Washington Post: Why the Tea Party is so unyielding on the debt ceiling

A Tea Party leader takes to the pages of the Washington Post to explain why the Tea Party is taking such a hard line on the debt ceiling debate.


You can read the piece, and the liberal comments which follow it, here.

Views: 18

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for ruining my day Judson.  I didn't realize that the Washington Post was such a progressive rag.  It seems to attract left wingnuts like flies to a turd.
The Washington Times is more reasonable. 

Gavin, Where have you been living? I thought that everyone knew that the Washington (Com)Post was nothing more than a communist propaganda rag.

In fact, it is because of the (Com)Post's socialist slant on everything that this is the first article that I have read in the Washington (Com)Post in over a year. Of course, reading some of the replies tells me why I have so diligently avoided that communist propaganda rag.

One of the analogies that I have found to work well, in explaining the debt situation is the burning building analogy. In this analogy, you are trapped in a burning building, in a room with a window. The nearest fire station is miles away and the fire is spreading fast. The fire will get to you before help can arrive and you'll have to jump out of the window.

When the fire starts, you're in a room on a split floor, half a floor above the first floor, The window is 6 feet above the ground. If you jump, you will probably not sustain any injuries. (This is analogous to where most Americans are with their debts, today. Cut back on spending and stop borrowing and you'll be OK.) But instead you run up to the 2nd floor (i.e. you borrow more money). But the fire is catching up to you. If you jump from the 2nd floor window, the worst that might happen is a sprained or broken ankle. (This is analogous to where most people with credit problems are, today. Getting back on solid fiscal ground going to hurt a little, but you'll survive.) Instead, you run up to the 3rd floor (i.e. you borrow even more money). But soon, the fire is catching up to you again. If you jump from the 3rd floor, you'll almost certainly sustain some very serious injuries, but you'll probably still survive. (This is where the US government is today. If we jump now, it's going to hurt a lot. But it's our LAST CHANCE to survive.) But you're so afraid of a little pain that you run up to the 4th floor (i.e. you borrow even more money, yet again). But no sooner do you get there than the fire is catching up to you. The problem now, is that if you jump from the 4th floor, your chances of survival are slim and none. (This is where Boehner, the RINOs and the Democrats want to put the USA.) You have now climbed so high (i.e. created so much debt) that you have insured that the fall will mean your death (i.e. when the US debt gets so high that nobody will loan money to us, the crash will make the Great Depression look like a minor down-turn in the economy, by comparison). But here's the real rub. In real life, there is no fire department on its way, with a ladder truck. We can't keep borrowing, with the expectation that rescuers are on the way. We're on our own.


If we freeze the debt limit where it is today, it's going to hurt. We're all going to have to tighten our belts. But since we have more than enough revenue, at current levels, to service the debt without affecting essential services, the USA will most certainly survive and even emerge stronger. But this is our last chance. If we allow the debt ceiling to be raised again, then when the eventual crash does occur, it will be an economic disaster that will dwarf even the Great Depression. This is our last chance to jump from the burning building that is the increasing US debt, without seeing the entire economy go "SPLAT" on the pavement.

Of course the WaPo is a communist propaganda BS. I call it the Washington Pravda.

As for whether cutting spending will hurt:

If defense spending is cut again, it will certainly hurt (and imperil this country).

If entitlement spending is cut, the parasites who live off these programs will certainly be hurt. (But I don't feel pity for them.)

But if pork distributors and oppressive agencies like the TSA are abolished, I can assure you, John, that not only no one (except the leeches and government employees who benefit from them) will miss them, most Americans will CELEBRATE their abolition, if it happens.

If the EPA and the DOE are abolished, I can assure you that the residents of WV, PA, ND, and LA will celebrate.

If the NLRB is abolished, I can assure you that South Carolina residents will celebrate with cannon salvos.

If the TSA is abolished, all airplane passengers across the US will celebrate.

If most federal agencies are abolished, no one would notice. Only cutting entitlement programs and defense spending would hurt.

Good Article
Yes I do.

Hmm. Seems most of the liberal responses center around the lines of "You just don't understand how much we need this," and "It's all Bush's fault, so get in line already." I even think I read, "Hey, debt is really a good thing. You should vote for it," in there.




I'm praying and asking our representatives in Congress to stand and fight for no debt increase and for serious spending cuts - not the least of which is defunding Obamacare. But I can also think of several agencies that need to go away: DHS, EPA, Dept. of Education, Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, etc. And someone needs to slap the ATF while we're at it.

Michael, you're right about the comments focusing on it's all Bush's fault. But the problem with that argument is that it ignores the fact that most TEA Partiers partially blame Dubyuh for helping to put us into this situation. Sure, his daddy and der Schlickmeister were largely to blame, too. But most TEA Partiers don't absolve Dubyuh. After all, he was the one who started all that bailout garbage, in the first place and who set the stage for B. Hussein to do the same thing and worse.

When I write articles, I always try to include Dubyuh among the causes of this situation. That takes away the, "It's all Dubyuh's fault" argument. Then, those who respond have one less straw man argument to put up.

This is an old post I added to different sites months ago, but I still find it appropriate everytime the "Washington Post" plays the "Blame Bush Card":


The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009. It was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:  January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress!

At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6%.

Remember the day January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?  The Banking and Financial Services!!!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 16 or 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

President Obama!

Who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???

Senator Obama and the Democratic Congress!

The Washington Post babbled about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.  Amazingly a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  However:  Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress January 2007 to January 2011was the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In the first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until President-elect Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive Omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the Omnibus bill as President, to complete FY 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Senator Obama, who voted for the budgets. If President Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what President Obama is saying is, * I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 2009 *


Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel, and they were driving.

Also, abolish the EPA, the NLRB, the FTC, the Federal Transit Admin, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

Thanks for the article, Judson. And, it's fun to see what the libs have to say!. Like having a bunch of trolls, but off-site!

Well stated, Judson! And you are soooo correct about the leftist comments directly after the article: the head-in-the-sand, the liars - no one there with enough sense to back up their spray of derogatory and slanderous remarks that lend nothing to true debate. This being part of the "reason" we do a lot of head-bashing to get through - the left isn't interested in the debate, only the result - it tells us, I think, we need to forge ahead and keep the pressure on in D.C. Kudos on a very firm and concise piece of writing there!


Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service