Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Facing a rebellion over his latest debt ceiling proposal, Speaker John A. Boehner on Tuesday told House Republicans that he would bring legislation to a vote that would raise the government's borrowing authority with no strings attached. Boehner explained the decision to go forward with a "clean" debt ceiling bill as a reflection of the political reality that he simply did not have enough Republican votes to pass anything more ambitious. Many of the conference's most conservative members refused to rally behind any debt ceiling increase that fell short of an audacious wish list of Republican policy proposals.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

With his last-minute decision, Boehner, for the first time, will bring a "clean" debt ceiling bill to the floor without putting up a fight to attach various Republican policy proposals. But he rejected the notion that he had lost his political clout after the government shutdown last year.

"It's the fact that we don't have 218 votes," he said after meeting with House Republicans, "and when you don't have 218 votes, you have nothing."

He added that he expected almost all of the House Democrats to vote to pass the bill, though he said he would still need to muster about 18 Republican votes to get the legislation over the finish line.

"We're going to have to find them," Boehner said. "I'll be one."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"But winning a "clean" increase in the debt limit would be a clear victory for the president, who negotiated a deficit deal in 2011 under the shadow of a default, accepted a provision last year demanding that the Senate pass a budget in exchange for a debt limit increase, and now has won complete capitulation.

"I hope the tactic of threatening default for budget debates is over, off the table and never to happen again," Mr. Sperling said, adding that the decision will be "a boost for confidence and investment in the U.S."

Mr. Boehner's mood, however, was grim, and laced with dark humor. Walking into his news conference Tuesday morning, he offered a repetitive one-word greeting: "Happy, happy, happy." And as he walked out, he half-sung, half-stated lyrics from the 1940s Disney animated movie "Song of the South."

"Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay, my, oh my, what a wonderful day," Mr. Boehner said, before stepping out into the chilly gray morning. "Plenty of sunshine coming my way."

www.youtube.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Kudos to Boehner. A leader who finally has found the balls to lead. And the blowback will be heavy.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-11 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Boehner Rule," R.I.P.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goodbye, Pumpkin Head.

#4 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

In a way, Boehner deciding to have the House behave responsibly is the single best response to Obama's quasi-unconstitutional unilateral exercises of power. It undermines the justification for unilateral action.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-11 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kudos to Boehner. A leader who finally has found the balls to lead. And the blowback will be heavy.

#2 | Posted by moder8

Lead my back side. He is following the dems straight into deb prison. Soon, the interest on the debt will be $1 million a year.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-11 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

"Soon, the interest on the debt will be $1 million a year."

aren't you missing a comma or 2?

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can he find 17 more Republicans who love America more than they hate Obama?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

See the Rethug come to his senses, on one trivial issue. Watch in utter amazement at this new phenomena.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-11 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, a real leader, leading us deeper in debt.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-11 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lead my back side. He is following the dems straight into deb prison. Soon, the interest on the debt will be $1 million a year.

#6 | Posted by Sniper

Yeah. We all know how worried about debt all the repubs are.... but only when it's a dem in the white house.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-11 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah. We all know how worried about debt all the repubs are.... but only when it's a dem in the white house.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

He's like a drunk with the keys to the Tavern for crying out loud. Wait until the ObamaCare shortfalls.

#12 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

The terrorist has won. Pay the ransom.

#13 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-11 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the ObamaCare shortfalls.

What the CBO says is:

ACA Is Good for US Economy, Really.

www.boston.com

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, damn.... I fell for the patented ObamaCare Deflection. Rats!

-The terrorist has won.

No, sorry, the terrorist government shutdowns so undermined the Republican's credibility that they can't even control the House they own.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

n a way, Boehner deciding to have the House behave responsibly is the single best response to Obama's quasi-unconstitutional unilateral exercises of power. It undermines the justification for unilateral action.

#5 | POSTED BY MODER8

You know that their are cures for Fox News Dimentia, right?

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-02-11 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, how can the CBO know if Obama keeps changing the law? Come on, try to be honest just this once.

#17 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know that their are cures for Fox News Dimentia, right?

#16 | Posted by Sycophant

Like a good dose of Lesbian fire and brimstone?

#18 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

-if Obama keeps changing the law?

Yeah, it's jest turrible for small business to get more time to adjust.

What rwingers are really concerned about is that it might take pressure off Dems running for re-election...

...dammit! I fell for the Deflection again!

