Social Security (SS) to be "Republican ideals". Both have been championed by the right for decades that I'm aware of. That Democrats are championing them now is unusual, wouldn't you agree? And I did say "Another thing I don't like is that Democratic politicians seem ok with the idea."

My point about how it helps the economy was framed by it's minimal positive impact on it and the larger negative impact on funding for SS. The point doesn't support Reagan's ideals, it rebuffs them.

As for your comment about Congress not reading bills... that it's a horrible practice ...you'll get no argument from me on it, and I'd say we get into trouble every time they do that.

 

Again EVERY Democratic Senator voted for it. It makes you think that there might be some more in those 1221 pages than a 2% tax decrease, doesn't it? I will bet that is it. It might even include something about the Keystone pipeline and spending more money. Think that might be right?

 

Part of my point agrees with yours, that the Democrats voted for it. I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what's in it though, and I find it suspicious as well.

 

I might have been a bit facetious, but what I suggested is absolutely there. I did not make that up.