House Minority Leader On Stimulus Plan

(CBS)  The reaction of congressional Republicans to President Barack Obama's first primetime address to Congress will be interesting to watch. Will they sit on their hands or applaud the president's proposals? CBS News anchor Katie Couric put that question to house minority leader John Boehner earlier today.

---

Couric: Leader Boehner, how do you think President Obama's speech will be received tonight by members of your party?

Boehner: Well, we've got an ailing economy that we want to work the president to fix. We want to help him deliver affordable health care to all Americans. We think that we can help the president move ourselves toward energy independence and I think as importantly help him keep America safe.

Couric: Recent CBS News polls show that 53 percent of the American public fully back it is stimulus package. Sixty-three percent of people we polled thought the Republican opposition to the stimulus package was for political reasons. So are you out of touch with the American people?

Boehner: No. I think as this plan begins to unfold and people begin to see how some of this money is going to be spent, they're going to be as upset as we were. And we were applauding the president for moving quickly on dealing with the economy, it's just that the package that was put together here on Capitol Hill, in my opinion, didn't meet the requirements of creating more jobs and preserving jobs in America.

Couric: President Obama says he wants to cut the deficit in half in four years. Do you believe that's realistic?

Boehner: I think the goal, frankly, ought to be higher than that. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids to think that we can buy our way to prosperity. This is not the kind of answer that most Americans want.

Couric: One high-ranking White House official told me today when it comes to republicans on Capitol Hill the administration plans to hug them until it hurts. If you hug back, your base will hate you and if you don't hug back, the count will hate you. What's your reaction?

Boehner: Well, I think, Katie, at the end of the day what we have to do is what's in the best interest of the American people.

Couric: Do you think the Republicans are digging themselves in a hole by not being more supportive of the president's proposals?

Boehner: You'll see us work with the president when we can find an agreement. But, remember, there are going to be times when we disagree. And when we disagree, we're not going to be the party of "No," we're going to try to be the party of better solutions.

Couric: House minority leader John Boehner. Leader Boehner thanks so much.

Boehner: Katie, thank you.

[forparity]

enriquecaliente - best you can do is change the subject. Yes Fox is definately conservative. So. One after another media study by liberal schools -UCLA, Harvard, etc., show that they indeed do provide more balanced coverge of the news. What that means is that if you watch them - you are more likely to find out more about both sides of the isle. They reported on the Abramoff scandal - a lot. But the real test -- when speaking of the national media is - what has the broad public learned about. And I guarantee that they found out about the Abramoff scandal. Did they find out about the disaster Bill Clinton left economically to Bush (Certainly the progressive economic experts have, and continue to write about it). Did they find out about the millions who died next door to Rwanda, from genocide and civil war in the DR Congo, just after Bill Clinton promised, "Never Again.? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands slaughtered and abused, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Angola, Afghanistan, etc. Did they find out about James Riady (now -he's a good comparison to Abramoff - in the Clinton White House all the time - a foreign national, convicted by Janet Reno's DOJ and sentenced to the largest fine ($8.6 million) in US history for violating federal campaign laws -- and few in the public ever even heard about him (and the rest of the gang) - in fact, I've personally had numerous national journalists (editors, etc) draw a blank on the name and a few suspected he was only a part of that vast RW conspiracy; that silly thing Hillary made up -- oh, it wasn't a conspiracy - it was true story that the National media was trying to censor from "we the people" to protect their man. Do yourself a favor - google Clinton + diamonds + templesman. Or just try Clinton + Congo. Do you ever wonder why Obama's acclaimed foreign advisor, Powers, called Hillary a "monster." (Obama fired her - but she's back). Why millions died from HIV/aids in Africa, while Clinton truned his back on them. David Corn (Wa editor of The Nation, said - it was because it didn't poll well for him.) http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/13632/ Ask yourself - why don't I know much about anything? Don't blame it on Fox.

[enriquecaliente]

"And yes, it was the Democrats and the national media that has lied to the American people on all of these issues."

And Fox News is far and balanced. LOL

The most slanted cable new in the world, when the ABRAMOFF scandal broke, all they did was report on everything but. When it was found out that Newt Gingrich was having an affair at the same time that he was going after Clinton, they never mentioned it and he was the speaker of the house. Now that the rest of the media is playing the game like FOX does, the other side cries foul.? SHUT UP.

[forparity]

sndkzyaa. Thanks much. The National media serves only their agenda. In the process they have led the bulk of the voters to become wildly ignorant of basic common sense. I aim to correct that. Personally - I'm about as centrist as they come. I want plenty of change - but change only comes with full awarness (and that is not occuring today.)

[sndkzyaa]

Posted by forparity at 5:00 PM : Feb 25, 2009

I don't know who you are or where you're from, stranger.

But I like your style!

