Boehner asks what he gets for $800b. Obama: "You get nothing."

[bigtree]

__________________

tweeted by, Mike O'Brien ‏@mpoindc (@NBCNews and @NBCPolitics)

"My final offer is this: nothing." MT @politicalwire Boehner asks what he gets for $800b. Obama: "You get nothing." http://pwire.at/VWenjs


How the Fiscal Cliff Talks Stalled

The Wall Street Journal has a behind-the-scenes look at how the fiscal cliff negotiations faltered.

"Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault."

At one point, Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

Replied Obama: "You get nothing. I get that for free."


read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html

[JoePhilly]

1. You mean like this???

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[JaneyVee]

2. But I've got a Golden Ticket.

And John Boehner is as orange as an Oompa Loompa.

[bigtree]

3. ha!

[JaneyVee]

67. Pres.Obama is Willy Wonka & John Boehner is Augustus Gloop.

[samsingh]

132. the repugs are worth nothing

actually they're a cost centre

[monmouth3]

20. I was thinking more like Michael Corleone in the Godfather to the Senator from Nevada. "You get

nothing Senator."

[DefenseLawyer]

35. Does this mean the Speaker is going to have a dead hooker problem in the near future? n/t

[monmouth3]

49. HA! You never know...n/t

[Botany]

110. Maybe w/ a horse head in the bed too.

When Boner was at the state capital in Columbus he did like his
bourbon and babes.

[backscatter712]

130. I was wondering about that myself!

[brewens]

52. Not to nitpick. Only because The Godfather II is maybe the only sequel I liked more

than the original. That was where that scene was from.

[appacom]

82. Me too! I was thinking Vito Corleone with Johnny Fontaine's manager when Boehner

turned down the $400,OOO and Obama went back to $250,000

[JDPriestly]

84. There is nothing amazing about the President's statement.

Letting the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would bring the government nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. That’s $823 billion in added revenue and $127 billion in interest to be exact, for a total $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/bush-era-tax-cuts-revenue-expire_n_1828657.html

He was simply saying that revenues increase by $823 billion if there is no deal and we "go over the cliff."

It's Republicans who have the most to worry about if we go over the cliff.

If they want some or all of the tax cuts to continue, the Republicans have to improve revenues over what will happen if we go over the fiscal cliff.

I think aw should just go over the fiscal cliff. Either way, we have a recession. Either way, taxes go up. Either way, a lot of people suffer simply because Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum.

[bluestate10]

147. Yes, that is a more exact analogy. nt

[One of the 99]

32. More like this.

[CatWoman]

36. exactomundo

[monmouth3]

51. Perfect..n/t

[svpadgham]

96. This came to mind for me.

[Panasonic]

137. Huge huge fan of UHF.

That's why my computer's name is UncleNutzy

[Sunlei]

50. President Obama has the patience of a saint. I would have given Boehner something to cry about!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. You're right. Very patient. He's going to keep insisting that SS be cut until Boehner accepts it.

Of course, Obama may have to sweeting the deal a little. But that should not be a problem.

[Hekate]

88. You're really a piece of work

But you knew that already

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. If he supports cutting SS with chained-CPI, shouldn't you? Why so unhappy about it?

Are people not supposed to notice?

[strikeforce]

135. hey thanks alot

for misleading us.snake !

[Sunlei]

106. Not a cut for low income with the exemptions. The Romneys of the world will miss

that $100 off their guaranteed ss check won't they?

[BlueCaliDem]

124. Oops!

That proven anti-Obama DUer forgot to mention that iddy-biddy-detail in his quest to delegitimize President Obama as a progressive. Ouch.

Good thing you reminded him - not that he'll remember it in his next post whining about the chained CPI. Believe you me.

