Boehner goes off on conservative groups and their response

[dario73]

http://www.businessinsider.com/budget-deal-boehner-conservative-groups-heritage-club-for-growth-2013-12


Politics More: Congress John Boehner Conservatives Boehner Unloads At Conservative Groups That Oppose The Budget Deal: 'This Is Ridiculous!'
 
AP

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) snapped at conservative groups that have come out in opposition to the budget deal reached Wednesday between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

"They're using the American people for their own purposes. This is ridiculous," Boehner said at a press conference with other members of House Republican leadership on Wednesday.

Over the past few days, a number of conservative groups have blasted the deal because it sets discretionary spending levels in the budget higher than previous levels under sequestration.

In the past three days, the influential Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks have all signaled they would oppose the deal. They have all argued that while imperfect, the sequester has provided the only effective check on the Obama administration's spending.

The legislation provides $63 billion in sequester relief over two years, which is split evenly between defense and non-defense programs. This is offset by targeted spending cuts and non-tax revenues that total $85 billion. It reduces the deficit by a total of $20 billion to $23 billion.

When Boehner was asked in the press conference about the conservative groups, he cut off the reporter asking the question.

"You mean the groups that came out opposed to it before they ever saw it?" he said. "... If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

Soon after the press conference, the groups denounced Boehner's comments. Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said that the group stood with the likes of Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), all of whom oppose the deal.

"After carefully reviewing the budget deal, on which we never commented until it was complete, we determined that it would increase the size of government," Chocola said. "We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those."

[JOHN MATRIX]

Just another Vichy republican angry that conservatives are resisting their collaborations with the socialists.

[dario73]

[doison]

Brilliant republicans.  They've already alienated half the country for various reasons...to the point that those people would follow the left into slave camps before voting for another GWB.

Now it looks like they're working on bashing half of the people still willing to vote for them. 


Gonna be tough winning elections with a voting base of religious zealots who love big government...which is what it seems they're banking on.

[240 is Back]

Gonna be tough winning elections with a voting base of religious zealots who love big government...which is what it seems they're banking on.

great points.  until the far-right base and the RINOs can reach some common agreement, the 40% of dems that actually can agree on things will keep winning pres elections.

[Necrosis]

great points.  until the far-right base and the RINOs can reach some common agreement, the 40% of dems that actually can agree on things will keep winning pres elections.

What the fuck is with deficit reduction? it's not even that important currently. Seriously, why the fuck aren't they focusing on infrastructure and jobs again?

the deficit is dropping at the fastest RATE in history and this is key? I think not, just more bullshit.

[whork]

What the fuck is with deficit reduction? it's not even that important currently. Seriously, why the fuck aren't they focusing on infrastructure and jobs again?

the deficit is dropping at the fastest RATE in history and this is key? I think not, just more bullshit.

I dont think the tea-baggers know wtf they are doing to be honest.

They wave the constitution on every issue and hope for the best.

[doison]

I dont think the tea-baggers know wtf they are doing to be honest.

They wave the constitution on every issue and hope for the best.

Sounds like they know what they're doing then. 


You have read the constitution, right?

[whork]

Sounds like they know what they're doing then. 


You have read the constitution, right?

Not every page

Why?

[doison]

Not every page

Why?

 


Because the constitution is more about limiting the scope and power of government than a book of rules describing the way the country should be run.   I think it's an important difference that is missed far too often. 

One can do far worse in political strategy than "waving the constitution and hoping for the best." 



The federal government should play a small specialized role in daily life.  The major complaint from both sides tends to be when "the other side" causes the government to play too big of a role in daily life. 

[whork]

Thats true good point but the world and the political system has evolved a lot.

Its a bit more complex now than in 1787.

Its not a mock on the constitution i dont have anything against quite the opposite in fact.

But a lot of things change in 200+ years.

[Roger Bacon]

Brilliant republicans.  They've already alienated half the country for various reasons...to the point that those people would follow the left into slave camps before voting for another GWB.

Now it looks like they're working on bashing half of the people still willing to vote for them. 


Gonna be tough winning elections with a voting base of religious zealots who love big government...which is what it seems they're banking on.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tonymctones]

What the fuck is with deficit reduction? it's not even that important currently. Seriously, why the fuck aren't they focusing on infrastructure and jobs again?

the deficit is dropping at the fastest RATE in history and this is key? I think not, just more bullshit.

I have addressed the stupidity in your thinking everytime you have brought it up and you still continue to parrot libtard talking points.

YOU DO NOT GET CREDIT FOR REDUCING THE DEFICIT AT RECORD SPEED WHEN INCREASE IT AT BREAKNECK SPEED.....

I dont think the tea-baggers know wtf they are doing to be honest.

They wave the constitution on every issue and hope for the best.

apparently neither do you foreign libtard

[Roger Bacon]

voting base of religious zealots who love big government...

This sums it up perfectly! The people who reelected George W. Bush and made the Obama Presidency possible. The people that decided to back Romney instead of a conservative.

 

[doison]

Thats true good point but the world and the political system has evolved a lot.

Its a bit more complex now than in 1787.

Its not a mock on the constitution i dont have anything against quite the opposite in fact.

But a lot of things change in 200+ years.

This is the same view I had before finally reading the constitution for myself.  If you take the time to read it, you'll see that the "1787" and "200+" years does nothing to change its effectiveness. 


