The Hill: White House says Boehner balked over taxes, not entitlements

Obama and Boehner go into private negotiations, Obama negotiates in good faith, and then Boehner comes out and baldly lies about those private negotiations? That seems like something that should not stand, something that goes beyond the normal rough-and-tumble of politics. Something that Obama should become visibly, publicly outraged about.

of course he's lying. He's a republican.

Democrats need to hammer this line from your link from Benen.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/the_incredible_shrinking_speak030773.php

Obama is under attack from his own base for the mere hint of putting Social Security and Medicare benefits on the table.

Boehner is smart enough not to put his party on record before a presidential election pushing benefit cuts to these popular programs.

Now Pres. Obama is in the position of having to accept $2+ trillion in spending cuts with no revenue increases ... or letting the federal government default.

Who has a 'tactical' victory?

Pres. Obama's crappy negotiating skills has put him in a lose-lose situation -- he won't get any revenue increases to speak of and he will have to take all the spending cuts and their resulting unemployment and anti-stimulative effects.

What a mess ... but the odds now favor a total Repuglican-Tea Party 'victory' on the whole debt ceiling debacle.

He never put those benefits on the table, he cited going after the pork and not on the backs of the elderly by reducing benefits. I am really tired of the obvious distortion on what was said.

This is a set up. Obama did something similar on the Budget talks.

The teabaggers will not vote for any tax increases, and Boehner knows this. In fact, it's starting to be kind of obvious that he doesn't have the R votes for any sort of deal at all. When Boehner's corporate masters start tapping their toes and tell him to stop pulling this shit, his only avenue is going to be to get help from the D's, and I think the recent activity with "putting SS on the table" has just been positioning for the terms under which those negotiations will take place.

In effect, these constitutional connoiseurs end up being fucked up by their own constitution because Obama takes over.

Okay

SS and Medicare "entitlements". And they are open to cutting entitlements.

do that mean I have said that I will be cutting benefits

or did i say that i will be looking for ways to reduce the fraud and loopholes and as such reduce the COST and not the benefits

I don't know that he's going to cut "entitlements" and you don't know that he is "looking for ways to reduce the fraud and loopholes and as such reduce the COST and not the benefits".

Sorry but just going on his Insurance Finance Reform, I am not very optimistic about reducing cost.

he just said that he was willing to put them on the table, and they do indeed need to be on the table for changes to be made to it(even in the area of reducing the costs)

So I'd say that in regards to framing, you might want to brush up on it a bit yourself since your framing is weakening the president and to some degree the democrats by framing your points with words not said and as such creating more doubt yes?

weak . The rest of your post is just nonsense. He said " entitlements are on the table" , not my fault if he speaks so as to have plenty of wiggle room. I think it's wise to have doubts about any politician and IMO he certainly has done things in a way to create doubt.

but its somewhat hypocritical in my eyes to complain about his framing when yours are equally bad

And just because its not your job to make him strong or weak, why would you want to weaken the democratic position with bad framing?

In my post, when I said that Obama is open to cuts in "entitlements" (right out of the horses mouth) and since he calls SS and Medicare entitlements, I have a problem with his framing, where do you figure I am making him weak. I'm just a fucking poster on a message board. I don't have to worry about framing. If I can weaken the Democratic position by that, then the Democratic position must be very lame ass weak and really suck.

it doesn't matter if the GOP deosn't like that word. it is, by definition, what they are.

:shrug:

reduce cost and closing of loopholes and fraud. Just because a program is on the table does not mean its BENEFITS will be harmed

That it has no place in a debt ceiling discussion, needs to be talked about separately. Fact is that these things only get discussed under the pressure of these kinds of negotiations.

Are you trying to be logical and all? ;)

That is the real news here. We seemed to have dodged a bullet for now.

The White House called the wrong Republican bluff. Democrats had offered trillions of dollars in spending cuts and showed willingness to settle on closing a couple of outrageous tax loopholes that even Bohener couldn't defend with real conviction. The spending cuts Democrats were poised to sign off on cut 4 or 5 times much from the deficit than the loophole closings would have contributed.

That was when to call their bluff. Republicans got to slash trillions from government spending in return for sacrificing stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in America who get more from the government than they give to it. Try to sell refusing that deal and forcing an economic crisis instead to the American public, and you can see how weak a hand Bohener was holding.

By not simply calling that bluff instead of offering a grand bargain instead here is what the Democrats lost. Number one, as unlikely as you say it may have been that Republicans would ever have taken that deal, stranger things have happened before in politics. Yes it was a long shot, but would you feel comfortable playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a hundred chamber gun instead of in a standard six shooter. It is reckless to unnecesarily bet your politcal soul no matter how good the odds are in your favor

Number two, Democratrs just blunted the best political argument in their favor heading into the 2012 elections by putting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security on the potential chopping block. The clearest most winning contrast to Republicans that Democrats had was a reputation of being time tested true guardians of those programs who will defend them to their political death. Now that no longer is so clear cut. Now it looks like Democrats could sell them out if the price is right.

Number three. An offer once made never simply vanishes without a trace. It permanently establishes that Democrats were open to making that type of deal with Republicans. You might hsave noticed that the need to raise the debt ceiling has a tendency to come along again every so often. What if Republicans insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits be placed on the table for the next round of talks, and what if Republicans prove slightly more flexible next time? It is harder to refuse to do something that you have shown a willingness to do before.

I'm pretty certain what the next Republican move is going to be now. They will propose taking the notes from those never completed negotiations with Biden and pulling out of them all of the spending cuts that Democrats showed a willingness to consider. They will say, "This isn't enough, we need more, but for the sake of the nation we propose moving forward now and craft a solution that implements those cuts and doesn't raise taxes. It's a compromise we all need to make for our country even though no one is getting exactly what they want." What will Democrats do then?

make this a separate topic! Bravo!

And if he comes out of negotiations without those tax cuts intact, he's gone in the next cycle.

is putting on a show for the Tea Party. A deal will be done.