Boehner Talks; Market Balks

Tyler Durden's picture

In our fair-and-balanced way, it was Harry Reid that slayed the bullish beast yesterday and today it is the words coming out of Boehner's mouth that have cracked the pre-FOMC euphoria. Admittedly, we had started to slide from the open, but the Republicans bluster helped stocks take another leg down (to the overnight session lows) as the rhetoric picks up once again... but but but a deal is just around the corner so buy buy buy...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JPM Hater001's picture

Corrrelation does not equal causation.

ok, even I dont believe that this time.

Looney's picture

I refuse to watch Boner, unless he cries. Oh, and I refuse to watch Reid, unless he's got a black eye. Oh, and I wouldn't mind watching someone knocking a few teeth out of Nancy's and Mitch's mouths ;-)


TruthInSunshine's picture

I am speaking of reality here, and not condoning of any "deal" which is about to screw over a majority of actually productive businesses & individuals (which it inevitably will), but Obama has absolutely outmaneuvered the Republicans, making Cantor & Boehner look like rank amateurs in terms of negotiating tactics.

Rudy Guliani is an imbecile of the highest order, and I bring this up only to shine a light back on his smugness and arrogance in terms of underestimating Obama's savvy in terms of politics. I detest what is being proposed by BOTH sides in terms of any "fiscal cliff" DRAMA (any deal should involve ONLY cutting of the budget, and NO increase in taxes, period), but take this to the bank, bitchez:  There will be a deal, because Obama has the GOP cornered, as there would be bloodshed amongst the rank & file Republicans if taxes increase on the "everybody," since the Republican base would be burdened with approximately 85% of the actual tax increases on the "everybody" that would come.

There should be 1.5 trillion cut from the federal budget for 2013, with further REAL cuts of about 10% per year thereafter, no matter what programs have to be cut or eliminated (I'd start with the bloated, incredibly wasteful and vastly overfunded Department of Defense-- but not end there).

odatruf's picture

Truth - I don't think it is so much that Obama outmaneuvered the GOP but rather that the public wants their free shit. I don't mean this as in the Obama phone lady or Romney's 47% - I mean the broad middle class who want SS and Medicare as well as good highways, cheaper food, cheaper energy and so on.

The public, quite simply, wants more government services in their lives even though they will tell you they want less. And they want to pay less in taxes than the cost of the value they receive. When that is pointed out, they'll go after fictional spending (foreign aide) first and then will turn on the rich when push comes to shove.

There isn't any magic here.

TruthInSunshine's picture

I am speaking merely in the context of the actual negotiations. Had Republicans had competent leadership, they would have framed the entire debate 1000% degrees differently.

They doomed themselves by giving Obama a no-lose mantra from the outset that he could repeat over and over again, without any pushback, which allowed him to dig his heels in and gain the upper hand in terms of the when and hows.

Freddie's picture

When the entire media fawns over Obama then the brainwashed sheep who watch TV will follow along.  The GOP should walk away and let the Dems own it.

Yeah yeah red team blue team but Reid has not provided a budget in 4 years.  We saw yesterday the Democrtats in Michigan being union thugs.   It is not like the GOp is much better but the Dems are scum. 


odatruf's picture

I don't think the media fawning is the problem.  People who are on or inclined toward Team Red watch Fox and people who are on or inclined toward Team Blue watch MSNBC. People who read the New York Times want and deserve the Krugman they get.

As an aside, the no budget in 4 years argument is silly.  First, these budget are not worth spit since just about any bill of any importance waives all the budget rules anyway. And second, the debt ceiling bill of 2011 was in the form and format of a budget, so it might at best be said that they Senate has passed only one in the past few years.


odatruf's picture

I think this is an important point and one worth digging into.  How do you think the debate could be framed so that the public would support the principle that you have to pay for the services you receive? Or if there is no such solution, how could Obama's upper hand of "tax the rich" - a message the broad public is inclined toward naturally - is be countered?


TruthInSunshine's picture

Republicans started out of the gate emphasizing that tax rate increases should be avoided (i.e. ending the "Bush tax cuts") while not emphasizing that spending must be cut.

Obama started out of the gate, regardles as to whether he meant it, putting emphasis on a "balanced" approach where (alleged) revenue from both taxes AND cuts should be looked at, and he offered no particulars.

As of that moment, the GOP had already painted a portrait of itself that fed into the same, tried-and-true cliche of "worried about the wealthy," while Obama was portrayed as more even handed and open minded by the fawning MSM.

I'm not stating this as fact, but perception.

odatruf's picture

I agree with your assessment of how things went, truth.  And of course, the GOP can be said to have been at a disadvantage because they had to find a nominee through the primary process, which forced all of them, including Romney, into positions that the general election voter may not support while Obama was able to stake out the middle ground from the outset.

So, then what could the GOP have done differently, given this system, that might have worked.  And, going into 2014, what message can Congressional candidates shape that will allow them to stave off primaries from the fringe portion of the party that forces bad messaging?

Also note that I think this is a double edged sword because often those "fringe" candidates who do end up winning are the only ones with the courage to force real issues using extraordinary means. Quite a catch 22.


odatruf's picture

Let's put this another way.  If you've read What's The Matter With Kansas, you know that the central question asked is why would so many people in that state vote against their own economic self interest. The answer of course is that some people do not vote only according to economic self interest, regardless of what social scientists insist.

From that, we need to ask how we can similarly get those who do vote primarily vote on economic self interest to consider and value future interest more than their immediate interest. I think that is the challenge because talk about some far off (even if it is not that far off) crisis over debt, entitlements, etc. are not going to beat concerns of today, especially when the perception is that those who are getting the most today are doing so at everyone else's expense.


GetZeeGold's picture



The freakishly overgrown orange oompa loompa.....suddenly realizes that crap only works in Wonkaland.


Perhaps we need to bring back Nancy and the army of flying monkeys?

Spastica Rex's picture

When I was a small child, I used to watch TV sopa operas with my Momma. ZH makes me think fondly of those days, long ago.

AmCockerSpaniel's picture

We did not have "Free Trade" back then. Did we?

Stoploss's picture

All i know is these cocksuckers are not going to fix this before it gets fixed by the people.

Better hurry..

Freddie's picture

So you have been brainwashed by TV your entire life.  Keep supporting The Matrix.

PUD's picture

There is no "deal" that "fixes" anything.

Tsar Pointless's picture

That is true. can bet there is a "plan" somewhere out there, just ready to be put into place.

For historical reference regarding my assertion, see Patriot Act I (also PA II) and TARP.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

This is all just too funny. It's like watching a theater full of people view a horror movie and see how they react to this or that scary scene. Eyes covered from time to time, faces contorted in fright, the relief. Only difference is that this is real life.

BOO  >

kridkrid's picture

"Only difference is that this is real life." - kind of. It's as "real life" as any other engineered farce, I suppose.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"It's as "real life" as any other engineered farce, I suppose."

I hear ya. From an emotional point of view we determine what is real and what is not. Essentially we validate (at least in our minds) the "reality" of what we are viewing by reacting to it. The greater the detail, the more intertwined and codependent the moving parts, the more "real" our present day artificial reality seems.

For the asleep and those whose income or wealth depends upon it (meaning the socioeconomic system ZH comments on, meaning all of us to some extent or another) this is as real as it gets. Ultimately this is the biggest of the big lies.

kridkrid's picture

I think there is still one bigger lie yet to come. The war that will move us from this economic and social structure to the next one, though we've always been at war with eastasia.

pragmatic hobo's picture

I think everyone have been buying on the assumption that, "surely, they must come to an agreement before Dec options expiration?". But it is really befuddling that media keeps talking about the "tax increase", which technically true, is just letting Bush tax cut expire as it was supposed to? How is it that extending the tax cut that enriched mostly the top 0.1% for 10 years is even up for discussion?

Papasmurf's picture

The Bush tax cut is an entitement.  No one likes their entitlement taken away.  Maybe the Bush tax cut should have a "means test"?

kliguy38's picture

Did you get the impression that someone pressed a button for "useful idiots" and those two putz's show up bring in the Pelosi Reid pair and you have straight flush

Dr. Richard Head's picture

I got a deal for them.  Boehner can suck my bonner while I ram Reid in the ass, they can then enjoy the santorum together.  Fair enough?

buzzsaw99's picture

he wants everyone to say his name "bayner". Right muther fukker, there isn't an "a" in your name you are a boe ner.

Boilermaker's picture

Russel 2K going straight up AGAIN.

I just can't believe it.  I just can't.

GetZeeGold's picture



We got a lot more where that came from - Ben Shalom

Boilermaker's picture

Actually, he does.  I don't know why it continues to shock people.  There is no limit to it.  I don't know how many times he has to prove it.

1fortheroad's picture

Eyes open folks, aud/jpy-aud/usd-usd/jpy and crude all up.



