Why Negotiating With President Obama Always Fails

boehner-obama-cabinet room-01-23-11-carolyn kaster-ap

Remember that Bob Woodward’s book on the debt ceiling negotiations last year gave behind the scenes details on how President Obama blew-up a deal? He’s up to his old tricks again…

The Wall Street Journal reports behind the scenes details from the current round of negotiations:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

The Narcissist-In-Chief strikes again!

Herman Cain: The New York Times is Racist
Piers Morgan 'Guns In America' Special: Hectoring Guests, A Fact-Free Discussion
  • Brucehenry

    Yes, I’m sure that was it, that was the entire meeting. Boehner came in, Obama told him that, and Boehner left. The end.

    • herddog505

      Well, if you would care to let us know what Boehner said that shows a similar degree of stupid, pointless, destructive arrogance, I’m sure we’d all be interested.

      Personally, I think that Barry and the democrats generally WANT to go off the fiscal cliff. It’s a two-fer for them:

      1. The country is thoroughly wrecked, which they’ve been trying to do for decades;

      2. They, with the very willing assistance of MiniTru, get to blame the GOP for any negative fallout associated with (1).

      • Brucehenry

        Well, it IS true that the Republicans, poor, hapless victims of “Mini-Tru” that they are, WILL be blamed. It’s all a plot, I tells ya!

        • herddog505

          That’s why it’s nice to be a dem: it’s ALWAYS somebody else’s fault (usually a Republican’s). The idea of holding Barry IN ANY WAY responsible for the cliff and the consequences of going over it would never occur to them.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually, it’s nice to be a Republican. It’s ALWAYS somebody else’s fault (usually the “lamestream media” AKA “Mini-Tru”).

            I hold BOTH sides responsible for the fact that this made-up “cliff” exists in the first place. They couldn’t compromise a year and a half ago, so they made up this “cliff” nonsense to force themselves to compromise now?

            It’s like a teenager who sets her alarm clock 15 minutes fast so she won’t be late for homeroom.

            But don’t let the rank cowardice of both sides get in the way of your pet narrative that the dastardly MSM is consciously in cahoots with the liberals to purposely ruin America, you poor pitiful victim, you.

          • herddog505

            Oh, I think you’ve got no worries about that. After all, after the election, Brian Williams announced that it was finally “safe” to talk about the economy again: having gotten Barry over the finish line by assuring us that Mitt Romney killed a steelworker’s wife, that Paul Ryan wants to murder elderly women in wheelchairs by casting them off a cliff, and that the economy is doing just fine, it was OK to admit that things perhaps WEREN’T so hot. O’ course, that’s all George Bush’s fault…

          • Brucehenry

            Money needed to be spent. HOW it got spent is legitimate cause for complaint, IMO. Keynes 101, if you disagree, see that you win the next election.

            Yes the GOP is supposed to compromise. It’s called “governing.” Necessary in a democracy, you know.

            Your second reply is more whining about “Mini-Tru.” Gee, I thought the Dems won because they “promised free stuff.” But no, it appears they won because millions of rubes bought into the oh-so-false idea that Republican philosophy boils down to “I Got Mine, Fuck You.”

            BTW, the steelworker’s wife thingie and the Ryan the Granny-Slayer concept were campaign ads, not media narratives. And the economy IS improving, and will continue to do so if the GOP doesn’t get our credit rating downgraded AGAIN.

            Poor poor put-upon Republicans, always at the mercy of the lamestream media. Pathetic.

          • herddog505

            Oh, and another thing (let’s keep our eye on the ball):

            Blaming BOTH sides for this mess is disingenuous. Barry and the dems have spent us into a hole in the past few years, have done nothing to slow the rate of spending (quite the opposite), and now the GOP is supposed to compromise by… um… er… agreeing to keep spending.

  • UOG

    This is an excellent demonstration that Boehner (who is far from alone in this) has been in Washington far too long. He’s the “loyal opposition,”nothing more. He’s no longer capable of thinking outside the box.

