[jeffkrol]

and somehow I'll end up paying for it......(opps forgot to add GET NOTHING IN RETURN)

in 2006, Beohner again displayed his aptitude for taking advantage of other people's criminal indictments when he succeeded Tom Delay as the House then-Majority leader.

Electrifying conservatives with his stern pro-business, anti-corruption, small government positions, Boehner would quickly disappoint most of his supporters by approving $9.8 trillion dollars in President Bush's budgets. While most lawmakers are unable to follow through on every promise they make, it is uncommon for a politician to do the complete inverse of every promise they made.

"Thankfully," following the 2008 Presidential election, Boehner returned to his original stance against major government spending once it became politically convenient.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=John_Boehner

House GOP leader John Boehner (BAY'-nur) is assuring supporters in his home state of Ohio that Republicans will lead Congress in a much different way than the last time around if he becomes speaker.

Boehner promises a new Congress if GOP takes over
Good luck w/ that.........

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-29-2010 at 11:27 PM.

[Parallax]

C'mon Jeff! Less than a week before the election and you come up with two threads about Cheney? Cheney? You can do better than that!

[jeffkrol]

C'mon Jeff! Less than a week before the election and you come up with two threads about Cheney? Cheney? You can do better than that!

This is about BAY'-nur...

The new improved Cheney opp's sorry.......
One thing about Cheney is he never flip flops ala Bonehead here.......
But thanks for your concern......

While Boehner has recently become known for insulting reporters haircuts and skipping out on the supposed Republican "revolt" to play golf, Boehner does have several notable policy positions.

* In 2007, Boehner argued that benchmarks for the Iraq war would ensure failure, a measure supported by the Democrats. In weeks prior, he agreed with President Bush that benchmarks for the Iraq war were "good" and "very important." Many political scientists argue that it's probably not a great sign if one of the leaders of your party can't make up his mind about a central issue of an entire campaign cycle.

* Boehner does not believe in human contribution to global warming and once remarked: "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do you've got more carbon dioxide." While many scientists have taken exception to the 15 things that are factually incorrect about that statement, researchers are most surprised at Boehner's inability to just say the word "defecate."

* Boehner receives campaign donations from what is essentially the set-up to a joke about republican stereotypes: pharmaceutical and cigarette manufacturers, health insurance companies, oil companies, military contractors, and Native Americans. One wonders how that Crying Indian would feel about donating his casino profits to a guy who has defended his environmental position by citing cow shit.
o That's not to be confused with "chicken shit," a designation, Boehner used in regards to President Barack Obama

As to your sig.. "YES" he'll still get blamed based on "intuition".....

[jeffkrol]

and childish.....But funny
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvyataq4SIk[/YT]
But apparently it is an old name...........
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/boehner-201010

“Listen, I think our leadership team has done a pretty good job,” he told me and a small group of other journalists in late summer, when I asked if he’d been surprised at the degree to which he’d been able to hold his fractious caucus together. “But I’ve got to give a lot of credit to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi for pushing my colleagues into my loving arms. Listen, I’ll say it: We’re not that good.”

The world is about to find out. In the aftermath of the midterm elections, there will be endless thumb-sucking and Monday-morning quarterbacking about the results, and Boehner and his party will either be geniuses or be goats. No matter what happens, the forces inside the Republican Party that Boehner has been contending with—and bowing to—will still be there. If the primal scream of modern Republicanism can turn even a typical, traditional, not unreasonable, frankly likable Republican like Boehner into a caricature of partisan posturing, cynical opposition, and rank obstructionism, then Washington is in much deeper trouble than everyone already thinks it is...........
Vanden Eynden, who now runs a candle-making business in Cincinnati that supplies Wal-Mart and other chains, recalls that “Boehner had a big butt, and we’d kid him, ‘Boehner, you’ve still got your hip pads on,’” adding, “If we really wanted to heckle him, we’d call him ‘Boner.’” The nickname—no surprise—is not of recent vintage. Also no surprise: it was one that President Bush found amusing. Today there is lively speculation in the lefty blogosphere that “Boner” is actually the correct pronunciation of the family name, and even a suggestion that Boehner plans to formally change the name to “Bayner” in preparation for a 2012 run for the presidency. In the blogosphere you can also find dense linguistic analysis, suggesting that the correct German pronunciation of Boehner is, in fact, closer to “Burner,” though the congressman’s family has always pronounced it to rhyme with “trainer.” It is safe to say that scholarly evidence will not put an end to this discussion.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/boehner-201010

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-03-2010 at 04:51 PM.