 The dip will be bought just like it was yesterday.

jplotinus's picture

The best outcome might well be that of no action to prevent the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts. Taxes ARE too low and military spending IS too high. Furthermore, Americans are characteristically opposed to healthcare, preferring sickness and shorter lives. So cutting on social safety net spending is consistent with how we like to roll.

Debt matters and it is too high. Deficits matter and they are too high. Revenue matters and it is too low.


skipjack's picture

What a tool...taxes are too low ?  In what universe ?  No, you fucking idiot, spending is way too high...and yes, deficits matter.  Cut the fucking spending.  At this point, we can't even get back to the Bush budget of 2006, where the lefties were pissing all over was going to bankrupt 400B in deficit.  Now it's 1.4T, and the lefties are begging for more.


Go right ahead, YOU pay more taxes.  Treasury has a "donate" button - volunteer your own goddam income.  I'm paying more than my "share" for spending that is so out of control we don't even know what reality is like any more.

SheepDog-One's picture

Damn! Someone always messin up our 'FREE MONEEZ EUPHORIA' party can't they just shut up and give us da FREE MONEEZ??

Kaiser Sousa's picture

and once again the "coincidence" is unleashed....

behold, the blantant manipulation.....

Jeepers Creepers's picture

I want to go over this make-believe cliff. (even though we've actually been falling off of it for some time)

Americans need to get some idea of what this type of absurd government costs them.I'm for lower taxes and lower spending, but it's clear Americans think they can have their cake and eat it too.

If it wasn't for the FED, lower taxes would "starve the beast" and we'd have smaller government.

jplotinus's picture

"If it wasn't for the FED, lower taxes would "starve the beast" and we'd have smaller government."

I call for a language check here. Common, right-wing parlance oft uses the phrase quoted above; to wit: "smaller government."

That phrase is misleading, to the extent it has any meaning at all; and is wickedly euphemistic. It is, in my view, unworthy of repeating, except, perhaps, amongst Foxnews adherents, and others for whom preservation of beliefs at all costs is how they like to roll.

It is irresponsible to usurp dear ol' Ben Franklin's ditty and give it a reactionary meaning. From what I know if Franklin, he would not have equated "governing least" with standing in opposition to the norms of both modern industrial and post modern post industrial social welfare states and public support for health, education, housing for all people, regardless of the station of their birth, their ambition, drive, intelligence and/or any combination of advantages that favor some and not others.

I call BS on those who mask their ideological disfavor of the tenets of the social welfare state with the use of misleading slogans, like the one quoted here.

If we are to advance discussion, be up front and come on out and scream it. If you believe everyone's health, education and welfare is their own problem and not ones that should benefit from public support, name it and claim it. If the idea of paying taxes for the common sharing and disbursement of goods and services offends you, yell it. If you view life as a state of being where you envision winning one or more gun fights for survival, where you always shoot first and/ or straighter than everyone else, the blare it.

Only stop using euphemisms to disguise where you're really coming from.

And, in your next gun fight, may the odds be ever in your favor, bitchez.

Clowns on Acid's picture

You sir are a shallow inded d_bag.

Jeepers Creepers's picture

When I say I want a "smaller government", I mean I want one that governs less and spends less.  I really don't think that confuses anyone but you. 

I share Ron Paul's ideals, if you take issue with his stance on an issues, chances are, you're probably offended by where I stand as well.

odatruf's picture

Jeepers - that seems clear enough to me. :)

I wish there was someone like Paul who I could point to as a proxy for most of my views.  He is probably as close as anyone else, but there is enough that I disagree with him to keep me from using him as you can.


odatruf's picture

jplotinus - I have to call BS on you, too.

Franklin, did not say anything about "governing least".  I assume you mean the quotation "that government is best which governs least".   Thoreau wrote that in Civil Disobedience. And even then, it was a paraphrase of something several others had previously said.  But nothing indicates Franklin wrote anything similar, even if he could generally be described as favoring a limited role for the federal government and being especially protective of individual liberties. Still, I would object to or at least look for some evidence from you that he would support anything approaching the modern social welfare state you describe.  If you can back that claim up, consider me impressed and interested.

Nevertheless, I agree fully with you that if we are going to have an honest debate, then by all means let's be clear, declarative and not shy about the rough and tumble of disagreement. The right and left have abused our language as much as they've abused our systems and sensibilities.  So, let's push back.

edit: the greenie is from me because I desperately want someone to properly articulate and defend those views which you seem inclined toward.