Boehner reelected Speaker of the House


Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was reelected speaker of the House with only 12 defections, far less than needed even to require a floor fight. Those cheering for (let alone predicting) a Boehner defeat once again reveal themselves to be operating in some other political universe. Very slowly now: Boehner . . . is . . . popular . . . among . . . House Republicans including conservatives. Moreover, no one else seriously wants to take the job from him.

Boehner elected speaker again, tries to elevate the House

Well it looks like we will see four more years of Boehner bending over for Obama


Bending over?

99% of the Bush tax cuts have been made permanent.

Republicans gave up no leverage on the debt ceiling issue, as Obama demanded, or on sequestration (save a two month delay that actually helps us by divorcing the spending/entitlements fight from the spectre of economy-crippling tax hikes.)

Boehner was re-elected because he did his job well under the circumstances.


I’m not a fan of Boehner’s. I think he’s weak. That said, the reality is that the House can send legislation to the Senate all day long but with Harry Reid as the Senate’s legislative gate keeper there won’t be so much as a floor vote. Fact is, we have a polarized government with one party dominant over the other - thanks to our electorate, the dominating party has a jackass as its symbol. Fact is, Repubs did not have sufficient sustainable leverage in the latest tax raising fiasco to overcome the Reid/Obama carbunckle. My thinking is that Repubs would have been better off voting “present” and letting Obama and the Dems claim total ownership of the painful reality of significant tax increases to befall about 75% of Americans Jan 1.

We can’t expect any changes in our current trajectory until the electorate votes for conservatives in numbers sufficient to turn the tide. Don’t hold your breath.

While most Americans will continue to receive the benifits of the"Bush" era tax rates, the deal struck this week does NOTHING to address spending/deficits.


2 more years, not 4.

I prefer him over Cantor, but that is because Cantor is even more slimy.


The Establishment GOP proves once again that they have the juice to insure Conservative ideas will never have authority or support within the GOP, Big surprise.

Now is the point where all the voices of denial join with the Establishment GOP Extremist Liberals and say things like ***“Well, we just have to be diligent in holding their feet to the fire until we can get more people elected”***.

Conservatives will have to learn that the strategy of “Thank you sir! May I have another?” is never going to make the GOP worthy of their support, let the GOP die a much deserved death and let those who run it today re-register as Demoncrat’s.


What I found startling about his re-election was Pelosi, wicked witch of the left, actually uttering the words “and may God bless you” to Boehner; I half expected to see the California harpy melt simply for saying that, as in the scene from “The Wizard of OZ”, or at least some vomit and weird contortions, as in a scene from “The Exorcist”.


I think in order to be harmed by speaking words that she’s so strongly opposed to, she would have to have moral scruples. A shameless liar can say anything without batting an eye.


Last year Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal until the President interjected $400 Billion more in revenues on top of the $800 Billion that they had agreed to. Boehner walked away from the “deal” or should I say new addition, and the President blamed the entire Republican Party, including Bush, when in reality the entire reason we have a debt crisis is HIS fault!!!

Anybody who says it’s establishment Republican’s are entirely wrong! You have to at least remember that the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years! Now, who should we blame? The republicans who are trying to come up with plans that cut at least some spending or the democrats who don’t care at all? Seems pretty simple to me. Just because Republicans don’t cut everything you want them to, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t cutting things. Or are trying to cut things. Remember the Ryan Budget? It cut a little bit away from entitlements and balanced the budget by 2050! That should please even the democrats. That’s 37 years from now. Well you know what happened to it in the Mainstream Media. It got ripped apart because Paul Ryan wanted to push Granny over the cliff! When in reality, it’s democrats who want to push us over the cliff. Obama said so! It’s clear they don’t want to cut anything or balance the budget like Clinton did when he worked with Newt Gingrich.

Please do your research before you go on complaining about how Republicans don’t want to cut spending, and learn that things like Democrats stand in our way!


Please name one cut that has been made from the budget in the last decade. A decrease in the increase is not a spending cut. Yes please, do research.


Hm, let’s see off the top of my head I can say:

Clinton’s budget cuts.
Bush Tax Cuts
Obama’s military cuts and downsizing of NASA
Paul Ryan’s potential Budget Plan…

your lucky I responded to that ridiculous question


Clinton was over a decade ago.
A tax cut is not a spending cut.
Obama is spending that money he “cut” elsewhere.
Paul Ryan’s plan never made it to fruition.

Now that those cobwebs have been removed from the top of your head, name one real cut in the last decade. A non-response will be an addmission that you can not find one. And by the way, the Clinton “cuts” were brought about by a Republican House and were mostly smoke and mirrors.


Ok so according to your revisionist definition of tax cut, if you spend money elsewhere on other stuff it’s not really a tax cut, then in effect no one has ever cut taxes! Which is ridiculous.


A tax cut helps the people on the ground, it does nothing to lower the debt. If anything, it hurts the debt unless spending is kept in check. How is that revisionist? It’s basic economics. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul does not lower your spending. Take a look at the chart on the link. There are only a couple places where the national debt drops. Even through the Clinton years you brought up, it increased.

National Debt by Year


A tax cut is not a spending cut.


lowering tax rates will stop the government from stealing other people’s money. Therefore, it is a spending cut because it cuts off the Government’s ability to steal from corporations and private individuals! Just because the tax cuts don’t cut spending in other areas, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a spending cut people!


No lowering the tax rates without lowering spending just makes the debt grow because of the way government thinks. It is very true that a tax cut will bring in more money for the government however, the fools though have never put it to the debt. They not only spend the same amount they were prior to the cut, but the extra revenue too. For your own good, never get a checking account!


I agree that the government has an unbalanced attitude towards this, but you cannot say a lower tax rate is bad. You cannot go around claiming that say the 0% tax rate that we should have in America would be so bad, even if the government didn’t cut spending. At least they won’t be stealing money from it’s own citizens. Tax rates are just as bad, if not worse than government spending. Because the government will always spend money, now Obama uses that to keep the tax rates up and to INCREASE them, just so that he can pay some of the bills!

Yes, we need to cut a lot more spending than what we are doing, but lower tax rates help that, and and higher tax rates don’t!


You can’t just say, stop spending. It ain’t gonna happen. Democrats need to make a budget and that’s what (hopefully) Boehner will stick to. If he doesn’t then I will criticize him.


Where did I say a lower tax rate was bad? The point is that every “deal” worked out adds to the debt. That debt and the continual digitizing of money is causing inflation that is killing this country. Every tax increase, especially on those that run businesses, drops people off the employment rolls which lowers the revenue stream coming in to pay the bills. There will be pain involved in bringing this country back around economically. The sooner we start to get spending under control, the less the pain we(more so our children) will have to face.


The fact that this must be said sure sheds some light on some of the ridiculous “debates” that have been going on within this thread doesn’t it?