[SummerSnow]

131. Yea like call in all his bar tab debts

[graywarrior]

55. LOLOLOLOLOL!

[Initech]

59. I was thinking more like this:

[Brickbat]

75. Nope. More like this. (Warning: Earworm ahead!)

[YayArea]

90. And this is the song Boehner can cheer himself up with...

[link:

|

[Volaris]

140. That is likley the best thing ive seen this year.

THAT'S how you fucking negotiate after you just won re-election and kept control of the Senate.

Lol thanks for this. Awesome.

[Dudette]

146. Awesome sauce...

Delicious, delightful!! Thank you!!

[FSogol]

4. Hey Boehner, You'll take nothing and like it!

[bigtree]

6. Prez's definitely not taking any shit from the oompa-loompa man

stone-cold

[BlueStreak]

23. Oh puh-leese. We know the rest of the story already

We know that was followed by a whole series of unilateral concessions by Obama.

And I doubt that tough talk ever happened anyway. It is not anywhere in Obama's constitution. It seems like an after-the-fact attempt for the White House to counter the rising sentiment that he must be the

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If this story at last means the President is listening to the public a little, then that is a good thing. Everybody chill for the holidays and maybe the President will show up with a new attitude on January 1.

It will be interesting to see what the teabaggers have to say for themselves on January 1. And it will be interesting to see what the other Republicans say about being responsible for the largest tax hike in history.

[bigtree]

28. link

http://www.justmakingshitup.com/pid=2054944

. . . nice with the optimism, though.

[Demeter]

29. Second that notion

If Obama comes out and yells: "Social security and Medicare have NOTHING to do with the deficit--everybody just stop even thinking about cutting them!", then I will believe he has some talent and smarts and honesty.

[wildbilln864]

37. plus one!

[bvar22]

42. You mean if Obama becomes MORE of a Democrat than Ronald Reagan?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Demeter]

46. That would be a start...

[Buzz Clik]

44. Ha! God I despise this shit.

In 2005, we had your kind writhing in agony and wringing your hands in conjured concern about the agenda of the extreme left not being met. But, one by one, he started ticking off the list. But, you're still here, hiding under the bed and barking at shadows.

[bvar22]

58. "the agenda of the extreme left" ???

You mean something like THIS?

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established [font size=3]for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."-- FDR

You mean THAT "Extreme Left" Agenda?
Please note that FDR species the above as Basic Human RIGHTS to be OWNED and Administered by our Government of the People
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

At one time, not so long ago, voting FOR the Democrat was voting FOR the above Values.
THOSE were Mainstream-Center Democratic Party Values.
Some of us here STILL fight for those values.
They are NOT "Extreme Left".
There IS no "Extreme Left" in the USA.


---bvar22
A Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT
now labeled an "Extreme Leftist" in today's New Democrat Centrist Party
I haven't changed.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[BlueStreak]

91. What in the world?

Check yourself man (or woman).

Do you even have any idea what a Democrat (big D) is?

Please take some time to learn what got us to this point.

Unless I misunderstood your post, a colleague explained the basics of the true Democratic philosophy and you just called him (or her) a "Right wing knuckle dragger". That makes no sense on any level. I hope I have misunderstood something really basic here.

[BlueStreak]

107. Maybe you would be more comfortable here: http://www.freerepublic.com

because you certainly seem to have disdain for Democratic values.

[bvar22]

121. If the words of FDR sear your flesh so deeply,

....then you DO "need some asshole telling (you) this shit".

If you believe there IS an "Extreme Left Wing" in the Democratic Party,
then you DO "need some asshole telling (you) this shit" .

The fact that YOU view Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrats
as "The Extreme Left Wing" tells us everything we need to know about you
and where YOU stand on the Political Spectrum.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[ronnie624]

114. *

[AllyCat]

118. Really? This is right-wing? I think you are on the wrong forum.

[mattclearing]

95. Thank you for standing up for progressive values.

Anyone who has a problem with it isn't worth your time.

[bvar22]

119. I believe that particular poster...

...gave us a peek behind his veil.
His reaction to the words of FDR were....... revealing?