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think this is the end for Boehner. And I think he knows it. But it was a ridiculous and impossible box the GOP members placed him in. All he could do to remain popular within his own caucus was refuse to do anything whatsoever that the President or the democratically controlled Senate asked him to do. Boehner's own Party effectively castrated him. His decision on the budget ceiling today is a belated effort at trying to restore sanity and behave like an actual leader for a change. But by doing this, Boehner is throwing the ball back into Obama's court. Boehner is now challenging the President to actually try to work in a bi-partisan manner now that he has made this huge concessionary first step.

#20 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-11 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Government has become so big that not even the richest country in the history of the world can afford it.

#21 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-11 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, it's jest turrible for small business to get more time to adjust.
Posted by Corky

Then why wasn't it taken care of from the beginning by your Party? Too much too fast for the Big Thinkers? We all know it's because of the mid-terms, sport.

#22 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

-We all know it's because of the mid-terms, sport.

Like I said... lol.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, that's about all you could say if terms of excuses for this jerk.

#24 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boehner deserves a replica of the Melancholia and Raving Madness carvings that festooned the front of Old Bedlam for putting up with the GOP House Caucus, a.k.a. The Malapropic Mutant Malcontents, to remind him of his stint riding herd over such a gormless, clueless pack of oddballs - and, here comes a pretty good run at a dump, a pair of Chinese Baoding Balls (which I usually refer to as Chinese Laughing Balls/Bells) that chime out "Oh, Lonesome Me".

#25 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-02-11 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Given all the mayhem and political gamesmenship involving the debt ceiling over the past several years, THIS IS ACTUALLY A HUGE STORY. I'm surprised more people are not chiming in.

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-11 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boehner surrendured?

How? By approving the funding that was determined by duly elected officials?

If the people of the US order a ---- sandwich, it's his obligation to deliver it. ACA is law now, along with a bunch of other crap. For those that dislike these laws or funding requirements, change them. Or move. Or something else.

Am I wrong here? if I am, if Boehner does have a legal, or even a moral obligation to try and stop the debt cileing limit increase, someone please let me know.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-11 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boehner is throwing the ball back into Obama's court. Boehner is now challenging the President to actually try to work in a bi-partisan manner now that he has made this huge concessionary first step.

#20 | POSTED BY MODER8

I am not sure why you see it that way.

----- is giving the president exactly what he wants, with no strings. This will easily pass the Senate and Reid will make sure the tree is full so that no amendments can be added.

The best ----- can hope for is that Obama will just sign it and move on and not make some passive/aggressive public 'compliment' to the GOP.

At this point, the relationship between Obama and Republican legislators is so toxic, the only hope of bi-partisanship on anything is if Obama doesn't participate in any congressional negotiations.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boehner surrendured?
How? By approving the funding that was determined by duly elected officials?
#27 | Posted by madbomber

Yep, that's how.

So why is that a "surrender?"

If you cast your memory back just a few weeks, it's because the last time the party he ostensibly leads was asked to pay the bills, they shut down the government and nearly sent the United States into default.

But this time, Boehner didn't even put up a fight. To put it in the language of your party: If Boehner were a woman and Obama a rapist, this isn't a legitimate rape. Because Boehner didn't fight back.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

At this point, the relationship between Obama and Republican legislators is so toxic, the only hope of bi-partisanship on anything is if Obama doesn't participate in any congressional negotiations.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:04 PM

Wow. You may be right. But if that is really the case then why would Boehner agree to this no strings ceiling debt bill? I think (and I may be wrong) that Boehner is hoping that his actions may open the door to action in other areas. 'I have given. Now you must give' type approach. I think Boehner and much of the GOP would indeed like to see some type of compromise bills passed regarding immigration, taxes, and modifying some of the unintended consequences of the ACA.

#30 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-11 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Boehner is dumb enough to think he can bargain with Obama, he should be booted. He, more than anyone should know you can't trust this President.

#31 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

But if that is really the case then why would Boehner agree to this no strings ceiling debt bill?

3 reasons:

1. He lacks the intestinal fortitude to set up another confrontation.

2. Extending the debt ceiling without any strings has been business as usual in Washington for quite a long time.

3. He's hedging his bets. If 2016 delivers the WH and both houses of congress he is going to want to be able to raise the debt ceiling even more without any resistance from the opposition party as the GOP takes the baton from the Dems and continues to spend this country into bankruptcy.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I don't give a flip about party leadership in congress. My congressman is supposed to listen to me, not John Boehner. If John can't convince my guy to go along with something then screw him.

My congressman works for me, not him.

