Obama To Cantor: Don't Call My Bluff

Pro tip...don't tell people you're bluffing.

And then like a teenage girl whose parents just don't understand her, he ran away in a huff.

"Eric, don’t call my bluff,” Rep. Cantor claims the President told him, and– according to reports from both parties– then began to lecture the room on talks, claiming that not even Ronald Reagan would accept the terms Republicans were proposing and that, according to Reuters, “I’ve reached my limit. This may bring my presidency own, but I will not yield on this.” He then left the meeting– because the meeting ended, claim Democratic sources, but Republicans say he merely stormed out. Rep. Cantor himself said the President “shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow,’ and walked out.” For added cattiness, the Politico report notes one Democrat quipping off the record, “Cantor is the last guy who should complain about people abruptly leaving meetings.”

The usual suspects are claiming that Obama didn't run away but even Democrats said he did.

Some Democrats are saying it was Cantor who "rudely" interrupted Obama three times.

Given Obama's history of rudely treating the Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union and his obnoxious treatment of Paul Ryan at his entitlement speech, all I can say is if it's true is...good for Cantor.

And then there's this.

Obama quoted as telling leaders "I’ve been very patient” and he wants agreement now.

Ah, well King Hussein I is tired of these Parliamentary delays. Don't you know who HE is damn it?

I honestly think there is simply now way to reconcile these two sides. We'll probably see some version of the McConnell plan and then spend the next year plus making our respective cases to the voters.

Related enough: Genius liberal thought for the day.

“The astonishing feature of the federal fiscal position is that revenues are forecast to be a mere 14.4 per cent of GDP in 2011, far below their postwar average of close to 18 per cent. Individual income tax is forecastm to be a mere 6.3 per cent of GDP in 2011. This non-American cannot understand what the fuss is about: in 1988, at the end of Ronald Reagan’s term, receipts were 18.2 per cent of GDP. Tax revenue has to rise substantially if the deficit is to close.”

— Martin Wolf is right, of course. But I’d note that at the end of Ronald Reagan’s term, America had a substantial deficit that required the 1990 budget deal, which was partly composed of — you guessed it — taxes.

Or...maybe revenue is lower than historical average because officially 9.2% of the country is unemployed (the real number is much higher) AND economic growth is anemic at best.

Taxes rely on economic activity of productive individuals and profitable companies, not as liberals seem to think The Money Fairy. With so many people on the sidelines and so much less taxable economic activity in the private sector, there's less revenue.

So of course their solution is to place an even greater burden on what little activity there is!

Pure GENIUS!

posted by DrewM. at 08:56 PM

| Access Comments