[bread_and_roses]

108. amen, bvar (n/t)

[Hekate]

89. Another one. It's just amazing.

[jwirr]

5. You get the satisfaction of knowing that our nation is in better condition than before. That is what

you are in congress for but you have not been doing that for many years now.

[bigtree]

7. he'll get no satisfaction

. . . from that; and yes, he should.

[democrattotheend]

8. So much for the president being spineless

GOBAMA!

[bigtree]

10. I know, right?

. . . the man in this report doesn't look at all interested in giving republicans anything.

[democrattotheend]

12. At least, not as much as they demanded

Obviously he offered them something...one can reasonably opine that he offered too much. But it wasn't good enough for them, and he wouldn't go further. I read that they put Plan B out hoping it would force the president to go higher on the floor for tax rates and make other concessions, because once they took away the millionaire talking point they could blame the president for not signing it and going over the cliff. But he refused to go along with it because it would not bring in enough revenue.

[southern_belle]

80. +1000

I love my President! He has the GOP by the short hairs!

[Comrade_McKenzie]

9. That's what I voted for.

[ProSense]

11. People don't realize

how strong the President's hand is.

In January, it only gets worse for Republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054555

He can do and say anything he wants to because the Republican position is extremely weak. They don't have the votes (see the Plan B).

[democrattotheend]

26. They also don't realize that what is said publicly is not what goes on behind the scenes

Which is unfortunate but inevitable.

I think the president genuinely wants a deal that will avoid the cliff (which will hurt a lot of people if it triggers recession, contrary to the CW here), but this article makes it clear that he's not willing to take just any deal. But it's in his interest to make sure he looks like he bent over backwards to deal with them so that people see how insanely unreasonable they are. If we do go over the cliff, it's important that people know that the president did all he could to avoid it. We might prefer to see him fight, but most people want to see him do what he has to do, including compromise, to prevent the economy from going into another recession.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. I completely agree ...

Having participated in high-stakes negotiations, I know that what is said in public, frequently, is unrelated to what is being said at the table; but is said to create a public perception. In this case, that public perception being promoted is President Obama CONTINUES to be reasonable and the gop continues to be unreasonable. And every Democratic candidate for 2014 should be rejoicing the President Obama is taking this tact ... it makes their road so much easier ... the campaign ads write themselves.

I wonder ...

Is President Obama (and his team) using the left's hair on fire tendency, tacticallyWhat would communicate reasonableness to independents/those in the middle more than having the left loudly expressing their discontent? That would explain the recent polling numbers.

[customerserviceguy]

53. They don't need votes from Democratic members of the House

in order to shut the whole thing down. All they have to do is what the tea party wants, and that's vote for absolutely nothing. Yes, the rich will pay more in taxes, but they're going to pay them if they take any deal the President offers, anyway. Yes, some defense contractors will have to lay some folks off, but the execs will still collect annual bonuses.

The Repukes figure they can wait out this siege much better than our side can. And they absolutely will not vote for any plan that doesn't give at least a dollar's worth of cuts for a dollar's worth of taxes. Or, they can simply refuse, absolutely refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, that's where their hand is strong.

[pnwmom]

60. The 98% who will have to pay much more in taxes are the ones

the tea party-ers will be concerned about. Most of the tea party-ers are in that group.

[customerserviceguy]

61. We'll see about that

They do a good job of getting elected (and re-elected) by making everything the President's fault. No, they can't play that game all over the country, but they can sell it in enough places to really gum things up.

They're ideologues, and they know the American voting public has a very short memory. Some small tax increases for a few months of siege (that can be retroactively rolled back) will seem worth it to them if they can crow near Election Day 2014 that they "saved the country money".

[freshwest]

76. I love the consequences for them:

1. The tax cuts expire.

2. Sequestration ($1 trillion Budget Control Act), which includes $500 billion in defense cuts, automatically kicks in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054555#post14

This is what will happen automatically. Tax cuts expire and destroy the deficit. Half a trillion in defense cuts, and it won't be a political gambit - they agreed to it, because of the sacred deficit.