And it's a good thing that Boehner can't get the votes. It means that the party isn't in lockstep with the speaker.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Boehner is dumb enough to think he can bargain with Obama, he should be booted. He, more than anyone should know you can't trust this President.
#31 | Posted by wisgod

Bargain?
What is it you think Boehner and Obama are bargaining over?
This is about borrowing money to pay the bills that have already accrued.
The time for bargaining is before you buy something, not after the monthly payments start showing up.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-11 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The time for bargaining is before you buy something, not after the monthly payments start showing up.
#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

And that would be budget resolution time? Democrats were all over that one. Har Har Har.

#35 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Surrender is one way of looking at it. Another is that Boehner is positioning the Republicans to have at least a shred of high ground when the next Congress faces this issue.

Obamacare is going to do more damage to the Dems in November than any debt ceiling fight if February. If the Republicans take the Senate, Boehner will have completely turned the table on the rhetoric surrounding this issue.

Fact of the matter is Republicans will be raising the debt ceiling next year just the same as Democrats would need to. If Republicans don't take the Senate in November, when the debt ceiling comes up again the Republicans can say they have been patient and cooperative.

Perhaps Boehner has been studying sophisticated game theory.

#36 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-02-11 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

all you need to know that boehner is a coward is the headline that the corkster wrote..

"SURRENDERS"

so you see mr. speaker you worthless COWARD....'these people' don't CARE if you vote to further destroy the country in their image, because he's still calling you what I am...a coward...just like all the other yea votes from the worthless coward republicans getting in line for scraps from the imperial president..

#37 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-11 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

House Republicans are more content with his stewardship than they were a year ago, when he survived a coup attempt. But they remain unwilling to vote for some compromises, preferring the ideological purity of opposing something they know will pass with Democratic support.

"It wasn't exactly a profile in courage," Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), one of the 28 Republicans who voted yes, said afterward. "You had members saying they hoped it passed, but unwilling to vote for it."

#38 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-02-11 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama's quasi-unconstitutional unilateral exercises of power. It undermines the justification for unilateral action.

#5 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2014-02-11 12:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG:EYE ROLL

Oh please. Obama's quasi-unconstitutional unilateral? How about a republiclown led congress spending three years trying to rewrite the constitution. If anyone was quasi -unconstitutional with 3 years of nothing but obstruction it was congress. Obama was doing constitutional work arounds.

What they were doing was learning about constitutional law the hard way but losing every challenge they put fourth. Its obvious they were clueless. Following that defeat they resorted to engaging in useless activities such as 48 votes to repeal it or shutting down the government in an effort to block the funding for it... and you call Obama quasi unconstitutional?

YOU'RE INSANE!!!

or stupid... really really stupid.

and petty

and blind

but mostly stupid... and definitely insane.

#39 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-02-12 05:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Lead my back side. He is following the dems straight into deb prison. Soon, the interest on the debt will be $1 million a year.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at

Oh God, LOL, I think its time for you to take your pills and a nap now Sniper.

#40 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-02-12 06:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

There is no difference between the parties.

Both are fascist, and work for the same fascisti.

#41 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-12 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

YOU'RE INSANE!!!

or stupid... really really stupid.

and petty

and blind

but mostly stupid... and definitely insane.

#39 | Posted by RightisTrite

Looks like Trite is wearing his Moderation Teflon Suit today.

#42 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-12 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

The time for bargaining is before you buy something, not after the monthly payments start showing up.

#34 | Posted by snoofy

What do you do when you come up short on the monthly payment at the Snoofy House? Print more money?

#44 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-12 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If you cast your memory back just a few weeks, it's because the last time the party he ostensibly leads was asked to pay the bills, they shut down the government and nearly sent the United States into default."

Perhaps you missed my point. Or perhaps my point is not valid. I'm not quite sure. But it's my understanding that, once a law is passed, congress must fund it. And if they don't, they are being remiss.

Yes, ACA is utter steaming -------. But it's utter steaming ------- that was enacted by duly elected legislators. If the republicans don't like the law, it's up to them to change it. Not undermine it.

It's kind of like the anti-gun nuts trying to undermine the second amendment. Although in all fairness, the second amendment is, well, an amendment to the bill of rights. Nothing in the Connie about HC.

"To put it in the language of your party"

???

My Party? Who do you think you're talking to?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-12 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now they can spend more time undermining and or trying to repeal the Law they passed.

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's kind of like the anti-gun nuts trying to undermine the second amendment. Although in all fairness, the second amendment is, well, an amendment to the bill of rights. Nothing in the Connie about HC.
#45 | Posted by madbomber

Sure there is. Don't you understand that being healthy is needed to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty?"

You seem to be arguing that because health care didn't exist at the time of the Founders, the Constitution can't be interpreted to justify its provisioning.