[Artesian]

and somehow I'll end up paying for it......(opps forgot to add GET NOTHING IN RETURN)

John Boehner - Dickipedia - A Wiki of Dicks

Boehner promises a new Congress if GOP takes over
Good luck w/ that.........

Lets look at it like this. Anything would be better than Pelosi!

[deadwolfbones]

Lets look at it like this. Anything would be better than Pelosi!

Let's go beyond your wacky right-wing ad hominem memes for a moment... which of Pelosi's political policies do you disagree with, exactly? And why?

[cardinal43]

... which of Pelosi's political policies do you disagree with, exactly? And why?

You do know you won't get a straight answer, right?

[Parallax]

Let's go beyond your wacky right-wing ad hominem memes for a moment... which of Pelosi's political policies do you disagree with, exactly? And why?

Can I play? Here's a few of the ones I dislike:

* Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
* Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
* Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
* Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)

* Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
* Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
# Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
# Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
# Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
# Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
# Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
# Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
# Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

[deadwolfbones]

Can I play? Here's a few of the ones I dislike:

* Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
* Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
* Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
* Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)

* Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
* Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
# Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
# Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
# Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
# Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
# Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
# Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
# Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

Good on you for doing your homework. Now why can't everyone focus on actual issues instead of plastic surgery jokes?

(Of course, almost all of those sound ridiculous on the surface, but the contents of the bills usually include some obnoxious BS that makes it impossible to pass them, or the economic implications of passing/not passing them provide endless complications.)

[GeneV]

Good on you for doing your homework. Now why can't everyone focus on actual issues instead of plastic surgery jokes?

(Of course, almost all of those sound ridiculous on the surface, but the contents of the bills usually include some obnoxious BS that makes it impossible to pass them, or the economic implications of passing/not passing them provide endless complications.)

My thoughts as well. I'm not one of the outgoing speaker's biggest fans, but I think that a bit of study would show there are quite a few stinkers on that list of bills which she rejected.

[Parallax]

..................
(Of course, almost all of those sound ridiculous on the surface, but the contents of the bills usually include some obnoxious BS that makes it impossible to pass them, or the economic implications of passing/not passing them provide endless complications.)

My thoughts as well. I'm not one of the outgoing speaker's biggest fans, but I think that a bit of study would show there are quite a few stinkers on that list of bills which she rejected.

You both have valid points. If you look at her stated position on issues, however, I think her votes on most, if not all of those would have been the same even if there were no ancillary aspects to them beyond what the titles suggest. The votes on them based solely on their titles seem congruent with her stated beliefs.

[jeffkrol]

The oracles at Goldman Sachs Group say that $750 billion of quantitative easing is priced in to the market, and possibly $1 trillion — a frightful prospect that was hardly diminished by last week’s lost jobs report.
On top of that, there’s $300 billion to $400 billion in annual GSE run-off that needs replenishment under QE1.5. So Brian Sack, the monetary apothecary who operates the New York Fed’s drive-thru window, is going to be giving Wall Street a lot of POMO. Call it $100 billion per month of Permanent Open Market Operations, and be done.
Not coincidentally, it appears that there’s also baked into the cake about $100 billion per month of new Treasury paper. According to CBO’s August update, the two-year, cumulative red ink under current law (FY 2011-2012) will total $1.7 trillion. But that doesn’t count the upcoming lame duck session’s predictable one-more-stimulus bacchanalia.
Juiced up by their election rout, the tax-side Keynesians in the GOP are certain to ram through a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for one and all.
In return, the hapless White House will insist this one-half trillion dollar gift to the “still haves” be matched with several hundred billion more in presently unscheduled funding for emergency unemployment benefits and other safety net programs for the “no-longer-haves.”

Trillion-dollar deficits don?t matter - MarketWatch

leading to Republican control of the House and possibly the Senate. While this may well happen, remember the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.”A Republican victory, it's widely believed, will lead to a significant cutback in government spending and a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. What a panacea! Less wasteful spending at bureaucratic government institutions, low taxes on income
so that consumers and businesses can spend and invest more, the world regains confidence in the US economy, and the dollar appreciates! What a great victory!.............Now, let's assume that the credit card company (better known as the Republican party) decides that it can’t lend you $10,000 anymore and is reducing it to $5,000 -- and it would like to stop doing it altogether. Whoa! What do you do? No vacation? Less shopping? No 3D TV? It’s a problem!

So with the government deficit running at 10% of the GNP and Republicans wanting to cut it to 5% and eventually to 3% or less, this is what happens. There are no new taxes so spending gets cut back. It doesn’t come from defense and it can’t come from the mountain of interest due, so it comes from spending of domestic agencies -- less money for the states, less money for entitlement programs, less money for capital programs, etc. The effect on the GNP = negative 5%. That’s a fact and facts are stubborn things................Then there's the consumer. Of course we're all glad we're not going to pay more taxes. The problem is that 40% don’t pay taxes anyway. The other problem is that more than one out of every six of us isn't working, or barely working (including people who have stopped looking for jobs and those working part time but want to work full time, the current unemployment rate is 17.1)! So even without more taxes, we're very, very stressed. So how happy are we that the government deficit is coming down? We really don’t care. What we're concerned with is that governments (federal, state, city, municipalities) will now also be cutting jobs and spending less on programs that led to jobs or made our quality of life a little better (maybe we'll do less shopping at night because there are now less police on patrol). So, we as consumers aren’t going to be spending a lot more money because the government deficit is lower.

As far as the trade deficit, let's give this a pass. “King dollar” makes imports cheaper, but it's tough to believe that the demand will be there to buy a lot more.

So what's the impact on the equity markets of a Republican victory leading to a significant cutback in the government deficit? It’s a great party, leading to a horrific hangover.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/gross-national-product-g.../2010/id/30481
JUST to remind some.............

And the Bush administration has seemingly not learned any lessons from this, as the FY2009 budget had a near-record deficit of $407 billion. This deficit was calculated before the administration spent $900 billion rescuing troubled financial institutions and proposed a $700 billion economic bailout. The bailout bill put forth by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson increased the federal debt ceiling – the amount to which the debt is legally allowed to go – to $11.3 trillion.

As the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities has shown, 42% of the “fiscal deterioration” and explosion of the deficit that occurred under Bush was due to tax cuts:

The key factors have been large tax cuts and increases in security-related programs. For fiscal 2009, some $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s fiscal finances stems from policy actions, and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration.

The conservative practice of cutting taxes while spending millions on wars has led to the largest debt in half a century, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is proposing exactly the same policies. An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that if McCain’s economic plan was in place for eight years, it would leave a debt of $12.7 trillion, besting Bush’s record.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/02/cheney-deficit-debt/
But let's DO IT AGAIN................

[Nesster]

Minyanville is a doom and gloom site by habit - they tend to be bond guys...

An outrage on the Bush budget - his wars were off budget items. Obama put them in the budget, to reflect reality.

In case our conservative friends do not see how tax cuts to the rich (and other policies that accrue a greater share of income and wealth to the already well paid and wealthy) in fact are wealth transfers and social engineering, at least as implemented by Republicans:


Let's say, as an owner of a small business you decide to give all your employees a raise, on the theory that this raise will make them happier and more productive. But your business doesn't really have the money flow or margins to pay for these raises... that's no problem, you figure, as you can borrow the money each year, and the raises will cause your company to grow enough to pay back the loans eventually. The raises are applied on a scale: the first $10K of income becomes $10.5K, the next $90K becomes $95K, and all pay in excess of $100K gets a 15% raise.

This company is borrowing in order to give employees raises: someone making $100K now makes $105.5K, and the big boss who made $1,000K now makes... $1,140K.

Of course such a company makes no sense. But this is in fact what the Bush tax cuts did, being unfunded. Republicans simply borrowed money (went into debt, sold T-bills, printed money, however you want to say this) to give workers raises. The more you made, the bigger the raise - and the bigger the benefit accrued from the government going into debt. Yet who will eventually pay off the debt? the taxpayer, that's who.