This will be first real cut to the MIC in my lifetime and a move to a peacetime economy.

The deficit that they want paid off by those who have no money to pay, so that the only thing they have left to pay with is their lives. That is wrong and should not be happening. To the GOP, Tea Party and Libertarians, worshippers of Ayn Rand, yes. To Democrats it will never be.

This accomplishes two essential things that these people resisted all year long. Yes, their time may be over with, which is why their media is going to continue to promote armed rebellion. Because war is their only solution to everything, that and the fossil fuel industry is how they became wealthy beyond any need and their method for creating winners and losers:



Thanks to Whovian who used that graphic in a thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2033923

And many thanks to jtuck004 who gave me some links identifying this group:

http://public-accountability.org/2012/12/operation-fiscal-bluff/

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2012

The CEO Campaign to "Fix" the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks

http://truth-out.org/speakout/item/12955-the-ceo-campaign-to-fix-the-debt-a-trojan-horse-for-massive-corporate-tax-breaks

Those are good reads there. This is a big loss for them but they still have plenty of money. The Koch brothers also figure into this, and their shill Grover Nordquist promises to unleash what he calls Tea Party Two because of Obama's resisting.

Koch wealth grew from $7.5 billion to $50 billion in 7 years ripping us off w/ oil speculation



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/21/324969/forbes-koch-brothers-now-worth-50-billion/?mobile=nc

This is worth a read and is from a thread posted by RepublicansRZombies . The last post explains what is happening. The Koches and their followers resist taxes and they brainwashed a generation to think it's evil to fund government. But there is never an end to having to pay. Read the words of AZ Progressive:

This is the Koch Brother's TAX on the American people

They've peddled the ultimate reverse robin hood scheme, taxing the American people at the pump through oil speculation, making $43 billion dollars in the process and putting undeserved hardship on Americans (which is what Republicans love to do.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021276224

This is all shades of what Eisenhower warned us of over half a century ago, of wealthy oil men who he called few and stupid, who he didn't believe would be able to take over the GOP. He was wrong.

The GOP resisted every bill the president asked for in his first few years, with demands he agree to the Keystone pipeline in any budget deals, or personhood riders. He did neither and they will be mounting another 2010 campaign from 2013 thorugh 2014. This battle is ours to lose.

[mostlyconfused]

93. "Tax cuts expire and destroy the deficit." You're kidding, right?

The top marginal rate could be raised to 100% and it would be enough to cover only a fraction of the deficit.

[freshwest]

100. I actually described three things which will destroy the deficit, without dividing, undersand?

Over time the sunsetting of the Bush tax breaks on the wealthy takes back what the subsidized, especially those who are the richest, have been taking from other taxpayers with the defense business, fossil fuel and other breaks, credits and those subsidies have been doing to bleed other people and the government.

The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, combined with gifts to the fossil fuel industry and defense industries through two wars, gave them thrice the benefit that they had in the Clinton era, or even before that. That is three things that mean the deficit is going down greatly. Not just one thing.

Do you agree that Clinton ended up with a deficit or a surplus from the tax rate in effect before Bush?

Did the Bush wars blow up the debt and the wars were on a credit card, without contribution from the richest who traditionally had their tax rates go up, including the punitive rates that Eisenhower forced on them to pay some of the profits they made off WW2, but were outrageously ignored?

Do fossil fuel subsidies raise the deficit, while they made record profits, impoverishing the tax payers directly? Not only that, did the tightening of money not punish those in the states who had to make up for their needed public works and infrastructure because it was going to wars?

I've read your other data on your other posts, that go on the same theme, but are interesting. I'm speaking generally, if you think it's worth mocking my words, just go on ahead and do so.

