Shaw: The Grand Old Pile-On

In January of 2011 John Boehner was arguably one of the happiest men in America. The son of an Ohio tavern keeper had fought his way up through the ranks and was not only accepting the gavel of office as Speaker of the House, but was presiding over the entry of one of the largest class of freshmen Republicans in the history of the nation. For a brief, giddy period, it was very good to be John Boehner.

What a difference half a year can make. His new charges had dutifully recited all of the standard promises during their respective campaigns and stoked the imaginations of conservatives across the country. Little did the new speaker know that they actually intended to keep their word. They showed up for work and, rather than lining up as dutiful children ready to learn from the wizened elders waiting to greet them, they immediately began kicking over the furniture, writing angry slogans on the walls in crayon and telling tales out of school to every media mouth with a microphone.

[More]

This entry was posted in Web Logs and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Shaw: The Grand Old Pile-On

  1. Jean says:

    The new guys ( Tea Party ) have the correct idea long term since increasing the dept is unsustainable, but shorterm they should understand that they risk a Worldwide financial disaster.

    It’s as if the ” Economy ” was standing on a very wobbly chair with a noose around it’s neck: Does one solve the problem by kicking the chair out from underneath or does one very very carefully try to remove the noose and then step down from the wobbly chair ?

    The fact that the noose is a self-inflicted suicidal mismanagement of the Economy, due to decades of bad decisions, does mean that getting to a point of economic health has to be done in careful steps.

    But what has to happen at least after 2012 is stopping digging deeper in dept and a plan to whittle down the dept ! ( This very much for the U.S.A. , but also for most all other countries more or less deep into the same kind of mess ).

    • Cy says:

      The Tea Party’s basic platform is:

      1) Lower taxes
      2) Cut social spending

      Which taxes? The ones that they will get back of course.
      Which social spending? Welfare, schools, immigration support and other stuff that the lawn bowling demographic who makes up the Tea Party will not have to worry about. Barely a mention of old age social security, which by far makes up the largest part of American social spending and would affect the actual tea party members themselves.

      False austerity … gotta love it. Not unlike the “war protesters” who no longer cared about the morality of Vietnam once the draft was dropped.

      • Cy says:

        Know what the problem with these ratings is? No one has to own up to or explain their disagreement. Either they see someone they don’t like or see a criticism of their holy cow and then reflexively vote it down. Groupthink at its worse.
        Ok I’m timing … how many seconds before I get -1?

      • beentheredonethat says:

        Which taxes? Jeezuz, Cy! You’re just pretending, right? You do know the difference between an apple and an orange. The TEA Party is not about cutting essential services, its about being able to cut taxes without undue harm. Translation, the government being forced via less revenue to actually become concerned about getting the biggest bang for the buck. The government, because of less revenue, being forced to take health care fraud, welfare fraud, immigration fraud, education system fraud seriously. The list doesn’t end there by any means. Less money not more can achieve better results. Prime example the Detroit education system. Rife with fraud, lousy teachers, pouring more and more good money into a bottomless cesspool of criminality, incompetence and entitlement dependency. While we’re at it let’s not forget a graduation success story worthy of Somolia. Fraud and outright theft of monies intended for all of these programs and more that you are so convinced the TEA Party is dying to kill is outrageous. The only way the government will do anything about these situations is if they are forced via less revenue to do more with less and to be held stricly accountable if they don’t.

        “The question is: If the society spends billions on primary, secondary and higher education, why is it that so little is accomplished? There are, of course, many answers to this question, but I would argue the overarching reason is fraud, fraud at every level in order to satisfy political demands.”

        • Joe says:

          Agreed. Having lived through an actual government cutback during Ralf’s reign I can say that cutting expenditures increased service levels. It also increased the moral of the people working for the government. The fact is that the US government has grown to the point of being unsustainable and desperately needs a major pruning.

  2. beentheredonethat says:

    “It’s as if the ” Economy ” was standing on a very wobbly chair with a noose around it’s neck: Does one solve the problem by kicking the chair out from underneath or does one very very carefully try to remove the noose and then step down from the wobbly chair ?”

    Exactly, Jean.

Comments are closed.