Here's an excellent response to Boehner's speech that I found on Reddit. I didn't write it, but I wish I did.
Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.
CBO reports say that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted.
Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America.
You were with that company for a total of 13 years. You have been in politics since 5 years after starting at that company. You have been in politics for 29 years with 21 years of that being your term in congress. Stop trying to pretend you're still a business man.
Where most American businesses make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.
The Joint Committee on Taxation stated that the Bush Tax Cuts costs combined cost us over $2 trillion between 2001-2017. Bush raised national debt by $4.08 trillion thru tax cuts and spending. You were in the house the whole time Bush was president, and voted down party lines 95.95% of the time during those years. More spending and debt is something that you have supported over the years.
on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.
Well, on pure dollar ammounts, yes. As a precentage of GDP, the last few years are much less than the spending binge that happened for World War 2.
Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for
Actually, most Americans did back health care reform. It was one of the hot topics that helped Obama get elected. Beyond that, the CBO also reports that although there would be a $940 billion price tag over a 10 year period, it would actually reduce the deficit by $138 billion.
A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs
Once again, 1.5 to 3.5 million jobs accredited to the stimulus bill by the CBO. I'd say that was a larger effect than the effect it had on late-night comedians.
a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.
A case could easily be made that due to increases in the debt ceiling being common place, that the crisis isn't due to us approaching the limit, but instead due to the inability of the House to pass a bill that has even modest bipartisan support.
And over the last six months, weﾒve done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country.
Actually, over the last six months the House has done it's best to convince the president to give into its demands of huge cuts to entitlement programs, pushing the entire burden of these cuts onto the backs of the lower and middle class.
Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support
5 Democrats voted for it, 188 did not. 2.6% is not enough to be considered bipartisan support by any stretch of the imagination.
Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer.
Had the "yes" been "yes, we will pass a bill that fairly affects all Americans", then he would have accepted it. He and the gang of six both said yes to such an answer, you are the one who said no.
Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the presidentﾒs demands changed.
That was because his demands kept getting closer to your demands as he accepted compromises on things such as entitlements. That is what politics is about. Your demands on the other hand have remained steadfast... that is what blackmail is all about.
The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more.
No, by "balanced" he means that the burden doesn't fall just on the backs of the middle and lower class, but that the wealthy take some of the hit as well.
Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.
If cutting out tax loopholes (which is what the gang of six plan proposes) destroys jobs, then why didn't it do that when Reagan closed tax loopholes and raised payroll taxes himself in 1982?
The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today.
Considering that the president is backing a plan that would cut the deficit by more than the raise that is being asked, it's not a blank check. In fact, He's not asking for a check at all, but instead the ability to keep the government operating. The check writing would come at the time that the yearly budget is crafted.
If the President signs it, the ﾑcrisisﾒ atmosphere he has created will simply disappear.
It is the responsibility of congress to craft and pass bills, the only responsibility of the president is to either sign or veto those bills. Obama has acted as a mediator between the two political sides, and has gotten the Democrats to agree to things they do not like. This crisis situation is not due to his actions, but due to partisan bickering in congress.
The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if youﾒre spending more money than youﾒre taking in, you need to spend less of it
Or take in more, or do a combination of the two.
You should be ashamed of your speech and all the lies contained inside it Boehner.