[forparity]

yea "abbe91" take a look at the CEO to average worker pay ratio:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/images/2006_trend_chart.gif

Now. When did it go thu the roof. How about that? It went ballastic during the Clinton years and has only come down during the last 8 years. Last one of record was 344:1, in 2007. 2008 will be even lower again. Want it lower - fine, but don't blame Bush for the era of greed and fraud that preceeded him.

Oh, by the way - it was the same for the very rich. Under Clinton, the % the top 1% of income earners of the total national income went from 13% to 21%. Under Bush it dropped, until making it back up to (well Biden said 21% when he lied to the American people) I think it hit 22%. Skyrocketed under Clinton, it did.

And yes, it was the Democrats and the national media that has lied to the American people on all of these issues.

[forparity]

I'd like to comment on this: "Suddenly the GOP is worried about deficits? Reagan quadrupled the national debt. Bush more than doubled it after being left a surplus. Now, all of a sudden, they?re concerned? Sorry fellas, but this seems like politics as usual. Keep blocking Obama's efforts to restore the economy, and you will be the minority party for decades to come."

Reagan inherited an economic crisis which at the time was more painful, unemployment, inflation, interest rates, malaise - etc., than the current crisis is in the moment (it will get worse, no doubt). Reagan did what he did - and we had a vibrant historic economic revival. It came with a price tag - more debt. However, great gains in standard of living, especially by minorities, were shared by all. Yes, there is a cost.

Clinton inherited a recovering economy, after a shallow recession. Then enjoyed the results of corporate fraud and greed gone mad during the dot.com bubble. CEO Pay ratio to average worker pay soared from 42:1 to 525:1. The top 1% of income earners % of total national income rose from 13+% to 21%. The rich got richer - and then in Dec. of 2000 - it crashed. Over $12 trillion of excess greed in the capital markets would be shed. Thousands of companies would go out of business. We'd be on the way to millions loosing their jobs. Every leading economic indicator went upside down. It was over. The progressive left (Baker, Krugman, Canova, etc., have and continue to write that the disaster that was left to Bush was the underlying cause of this long expected crisis.

Bush came into a country going into recession. Democrats pushed tax rebates and short term stimulus. Bush pushed long term tax cuts. Both were passed. Oh, the silly projected surpluses. Projected folks - based on the 1999-2000 dot com bubble economy going forward and growing at those insane meteoric rates for ever. Economists - left and right - wrote that when the bubble crashed, the surplus would be only a distant memory. The return to deficits was a given in Jan. of 2001 - whether Bush or Gore would make them worse, was the only question. And Bush inherited the plan for the Housing bubble - set in motion by Clinton's HUD -- Calling for $Trillions in sub-prime loans to be made to tens of millions of lower income mostly minority income families. http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf12/pressrel/pr00-317.html

Fed Policy of low interest rates helped the bubble expand at meteoric rates - dangerous rates. Bush proposed historic regulations to get Fannie and Freddie (ordered by HUD to lead this insanity) in check (so reported the NY Times in 2003). Liberal Democrats blocked this, and dozens of other efforts from 2001 - 2007, saying that there was no risk. It's in the record. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63


Just the same. Bush had 8 years, and here we are. Again. President Obama, if he wants to fix anything needs to lay the entire story out on the table. Obama knows - he has spoken, in the past on how the HUD plan led to this. CBS News certainly will not.

I would say, the Bush tax cuts, which hit the books in 2003, combined with the housing bubble did in fact, help create yet another era of greed and fraud - all of which led us to this point in time. It is all of their faults. It is all of our faults. We sit here and celebrate worthless $trillions in dot.com excess - then it crashes. We sit here and celebrate trillion in insane rising home prices - then it crashes. What do we expect. Federal tax revenues did rise an historic 44% from 2003 to 2007 - a result of tax cut stimulus and the housing bubble which produced a recovery. But in reality, all this did was push back the ultimate day of reckoning - the abyss - that we were facing in 2001 from the dot.com crash. And, pushing the date back - made it worse.

Obama has inherited a disaster. He needs to act like Bush did in 2001, and stop blaming everyone else. He was in congress. He supported much of what caused this. He has a right to present a different view on how to fix it - but we must understand what caused it first.

[abbe91]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocqIEAaPVok

Bi-partisanship ... LOL

[abbe91]

The upside is WE STAY AWAY FROM COMMUNISM.
Posted by sndkzyaa at 2:17 AM : Feb 25, 2009

What we saw with Bush is half-communism : nationalize debts, privatize benefits.
Redistribution of wealth (from the poor to the rich). Look at the CEO/worker salary ration evolution ...

[abbe91]

The upside is WE STAY AWAY FROM COMMUNISM.
Posted by sndkzyaa at 2:17 AM : Feb 25, 2009

What we saw with Bush was half-communism : nationalize the debts, privatize the benefits.

[abbe91]

"Keep saying that guys. When you find out how wrong you are maybe you will figure it out
Posted by THEILDJ at 11:42 PM : Feb 24, 2009 "

Well, some posters need more than 8 years to find out how wrong it was to let Bush be president.