Boehner says prez doesn't have the guts to tackle deficit

[g8orbill]

I think he is 100% dead on in his assessment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/boehner-obama-doesnt-have-guts-to-tackle-deficit/

[GatorNorth]

Sadly it's true on both sides. Not like Bohner's been successful taking on the tea party side of his own party. Bit of a pot calling the kettle black statement in advance of tonight's SOTU.

They're both cowards to politics.

[gatorman_07732]

I disagree, I don't think he cares

[DaveFla]

I don't think he has the ability.

[JohnC1908]

I disagree, I don't think he cares

This, none of them care. They just enjoy hanging in D.C. getting hookups, schmoozing, and living the life.

[HALLGATOR]

in order to really tackle the budget a politician is going to have to be ready to piss off a a lot of his/her constituents and/or their campaign contributors. Few of them have what it takes to do this.

[mocgator]

Obama couldn't care less.

[David Shepherd]

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

[g8orbill]

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

The problem is getting Congress to pass term limits

[brainstorm]

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

They have even less guts to try that one.

[tegator80]

Term limits are the wrong step in the right direction. It is up to US to tell them that they are no longer needed, regardless of whether they are good people or not.

Regarding the deficit, unless you believe in the conspiracy theories, no one is ready to do the heavy lifting. What we are seeing are lawyers doing what they do best: try to negotiate the other side to lose. The loser is the one/party who comes out and says exactly what cuts need to be made. The others will attack them as if they were fresh meat in a pack of lions.

[David Shepherd]

The problem is getting Congress to pass term limits

The only way to get it passed is for the ones who are in office now can stay until defeated, retired, died or whatever... Those coming in to replace them will have limits.

The next president elected after the law passed would have a six year term.

[gatorman_07732]

They have even less guts to try that one.

That is a job security interest. Remember special interests are the fourth branch of government.

[LittleBlueLW]

Man did anyone else notice how grotesque the House chamber looked last night? I guess when you make you living stealing from citizens under the guise of 'governing' it takes its toll on the body.

Those 535 +1 make me want to puke.

[108]

'the tea pot calling the kettle black'

[g8trjax]

'the tea pot calling the kettle black'



Yeah, how long do we have before the next Ray Guy boomer?

[reformedgator]

'the tea pot calling the kettle black'

Actually the kettle is only 1/2 black. :wink:

[wgbgator]

Actually, the deficit has been reduced under Obama (so much so its hurt the economy according to the CBO). Maybe you're thinking of the national debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/cbo-deficit-reduction-economy_n_2629938.html?utm_hp_ref=business

[gator421]

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

What do term limits have to do with guts?

[gator421]

The problem is getting Congress to pass term limits

We already have term limits. It's called voting.

[exiledgator]

He may or may not have the guts. The real question is: Is he tough enough?

http://www.pestcontrolrx.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/30/snapping_turtle.jpg

[brainstorm]

We already have term limits. It's called voting.

"Term limits" are generally accepted to mean a "hard" time limit - 4 year, 8 years, whatever.

Voting just means their "contract" is up for renewal every 4-6 years.

[gator421]

"Term limits" are generally accepted to mean a "hard" time limit - 4 year, 8 years, whatever.

Voting just means their "contract" is up for renewal every 4-6 years.

Then don't renew it. I get the definitions.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I think he is 100% dead on in his assessment

Absolutely.

And it's not about guts, it's about self-preservation.

And "conservatives" in office lack those very same guts.

Nobody's going to cut anything.

[g8orbill]

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

[gatorman_07732]

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

They fear being lambasted by the media for taking something away from somebody

[gator421]

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

Who's leading the other 53%?

[g8orbill]

not prezbo

[dangolegators]

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

[g8orbill]

danglo

W was not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word

you boy is 4 times worse when it comes to spending

[gatorman_07732]

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about

[dangolegators]

danglo

W was not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word

you boy is 4 times worse when it comes to spending

Actually this (Obama worse than Bush on spending) is quite wrong. Under Bush federal spending increased 67% from 2000 to 2008 (it went from roughly 1.8 trillion in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2008. For Obama, spending went from 3 trillion in 2008 to roughly 3.8 trillion in 2012. That's a 27% increase in 4 years. So even if we were to continue to increase spending at the same rate of Obama's first 4 years, it would still not equal the rate of increase we saw under Bush over 8 years. But it is also very unlikely we will see spending rise as much over the next 4 years as it did the last 4 years, as the effects of the recession continue to wear off. The budget for 2013 is around 3.8 trillion, which means there is essentially no increase over the 2012 budget.

Long story short, Bush was worse on spending than Obama has been.

[dangolegators]

What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about

Um, term limits.

[brainstorm]

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

The context was congressional term limits. Which has a lower approval record than the current POTUS.

[dangolegators]

The context was congressional term limits. Which has a lower approval record than the current POTUS.

So we can't compare the potential effects of congressional term limits with presidential term limits?

[g8orbill]

Actually this (Obama worse than Bush on spending) is quite wrong. Under Bush federal spending increased 67% from 2000 to 2008 (it went from roughly 1.8 trillion in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2008. For Obama, spending went from 3 trillion in 2008 to roughly 3.8 trillion in 2012. That's a 27% increase in 4 years. So even if we were to continue to increase spending at the same rate of Obama's first 4 years, it would still not equal the rate of increase we saw under Bush over 8 years. But it is also very unlikely we will see spending rise as much over the next 4 years as it did the last 4 years, as the effects of the recession continue to wear off. The budget for 2013 is around 3.8 trillion, which means there is essentially no increase over the 2012 budget.

Long story short, Bush was worse on spending than Obama has been.

the budget? what budget! there was no budget passed and you are way off on the spending and the resulting deficit

[ncgatr1]

The president isn't going to tackle anything where there is a potential for blame. He is the perennial crusader, always fighting those evil Repubs and never governing. He will be the first president to have one of the most horrible economic records ever without having any blame put on him. That is why we never had a budget. It is beyond comical and any thought of rationale. All you can do is watch it unfold and let the democrats completely destroy this Country then maybe the entitlement holders will turn on their elitists.

[dangolegators]

the budget? what budget! there was no budget passed and you are way off on the spending and the resulting deficit

The budget for 2013 that Obama sent to congress requested 3.8 trillion in spending. That is Obama's budget. Congress has not passed one.

And the other numbers I presented are factual and easily verified. Bush increased spending at a higher rate than Obama has.

[g8orbill]

obama's budget could not even garner dem votes

so please verify those numbers

[GatorNorth]

obama's budget could not even garner dem votes

so please verify those numbers

Here you go.....2013=3.8T outlays and 325B less deficit than 2012 as I read this:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

[g8orbill]

hahahahahaha

that is funny-you act because they put numbers on paper that they are factual and are the law of the land


this is more like it

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2013/02/13/real-state-union-0?intcmp=related

[gator421]

not prezbo

Awesome. Another cute nickname for the president.

[g8orbill]

I short cut for the word president and his initials are cute?

you libs make me laugh

[gator421]

I short cut for the word president and his initials are cute?

you libs make me laugh

Totally clever.

[tegator80]

Awesome. Another cute nickname for the president.

I think "Prezbo" needs to be reserved for when Hillary becomes POTUS.

[ncgatr1]

Obama is not going to tackle anything. He is the perennial crusader against those evil Repubs . No time for him to pass a budget or deal with deficit. When it comes to the economy it will be always be Bush's and the Repub's fault. He will be the first president to go through the worst recovery and never have anything pinned on him. All this for Hillary's run in 2016. What a complete joke all this has become and the democrats should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.