    Me? I like Prof. Jacobson’s suggestion:

    “I say call his bluff. If a deal which tackles deficits from both revenue and spending can be reached this month, great.

    If not, pass a 90 day extension of current tax rates and whatever
    else is needed to postpone the “cliff,” and go home for Christmas to
    give time for a Grand Bargain which puts Democratic sacred cows on the

    Let Harry Reid refuse to bring it to a vote, and Obama refuse to sign
    it. Their inaction will be the reason for taxes rising for everyone.”

    • Brucehenry

      Then what would have been the point of inventing this whole “fiscal cliff” sequestration nonsense in the first place? To give the GOP an excuse for 90 more days of crying about Obama’s socializms! and “arrogance” and yada yada? Transparent.

      • ackwired

        I think the GOP strategy on sequestration is to force the D’s to cut entitlements. Now if the D’;s could just come up with a way to force the GOP to cut military spending and increase revenues.

        • Won’t much matter – any increase in revenues will be offset by 1.5x increased spending.

          It’s something in the water inside the beltway, I think. Math skills go completely awry. Millions equal billions equal trillions, and you can always spend more than you take in.

  • Par4Course

    The President and Democrats generally want to trade tax increases NOW for spending cuts LATER. We always get the tax increases but the spending cuts never materialize. That’s why we’re $16T in debt with Obama adding $1T+ annually during each year of his presidency.

    Beyond President Obama’s personal narcissism, his real arrogance is thinking that our government can forever continue to spend far less than it takes in, or that “the rich” [or the Chinese?] can/should finance the cost of our government. (We know that close to 50% of Americans pay zero income taxes [I didn’t say zero taxes].)

    I’d favor tax increases that would actually balance the budget, which could not be aimed solely at those earning $250K+ because there aren’t enough of them, but our government (both parties) has a history of continuing to borrow and spend more no matter how much tax revenues go up. Feeding them more revenue just increases their spending appetites, so we have a never-ending cycle of massive deficit.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    The party is over for that election-stealing mobbed-up murtadd-muslim Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist mother’s milquetoast murrahfurrah.

    The next four years will be ugly and desperately dangerous – better be living in a Shall-Issue state — But Zero’s RICO-racketeering organized-criminal hoards will not prevail.

    Seems like there’s a sufeit of tyrants.

    Pray and trust we are enough patriots!

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    — Thomas Jefferson

    • Brucehenry


      • Sky__Captain

        That’s ALL you have, Bruce? No debate, no discussion?
        You’re much more immature than I had thought.

        • jim_m

          NO debate. They know that obama is a thug and a wanna be dictator. They don’t care because he is their wanna be thug and dictator. They don’t care because they get their ideology forced down everyone else’s throat.

        • Brucehenry

          LOL, I contributed upthread, and regularly contribute to the discussion/debate here. Do YOU?

          All I ever see you do is swoop into the conversation and claim that someone ELSE has nothing to contribute, then disappear.

          As for Mr Allen’s post, it got the response from me it deserves. Some things can be replied to, others are just kooky.

          • Sky__Captain

            You want discussion, fine.
            – America does not have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. It starts with liberals.
            – Any time taxes are raised on the promise of spending cuts, the spending cuts never happen. See GHWB for an example. Reagan, also.
            – 0bama is a fool, see the definition of TANSTAFL for details.
            – 0bama does NOT comprise, but is a narcissistic divider.

            Other persons here at Wizbang are much better at expressing view than I am, that’s why I don’t always contribute.
            However, it really irritates me when a person (usually liberal) swoops in with a personal attack. It means they have no debating skills or an ability to debate, and they automatically lose said debate.

          • jim_m

            THe left believes that they can just spend and print money for forever and there won’t be any consequences for doing so. Wiemar is probably a best case scenario.

          • 914

            In this case Bruce lost.

          • Brucehenry

            When you learn the difference between “discussion” and “rote recitation of tired talking points and stupid acronyms like TANSTAFL” get back to me, dude.

            You’re right about one thing, though: other persons ARE better at “expressing view” than you are.

            And if by “I don’t always contribute” you mean “I NEVER meaningfully contribute” then you’re right about a second thing, too.

