Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

WATCH: Obama Warns Business Roundtable Against Republicans Who ‘Promise Apocalypse’

President Barack Obama warned a group of America’s leading business executives that another protracted debt ceiling dispute would have disastrous economic consequences, during a Tuesday morning speech to the Business Roundtable.

In his remarks, the president made an explicit attempt to divide the business community from the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. “We want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues,” Obama told the group, which includes the chief executives of several of the largest corporations in the country. “I’m hugely invested in your success. When you succeed…then America can do well also,” he later added.

The president accused “a faction” of the GOP of trying to “extort” him by refusing to raise the nation’s debt limit unless the Affordable Care Act is defunded.

“You have never in the history of the United States seen the threat of not raising the debt ceiling to extort a president or a governing party,” President Obama said.

The president’s speech was a reprisal of his economic address on Monday, which was largely overshadowed by the mass shooting that had struck the U.S. Navy Yard earlier in the day. In both speeches, he noted that the stock market and consumer confidence plunged during the last round of debt ceiling negotiations in 2011, and he reiterated that he is willing to negotiate with Republicans over spending cuts and other budgetary items — but not the debt ceiling.

“What I will not do is to create a habit, a pattern whereby the full faith and credit of the United States ends up being a bargaining chip to make policy,” he insisted.

“I’m tired of it,” the president added. “And I suspect you are too.”

Obama went on to urge the Business Roundtable to “Make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can to get back to what used to be called ‘regular order’ around here. Doing things in a way that reflects the genuine messy negotiations of democracy, but do not promise apocalypse every three months.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) disputes the president’s characterization of the Republican position. “No one is threatening default. The president only uses these scare tactics to avoid having to show the courage needed to deal with our debt crisis,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement. “Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different.” Buck’s statement did not mention the fact that the federal budget deficit has dropped sharply during Obama’s administration.

Still, even as Buck denied that Republicans were threatening default, on Wednesday morning Speaker Boehner went ahead with a plan to require the White House to agree to defund Obamacare and lock in the sequester cuts in order to keep the government running past October 1 — and his top deputy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), warned that the fight to defund Obamacare “will continue as we negotiate the debt limit with the president and the Senate.”

Video from President Obama’s speech is below:

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • medford_resident

    The businessmen had to be killing themselves not to be laughing in obama’s face.

    • charleo1

      I assure you, the business people do not consider even the possibility of
      default a laughing matter. I fail to see why you would make such a comment.
      I do know small minds, looking on from a low perch, through their biases,
      can often come to some ridiculous, conclusions. Yours, I’m afraid is exhibit,
      A, in this respect. I also can assure you, there is nothing at all humorous about the irresponsible brinkmanship, undertaken by a group of ideologues, that would rather harm the entire Country, than work within the confines of the
      democratic institutions to which they were elected. I can also assure you,
      such statements at least on this board, where a great number of commenters
      stay fully informed. You can expect many more rebuttals of this nature.

      • medford_resident

        listen, I’m sure your the most intelligent unemployed guy on this board but you’re still not as intelligent as the guy who cuts my grass. Those of us who run businesses know that we’re spending ourselves into oblivion and the president’s lie of “we have to pay the bills we already created” is a damned lie. Until someone stands up and says enough, this joker will crash the economy.
        If you were intelligent enough to understand it, I’d tell you about us buying our own bonds (which is actually impossible but being done anyway) and what that means but you’re some bottom feeding obama supporter so I’ll skip it.

        • charleo1

          You’re telling me what you’re think I am? And what you think
          the debt ceiling is all about. You know an equal amount on
          both counts. Nothing. And, Yes! Please do me a favor, and just ignore my comments. There are a couple of other like minded here you will have a wonderful time playing with. While the adults have serious fact based conversations, you would neither agree with, or know the first thing about.

          • Sand_Cat

            Come on, man. Don’t try to have a rational discussion with this jackass.

          • charleo1

            You’re right! My bad.

          • roguerunners

            His name is Ron Holliday. And he is not worth anyone’s time.

          • Bill Boltz

            Thank you, roguerunners. You’re absolutely correct…I will however investigate that name to see what type of business he allegedly runs.

          • roguerunners

            He lives in Medford, New Jersey. He’s a creep. Thinks he’s being so secretive but then he posts the same exact garbage on the facebook feed…well, not so smart.

          • Bill Boltz

            LMFAO!!! Well, that explains everything. God! What an idiot. He must be the pride of his family. Now people may think all Holliday’s are shit-house rat crazy. Maybe not….WAY TO GO RONNIE!!! Thank you once again roguerunners. 8)

        • Bill Boltz

          You’re a coward medford. You paint everyone who supports an opposite veiw with your old, contaminated brush. Their are many hard-working out of work by no fault of their own, but you call them names. You hate poor people for being poor. Tell us who you are and what type of business you’re in. I wish I could spend more time with this, but I’m not being paid to blog. You seem, however, to have much, too much time on your hands. You’re either unemployed yourself and lying to everyone here or other people are performing your work. I wonder if your “employees” are aware of your callous feelings toward them. I mean they are severely hurting your bottom line.