[jpak]

115. Yes, that is the Koch Bros. official talking point

yup

[KansDem]

126. Let's try it and see...

We were told 30 years ago that "trickle down" would enable the wealthy to "re-invest" in America, thereby bolstering the economy and creating jobs. Not so. The wealthy took their new-found swag and invested in overseas economies and shipped jobs to places like China and India.

So why don't we try letting the tax cuts expire and see what happens? Perhaps it will have none of the effects quoted by the Koch Brothers or their minions in the media.

We can try letting the tax cuts expire for...oh, let's say...30 years, and see what happens.

[mostlyconfused]

139. No, that's a factual statement.

Based on 2009 IRS data available via irs.gov. That's the most recent year where detailed information is available. Based on actual filed tax returns, if the top marginal rate were raised to 100% it would cover only a fraction of the deficit. As unequal as the distribution of wealth/income is in this country, income tax rates cannot be raised high enough on the rich to cover the deficit. Not even close.

[bvar22]

128. After WW2, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower...

...stated that the RICH had a Patriotic Duty to help pay down the War debt from WW2 (which IIRC, was an even greater percentage of the GDP than now).
*He set the Top marginal rate at 91%

*Minimum Capital Gains were +25%

*undertook MASSIVE Government Spending Programs targeting the Working Class
(JOBS, Infrastructure, Housing, and Education).

These 3 things combined to produced the Largest, Wealthiest, and MOST Upwardly Mobile Working Class the WORLD had ever seen,
AND sparked an Economic BOOM that generated enough REVENUE to Pay Down the Deficit in 15 years.
JFK then lowered the Top marginal rate to 71%.

I don't care WHAT Fox News says,
[font size=3]Lets try THAT again![/font]


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[WCGreen]

13. Think about this; why was the WSJ the conduit for this information....

To show the business folks who is in charge and what the stakes were for backing Romney and the GOP.

In black and white newspaper terms; this is a new sheriff in this town and I'm not going to put up with this shit anymore...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

31. !

[customerserviceguy]

56. The WSJ

is showing their readers what the Repukes in the House already know, Boner is a spineless wimp. This is all part of the build-up to having him replaced in early January. They have to get GOP'ers on board with that, and reading about how the President dissed Boner is sure to let them know that he's cooked.

It's no wonder the tea party didn't back Plan B, that would have made Boner their chief negotiator on the final deal, and they know he hasn't got the spine to sell what they want. They know that there's going to have to be a siege first, and they expect that their allies can outlast our side.

Hey, it's the same thing that would happen on our side if the chained CPI were part of the deal, we'd take the cliff over something that was against our core principles.

[WCGreen]

63. Yea, well, this wouldn't be getting out unless president Obama wanted it to get out...

The only other possibility is Cantor had someone in that meeting to report in such detail.

Plus the WSJ is not going to print something that isn't confirmable and that makes me think the White House is the source of this article. I know Murdoch owns the WSJ, but they aren't going to hurt the credibility of the voice of Wall Street on an unconfirmed story.

[customerserviceguy]

64. I'm sure there was somebody in that room

who was able to spy on Boner in order to report back to their tea party masters. Besides, true or not, confirmable or not, the WSJ is done with the Orange Man, and they'd like to see a new leader of the Rethuglican party in the House. Their last attempt to take over the country with Mittens failed miserably, and they need to make up lost ground.

[appacom]

83. the WSJ lies all the time. Where have you been?

[WCGreen]

109. On the editorial page....

[LonePirate]

14. This is the type of news I like to wake up to in the morning.

[The Magistrate]

15. I Would Like To Think This Reporting Is Accurate, Sir

It certainly is what ought to have been said.

[bigtree]

16. I think you got that just right, Magistrate.

. . . there's a healthy sense of ownership of the election in his reported remarks.

[grantcart]

17. Two points

1) Reporting what was said. If it wasn't exactly what was said Boehner is in no position to respond.

2) Leaking it. While saying it to Boehner is in itself satisfying leaking it to the world is a second mortal wound.

