Eric Cantor: Obama 'in over his head'

President Barack Obama is “in over his head” when it comes to tackling the country’s economic troubles, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Wednesday.

The president has not run a business or created jobs and has proven himself ill-suited to put the economy back on track, the Virginia Republican said in a midday interview on the Wall Street Journal’s website with opinion columnist Peggy Noonan and editor James Freeman.

At one point during negotiations on a deal to raise the debt ceiling, Cantor said that the president chose to play politics rather than working on the substance of the deal. Obama seemed “agitated” by Republicans’ opposition to any measures that might be perceived as tax increases – something that the president wanted in a deal – and, at one point, said, “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” Cantor recalled.

Though Republicans were reluctant to support a bill to raise the debt ceiling that didn’t also include plans to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the “prevailing sentiment” among members of the GOP was that “we didn’t want to go past Aug. 2 because of the unknown” without raising the debt ceiling.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be responsible for choosing the three House Republicans to join the committee that will propose ways to reduce the deficit, and Cantor said he is getting “a lot of calls and emails from members who want to serve” on the panel, including some who voted against the deal.

[ Obama 'in over his head' ]

Well.... Duuuuugh.. Thats except.... for one thing..
That "thing is"; Obama is trying to tank the American system ON PURPOSE.....

He is trying to overwhelm the system with malice aforethought..

Its called.... (wait for it)... ...Cloward-Piven... tactics..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

I’m sorry, but it sure seems that you wish the greatly outnumbered GOP had simply charged into a battle with Obama, the Senate and the media and then relied on “good luck” or “good intentions” or “Providence” to deliver a great victory.

Well, that “strategy” didn’t work very well for General Custer at Little Big Horn, did it?. And it didn’t work very well for Napoleon at Waterloo, either. I wonder why anyone would think that “wishful thinking” is a useful strategy for “winning”.

Hmmmm....?

Are you really a DUmmie troll?

Let me respond to your ridiculous post to slowhandluke by quoting a person well known to you:

Why doesn’t the GOP “picket” the Senate to DEMAND action before the FAA shuts down.

Or is it better to let “do-nothing” Harry Reed claim — after the fact — that the FAA’s shut down is the GOP’s “fault”.

Sometimes, it looks like the GOP confuses “acting polite” with “governing”.

Recognize it?

What drug are you on that causes you to be so confused with how to deal with a democrat Senate? The quote, of course is your own.

Has anyone done a thread on who they would like on this committee?

I say Ryan, Jeb Hensarling, and Allen West from the House and Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn and Marco Rubio from the Senate

OK, then. You tell me which of these two scenarios would be more likely to HARM the GOP in the 2012 election?

(1) A Republican-controlled Congresss chooses to NOT pass a debt-limit-increase bill. As a result, the US Treasury claims that it has no choice but to default on U.S. Treasury bonds. As a result of the default, interest rates jump for consumers and small businessses. As a result, more jobs are lost. As a result, our 2011 recession becomes a depression.

To extract the maximum benefit from this “crisis”, the White House then plays dirty tricks on our citizens. Social Security checks are stopped (even though the SSA COULD just redeem some of its T-Bonds). Military pay is stopped. Doctor reimbursement is stopped.

As a result, the GOP’s claim to be “the responsible party” is understood by a rapidly growing number of Americans to mean that the GOP is “responsible” for the chaos. Support for the GOP and for the Tea Party movement collapses. To save itself, the GOP begs to negotiate a new Debt-Limit-Increase Bill with the Democrats.

As a result, now that the Democrats have all the negotiating leverage, new TAXES — not new spending cuts — are incorporated in the new bill.

(2) A Republican-controlled Congress passes a bill to fund the FAA. The Senate passes a different bill. Due to Democrat foot-dragging, “reconciliation” does not occur. The House GOP does not hold itself hostage to this FAA “crisis”. The House takes its scheduled recess.

Since the old bill expired and there was no new bill enacted, for a period of about a month, the FAA delays payments to some employees and delays payments to some vendors. These claims are paid in full later in the year. The media reports that the payment delays are the fault of the GOP. Few people care.

Can you “recognize” that there is a difference here?

There's a lot of difference between war and politics. If the Battle at Big Horn was politics, Custer would have been around to lick his wounds and try again.

The premise that we can wait until we know we will win the battle is wrong. What happens is that the other side keeps winning the battles and getting stronger and we never have a chance to win again.

The problem with the Custer metaphor, is that while Custer lost the battle, the blue-coats won the war. Loosing one battle doesn't lose the war. In another guerrilla war, the Vietnamese lost all the major battles, but won the war. But not fighting guarantees a loss, in war or politics.

If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the populace, which is the primary goal of guerrilla warfare, the object is to keep up the fight, win or lose, until you wear out the opposition.

You lose a lot more political capital by not fighting, than by fighting for well defined principles even if you lose. The publicity alone is worth the effort, win or lose.

First, I apologize for my remark about the “DUmmie troll”.

Second, I think we just have different opinions about what the COST would be of failing to “support” an increase in the national debt limit, this time around.

Finally, let’s both work to encourage the GOP to pass real spending cuts in their budget for 2012.

Second, I think we just have different opinions about what the COST would be of failing to “support” an increase in the national debt limit, this time around.

Probably true. My opinion is that we'll have to bite the bullet on spending sooner or later, and the bigger we let the debt get, the bigger the eventual cost of the fix.

Just as with individuals, a nation can get into a debt hole that is impossible to get out of without the aid of bankruptcy. I don't think we are that far away from that particular hole, and Boehner's Boner of a Bill didn't slow us down at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.