          • morbius777

            He’s just recycling the old John Birch rhetoric. Maybe if enough of us tell him to move south and secede, he will.

          • Jim Myers

            I’m from North Carolina.

            We don’t want him.

    • Sand_Cat

      You just hear all of us laughing at you.

      • roguerunners


    • sigrid28

      I watched the speech beginning to end. At the beginning of his remarks, President Obama referred to the businessmen who introduced him and others by their first names. During his remarks, he commented on “BRT initiatives” at some length, indicating his familiarity with the Business Roundtable and his understanding of its mission. Furthermore, dufus, THEY invited him. So your idea–that the Business Roundtable would invite the president of the United States annually to speak to them, that they would all rise when he enters the room (which they did, which all audiences do when the president of the United States enters), and then would proceed to “be killing themselves not to be laughing in obama’s face”–has nothing to do with what actually happened at the president’s appearance. This rude thought has more to do with racial animus on your part and little more.

  • Faraday_Cat

    The debt limit is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, since it’s supposedly instituted after the bill is already incurred, about paying for things we already bought. Reposession or jail is what happens to anyone else who “decides” not to pay for something they already got or used. I can understand having it before you incur the bills, but we already have that, it’s called a budget…and the House is supposed to create that. After it’s agreed to by the Senate and President, that should be the end of it…we pay the money we owe. (which is what it says we will do in the constitution)

    • charleo1

      You get it. I think the reason it is so misunderstood, is because it is so dumb.
      And, you’re exactly right. When a law is duly passed, the funding necessary
      to implement said law is implicitly promised. As is funding for ACA, or ObamaCare. As President Obama said today, never in the history of the
      Country has the debt ceiling been used to. “extort,” action, for which there is
      otherwise not enough votes. He is also correct, this redundant, dangerous
      and, unnecessary procedure should be repealed, and banned, as unConstitutional. First, it does not promote the general welfare, it threatens it. And secondly, the matter of the Nation paying it’s debts, is clearly spelled out
      in the 14th. Amendment to the Constitution. I believe the President should
      move unilaterally to authorize the raising of the debt ceiling. And let the
      GOP talk to their Wall Street/hedge fund overlords, about the repercussions
      of moving the Country toward retroactive default, and an impeachment action at the same time.

      • montanabill

        I wholeheartedly agree with you. ACA is unConstitutional, should be repealed because it most certainly does not promote the general welfare. And most certainly, there should never be a debt ceiling imposed because there is no limit to what Democrats want to spend someone else’s money on.

        • charleo1

          My comment was on the so called, debt ceiling. That’s where
          Congress passes a piece of legislation. It becomes law, the
          approiate funding follows the law, as it must. Then, Congress
          revisits the funding the law requires. And decides if they want
          to authorize the additional borrowing they knew would be
          necessary, when they passed the damn law in the first place.
          So it’s not, “giving Obama a new credit card.” And, Republicans are not, “doing Obama a favor,” by authorizing the repayment of debt already created. It’s a matter of Congress doing their Constitutional duty, and protecting the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. It’s a bit like a couple going shopping, One buys a suit on credit. The check to cover the debt requires two signatures. Then one decides they don’t like the suit after all, and refuses to co-sign the check to pay for it. My point is, if you walk out of the store with it, you pay for it. Or suffer the consequences of irresponsibility, in the form of higher interest rates, and loss of
          confidence in the ability of said couple, or said Country, to manage their affairs.

          • montanabill

            This situation is more akin to you being the bread winner with a spouse that when they max out a credit card, applies for another card. Naturally, you have one or two items on the bill, but the overwhelming majority is the over-spending spouse. How do you stop it? You know how.

          • rbrtdun

            Guess what? You still legally owe for what the spouse has charged on that credit card. Just cutting up the cards and refusing to pay will not solve the problem. You would be in big trouble quickly.

          • montanabill

            That would be your solution. Not mine.

          • charleo1

            This is not a case of providing another card. This is the
            U.S. Government, providing services, oversight, funding
            military programs, law enforcement, federal prosecution,
            and the administration of those activities. And, now the
            bills are due. There is no justifying the harm that would
            be the results of such a threat being carried out.
            It’s stupid to make it in the first place. The place to control spending is when the budget is made. Hashing out a budget
            is something that takes cooperation, and compromise.
            A tradition a few numbskulls have decided they are going to buck, and demand all or nothing. Well, they got nothing.
            So, now, they are throwing a fit, and making threats.
            The last time they cost the Country 18 billion dollars, and
            a credit rating downgrade. I think they need a long time out.