          • Sky__Captain

            Bruce apparently cannot discuss the issues I brought up. He inferred he wanted discussion, but appears to only be able to conduct personal attacks.
            So, 914 is correct – Bruce just lost the debate.

            And Bruce, I certainly can express myself better than you. And I don’t require personal attacks and insults to do so.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, “issues” and “talking points and buzzwords” are different things, Cap’n.

            And I IMPLIED I wanted discussion. You then inferred it.

            You’re doing it again, btw, whiner. Failing to meaningfully contribute, I mean.

            And LOL, it only took you 24 hours to come up with that clever riposte.

      • Brian_R_Allen

        …. Kook ….

        Although I accept the Lefty zealot’s knee-jerk ad hominem as a measure of the efficacy of my ideas, as an absolute rule, I totally ignore those poor Fascissocialist-Psychosis-suffering souls, the vacant lots of whose empty “minds” employ it.

        In this instance, however, because of the historical importance of what you wrote, I shall make you the exception by way of which to prove my rule:

        For – on the morning of April 19 1775, at Lexington, Massachusetts – “Kook” was what the emissary of England’s lunatic-Left-Wing-Fringe-dwelling, Mr George Three, said.in response to my ancestor’s warning.

        Just before the shot was fired that began the FIRST American War Of Independence!

        • Brucehenry

          I stand corrected. Not kooky at all LOL.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    I hear a lot of questions about whether Zero is desperately dumb or perilously pernicious.

    But why, I pondered, be picky?

    So I simply settled for his being the most dangerously-dullard evil basta*d America has ever seen steal an election!

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • warnertoddhuston

    I always say, you have to hand it to the Democrats. They have no shame, they don’t care about what is right or wrong, they have no interest in what is good, they don’t give a flying crap about who voted or didn’t. But they DO care about power. Whether they’ve won an election or not they ALWAYS play the game as if the have Soviet-like powers with no opposition. They play to win EVERY time, not just when it is legitimate via the ballot box.

    Negotiating with Democrats is simply deciding how bad you want to be beat. Those that care about principle should be trying to destroy Democrats, not negotiate with them. And THIS is why Republicans lose even when they win. The Republican Party has no principles, so it’s quite easy to leave them all behind and take the scraps from the Democrat’s table.

  • jim_m

    Obama is an ideologue and always has been. He has never learned to negotiate or compromise because he doesn’t believe in negotiation and compromise. As an ideologue he knows that his political beliefs are absolutely correct in every detail in every instance. If his programs fail it is not because his ideology is wrong, but because others screwed up.

    The stimulus didn’t fail because he wasted money on bullshit green companies or other corrupt dem sponsored programs, it failed because he didn’t spend enough.

    The economy is not struggling because we have oo much debt, it is because we don’t have enough.

    Income inequality is growing so the solution is to increase marginal rates so becoming rich becomes more difficult than ever before.

    obama wants a communist nation. He wants an authoritarian rule that will not end in 2016. My guess is he gets it.

    • Brucehenry

      “…so becoming rich becomes more difficult than ever before.”

      LOL, Jim. Raising the marginal rate to Clinton-era levels would make becoming rich “more difficult than ever before”?

      More difficult than the 90s, when 39.6% was the top bracket? Or the 80s, when it was closer to 50%? Or the 40s and 50s, when it was 90%?

      • jim_m

        Fair enough. Not as difficult as ever before but a nice bit of hypocrisy from the President who says that he is against income inequality and yet is doing a fine job of increasing it.

      • Sky__Captain

        Hey, if the tax rates of the 1990s was sooo great, why don’t we enact the spending rates of the 1990s to go with it?

        • Brucehenry

          I could live with that. Of course that would mean eliminating DHS and the prescription drug benefit, you OK with that?

          EDIT: Oh, and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, too.

  • ackwired

    A reading of the Woodward book reveals that there were failures by both Boehner and Obama. Boehner offered more than he could deliver and Obama asked for even more. The result was that Boehner had to find a way to back out and Obama gave it to him.

