Skip to content

Teabaggers In Fond Du Lac Show Appetite For Economic Destruction

August 8, 2011

There is no way to deny the obvious.

But for the Tea Party hijacking the political process these past months, and creating a crisis atmosphere over the raising of the debt ceiling which culminated in a complete circus environment in Washington, Standard & Poor most likely would not have acted in the way it did last Friday.

Standard and Poor, in their statement about the downgrade, made a point to paint the political dysfunction as a prime concern when making the change.

The bloodbath that is taking place in the markets today is a direct reaction to the madness that took place day after day as partisan teabaggers worked feverishly to undermine the work of Washington, to blackmail Republicans into submission, and deny a common sense compromise to the budget negotiations.

Teabaggers proved their love of ideology trumped love of country.

Feeling no sense of shame, having no grasp of history, or connection to anything other than a twisted and perverted notion of their own delusions the teabaggers pushed the economy over the cliff.

America is now reaping what the Tea Party sowed.

Quite a sight!

If you think all this is just my sense of outrage over the lack of intelligence or patriotism as demonstrated by these knuckleheads you are correct.  But do not take just my word for it.

Take an example straight from Fond du Lac.

A teabagger rally was held on Sunday morning.

The Tea Party Express rolled into that northeastern city as part of its tour to bolster the six GOP state senators facing recall elections on Tuesday.

Midway through the Fond du Lac event, Florida talk show host Andrea Shea King took the stage. She told the audience that commentators were describing the downgrade of US debt to AA+ from AAA as the “tea party downgrade,” laying the blame squarely on Congress’ right-wing faction and its supporters. But rather than boo those who claim the tea party caused the downgrade, the 200 or so Wisconsinites in attendance cheered, sounding almost proud to be blamed for the downgrade.

10 Comments
  1. Josh permalink
    August 9, 2011 1:03 PM

    This article is ridiculous. I was at the rally. It was patriotic, and practical. The Tea Party IS America whether you like it or not, they embody the initial concepts of American government, and by the way, Obama TRIPLED what George Bush spent in eight years in office in the matter of one year! Don’t blame the budget mess solely on George Bush. Sadly, your article is what I’ve come to expect from anyone who doesn’t have legitimate facts to back up their arguements…snarky, eager to call names, and factually unfounded. Read a basic economics book sometime and you may find that you are actually a conservative.

  2. Ron Groskreutz permalink
    August 9, 2011 11:24 AM

    Will a balanced budget cause some hardships, absolutely. If, in my personal life, I make 100K per year and spend 168K each year, and then decide next year that I must stop the excess spending, I and my family will feel the crunch. Same goes for the Federal Government. They have been spending too much. They need to spend less. They need to spend no more than they take in each year. It is going to hurt, yes. If I spend too much in my life, I cannot just give my self a raise. I don’t feel that it is right for the government to irresponsibly spend our money, and then just give themselves a raise by raising taxes. Do what is right first, get your spending in line with your income.

  3. Solly permalink
    August 8, 2011 11:20 PM

    “Raelly? President Bush? How sad. The congress was controlled by democrats during the latter half of the Bush years, and they–along with Bush ran up deficits.” The Republicans controlled the house from 2001-2007 and the senate from 2003-2007. I guess two years for the dems is “the latter half” of 8 years. Of course I’ve heard many times starting months ago from conservatives that Obama has not improved things in his three years in office, essentially Feb. 09 – Today = 30 months. Republican fuzzy math. Plus the fact that the republicans put holds on many appointees in the first months. But don’t let the facts get in the way

  4. August 8, 2011 4:34 PM

    Patrick,
    You seem to be unaware from where this mess started.

    Dems are picking up the pieces of a failed Republican term(s) in office.

    Let we forget…

    You are part of the minority that thinks cutting federal spending in the midst of this economic mess would not further erode employment and the limited gains that are taking place.

    While I am responding might you inform everyone here how the Iraq war was being funded when President Bush was in office?

  5. August 8, 2011 4:31 PM

    Ron,

    Lest we forget it was the lack of all-out forces in Afghanistan at the time Bush decided to ramp up for war in Iraq that created, in large part, the long time conflict. Also, lest we forget when Bush did not committ the needed troops in Afghanistan, and instead relied on local tribes it caused a whole series of bad reactions.

  6. Patrick permalink
    August 8, 2011 4:16 PM

    Raelly? President Bush? How sad. The congress was controlled by democrats during the latter half of the Bush years, and they–along with Bush ran up deficits. But those deficits were modest compared to what we have today.

    Time for Obama to man-up. He could have called for massive spending cuts himself–and put them in writing–but chose not to. When you know one party is not going to vote for tax increases, but you insist on them, you have drawn a line in the sand, too.

    Time to get rid of presiden present. He stinks as a “leader” and is no statesman. While S&P was doing the downgrade, Obama was sucking on out tax dollars at Camp David. He accuses S&P of a math error. He is a fool, too stupid to do what needs to be done.

  7. Ron Groskreutz permalink
    August 8, 2011 4:00 PM

    The Tea Party did what? Tried to cut spending? Is that what you predicted they would do? Good call. I think we should pull out of foreign conflicts and save our money. I don’t know how you measure success in war, but whether good or bad, it is costly. We probably either should never have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least should have come home a long time ago. But while our indebtness increased under President Bush, I has increased at an even higher rate under President Obama. It doesn’t matter which party is in office, we only have so much money and we shouldn’t be allow to spend more.

  8. August 8, 2011 3:09 PM

    Hold it!

    President Bush and GOP rammed through the needless tax cuts that were disrptive to the economy…and did not work! They foamed at the mouth for war in Iraq and never…NOT ONCE…found a way to pay for it….and then you write and tell my readership that Obama is to blame!!!
    The teabaggers had a chance to ‘man up’ and govern. Instead they have worked to undermine government. They did as I have long predicted.

  9. Ron Groskreutz permalink
    August 8, 2011 2:49 PM

    Do you currently spend 68% more than you take in, every year? Do you plan to, or do you think you would be allowed to do so? Would you even consider increasing the amount of spending for next year if you were already spending 68% more per year than you make? If you would not do this in your own person life, why does our Federal Government think they can? Isn’t it time we stop them?

  10. Ron Groskreutz permalink
    August 8, 2011 2:43 PM

    Don’t try to blame the Tea Party for what President Obama is doing. America is reaping the excess spending habits of our Federal Government. The liberals seem to instead have a penchant for further increasing our indebtedness to the Communist run government of China. I don’t understand how people can not see the obvious, we spend more than we take in. Our Federal Taxes amount to 2.2 trillion, they are currently spending 3.7 trillion. The new deficit reduction bill directly specifies $917 billion of cuts over 10 years in exchange the initial debt limit increase of $900 billion. This is the first installment (“tranche”) of cuts. $21 billion of this will be applied in the FY2012 budget. So, even if they don’t actually spend any additional money, which they undoubtedly will do, they would still only be cutting back 900 billion over ten years. That’s only 90 billion a year deficit reduction on a 1.5 trillion dollar per year deficit. It a laughable attempt, and unfortunately most Americans will think it’s all taken care of.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: