Boehner Discusses Debt Limit, Defunding ObamaCare

| September 19 2013

ICYMI . . .

WASHINGTON, DC – At a press conference with Republican leaders today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated that, for decades, presidents of both parties have worked with Congress on debt limit legislation that includes spending cuts, and this year should be no different.  Boehner also highlighted House Republicans’ continuing effort to protect all Americans from the president’s train wreck of a health care law.  Following are Boehner’s remarks:

“You know, the president thinks that American families and small businesses are doing just fine in this economy.  Speech after speech is about justifying his failed policies.  And one of his biggest failures is adding $6 trillion to the national debt.

“You know, for decades, congresses and presidents have used the debt limit for legislation to cut spending, and even President Obama worked with us two years ago in the debt limit negotiations to put controls on spending.  This year is not going to be any different. 

“We’re going to continue to do everything we can to repeal the president’s failed health care law.  This week, the House will pass a CR that locks the sequester savings in, and defunds ObamaCare.  The president has signed seven bills over the last two and a half years to make changes to ObamaCare, and I sincerely hope our friends in the Senate have plans to make this an eighth time. 

“The law is a train wreck.  The president has protected American big business, it’s time to protect American families from this unworkable law.”

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/video/boehner-discusses-debt-limit-defunding-obamacare#sthash.QwqMmi7l.dpuf

8 comments
dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

Good for Speaker Boehner.  The House has the authority, and the Speaker has the majority to do exactly what he is doing. The authority comes from the Constitution and the majority from the conservatives who won the House for the GOP in 2010.

The President's opening position, in classic 1960's-style radical rhetoric, is that he will 'not negotiate'. Reid and Schumer have bombastically proclaimed the same, using (ostensibly banned) "gun-to-head" metaphors. 

So, using Schumer's metaphor, the President assures us he will shoot his hostages, the American people he claims to care about the most, rather than negotiate even so much as a delay in his still-not-ready-for-primetime, job-killing, lumbering leviathan of a "health care plan." 

I hope Speaker Boehner responds with: Thank you for your opening offer of 'no negotiation'We're going to wait for a better opening offer. You know where to find us.  

The Speaker deserves our thanks and encouragement. Let's pour it on.

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

@WesternFreePress

Yes, let's hope. One good volley from the Democrat-servile media and the Speaker could go running right back to the arms of the establishment GOP types - the ones planning to bring us the next Big-Govt GOP candidate to add to their Dole, McCain, Romney collection of "most-electable" presidential candidates.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

@dleeper47 I don't disagree that they make terrible candidates. But thinking back to 2012, I don't remember the old bulls being big influencers. The media certainly treated Romney like a fait accompli, as did the punditocracy. But WE---primary voters, writ-large---voted for him. We could have voted for someone else. How did the old bulls make that happen? The media, the pundits, sure, but what was the mechanism by which the old bulls made us vote like idiots?

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

@WesternFreePress

You mean Romney, McCain, and Dole weren't the old bulls' choices?  The old bulls didn't influence the primaries?  You mean conservatives did turn out in droves in 2012 to vote for Mr. Most Electable? I don't think so.  I know I did.  But where was everyone else? 

Until the old bulls get behind a conservative candidate in the primaries, or get the hell out of the way, they'll go right on losing for all of us.

I think those Bulls and their high-priced consultants are so embarrassed by us conservatives that they'd rather be DC cult failures than be seen backing a conservative. They like our money, and they like us making trouble for the Democrats, but not enough to pick a candidate that will win our votes. I guess we're just not worthy of them(?).  Maybe someday ... 

I can't wait to see whom the bulls choose for 2016. Right now I think Mr. Next-in-Line is Jeb Bush. In a short one-on-one with Matt Kibbe a couple months ago, he agreed with me on that.  Of course Jeb will get my vote -- he'd be better than Hillary.  But other conservatives will stay home -- again -- and we'll have another gracious loser. Sigh ... 

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

@dleeper47 Yes, a conservative horse . . . of course . . . . . .  Wilbur.

I am a bit confused, though----everyone says the old bulls picked Romney. I certainly think the media and punditocracy treated him like a front-runner, but didn't Romney get picked via votes in primaries?

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

@WesternFreePress

Amen to closed primaries -- and I assume you mean a conservative horse(?). 

How do we find him/her? Ask Karl Rove? Have 9 candidates tear each other apart with personal attacks in a dozen cage-match appearances on TV?  Then have the GOP's old bulls choose another "most-electable" moderate to appeal to the "independents"?  Is there any indication it will be different next time around?

I suspect conservatives will be reminded of Mark Twain's definition of a second marriage -- the triumph of hope over experience.