iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Warns Cantor As Debt Talks Stall: 'Don't Call My Bluff'

Obama Debt Ceiling Meeting

First Posted: 07/13/11 09:47 PM ET Updated: 09/12/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a "tough" and "testy" meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between President Barack Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

It was the fifth straight day of talks, but the first in which attendees, speaking on background, were willing to admit that steps were taken backwards. According to multiple sources, disagreements surfaced early, in the middle and at the end of the nearly two-hour talks. At issue was Cantor's repeated push to do a short-term resolution and Obama's insistence that he would not accept one.

"Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this," the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. "This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems."

Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that the president "abruptly" walked off after offering his scolding.

"I know why he lost his temper. He's frustrated. We're all frustrated," the Virginia Republican said.

Democratic officials had a different interpretation. "The meeting ended with Cantor being dressed down while sitting in silence," one official said in an email. "[The president] said Cantor could not have it both ways of insisting on dollar-for-dollar and still not being open to revenues."

Lost in the rush to frame the dramatic conclusion of Wednesday meetings was word of the actual substance of the talks. According to several attendees, negotiations stalled from the onset over the same issues that have proved irresolvable. Working off of talks that had been spearheaded by Vice President Joseph Biden, the president said he would be comfortable signing off on northward of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending and mandatory spending cuts. With additional negotiations, he added, he could move that figure up to $1.7 trillion, and with a willingness to consider revenue increases and tax loophole closures, lawmakers could get to over $2 trillion. His preference, he said, was to continue to push for the biggest package possible, so long as it was balanced.

Cantor, who has taken over the mantle of chief Republican negotiator from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), responded by insisting that revenues were off the table and that without steeper cuts, the votes likely didn't exist to pass anything but a smaller, more temporary package. House Republicans needed the administration to go to a higher number, he added.

The president reportedly responded: "It is easy to get to a higher number when you are not asking anything difficult from yourself."

From there, the friction continued. When the White House pushed for an extension of unemployment insurance as part of the final package, Republicans objected. The White House was forced to explain that it would be offsetting that extension with cuts elsewhere. When the president pushed to lock in savings from cuts to the Department of Defense, Republicans objected again; this time, they were joined by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who urged (conversely) for the president to go further in pulling savings out of the Pentagon.

According to a Democratic official, the most contentious debate came when talks turned to discretionary spending, and, specifically, whether to count longterm savings based on current spending baselines or by tying them to inflation. Republicans wanted the former. It was, the official said, a debate over the "measurements of savings as opposed to the savings themselves."

From there, the conversation moved to how to enforce those savings in the long run. Those discussions, which took place between Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and top economic adviser Gene Sperling, were described as cordial compared to the earlier ones. But lawmakers quickly found themselves back on the same sticking point.

Unhappy that negotiators remained at approximately $1.7 trillion in cuts, Cantor pressed again for a shorter deal or for negotiators to find their way to $2.5 trillion. The president, growing more agitated, argued that attendees were simply looking for ways to say no.

"Talk about arbitrary," he said of Cantor's figure, according to a Democratic attendee. "I am totally willing to do the hard stuff to get well above what you need and you won't do it because you can't put one penny of revenue on the table."

"At least Mitch McConnell, to his credit, was willing to work for a solution," the president added, acknowledging the proposal by the Senate Minority Leader to, essentially, give him the authority to lift the debt ceiling without passing commensurate cuts.

"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama concluded, according to Reuters. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

Before Obama left the meeting, he gave lawmakers a directive. By Friday, the president said, the people in the room needed to have figured out what path they were going to pursue so that they could start hammering out the details.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a "tough" and "testy" meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between...
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a "tough" and "testy" meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 36,816
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (602 total)
10:42 PM on 07/23/2011
Eric Cantor HEDGE BET $15,000 the US would default & is MAKING IT HAPPEN. This is TREASON against American people! Proof: 7-8-11 If debt ceiling is not raised & US defaults on its debts Cantor's bet against U.S.www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/eric-cantor-conflict-interest...

Rep. Eric Cantor will profit if US suffers credit default 6-28-11 www.newsytype.com/8313-eric-cantor-debt-ceiling-bet/

Cantor's glaring conflict of interest - War Room - Salon.com www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_con...

Profit Over Patriotism: Eric Cantor's History..www.politicususa.com/en/unamerican-eric-cantor

Racketeering? Eric Cantor stands to profit from US default - . forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hottopics/msg0723283020445.html?9

www.politicalforum.com/current-events/196272-eric-cantor-hit-democra... Jun 27, 2011 Cantor will make money if the U.S. defaults on debt obligations www.politicalruminations.com/2011/06/house-majority-whip-eric-c...

Eric Cantor Hit For Potentially Profiting From U.S. Default National/World News. ... Betting against USA... talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=299142
7-8-11 Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling\negotiations ... He literally bet against America. skydancingblog.com/2011/07/08/should-us-congressmen-be-able-to-...