    It looks like virtually the same thing has happened again. The red flags actually went up when Boehner demanded to be the sole negotiator.

    • jim_m

      And no red flags went up when obama demanded a new stimulus package. Everyone is talking tax increases and spending cuts and obama comes to the table with a spending increase.

      I’d say that this was not negotiating in good faith, but that is the base line with obama.

      • ackwired

        Obviously the partisan R’s will blame Obama and the partisan D’s will blame Boehner. As usual, both are right. After these two trying twice to negotiate and failing, I hope that they realize that it is time to try something different (like different negotiators).

  • The_Weege_99

    This is typical Obama. The only thing he is seeking is political victory over the Republicans. Everything else – the economy, the unemployment, etc – is of secondary (or less) concern than his primary focuts of turning every debate into a battle and every battle into a personal victory over Republicans.
    If the man cared about this country and the citizens, he would not act as he has.

    • jim_m

      The dems don’t give a damn about the country and that is the point. They are only interested in who gets to distribute the $3T+ that the government controls. Evidence of that is the stimulus and how it was paid out to political patrons and the long line of failed green companies owned by dem donors.

      The opportunity to turn the nation into a totalitarian kleptocracy is just their way of institutionalizing their continued rule and theft.

  • Paul Hooson

    Public opinion polls are actually proving quite another story here, that this continued bickering over whether or not to raise some taxes for those in high income groups is actually deeply hurting the image of the Republican majority in Congress. Most American families certainly earn well under $1 million a year, and Speaker Boehner couldn’t get many conservatives to even go along with that proposal. Most moderate income Americans will deeply resent if their taxes go up sharply across the board in January because this Republican Congressional majority refused to find some area of compromise here. The Republican Party should be looking at their image among the public here, not holding out to prove some ideological point or because some members of Congress are just too beholden to special interest donors who helped to elect them.

    President Obama has managed to turn both this issue as well as his handling of other issues including that school shooting tragedy into some of his highest approval numbers since the first year of his administration lately according to both Gallup and Rasmussen polls. This upturn in his own political fortunes started with winning the November election by a stronger than expected margin, and Democrats doing better than expected in that election as some voters started to look at the difference of the two parties on this fiscal cliff debate around November. Now, the trend only continues in the same direction, and this trend is not helpful to the Republican Party holding on to Congress in the next election cycle, although it is very early right now to look ahead two years.

    The Republican Party are going to hand the Democrats a huge political gift if they are viewed as ruining the recovery by raising taxes on the average family, failing to make those most able to pay, pay a little bit more, etc. That’s not a good thing to be tagged with. If there was an election right now, you only know that the Republican Party wouldn’t want that image hanging over them for an election. But, many in Congress think that the election is far enough away to push this agenda to hold out for views that are widely politically unpopular right now.

    The reality is that it would ideal in an ideal world not to raise taxes for anyone. That would be my personal preference right there. And if the economy was stronger, there would be a lot more revenues for government coming in, not putting pressures on to raise taxes for anyone. But, the reality is that despite budget cuts to one program after another, government costs only continue to rise, and the weak economy is not producing quite the revenues required to pay for the cost of everything people expect government to do for them, including maintaining homeland security, providing the world’s best defense forces, making sure that seniors and veterans get the benefits that they earned, etc.

    Looking back, the Bush era tax cuts were a very good thing. It would be great if they could be continued for all taxpayers. That would be ideal. But, the reality is that there simply needs to be more government revenues from somewhere, either a stronger economy providing more government revenues or else a combination of spending cuts along with some tax increases. Yet, that balance needs to be very delicate not to hurt this fragile economy. Certainly both the Obama White House and the Congressional Republicans need to find some common ground compromises here. Complete failure is not an option. Both Obama and the Republican Congress will suffer some political damage if something can’t be done, but the Republican Congressional image stands to lose a lot more at this point in time according to all major public opinion polls. And the Republican Party doesn’t need to bring baggage like that to the next election cycle.

