Audio: G Train Conductor Gives Performance of a Lifetime
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
Paterson Bombshell Rumor Watch: Resignation Imminent?
Paterson "Bombshell" Just PG-13?
In advance of President Obama's meeting with Republican leaders to discuss his proposed $825 billion stimulus package later today, Politico reports that House GOP leader John Boehner and whip Eric Cantor "told their rank-and-file members... during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday." Republicans have argued that the plan doesn't jumpstart the economy fast enough and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) suggested there was bi-partisan dissent, "Listening to what [Obama] said he wanted, we think we may be closer to that, oddly enough, than the Democratic majority, which seems to be pulling in the direction of fewer tax — less tax relief and things like fixing up the [National] Mall. You know, most people don't think that's the way we ought to spend stimulus money." However, Boehner is appreciative that Obama is having meetings with the GOP, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't met with them at all. Guess we'll have to see about that $3.4 billion for NYC.
Boehner Urges GOP Vote Against Stimulus Package
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (25) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
New York City public schools have a "snow day" on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.
[more]
Very smart of Boehner. If the US economy turns around sooner rather than later, Obama and the Democrats will get most of the credit. Whereas if the economy continues to tank under a Democratic presidency and congress, the Republicans can blame the Democrats.
Yes, very good move of Boehner to use the US economy's collapse to gain a talking point for future elections.
Well done.
They call it politics for a reason. I don't think this is all that different than the Dems opposing Iraq funding without a timeline.
The difference is that US presence in Iraq was a fundamental mistake and a timeline would help make it less of a mistake. That's a substantive disagreement.
And another difference is that pretty much regardless of what Obama proposes, Boehner will oppose it. He has to. That's the way he plays to win. It's not about substance but about politics.
It could be both substance and politics. It's possible to be against the bill on the merits, and one could certainly consider this bill to be a "fundamental mistake". I wouldn't agree, but I can understand the viewpoint.
Or maybe it could also be because Republicans believe in small government in principle.
But of course it's politically favorable for them as we're 1.5 years away from midterm elections. But they don't get that either way we're fucked and the Republicans will coast into the Congress in 2010 as the spending will do nothing.
Polls don't seem to support McConnell's assertion..
After all this bluster about bipartisanship, what kind of a message do you send when you announce your decision before meeting with the President?
This dude is creepy looking. Like Howdy Doody all grown up...
It's funny how some people just look republican.
Hahaha -- so true.
Boehner is the guy who described himself as "less tainted" than some of his peers when we has trying to get his leadership position in the Republican Party.
Look where a lot of this federal money is going, it's nothing but more cynical, pork barrell spending and political payouts ----- they just RENAMED it "economic stimulus package" so you gullible fools will buy into it. Thank goodness there are at least a few people in Washington standing up to this massive looting and plundering.
Somebody hands you a plate of dog turds and tells you it's a bouquet of roses doesn't make it smell any better.
Boehner - how does one pronounce that?
Thanks Ides,
Were you supporting people in Washington (or elsewhere) who tried to stop the wasting trillions of dollars, destroying a country, and forfeiting the lives of over 3,000 US troops in a useless war?
Or do you support people like Boehner, who were in favor of that waste and destruction?
Just wondering.
So you're saying two wrongs make a right?
Anyway, I know you weren't addressing me, but I was against the war.
"Stimulus package" or "pork-barrel spending" - I don't really care what its called as long as it creates jobs for our growing army of unemployed Americans. Could someone please explain to me why the GOPs plan of tax cuts for people not getting a paycheck at all would be more beneficial than the creation of public works & infrastructure projects that will bring jobs with it?
The Bush tax-cuts really went gangbusters, didnnnit...
Boehn-head.
If we are going to have real change then these fucking shit stain republicans need to fucking die off already. I cannot stomach looking at these puppets droning on about more of their bullshit philosophies-you know the ones that have us in 2 fucking wars, billions of dollars in the shitter and on the verge of total collapse?
Throwing money at failing businesses and raising taxes on successful ones, yeah, that's a recipe for a healthy economy.
Government jobs are an illusion in the long run. Eventually when there is no real wealth-creating businesses with revenue generating employees, there's no tax base left to fund all these wonderful government programs and job creation schemes. That's when the whole house of cards comes down. May not happen for a while but that's the road we're on now.
"Spreading the wealth" sounds good on paper, but what happens when the wealth is all gone and there's zero incentive for anyone to create it? Marxism is parasitic, it eventually kills its host.
Who has proposed a tax increase? Citation required.
The proposed bill has business (and other) tax cuts in it. Citation: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-obama-outreach27-2009jan27,0,98936.story
Speeding up the elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts, which is raising taxes---though they palatably blame it on Bush---and in increase to capital gains and estate taxes (in 2011) are the tax hikes we are talking about.
The Bush tax cuts (and the estate tax tomfoolery) always had an expiration date. There is no "speeding up" going on. If the GOP wanted a permanent tax cut, they should have written the legislation that way.
Did it ever occur to you that "We must do something. We must create jobs. We must stimulate the economy. We must force banks to lend." are also talking points---but Democratic ones?
Just as the average American republican couldn't tell you truly why the free market should be the remedy and we should do nothing in this crisis, an average democrat couldn't explain logically why deficit spending in the recipe we need.
Both parties have their "talking points." Gimme a break.
Marxism? Tax increase? Why are you making up arguments that aren't being made and then disagreeing with them? You might want to look up the definition of "straw man".
Ides is just making stuff up right now. Like Boehner.
HaHa, Ides, not unlike other republican sore losers, are still spouting these outdated talking points.
Boehner and his pathetic crew do NOT plan on supporting anything proposed by Obama. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh's statement last week where he said that he hopes Obama fails (along with the collapse of the US economy- my emphasis). Even "Gamblers Anonymous"/windbag William Bennett had to lightly chastise Limbaugh for that idiotic comment.