7-30-11 ... Eric Cantor's short bet reveals real GOP debt ceiling weakness economists fear would unfold www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/30/989616/-Eric-Cantors-short-be..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 PM on 07/23/2011
This post needs to be re-posted by HuffPost.
10:51 AM on 07/18/2011
Economic power is shifting from West to East and from North to South. American debt fears prompt global revaluation of risk and reward. There will be winners as well as losers from this crisis. See http://tinyurl.com/3gj7lv8
04:26 PM on 07/17/2011
Not sure how posters can say most Americans aren't apposed to increased taxes, when 50% dont pay taxes? Has one of the 50% that do, I am not apposed to a 12% tax rate across the board - no loop hole etc. to include those on Welfare etc.
04:25 PM on 07/17/2011
Obama has created a history of caving. This statement is like selling ANOTHER bag of wooden nickles. Part of the reason we are in this mess is Obama's unwillingness to stand-up to his word in times past. Case in-point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html
photo
Curious Black
voices in your head tell u what u already believe
03:40 PM on 07/17/2011
To the President of the United States of America
Sir,
In a default, I will have my financial health ruined, I may lose quite a bit as I'm sure you realize. I am not in favor of a default. I would be toast.
I will be damned and BURN in Hell before I think you should back down one angstrom from your position. Yes I may be toast, but how many seniors, sick, disabled or poor and disenfranchised Americans will incinerate if you back down? I want none of that on my conscience or yours, Stand in the breach sir, you do not stand alone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Kenney
02:59 PM on 07/17/2011
I'm proud of Obama for taking this stand. Cantor and other right wing Republicans have been completely unreasonable and intransigent. Some of them may truly believe their own rhetoric, while others seek to incite their base. Either way, they are not serving the interests of the citizens. I watched Obama's press conference and I think he handled it well. Those of you who think his statement about not calling his bluff is a sign of weakness are, I believe, mistaken. Because he is inherently more reasonable than Cantor, political extremists (like the Tea Baggers) mistake his approach as weakness. This says more about the mentality of the right wing with its simple-minded, black and white thinking than it does about Obama. This was reflected in the Bush Administration's approach to Iraq, where we attacked because we could, not because we had the right to. Eventually, independent voters will recognize that Obama is seeking solutions while extremists like Cantor are being dogmatic and obstructionist.
08:55 PM on 07/16/2011
Is this what happens with a president with no experience per say, except social & community organizing?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Casca7
07:18 PM on 07/16/2011
“Don’t call my bluff” is a plea for mercy, not a threat, as in, 'don’t expose the fact that I have no cards to
play.'

Obama to Cantor: “Don’t call my bluff.” Cantor to Obama: “If I am directed not to call your bluff, Logic indicates that you are indeed bluffing for there to be a bluff that I am not supposed to call.”

"You know I'm bluffing, Mr. Cantor, so please, oh please, don't call me on it"
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
12:30 PM on 07/17/2011
Nonsense from a non poker player
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Casca7
09:19 PM on 07/19/2011
It's a malapropism. Obama used the wrong term.
The possibility that those words would be said are close to zero in a poker game. There's a reason that you bluff, and it's when you don't have a winning hand. Letting another player know you're bluffing would be idiotic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Casca7
09:20 PM on 07/19/2011
Also, let's remember here, P-Boma got up and left the room. Meaning that he didn't have the cards. Had he been holding a winning hand, he would have waited for people to call. One person here folded. Guess who?
04:26 PM on 07/17/2011
EXACTLY!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Casca7
12:05 AM on 07/18/2011
Exactly what? The term 'call my bluff' is NEVER used by a person who does not want the other player to know he's bluffing. Because it indicates the person IS bluffing. Geezus. Please use Google if you doubt it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
newthinktank
No Opinions, Just FAQs
07:12 PM on 07/16/2011
Here are some facts to think about

Average Incomes in The US (2008)
Bottom 20% : $12,300
20 - 40% : $28,300
40 - 60% : $47,300
60 - 80%: $76,600
80 - 90%: $116,000
Top 10% : $397,700
Top 1% : $1,670,130

Percentage of top 5% income that goes to the top 1% : 62.5%
Percentage of income taxed after deductions for corporations : 23.5%
Average corporate tax rate in states is 4.7%
Average corporations pay 5.3% in federal taxes based on income before deductions

33 States receive more money from the federal government than they pay to it in taxes

States receive 34.4% of their total (regressive) tax revenue from sales taxes on average
Income taxes make up 22.6% of state revenues

Federal Tax Rates based on income before deductions
Top .1% : 11%
Top 1% : 22%
Top 5%: 20%
Top 10%: 12.5%