[Rider3]

18. It's always, "What's in it for me?"

I'd like to see how the GOP is tightening their belts these days. I doubt they give up anything.

[mwooldri]

19. I'd like to think that the next sentence after "You get nothing" is...

... "We still got an unbalanced budget, and there is not enough money coming in. Find more, please."

People who says America has a spending problem don't seem to realise that America has a far bigger revenue problem. Part of the problem is a lack of jobs.

I distinctly remember "Corporations are people" being touted by a certain Republican Presidential Candidate. Perhaps corporations need to be treated more like individuals - a US Citizen has to file a tax return and pay US taxes on their earnings, no matter in the world they are and it doesn't matter if they haven't put foot on US soil in many years. So corporations headquartered in the USA should be treated the same way - got massive growths in a subsidiary that has a lower tax rate? Sorry, gotta report that to the IRS, and pay as a US citizen would have to pay the appropriate taxes. Oh and Capital Gains Tax needs to be revised.

Enough for now, Mark.

[LiberalFighter]

48. And when corporations send jobs overseas that means less taxes from workers.

When corporations pay their employees in the USA less and less that means less taxes from workers.

[democrattotheend]

21. Here are some more excerpts from the article

I discovered this morning that my overpriced tuition dollars get me access to WSJ articles through ProQuest, so here are a few more notable excerpts. Really wish I could post the whole article.

He and Mr. Obama didn't sit down together for another 10 days. The session began genially. But tension quickly emerged over the president's call to include increasing the U.S.'s borrowing limit in any final package.

Responded Mr. Boehner: "I've found in my life that everything I've ever wanted has come with price." Mr. Obama told the speaker he wasn't willing to play games with the debt ceiling.

...

Mr. Obama insisted on raising tax rates for those with household income above $250,000. The House GOP wanted significant spending cuts and fundamental changes to Medicare and other entitlement programs in exchange for new tax revenue.

The president repeatedly reminded Mr. Boehner of the election results: "You're asking me to accept Mitt Romney's tax plan. Why would I do that?" At another point, the speaker noted his GOP majority would also return next year.

...
Mr. Boehner said he wanted a deal along the lines of what the two men had negotiated in the summer of 2011 in a fight over raising the debt ceiling. "You missed your opportunity on that," the president told him.

[Enrique]

27. it's a very good, long article

for some reason, it is available at this link, at least for now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html

[meow2u3]

45. The article is behind a paywall. Does someone have excerpts?

I have no intention of speding one red cent on that Murdoch rag!

[Pirate Smile]

62. If you google the headline, usually one of the links to it lets you in behind the pay wall. I don't

know why but it worked for me this morning to get to the entire article but I had click on a few different ones first.

[tblue37]

85. My favorite line:

Mr. Boehner said he wanted a deal along the lines of what the two men had negotiated in the summer of 2011 in a fight over raising the debt ceiling. "You missed your opportunity on that," the president told him.

[HoosierRadical]

103. Prez is done playing games with these clowns.

President Obama is about the peoples' business, he had to make some very hard decisions in his first term, now he knows the GOP aren't to be trusted.

[flamingdem]

22. "What do I get for my uber wealthy 1% masters

who could give a shit about our collective good"

[democrattotheend]

24. That's a good way to put it

And someone pointed out to me on another thread that you can access the whole WSJ article through Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=How+'Cliff'+Talks+Hit+the+Wall&sugexp=chrome,mod=6&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I highly recommend reading it...apparently our president is not such a spineless wimp after all.

[flamingdem]

25. I'm thrilled with Obama 2.0

and hope he continues in this direction!

[coalition_unwilling]

30. Sounds like Obama is almost ready to have his very own "Network" moment. You know, that

moment when you go, "I'm mad as hell. And I'm not going to take it any more."

He really did display the patience of Job with that dunce Boner.

[Cha]

54. That's just an ignorant

cheap shot that means nothing.

