OFFLINE

Bill O’Reilly Offers To Go To Washington And Broker Debt Talks


It’s been a good week or so of serious coverage of America’s debt crisis, and since the nation became reluctantly captivated with the debt talks, they have increasingly seemed to be going nowhere. Some may blame it on political egos; others to mere bipartisan obstinacy. During his “Talking Points Memo” tonight, Bill O’Reilly blamed the failures on a lack moderate dialogue, with which he has become so frustrated that he invited himself to Washington to negotiate the talks.

O’Reilly began his Talking Points Memo by reminding his audience that he did not agree with Rep. Michele Bachmann’s decision not to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling at any cost. “If a debt deal is not reached, Americans will suffer greatly,” he argued, noting that many do not believe that claim. He persuaded Americans to “put ideology aside and urge the politicians to get a compromise done, and went into his personal plan to reach a compromise: close tax loopholes without raising taxes, agree to revise the tax code, save Social Security and Medicare and agree to keep the current debt more or less stable until it is possible to reduce.

This plan, O’Reilly noted, netted him some support from the White House, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called O’Reilly a “voice of moderation” on the debate. O’Reilly took the compliment as a sign that only he could solve the debt crisis. “I’m offering to broker the debt compromise,” he stated boldly. “I’ll go down there! I’m ready to answer the call because I’m looking out for you, not some crazy ideology or political party.”

Ball’s in your court, White House. All things considered, letting Bill O’Reilly in on the debt mess can’t make matters any worse, right?

Article and original video is at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-offers-to-go-to-washington-and-broker-debt-talks/

I'd agree with O'Reilly on pretty much all those points...  Is pretty much what most people would say is the answer, except for the people who are actually making the decisions.

Here's what they should do. get both sides into a room, with no links to the outside world (phones, TV, computers etc), no food, no water and a bucket in the corner, and then lock the door and tell them they're not coming out until they have a deal. Then every hour or so turn down the thermostat by a few degrees.  

OFFLINE

this thing is just so frustrating. i'm particularly irritated with obama's insistence on a "grand bargain," complete with delusions of grandeur. yet, if this is the president's preferred avenue, where are the details? everyone agrees that we have to make cuts. he says he wants 4 trillion in cuts, and that entitlements are on the table. yet there is not one specific cut, to one specific program he will propose. he hasn't outlined any of this. if this is his desired plan, where is the plan? the only specifics he has, are the tax hikes. you think the republicans are going to get suckered into a plan where they don't know what they're agreeing to?

here's what i think is about to happen. there is a lot of push in the house to take back the initiative, and pass a bill with the amount of cuts that have been agreed to during the biden talks and other talks (roughly $1.5 trillion in cuts), with a debt limit increase of slightly less (maybe $1.4 trillion). i think they're going to pass that through the house, with a few democratic votes as well. when this gets to the senate, the republicans are going to vote for it, as well as most democrats in red leaning states. and i think the senate passes this fair approach, because they are basically going to be dared to show the american people that it is they who won't raise the limit. and when this happens, there's no way bernanke and geithner are going to tell obama, no you should let the debt limit deadline expire, to hold out for your grand bargain. that's not going to happen. he will be forced to go along, or take the full blame for the consequences.

OFFLINE

I'm a big fan of OReilly, but I'd be stunned if anyone in govt seriously considered him mediating this thing.  Lol!

What bothers me about this is lack of trust.  The Dems have never given the GOP any reason to trust that they'll follow through with promises to cut spending.  I can think of at least 2 times that Dems promised to cut spending if the GOP president raised taxes.  And both times the Dems refused to cut spending AFTER the GOP raised taxes.  In fact, they used that against the GOP in the succeeding elections.  It is one big reason George Bush Sr failed to get re-elected.  (No new taxes?).

I have no reason to trust Obama, Pelosi or Reid that they will actually cut spending if the GOP House votes to raise taxes.  I think all 3 are liars and will use this to point out that the GOP raised our taxes.  Its a clever ploy.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I'm a big fan of OReilly, but I'd be stunned if anyone in govt seriously considered him mediating this thing.  Lol!

They were dumb enough to invite Colbert to speak on illegal immigration so........

OFFLINE

True.  Thats when i realized just how that congress viewed their jobs.  They seemed more concerned with entertainment than actually doing the business of governing.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
True.  Thats when i realized just how that congress viewed their jobs.  They seemed more concerned with entertainment than actually doing the business of governing.

Did either of you actually watch that hearing?

OFFLINE

The Colbert hearing?  I didnt.  It was over before I knew about it and I only watched highlights.  I'm not really criticizing colbert, but rather think Congress should concern itself with other things, rather than inviting a comedian to address them in a satirical manner.  I think the economy, and the war are more important.  At least imo.

Btw, this is also the reason I dont think Bill O'Reilly should stick his nose into Congress' business.  I dont think he's serious about it anyway...but my view is that (even though I'm a fan of his), we didnt elect O'Reilly to run our affairs.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
True.  Thats when i realized just how that congress viewed their jobs.  They seemed more concerned with entertainment than actually doing the business of governing.

Did either of you actually watch that hearing?

Yep

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
True.  Thats when i realized just how that congress viewed their jobs.  They seemed more concerned with entertainment than actually doing the business of governing.

Did either of you actually watch that hearing?

Yep

So then you know he has only one of several people who testified.  Should he have been there?  Probably not to any great extent.  Did he waist very much time?  Not really.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

but my view is that (even though I'm a fan of his), we didnt elect O'Reilly to run our affairs.  

Maybe you should have...... :-p

Think you should add a "Groucho Marx litmus test" to anyone going for public office - anyone that wants to be a senator/congressman shouldn't be allowed to. Instead of electing ppl with a political background to be professional politicians, you should elect people with real-life experience who don't really want to be there but who will actually do something besides make long speeches without actually saying anything and have pissing matches with each other. One of the big things that came out here after the financial fun & games in 2008 was that there were no actual economists or people with a financial background working in our department of finance, they were all political appointees.....

OFFLINE

Bill O'Reilly although a real hardass, a very charitable person.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
True.  Thats when i realized just how that congress viewed their jobs.  They seemed more concerned with entertainment than actually doing the business of governing.

Did either of you actually watch that hearing?

Yep

So then you know he has only one of several people who testified.  Should he have been there?  Probably not to any great extent.  Did he waist very much time?  Not really.

Should he have been there???
No. Not that it was his fault (if asked to speak, I would), but to ask him made a sham out of a serious topic. To ask him showed the stupidity of Congress. That i more of the point I was talking about.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:
Bill O'Reilly although a real hardass, a very charitable person.

Yep, he really is.  Of course, if he had it his way we'd have a national sales tax right now (which I dont support).