    Too much uncompromising ideology could be the undoing of the Republican Party in future years. The Republican Party has managed to lose two presidential elections in a row, and likely stands to lose the next two if the Democrats would nominate a popular candidate like a Hillary Clinton, as the Republican Party has watched their once strong lock on many electoral votes states like California and West Coast states slip away and could eventually see further cracks in the once solid South with chances for Democrats only getting better in North Carolina as well as Georgia. Over the years, New England slipped out the GOP lock as well. The electoral erosion only continues for the GOP, as the party only continues to find new ways to alienate more groups of voters and shrink their political base.

    Part of being a good politician is telling voters what they want to hear. This is where Romney fell well short. Enough groups of voters didn’t like his views on 47% of the voters, that it was Romney who ended up with just over 47% of voters himself, the other nearly 53% voting for either Obama or a third party candidate. The Republican Congress needs to be mindful here of what happened to Romney. If you shrink your political base too much, then you have little chance of being elected or re-elected. This fiscal cliff issue is certainly a political base shrinking issue right here if ever there was one for the Congressional Republicans. They need to offer up something very soon to salvage their political base as much as possible, otherwise they start at a real disadvantage in the next election cycle. Many moderate income families won’t soon forget who forced a $3000 tax increase on them if this fiscal cliff issue isn’t resolved. Who wants to run for election with that political baggage? Avoiding this should be job one for the Congressional Republicans. Failure for someone to find a solution here isn’t an option.

    In the last election, if there was one issue that I liked the least from Obama, it was any talk of raising taxes for anyone, including the wealthy. I found no agreement with Obama on that issue. But, now with the threat of sharply higher taxes on average families, suddenly it seems that allowing some tax increases on some select groups of higher income earners seems to be one of the only solutions to this budget mess. Suddenly, the unthinkable seems to be what likely must be done as one part of the answer including other budget cuts.

    • jim_m

      Too much uncompromising ideology? I won’t be holding my breath while you come up with an occasion when obama ever compromised with the GOP. And don’t give me obamacare because he never got a single vote from the GOP his so-called compromise was with the dems.

      Where has obama shown any compromise on the fiscal cliff. In his demand for increased spending? In his obviously fraudulent promise of undefined future spending cuts?

    • Vagabond661

      “But, the reality is that there simply needs to be more government revenues from somewhere,”
      Paul, the reality is spending needs to be curtailed. Or more jobs created. Or both.

  • Fiscal cliff my ass. If cutting $109 billion (average annual amount under sequester) from the ~$4 trillion in annual spending is going to send the economy into a double dip then our economy is structurally screwed already. If the “Clinton Era Prosperity” was a function of higher tax rates under Clinton then let them happen.

    The only way – only way – there will be any actual spending cuts now is through the sequester. Otherwise we’ll get promises of reductions in the rate of spending growth later. Go over the cliff and don’t raise the debt ceiling. Force Washington to live within its means. Millions of Americans have had to do it, why not the government that supposedly serves them?

    • jim_m

      why not the government that supposedly serves them?

      Therein lies the problem. The left believes that the people serve the government.

  • Oh, I’d also recommend both of these morons give fellow moron Jerry Brown a call to see how forecast higher tax revenues from recent rate increases are working out for California.

    • jim_m

      Hey, if revenues don’t meet the targets it is only evidence that they did not raise taxes high enough, not that their ideology is wrong.

      • They’re not out of money – they can still write checks!

        Funny how that joke isn’t anywhere near as amusing as when told about a blonde mismanaging her checking account…

  • Jack Zimms

    Democrats have the legislative leverage this time because they really want taxes to go up on everyone anyway. If no deal is reach they get their wish. However the debt ceiling will soon be hit and there is actual spending bills. The Republican has the legislative leverage on those. If the GOP finds some balls and don’t fold once again, the Democrats will be force to the GOP reduce spending or have no non essential spending. The GOP should force any continuing resolution to have reduced spending level even less than what they propose in their budget. This will give the Democrats more reasons to agree to something closer to GOP budgets. OF course the GOP would take heat from press but would do better in long run. But the GOP is gutless so it won’t happen.