[DefenseLawyer]

33. I want a hamburger, no a cheeseburger. I want a hotdog. I want a milkshake.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. Incentivize the Tax System

Tax the Job Creators so they have to work for a living like
everyone else!

[siligut]

38. Finally faced the fact that the GOP are selfish

Give an inch and they will take a mile, they have no conscience.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Damn!! Awesome.

[frylock]

40. fuck you. pay me.

[ellie]

41. hahahahahahahahaha

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. "...and make me a sandwich."

[George II]

47. Great comeback by Obama. I'm sure the article is an interesting read but............

.....what's the point of posting a link to a pay article???

[DonViejo]

57. See comment #24, above. nt

[Scurrilous]

65. K & R

[Kahuna]

66. But..but..but..Obama's a wuss!

[patrice]

69. BO is making the 1% start paying for their OIL WARS. nt

[Kahuna]

70. Not to mention making them pay for trying to take him down these past four years..

This makes me very happy.

[patrice]

71. Me too! It's been HARD to watch & scarey too! I could figure some of it out, but NOT enough.

Merry Christmas, Kahuna!

[Kahuna]

73. Merry Christmas, Patrice..

[jmowreader]

72. About damn time!

Over the past four years, the Republicans have believed the president and the Democrats should give them everything they want--tax cuts, this, that, the other thing--and they need give the Democrats nothing in return. They did this shit during the few days the Democrats actually held the majority in both houses, they did it when they had one house and the Democrats the other, and now they are doing it right after the voters repudiated their party at the polls.

It is time for the Republicans to act like mature adults and help FIX the problem they created all by themselves.

We need eight Republican senators and about forty Republican congressmen who have nothing to lose because they plan to retire after the 2014 election to tilt this away from the teabaggers and Norquist zombies.

[OldRedneck]

74. Memo to President Obama:

What do you do when the guy you've been dealing with is writhing on the ground, bleeding and pleading for help???

RE-LOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't give an inch to those piece of shit mofos!!!!

[Blue_In_AK]

77. Um, maybe an unfortunate metaphor right at the moment.

Just sayin'.

[DonCoquixote]

86. Normally yes, but

let's not forget that if the tea party had their way, they would at best allow the gun shootings to roll on, and at worst, encourage "second amendment remedies" like they did to Gabby Giffords. The fact some GOP are not in jail for using that tone is a testament of itself.

[grahamhgreen]

78. We have no ideas what these deals are!

"The president told him he could choose one of two doors. The first represented a big deal. If Mr. Boehner chose it, the president said, the country and financial markets would cheer. Door No. 2 represented a spike in interest rates and a global recession."

We know the bit about financial markets is likely wrong.

[cbrer]

79. *SMACK* nt

[Hekate]

87. Hubby handed me the WSJ article this a.m. and laughed

He loved the line about the $800 billion and "You get nothing." Me too. It was a delight to read.

I quoted LBJ to him and he about spit-taked his coffee: "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." It seemed apropos and I seriously hope it is the case.

Oh yes oh yes, such a wonderful Christmas/Mayan Solstice present.

Hekate

[Cha]

92. Thanks for the anecdote, Hekate~

Mele Kalikimaka to you and yours

H/T Duer sheshe http://www.democraticunderground.com/101788268

[Hekate]

101. Now that put a smile on my face

And on POTUS and Family's faces! I hope they have wonderful time in the surf and sun out in Kailua.

Hekate

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. Chuck Colson worked for Nixon, not LBJ. And you attribute such a vulgar quote to LBJ?

You're a real piece of work.

[bigtree]

111. LBJ said much worse

. . . anyone who knows a thing about him (and has listened to even a portion of the LBJ tapes) knows that LBJ could be racist, sexist, bigoted, and profane . . . sometimes all at once.

So much for your 'work'

[AnotherMcIntosh]

120. What you say is besides the point. The issue is whether LBJ or Colsen said that.

The original passage is from Philippians 4, 7:

"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ."