Source FRB Survey Consumer Finances
06:58 PM on 07/16/2011
Elections are coming; let’s change the White House living personnel for some one new in order to restore American’s greatness and respect over the world. We need to drill for our own oil and gas, and that would never happen if things continue as they are now in Washington. Americans, wake up this time please!!!!!!
photo
JayHorus
Your talking points don't impress me!
05:45 PM on 07/17/2011
The worse thing we can do right now is drill off shore for oil and gas. The main reason why the recent spills have been happening is due to very loose regulations for the oil companies in this country . These same companies are held to higher standards when they go to other countries to drill, but when these American company's are drilling here on American soil they don't have to follow the same safety regulations other countries have and then we get spills.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rationalitymatters
Captain of my Soul
06:55 PM on 07/16/2011
Everytime he speaks, I am more and more proud of Obama. I would love to know how Cantor can keep insisting that most Americans are against raising taxes. When people realize that not raising taxes means slashing entitlement programs, they quickly have a change of heart. I've come to think of Cantor as anti-America. He's too radical and he doesn't care a whit about the middle class.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sanityisneeded
No one said it was going to be easy.
02:52 PM on 07/17/2011
You get more revenue when you have more people working. Obama has only shown an ability to spend money, not to target it into job creaation. Instead he has focused on rewarding bad companies with bail-outs and unions with ownership in companies. His policies are killing us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rationalitymatters
Captain of my Soul
07:31 PM on 07/17/2011
What do you think the Republicans will do to remedy this? It's true, more people working will generate more tax revenue but tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate subsidies still need to be eliminated - something Republicans are unwilling to do. Also, it flummoxes me the way a lot of people seem to forget economic conditions under the Bush presidency. The economy would have been worse without the bail-outs and according to what I've read, this money has mostly been paid back with interest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wyane way
Red is my least favorite color
11:12 AM on 07/18/2011
Just one question. What would happen if we ended unions. Companies would lower wages. Lower wages means lower revenue. Companies may hire a few more people at the same low wages but only enough to cover the need if business increased. Less money for workers means less spending in the businesses and less need for workers. This would lower the GDP and deflate the economy. Slow growth and that's a recession. Stop the economy and you have a depression. Wealthy companies have no interest in this country, other than profitability and America has little confidence with out everyone being on board with our next step. Raising taxes is a way to invest in this country. Other wise who will, invest in this country. For companies there has to be a worth profit reason to do so. And rightfully so. A depression is not profitable. Lower wages means more government assistants. Or disadvantaged working class people going without any support. With out unions all we have is a loss of wages and health/safety. Nothing to gain.
06:51 PM on 07/16/2011
The dumbing down of our school system is being displayed in many of the reasonings here. One vote, one man...why?
06:39 PM on 07/16/2011
Taxes and more taxes

Many countries are in trouble because of increasing taxes on the people. In other countries every one pays taxes rich and poor. However, here in America or in the U.S. poor people never pays income taxes. Of course, they pay taxes that are levied or imposed on commodities when they go to buy things. Even those that are paid under the table, like illegals that are paid in cashed, they pay that type of tax when purchasing gasoline and other products. But the majority of them do not pay income tax. They send their money out of the country.

We cannot follow other countries taxing more and more, taking every penny from the rich or the middle class, so that Washington can continue taking people’s money to give it away so that the politicians can be re-elected to continue doing the same thing year after year. No. Change in Washington is necessary. Let us keep our money, we know how to use it better.
08:05 PM on 07/16/2011
This was a little convoluted, but if I follow you, then please consider that no one can tax the poor because no one can get what they don't have! Washington is NOT indiscriminately giving money away--the poor get food to keep them alive, and medical care also. If you want to see recovery, you need to vote for Democrats, not the fascists who will control, or try to, every breath you take, and tax you to provide for their super-rich buddies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sanityisneeded
No one said it was going to be easy.
03:01 PM on 07/17/2011
No problem with helping those in need, but there aloso needs to be a realization that many being "helped" by the Government have been on those rolls for years and are encouraged to stay there because of people like you. We need programs designed to help people in need, but there needs to be a limit. Many who come to our country are productive in very short order, other having been here for generations choose not to contribute. Gangs are more enticing than, getting an education and getting a job. We would rather teach sex education and life styles than reading, writing and math and subjects needed to get a job. incred=sing the size of government contributes to this malaise. Vote Democrat to keep people on welfare rolls.
photo
JayHorus
Your talking points don't impress me!
05:44 PM on 07/17/2011
Interesting argument, but your facts are wrong. Almost everyone in this country that gets a paycheck pays federal taxes, they just may not pay as much and/or get back more due to the Earned Income Tax Credit program. (A program created by Nixon and expanded upon by both Reagan and Clinton). The wealthiest in this country do get taxed more they are also able to use tax loop holes that most middle class can't utilize. The fact is that supply side(trickle down) economics doesn't work. Over the last 30 years the Republicans haven't cut spending but they cut taxes on the wealthiest in the country which increases the burden on the middle class, so there is no offset. 2) While the cost of living has risen steadily over the years the average income of the middle class has been stagnant. In the last 30 years the average income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 364%, or nearly 25 times more than the growth of the median household income. Now in only 5 short years, between 2001-2006, the average income of the top 1% increased by 33%, or 165 times more than the growth of the median household income. So the problem isn't letting Americans keep their money, the problem is we need more money to increase the purchasing power. The more earnings the middle class makes means they are able to invest and spend to increase their household revenue.
photo
99er2049er
Democrats create jobs and build strong economies
05:37 PM on 07/16/2011
I wouldn't blame Obama at all if he just turned around and b i t c h slapped these republican leaders.
08:00 PM on 07/16/2011
Beautiful!! I only wish we could see it!