Boehner Has To Be The Worst Speaker Of The House EVER!!!

The cons like to complain endlessly about Nancy Pelosi but at least she could control her own caucus. Boehner is clueless and inept and has nothing to show for almost a year as speaker. Hey Boehner, remember "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"? Haven't seen a jobs bill from you yet, you can't keep the tea party nuts in line, and you have nothing to show for all the time you've wasted over the last year. The RW'ers have really picked a dud in Boehner but it's not like they had a lot to choose from. OUCH!

Boehner: House leaders accept Senate tax terms

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner says he has reached agreement with the Senate to renew the payroll tax cut before it expires Dec. 31.

The Ohio Republican said in a statement Thursday that he expects to pass a new bill by Christmas that would renew the tax break for two months while congressional negotiators work out a longer-term measure that would also extend jobless benefits for millions of Americans and prevent doctors from absorbing a big cut in Medicare payments.

The GOP retreat ends a tense standoff in which Boehner's House Republicans came under intense pressure to agree to the short-term extension.

 

Republicans: The party of "YES".

 

Boehner is like the Fredo Corleone of the Republican House leadership only without Fredo's good qualities. If I were him I wouldn't turn my back on Eric Cantor again.

 

Especially if Cantor offers to go fishing with him?

 

Yay. They passed the Let's Have Another Manufactured Tax Cut Crisis In February bill. Great job kicking the can down the road about 2 feet, Congress.

 

Yeah, never get into a boat with Eric. Or in the passenger's seat of the Cadillac with Eric in the back.

 

Actually, from what I have heard, they actually kicked it up the road. Now no one knows what to do with the tax rates in their computers.

 

Boehner should have learned from Pelosi. If it was something he wanted badly enough he should have offered bribes & exempted half the population from the legislation's reaches.

Here's a serious question though: With all the talk about mounting debt, entitlement reform & shared sacrifice is it really good sense to cut the funding to social security?

 

Better for the long run would be to ween Americans off the expectations of entitlement programs like what Social Security has become. Thanks to uncontrollable social programs, America is filling up with whiners and crybabies who want it all. Those who are wanting everything are the liberals, socialists and democrats. They can't seem to understand the saying, "Keep your hands out of my pockets". They're no better than thieves.

 

It is funny how this bill passed with unanimous consent and there wasn't really all that many people in the chamber at the time. It seems that those that objected to the bill, mainly the Tea Party wing of the GOP, didn't have the courage to actually be photographed passing the bill they objected to but they were willing to fly off home and let it pass with their consent anyway. Ain't politics special? They really must hate Boehner at this point.

 

Politics? Special? Well maybe, but not nearly as "special" as you interpretations.

 

Yeah, I guess if you say "no" to what BO wants you are an obstructionist, if you say 'yes" you're whatever it is moen is trying to label you.

So, moen, I'll ask you......does it make sense to reduce contributions to a program that is already teetering?

 

Here is the problem with your question. By making the assumptions you make, there is no possible correct answer. Why? Because first off, Social Security is not an entilement, it is an obligation. A second problem with your question is that Social Security does not and cannot add to the debt. It never has and it never can. Why? Social Security does not, and cannot by law, add a penny to the federal debt. It, by law, cannot pay benefits unless it has sufficient income to cover the cost, and it has no borrowing authority to make up any shortfall. Currently, if left unchanged, can pay all benefits through 2036 and 75% of benefits through 2085. So in reality, it makes NO sense to cut Social Security.

P.S. If that is your definition of "teetering" I have to wonder what you'd consider a full scale meltdown.

 

Doesn't this cut adversely effect the social security cofers?

 

My points were that it wasn't an entitlement and it cannot and does not have an impact on the debt.

Will decreasing payments into the system adversely affect its eventual solvency? Perhaps but I suppose further changes down the road can off-set any current losses. It is no different than doling out huge tax breaks to businesses except that doing so actually increases the debt.

I really have no dog in the Social Security debate since I do not pay into Social Security.

 

Why is Social Security an obligation? In the many years prior to Social Security's existence, people took care of their elderly family members in their own way. Elderly family members were respected members of the extended family and frequently lived with their children until death. After Social Security family members now warehouse the elderly and expect the state to take care of them. Families have obligations to family members. The government has no obligations to its citizens in this particular situation.

 

Got this from Wiki might explain why he says it is a obligation

Social Security is a social insurance program that is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). Tax deposits are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund

 

I think that might be an overly rosy view of the past. By the time social security was enacted the extended family was on the way out. By 1920 more Americans lived in cities than in the countryside, not necessarily because they were born there but because they moved there. For much of the time leading up the Great Depression rural poverty was a major problem in America. Those who stayed on the farm and in small towns even though they might be living in extended families were not necessarily equipped to take care of them. Also, life expectancy during the first quarter or third of the 20th century increased dramatically, partially through a drop in infant mortality, but also because people were living longer at the other end but didn't necessarily have more money to live on. Society was changing and traditional ways of dealing with the problems of poverty among the elderly were insufficient. Something was needed. Social Security was a response to this.

And social security is not welfare. People pay into it. Specifically into it. It's separate from the national budget. Finally to say that government has no obligation to its citizens in this regard is simply an opinion, not fact. It seems to me that the only fact in this regard is that Government has, or should have, whatever obligation to us that we collectively decide that it has.

 

Why is it an obligation? I guess because we pay into the system and we get a return on our investment. An entitlement is something that the law guarantees to a group that meet certain criteria. If you don't pay into Social Security, you have no right to benefit from the program. However, since the Social Security Administration changed the eligible beneficiaries to include children who have lost a parent and the disabled, the program actually covers people that have paid nothing into the system. As a matter of fact, about 1/3 of those benefitting from the program have paid nothing into it.

 

But even though it has benefitted and benefits so many people it is ideologically impure as far as the Right is concerned and it must be privatized or done away with altogether. Wasn't that way when Eisenhower was around. Or Nixon. Or Ford. But I doubt that America will see many Republicans like them again.