In his May 4, 1965 "Hearts and Minds" speech, LBJ said

"We must be ready to fight in Vietnam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there."

Chuck Colson, an organizer of the Watergate burglary (involving Democratic offices of which you should disapprove), is the one who hung a sign on his White House wall with the quote that is now being falsely attributed to LBJ (of whom you should approve).
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Colson

Unless you are a hypocrite, your disapproval of the "work" statement should extend to the first person who said it at #88
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2058176

So now you're defending the false attribution of a wall slogan (maintained by a Republican) to LBJ (a Democrat) on the grounds that "LBJ said much worse."

Where's your loyalty to the Democratic Party and particularly LBJ who gave a 1965 "Hearts and Minds" speech for an entirely different purpose but did not say what is being falsely attributed to him? Is your animosity such that you are willing to close your mind to the truth?

[coalition_unwilling]

122. LBJ might as well have said it. After all, it is indisutable that LBJ

said, “I never trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket.”



thinkexist.com/quotes/lyndon_b._johnson/

[AnotherMcIntosh]

123. No. What is falsely being attributed to LBJ (a Democrat) is the exact opposite of what he said

and was trying to accomplish in 1965 with his "Hearts and Minds" speech.

See #120.

The issue is not whether LBJ could be vulgar. The issue is whether a sign hung on a White House wall by a Republican (Chuck Colson) as a way to bastardize LBJ's 1965 "Hearts and Minds" speech should be falsely attributed to LBJ (a Democrat).

Is your animosity so great that you would accept a wall slogan of a Republican in the post-LBJ Administration as originating from LBJ?

[coalition_unwilling]

127. Oy vey. I hope you have a good holiday, my friend. I'm amused by LBJ's

home-spun vulgarity, not offended by it. The "pecker in a pocket" remark attributed to LBJ basically says the same thing as the "hearts and minds" quote, the false attribution at which you take such umbrage.

N.B.: The phrase on the plaque in Colson's office may have actually originated with U.S. Navy personnel in World War II or shortly thereafter. It certainly was not original to Colson who was one evil mofo, willing to walk over his grandmother to win or some such.

[budkin]

99. He needs to crush some balls, not try to compromise with these repugnant a-holes

[Ruba]

102. Cuts on social security and entitlements by January

[proReality]

104. What's with the "Mr. Obama"?

Last I heard the man was President Obama. The WSJ is filled with bigoted racists with no respect for the man or the office he holds.

[eShirl]

105. seriously, you've NEVER heard/read the press refer to any presidents as "Mr...." ?

I've heard/read them do that all my life, and I'm coming up on five decades now.

[boxman15]

112. It's not just President Obama they call "Mr...."

That's the style that the Wall Street Journal, and famously, the New York Times, follow. On first reference, they'll refer to the president or anybody else by their full name and title (President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). After that, it's Mr., Ms., or Mrs. (Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton). It's not a slight against the president at all.

[bigtree]

116. I've always understood the usage to be a step up from just using their last name

. . . as many, many articles do after they initially give the full title.

(but, of course, the WSJ doesn't really deserve much defense from us about the way they characterize and refer to this President)

[lonestarnot]

113. Not even one fucking peanut!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

125. I would have offered Boner a nice embroidered lace hankie

[bucolic_frolic]

129. So Boehner thought it a poker game of equals?

Nice try, Mr. Speaker.

He's the President. You aren't.

[Zax2me]

133. Sort of like the stimulus package - ha ha

But seriously folks -

[SDjack]

134. Boner will awake Xmas morn to find a lump of coal in his stocking.

[CountAllVotes]

136. You tell them Mr. President!

& recommend!!

[grahamhgreen]

138. He gets no cuts for Big war.

[angry citizen]

144. Great Quote

I remember how much he gloated over the debt ceiling crises. If I may quote a former Providence Mayor. "Sometimes the toe you step on today is attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow".

[undergroundpanther]

145. Go cry yourself to sleep bohner.