[jeffkrol]

It was hardly a mandate for the G.O.P.’s way of doing things. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. The public does not want the next two years to be a bitter period of endless Congressional investigations of the Obama administration; more tax cuts and other giveaways to the very wealthy; and attacks on programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance that offer at least a measure of economic security for ordinary people.

It would also be a mistake for the Democrats, a terminally timid party, to cave in to their opponents and start embracing a G.O.P. agenda that would only worsen the prospects of ordinary working Americans and the poor.

The Democrats are in disarray because it’s a party that lacks a spine. The Republicans, conversely, fight like wild people whether they’re in the majority or not. What neither party is doing is offering a bold, coherent plan to get the nation’s economy in good shape and create jobs, to bring our young men and women home from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to rebuild the education system in a way that will prepare the next generation for the great challenges of the 21st century, and to reinvigorate the can-do spirit of America in a way that makes people believe that they are working together toward grand and constructive goals.

Great challenges demand great leaders. Marian Anderson once said, “Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it.”

Americans right now are riddled with fears and anxieties of many kinds. They are worried about the economic well-being of their families, the cost of securing a decent education for their children, their prospects for a comfortable retirement, the continuing threat of terrorism, and the debilitating effects of endless warfare. They worry that America’s best days may be in the past.

Neither party talked about the wars during the campaign because neither party has anything satisfactory to say about them. And there was hardly any talk about education. We know that a quality education is more important now than ever, but we are firing teachers by the scores of thousands, not because they are incompetent, but because state and local budgets have hemorrhaged.

Our leaders in Washington seem entirely out of touch with the needs, the hopes, the fears and the anxieties of the millions of Americans who are out of work, who are struggling with their mortgages or home foreclosures, who are skimping on needed medication in order to keep food on the table, and who lie awake at night worrying about what the morning will bring. No one even dares mention the poor.

What this election tells me is that real leadership will have to come from elsewhere, from outside of Washington, perhaps from elected officials in statehouses or municipal buildings that are closer to the people, from foundations and grass-roots organizations, from the labor movement and houses of worship and community centers.

The civil rights pioneers did not wait for presidential or Congressional leadership, nor did the leaders of the women’s movement. They plunged ahead with their crucial work against the longest odds and in the face of seemingly implacable hostility. Leaders of the labor movement braved guns, bombs, imprisonment and heaven knows what else to bring fair wages and dignity to working people.

America’s can-do spirit can be revived, and with it a brighter vision of a fairer, more inclusive, and more humane society. But not if we wait on Washington to do it. The loudest message from Tuesday’s election is that the people themselves need to do much more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/opinion/06herbert.html
It begins.......
ADDENDUM (I like the writing):

Boehner and McConnell can waive sticks of political dynamite at Mr. Obama in front of the media all they want. From the President's window at the White House, though, it looks more like the House of Representatives is on fire.

Which is, after all of the drubbing that Democrats took last Tuesday, the delicious irony: President Obama is the only guy that may have the bucket of water to put out the Tea Party for the GOP leadership. Without some victories on legislation, the GOP has nothing. The key to those victories: Barack Husein Obama, and something even more onerous to rankled Republicans: Compromise.

Even though both Boehner and McConnell vow to bring President Obama down in 2012, the only road to victory for them, and to keep voters from turning on the GOP again, may run through the Obama White House by striking deals rather than hunkering in around their party dogma.

Their only proposals to date are to use the same disastrous George W. Bush era free-market anti-regulation, enrich-the-rich stimulus policies that led to everything from the economic melt-down to BP's blunder in the Gulf.

Voters did not endorse a political party, or that agenda.

This was the Halloween Mid-Term, a political trick-or-treat prank played by the citizens of America on its government. Right-wing witches, weekend warriors, and whackos lit a big brown tea bag filled with doggie poo and left it gleefully flaming on the steps of the Capitol Hill.

Now they're hiding behind the hedges waiting to see Mr. Boehner lose it as he stomps it out, only to find out what the surprise was in the bag.

The problem is that, unless the GOP gets its house together and seek common solutions rather than capitulation, we will waste another two years squabbling, and making the Koch brothers and their allies a little richer while government continues to gridlock, as they planned it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/mr-boehner-people-in-burn_b_779398.html