          • montanabill

            This a government that in addition to providing the basic Constitutional services they are tasked to provide, spend enormous sums on the proverbial ‘waste, fraud, and mismanagement’, along with innumerable vote buying social programs that cannot be shown to have accomplished a single stated goal.

            You are in favor of a negotiated budget? Just look a hand wringing, demagoguery, and viciousness that has occurred when a simple 5% reduction was passed in an extremely bloated food stamp program. Maybe drastic measures are going to be the only way to ever get this country back to its financial senses.

          • charleo1

            With 95% of the gains going to the top one half of one percent,
            since the recession presumably ended. Now is not the time to
            start whacking away on a basic nutrition program. Especially
            one that directly returns $1.80, in economic stimulus, for every
            dollar in aid. Why don’t they start whacking away on the capital gains rate for investments made overseas? That would bring
            in hundreds of billions over the next ten years. Or, what would be really nice, is first there were enough jobs to go around, and they paid a living wage. What we have is a bunch of ideologues representing a 10th of the House, pulling John Boehner around by the nose. All this Country really needs is some leadership from a guy that knows what the right thing to do is. But, he’s afraid he’ll lose his precious speakership. Besides, the poor didn’t run this economy in the ditch. And they should start the cutting if they’re going to cut, with the people that did.

          • montanabill

            That is the same sort of silly excuse that has been given for 40 years. The stock market gains are purely the work of Bernanke printing money and buying bonds. It will obviously help only those invested in the market. But it has nothing to do with ordinary people. They need jobs and dignity, not hand outs. Most people on government assistance get so dependent on it, they will not take any job. I didn’t grow up that way. I was selling papers on the street at 10. Working in fields with migrants in high school and working my way through college with no family money, no scholarship, no loans. It wasn’t fun, but it was doable. And it is doable today. Yes, the poor did run this economy into the ditch. Along with the bankers that gave them loans they couldn’t possibly pay back and the politicians that coerced that process. The poor are still doing it, by taking assistance rather whatever work they can find. There are lots of jobs available. (check your local paper) Not good jobs, but without special training that is all that will ever be available. And you act as an enabler. Poor, poor people. Sorry. The road for them will be hard and long, but those who undertake it will be rewarded. Those who sit back, take government assistance and blame someone else besides themselves will have nothing but a dreary future. That is the way it is. Believe it or not.

          • charleo1

            I’d just say to you, the idea that the poor caused the recession.
            And, what they need to do is just scratch a little harder, may be
            your truth. And obviously, you like the story. But, that doesn’t
            make it true. It doesn’t match the facts. For one thing,
            the people that make up the majority receiving help from the
            SNAP program are women with children. Others receiving benefits are elderly, with SS being their only income, the disabled, and the working poor. And none of these groups
            had large numbers that took out mortgages they couldn’t
            afford. No, the irony of the situation is the people that buy
            into your story, that well, when I was a lad, I was able to do
            such, and such. Is enabling the right wing to sit on their hands
            and not lift a finger to help the economy recover. No jobs
            bills, no training programs, nada. Then piss, and moan cause
            the poor aren’t out picking up cans or something. It’s ridiculous.

          • montanabill

            For people who make excuses, nothing is possible.

          • charleo1

            People that are allowed to make up excuses, to avoid
            accountability. Will learn the wrong lessons, and make
            the same mistakes again, and again.

        • nirodha

          I thought that Montana schools taught reading, civics and related subjects. It seems that you missed out somewhere along the way. Charleo was talking about the debt ceiling concept as unconstitutional. If ACA was unconstitutional, as you aver, then the SCOTUS would have so declared, Since ACA is the law of the land, you do not have much longer to wait, mb. October 1 is fast approaching! I’ll bet that you are as excited as can be, just like the majority of Americans!

          • montanabill

            As defined, the SCOTUS did say ACA was unConstitutional. SCOTUS redefined ACA to make it Constitutional (in their judgement) That, in and of itself, was not Constitutional.

            Better look at the polls again.

            Also, very bad assumption that I ever went to school in Montana. But I would say that they do have very good schools (as public schools go) compared with most of the blue states.

  • House Republicans, in an unusually caustic intra-party squabble, are ripping their conservative colleagues in the Senate for what they see as an abrupt cave-in on the push to de-fund ObamaCare.

    “They’re waving the white flag already,”one House GOP lawmaker said Wednesday.

    The squabble started after House Speaker John Boehner earlier in the day announced he would agree to the demands of Tea Party-aligned lawmakers to tie a vote on de-funding the health care law to a vote on a must-pass budget bill.

    The move would effectively condition the approval of the spending bill on ObamaCare being de-funded, or else risk a government shutdown when funding runs out at the end of the month.

    But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of the most vocal supporters of the “de-fund ObamaCare” push, startled his House colleagues when he released a written statement Wednesday afternoon that appeared to acknowledge the bill will probably fail in the Senate. I thank you FirozaliA.Mulla DBA