Let me know when you're prepared to apply that standard to this thing called the "Air Force," which, like health care, does not appear in the Constitution.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-12 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The time for bargaining is before you buy something, not after the monthly payments start showing up.

#34 | Posted by snoofy

What do you do when you come up short on the monthly payment at the Snoofy House? Print more money?

#44 | Posted by wisgod

In a situation like that, both parties have an interest in some sort of refinance arrangement. My #1 goal is to keep my house and the bank's #1 goal is to keep getting my money. (Recent shenanigans of banks seeking foreclosure and destroying the housing market while simultaneously being bailed out by taxpayers hopefully being a "market anomaly.")

But if I had a vast store of wealth that I'd simply prefer to keep in some offshore account rather than use it to pay mortgage, why should the bank be willing to refinance? This is the situation with America's debt, where the wealth of our top 20% far exceeds our total debt.

So, to answer your question, when I come up short on the monthly payment, I tap into my reserves in the Caymans or Switzerland. Isn't that what everybody does?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-12 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh God, LOL, I think its time for you to take your pills and a nap now Sniper.

#40 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM

Hay pun, tell me what we could buy with the money that goes to service the debt. Paying interest is like pouring beer down a gopher hole. You get NOTHING for it except bad mud and you have to dig to get even that.

#49 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-12 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

pun, you are just like all the other sick libs. No argument against the statement, just attack the person you don't agree with.

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-12 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paying interest is like pouring beer down a gopher hole. You get NOTHING for it except bad mud and you have to dig to get even that.
#49 | Posted by Sniper

But it's also a way to finance things you otherwise couldn't afford.
Ever owned a house?
Ever had a mortgage larger than your annual salary?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-12 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

----- better surrender, before Obama knocks him out!

Oh yeah!
Go Obama,go Obama, go Obama!

#52 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-12 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

because he's still calling you what I am...a coward...
babbs

classic!

#53 | Posted by cjk85 at 2014-02-12 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I usually just slide by rightistrite, but that last posting of his proves what little doubt I had about him as well as the moderators also ignoring his posts.

but regardless...

what are you talking about cjk?

but this was even worse in the senate with the sell out of the two hopefully soon to be former senior senators from kentucky and texas.

#54 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-12 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Boehner is dumb enough to think he can bargain with Obama, he should be booted. He, more than anyone should know you can't trust this President.

#31 | Posted by wisgod

Ahh the new Thug Meme. We can't trust the President.

Just another weak attempt to undermine the office of the Presidency.

You should be ashamed of yourself. But, I am sure you are not.

Everyone knows that politicians skirt the truth. This President is no worse and is much better than most in keeping his promises.

The only President that I know of that never caught lying to us was Jimmy Carter. You want we should have another one like him?

It is amazing (but not surprising) you would throw your support behind a party that declared from the outset of this Presidency before any bargains were even offered that it would not negotiate in good faith and has since proved it does not intend to.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

ha ha...oh man...so you DO believe that for three years obama read from a prepared statement on a teleprompter but he "MISSPOKE"...

that's REALLY funny.

but HERE LET ME GIVE YOU a LEADING officer holders' OUTRAGE over this...I mean he was totally incensed over it....maybe you'll believe him...hee hee

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net

#56 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-12 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The only President that I know of that never caught lying to us was Jimmy Carter. You want we should have another one like him?"

When was that?

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-12 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Y'all are having all sorts of opinions about debt etc. but meanwhile John McCain had gone to Georgia and recently to Ukraine to try an revive the Cold War; to try and put the UNited STates and Russia back into opposition....in other words revive the Cold War. If you're concerned with debt and deficits UNDERSTAND without an enemy we wouldn't justify the huge Defense budget and could, instead, afford Single Payer healthcare and rebuilding our infrastructure. John McCain and the Neocons are not interested in security, they are interested in profit. When you realize the truth of that it will change everything for you.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-12 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

well once again 'my people' have uncovered a copy of what the cowards and turntails democrat lackies and other gop who are standing in that long line behind obama....

YES we have secured a copy of the ACTUAL CHECK...

fbcdn-sphotos-f-
a.akamaihd.net

#59 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-12 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

uh oh...danni...your'e dangerously close to attack corporations and big business...tsk tsk tsk

may I remind you that your president is in constant bend over backwards mode when it comes to doing for them what he WON"T DO for american citizens when it comes to obamacare....

#60 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-12 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

AFKABL2 do you realize your posts make little or no sense; are you having a stroke?

#61 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-12 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | POSTED BY DANNI

Really? John McCain? WTF. Are you serious? Is he the president?

#62 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-02-12 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

When was that?

#57 | POSTED BY DANNI

When was what?