Preventing a federal government fron over stepping its effective boundaries has nothing to do with date, time, or era

[Necrosis]

I have addressed the stupidity in your thinking everytime you have brought it up and you still continue to parrot libtard talking points.

YOU DO NOT GET CREDIT FOR REDUCING THE DEFICIT AT RECORD SPEED WHEN INCREASE IT AT BREAKNECK SPEED.....

apparently neither do you foreign libtard

Bell curve

[tonymctones]

Bell curve

libtard

[whork]

This is the same view I had before finally reading the constitution for myself.  If you take the time to read it, you'll see that the "1787" and "200+" years does nothing to change its effectiveness. 


Preventing a federal government fron over stepping its effective boundaries has nothing to do with date, time, or era

I have actually read quite a bit of it and we are in agreement here.

However in this day and age there are other factors to consider as well.


If the Founding Fathers had been alive today dont you think they and their thinking would have evolved as well?

[dario73]

Response to Boehner by some conservative groups:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-groups-respond-to-boehner-still-waiting-for-savings-from-two-debt-ceilings-ago/

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, fired out a press release:

“Speaker Boehner’s real problem here isn’t with conservative groups like FreedomWorks, it’s with millions of individual Americans who vote Republican because they were told the GOP was the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.

“Once again Republicans, led by John Boehner, are working with Democrats to increase spending yet again on the taxpayers’ tab while promising ‘savings’ down the road. We know how this movie ends. How can leadership credibly promise spending cuts later, after agreeing to a plan that rolls back the sequester savings promised two debt increases ago? There’s a predictable pattern here.”

Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler told Talking Points Memo’s Sahil Kapur:

“Americans are deeply concerned about the direction of the country. Over the next few days, lawmakers will have to explain to their constituents, many of whom are our members, what they’ve achieved by increasing spending, increasing taxes and offering up another round of promises waiting to be broken. That will be a really tough sell back home. Meanwhile, we’ll continue fighting to achieve our goal, which is create an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.”

[dario73]

http://therightscoop.com/video-boehner-attacks-conservative-groups-again-says-they-have-lost-credibility/

Mark Levin said last night that Boehner’s own people were calling media people over the weekend to talk about the pending deal. So when he wonders why they criticized it before they saw the agreement, it’s because these groups already had an idea of what the deal would be.


UPDATE: Conservative groups respond to Boehner saying they knew about the deal because Boehner’s office leaked it:

One of those conservative groups responded questioning Boehner’s credibility. “When it comes to ‘credibility,’ actions speak louder than words.” FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe said in a statement. “And right now, it looks like the Speaker is leading the charge for spending increases and recruiting Democrat votes in the House to help get it done.”

Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action, found the speaker’s comments to be “bizarre.” “Everybody in town knew what the deal looked like,” at least in part due to leaks out of the speaker’s office, he told National Journal. “Everything we warned about…is all true.”

Just like Levin said on his show last night. Boehner’s office leaked it out and now feigns ignorance on why they opposed it before they saw it. What a freaking putz.

[JOHN MATRIX]

I have actually read quite a bit of it and we are in agreement here.

However in this day and age there are other factors to consider as well.


If the Founding Fathers had been alive today dont you think they and their thinking would have evolved as well?

No. They would be in horror seeing that the Federal gov has consolidated virtually all power and become the very tyranny they fought against.
And the world may be more 'complex' now but the guiding principles found in the constitution  have not changed and are as relevent today as ever.

[dario73]

Will Boehner go off on the Senate Republicans?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523120/ZERO-Senate-Republicans-support-budget-agreement-Democrats-five.html

It's war! Senate gears up for epic battle as ZERO Republicans line up to support budget agreement (and Democrats need to find at least five)

Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, all considered top-tier presidential contenders in 2016, are all lined up against the measure.
The proposal 'spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare,' Cruz said Thursday. 'I cannot support it.'

Rubio emailed supporters on Wednesday, saying that the agreement Ryan and Murray negotiated over a six-week period 'continues Washington's irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.'
 
And Paul said in a statement that the March sequester cuts 'were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed.'
Other Republicans who face primary challenges from tea party-backed candidates are also vowing to cast 'no' votes.

'After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,' South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.
'Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.'

Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, echoed Graham's complaint.
'I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,' Wicker's Thursday statement read. 'Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military. ... The plan should be rejected.'

Other Republicans object to what one GOP Senate staffer told MailOnline is the agreement's 'pixie dust approach to budgeting.'
'We're doing what we always do,' said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523120/ZERO-Senate-Republicans-support-budget-agreement-Democrats-five.html#ixzz2nND8kt9k
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[chadstallion]

Boehner finally grew some balls.
Now he needs to tell the 'baggers to go off and start their own party.

[whork]

No. They would be in horror seeing that the Federal gov has consolidated virtually all power and become the very tyranny they fought against.
And the world may be more 'complex' now but the guiding principles found in the constitution  have not changed and are as relevent today as ever.

Yeah im sure they would be horrified at the state of the world today:

You know they had a life expectancy of 40 at the time right? That slavery was alloved? etc etc...

 

[Necrosis]

Yeah im sure they would be horrified at the state of the world today:

You know they had a life expectancy of 40 at the time right? That slavery was alloved? etc etc...

 

OUCH.