Jimmy Carter was president 1977-1981.

You tell me. Did he lie? I mean really lie. Not omit the truth but flat out lie. I don't recall one. Do you?

#63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

What about bringing the hostages in Iran back?

#64 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-02-12 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure there is. Don't you understand that being healthy is needed to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty?"

Of course it is. Not only that, but also necessary in promoting the general welfare is a healthy amount of supermodel provided -------- and/or other sexual favors. No, I'm not the type that they would normally flock to, but it's necessary to avoid degrading my general welfare. While we're at it, I also need at least six weeks of vacation per year. Oh, and the value of my labor shouldn't necessarily be tied to my income. As a progressive, you surely understand that, if it were, it would be to the detriment of the "general welfare."

Unless, of course, you talking about the general welfare of those who are actually paying for this foolishness. ---- em. They make too much money anyway.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-12 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not only that, but also necessary in promoting the general welfare is a healthy amount of supermodel provided -------- and/or other sexual favors.
#65 | Posted by madbomber

Truly pathetic.

How is it that Otto von Bismarck, a German arch-conservative from 150 years ago, has a firmer grip on what "promote the general welfare" means than the modern American right-winger?

This is a serious question.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-12 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How is it that Otto von Bismarck, a German arch-conservative from 150 years ago, has a firmer grip on what "promote the general welfare" means than the modern American right-winger?"

Arch conservative?

I don't think you have any clue what a conservative. Either that or I ain't one.

But whatever I am, I'll not likely be in favor of the government taking from one with the explicit intent of giving it to another, while offering nothing in return. Be it money, sexual favors, widgets, furniture, labor...anything. Because that's not conservatism. That progressivism. That's fascism.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-13 07:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That progressivism. That's fascism."

You don't have a clue what Fascism is. What a ridiculous comment.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-13 08:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You don't have a clue what Fascism is. What a ridiculous comment."

A quick google search of fascism would answer whatever questions one might have about what it is or isn't.

Here's what we know:

Fascism was an outgrowth of the Italian Socialist party, which begged the question, "why does socialism need to be implimented internationally?" Good queestion. Why couldn't it be more localized.

And thus, was born fascism. It had the same desired end-state as revolutionary socialism, but also added a nationalistic element as well. Which allowd Italian socialists to still be socialist, but also support the Italian war effort in WWI. Something that was not supported by International Socialists, who viewed the war through the contemporary Marxist lens. A war by the evil capitalists against the noble working man.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-13 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"why does socialism need to be"

Which version of "socialism" are you using today? Is it the public librarian is a socialist, or Josef Stalin is a socialist?

And since you're so literal-minded about political platforms, party names, slogans, etc., is North Korea really a "republic" and "democratic"? Why not just say everyone is a socialist except the residents of Galt's Gulch?

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-13 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#70

NW post.

Galt's Gulch?, lol

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'll not likely be in favor of the government taking from one with the explicit intent of giving it to another, while offering nothing in return.

Giving everybody health care does not offer you nothing in return.

Your health is linked to the health of everyone around you.

Otto von Bismarck could figure this out, why can't you?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's like you don't even understand why conservatives created the modern welfare state in the first place.

Despite me explaining it to you once a month.

You're not much of a conservative. Really just a hidebound reactionary.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your health is linked to the health of everyone around you. "

Explain that, please? I have less to spend on my health when I'm paying for 6 other people's care as well. The more I have to provide The best care for my family is how I can best improve my health.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe this will help illustrate the principle behind giving everyone health care:
Should everyone receive an education?
Should everyone have the opportunity to work?
Can you work (effectively, or at all) when you're sick?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

This discussion switches from macro to micro and back which makes it difficult.

I agree with you snoofy on your macro point but when it affects me directly on a micro level, it can change in significance

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or maybe this will help:
What good are the blessings of liberty if you're too sick to make use of them?
Is freedom for you just some abstraction, or is it a real thing with real impact on your life?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL

Wow

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eberly you sound like you're saying "I want these nice things I just don't want to pay for them."
That's how you think poor people in the ghetto operate, is it not?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, snoofy. I'm going to be counted upon to pay for it. There is no way around it.

The question is whether it's a good value for me when I have less for my family so your family can have free health care.

It's more like, "I want these nice things, and I'm really glad eberly can pay for it"

You're welcome.

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, I'm being a dick because I'm looking at taxes and reviewing college planning for my kids and the whole damn world has their hand in my pockets.

It's really aggrivating.

My bad

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-13 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

At least you have something in your pocket, Eberly.
Community college for the first two years, then state school. Probably both the cheapest and the highest quality education available.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-13 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort