Categories
Blog

10 Tea Party Extremism Cartoons

Are members of the tea party extremists? Cartoonists differ about the tea party, but most agree that they’ve shaken up Washington.

Are members of the tea party extremists? Some pundits seem to think so, pointing to the last couple of months where they were successfully able to hold Congress and President Obama hostage in order to get their demands passed.

One thing’s for certain – tea party members have certainly shaken-up the corridors of power in Washington. Whether that’s a good thing for the country remains to be seen.

Cartoonists are never afraid to weigh in on the tough questions, and it’s no different with the tea party. Here are 10 political cartoons that explore the notion of the tea party, and whether or not we should think of them as extremists.

 

Bill Day notices some striking similarities between Muslim extremists and the tea party…

Monte Wolverton explores what the tea party is spewing…

Florida Today cartoonist Jeff Parker thinks the tea party has gone overboard on what they’ve thrown overboard…

Caricaturist Taylor Jones thinks Eric Cantor points the way forward for the tea party…

Buffalo News cartoonist Adam Zyglis thinks we should change the spelling of “tea”…

R.J. Matson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows the reaction the tea party has to the word “compromise”…

Dutch cartoonist Joep Bertrams thinks the tea party have performed a hold-up…

While Eric Allie thinks Democrats and the main stream media have misrepresented the tea party all together…

Some still point to race, as Brian Duffy does with his cartoon…

While Hartford Courant cartoonist Bob Englehart thinks they’re just out to wreck the country…

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post. For the past 35 years, Daryl has been one of America’s most prolific cartoonists.

326 replies on “10 Tea Party Extremism Cartoons”

The “Tea Party” is easy to categorize/demonize in different ways.  Much of the initial money behind it came from identifiably wealthy right wing sources (somewhat similar to the John Birch Society of the days of old).  Much of the membership, however, is made up of working class people of relatively modest means, fearful for their future.  Initially, in the 1930’s, the National Socialist Party in Germany exhibited somewhat similar characteristics.  Both movements made a good deal of nationalism, scape-goating and nativism.

That said, it is obvious that many good people liked the slogans and other public expressions of the Tea Party along the lines of ‘it’s all their (democrats, immigrants, blacks, socialists) fault.’  We are being cheated, et cetera, et cetera.  Since much of the ideology expressed is illiberal, the movement is held in some contempt by many educated citizens.  More of a problem is their simplistic economic creed of lower taxes to solve all problems which is neither useful nor useable.

Kinda how I view unions and their loyalty to dems. Especially the unskilled unions. like the asfcme and seiu.

Kinda how I view unions and their loyalty to dems. Especially the unskilled unions. like the asfcme and seiu.

The tea party is only the weird stepchild of the GOP .And having created this weirdness they are now saying they want nothing to do with them.Too bad,kinda stuck now.It’s interesting that 60% or more of these people reside in the south,a section of the country that has always been a bed of secession, hot headedness and trailing in the overall intelligence of the country as a whole.And recently they have added another battle ribbon to their standard,that of being the most obese in the Nation. So what do you expect from the fat and stupid?

Where in the world did you get the idea that the Tea Party was mostly confined to the south? Take a look at the national Congressional and Governor races in the 2010 election and you will not that the Tea Party is wide spread. It contains nuts as well as smarts, just like the Democratic and Republican Parties. You call them the uneducated class, yet you criticize them for having too much money. Does that mean that the smarter you are, the more you need financial assistance.

go to any search engine and look for yourself.I didnt make up what I wrote its out there for anyone to see.The $ they have is from the GOP who gets it from the wealthy 1%.All are pawns, both democrats and republicans.The Tea party represents the brownshirts of the GOP.The smarter you are,the more you realize this.

Remind me Monday to post the top 19 contributors to both Political parties since 1991. That link is on my work computer. I think 17 of the 19 were unions contributions to dems.

 Yes what better way to keep people fighting among themselves? Give $ to the Unions.My basic premise is that both parties are owned by the wealthy 1%.When someone emerges from our society that espouses something else besides Democrats and Republicans and isnt in cahoots with either one(tea party) and has more brain power than approximately one peanut(palin,bachmann) they will be worth listening to.No doubt they will be killed by a ”lone gunman” or whoever soon after that. Thats how you will know they are for real.

Other than the one peanut. I would counter with weeny, bawney, and chollie. I can agree with that. Heard barry charged 38K a plate at his birthday bash, and expects to hit 1 billion for his run in 2012. Glad to see he included the little people in his celebration.

obama and boehner,bachmann,palin,paul et al are pawns.They mean nothing.I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting that took place in Colorado earlier this year with the top ten billionaires of the country attended also by Cantor and an undisclosed Democrat. Gee,wonder what they were discussing? Probably gladness in the stupidity of americans no doubt and a strategy to continue it. So far its working like a charm.”dancing like a puppet on a string,held by all those big shots”/Don Corleone

Putting Obama (a man I have great disagreements with but whose intelligence and knowledge I acknowledge) in the same boat as Palin is the logical fallacy of 
using only one giant brush to blur all distinctions.  

Total cynicism leads to apathy, a form of voter suppression which favors the Republicans.  Healthy skepticism is open to differences, and  asserting all politicians are equally bad leads you to a form of hopelessness which favors the worst.

I appreciate your posts and your critical intelligence, but try using a few smaller brushes to deliniate differences.  As I said before, if forced to choose the lesser evil, I will choose the lesser evil.  Bachman? Obama? Bernie Sanders?  All the same, all meaningless?  Any idea (our politics is corrupted by money) if driven to the extreme (all politicians are corrupt) is absurd.  

You don’t care about that “UN thing.”  That UN thing was the solemn word of the US to honor the principles of the UN Charter.  Like paying back debts, honoring our word is not a “thing.”  It is a sacred obligation.  

When Bush “asked” for support to invade Iraq, he lied to Congress.  If someone gets your consent based on a lie, that is fraud. And the consequent invasion was a war crime.  You are complicit in that crime.

Breaking our word in violating the UN Charter, lying to frighten people into war…..these are breaches of our honor.  But you don’t seem to care if the US dishonors itself, lies, kills hundreds of thousands, violates treaties.  In short, you admit to having no integrity.  I would not like to loan you money, for you would say:   I don’t care about that debt thing.  

And what about your 2.3 trillion dollar falsehood about the healthcare bill.? You are still dodging that mistake, another sign of lack of integrity.  I see why you use the  pen name of USMC1949: it’s to mask your corrupted honor with a facade of bravery.  If others in the TEa Party are anything like you, it is a ship of fools with no honor at all.  And thanks, you Tea Party patriots,  for causing the downgrade of US credit by blocking 
tax revenues and a larger deficit reduction plan, as Obama proposed and as S and P has said would have stabilized the economy.  

We are not fooled.  We are very angry at people like you.  And there will be payback.  We are all suffering now, and we will not forget who brought about this destruction of the credit worthiness (akin to honor) of the USA.  But I see the fit.

No, in fact, I’d just as soon we dropped out, sentthem packing to Stockholm, and quit paying to keep it afloat. Their sanctions mean squat.

In his recent fundraising drive Obama out raised the Repubs 3 to 1; 98% of Republican fundraising was from wealthy donors (ave 2000 bucks) compared to the half a million who contributed an average of $69 to “barry.”  

Those who have no evidence or logic advance their cause by mocking people’s names.  This is the tactic of the schoolyard bully.  

Not so much the bully, but the one who took out the bully. Pretty much a cake walk after that. Damn fine chicken for 39K a pop. KFC should try it. 

Bitter….as I said, bullies make fun of people’s names and when called on it, say:  

“He started it.”  You claim you “took out the bully,” thus proving my point.  “I’m not the bully; barry is!”
I am onto you: this is brilliant satire and I thank you for making my point crystal clear.and you wrote….” Damn fine chicken for 39K a pop. KFC should try it.”  Obama is raising funds.  What’s your point?  That democrats also take money from wealthy donors.  I think we all know that.  Why is that worthy of your sarcasm?  Or is it satire, you sneaky liberal/pinko?  

BTW, the price of admission to the fundraiser was 30K, not 39K.  Again, even when you have a point, you blow it by blowing up the facts.   

I couldn’t care less who started it (Reminds me of barry blaming Bush) It is who finishes it that matters.  

I couldn’t care less who started it (Reminds me of barry blaming Bush) It is who finishes it that matters.  

You wrote: “I couldn’t care less who started it….”   meaning  you have no interest in responsibility or justice, which concern who is guilty of misbehavior.  Bush started two immoral wars, with hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths, bailed out the banks, and brought the economy to total collapse.  He is responsible for that; Obama is responsible to work with congress (he can’t do it alone) to fix the problems.  Not caring who “started it” is to deny the concept of morality and responsiblity.  I suspect you voted for Bush, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for supporting a terrible President who left us a disaster.  

It does matter who started it.  War crimes and economic disasters cannot be waved off with a “I could care less.”

I am mostly concerned with results. Just haven’t seen any lately. I do agree though that eric should be reprimanded for Fast & Furious, and timmy really does need to leave quietly.

ruff – What war crimes? Didn’t the libs also vote for it? All done legally. Libya is a little iffy though.

The latest reports I could find on Tea Party rallies was from Aug 6, where less than one hundred TEa Party protesters showed up in Hudson, Wisconsin.  They were outnumbered by anti-Tea Party protesters.  At the fairly recent Palin Rally, where she had a few thousand (thank you Fox news), the anti-Palin protesters outnumbered the Tea Party types.   Draw you own conclusions.  The Tea Party is a disaster hated by both parties and increasingly losing support from gullible citizens.

anyone who believes that the 2 party system and not the elite wealthy 1% own and control this country is a ”gullible citizen”
”propaganda,all is phony” /Bob Dylan

Joe, your comment is right on.  The top elite funds whomever they think will win elections in order to have “influence.”  The Republicans are totally owned by the corportocracy, while the Democrats are partly owned, with some independent voices, such as the Progressive Caucus and folks like Sanders and Kucinich.  

If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would choose the lesser evil.  If effective campaign funding  reform were instituted  and the winner-take-all electoral scheme were  eliminated, we could have a more diverse set of parties and break the 2 party duopoly, reducing every issue to A or B.  We need C,D,E,F, and G to choose from, especially when A and B are about 1% apart.  

And you chose libs, regressives and Socialists. So much for the lesser of 2 evils.

Joe, in general you are right, but the Big Brush leaves out important details which indicate that not everyone has been captured by big money.  I would refer you to people like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, both independent and fierce fighters for ordinary people.  Both are still alive and fighting like hell to represent the people who elected them.  

It is true that corporate donors prefer Republicans, who consistently work to reward them, but they will support Democrats when it is clear that Democrats are winning, in order to influence the winner, of whatever party.  The 75 members of the Progressive Caucus will stand up to corporations and serve the general welfare, and on the Republican side, Ron Paul, who has the right views on defense waste but supports corporations otherwise, entertains independent ideas.  

Broad generalizaitons obfuscate critical distinctions between parties, politicians, and policies.  The solution: get all corporate money out of politics (at one time, all states had laws to prohibit corporate money influencing politics, including prison sentences for offenders.)  A liberal SC or an Amendment prohibiting bribes could enable a mitigation of the evil effects of declaring that corporations are individuals and that money is free speech.

Corporations are not individuals (anyone want to argue that?)….if they were, they could run for office, go to prison, serve in the military, etc.  And money is power, not free speech.  If money is free speech, the corporations can drown out the voice of the actual individuals that the Bill of Rights grants the right of free speech.
That would be plutocracy, not democracy….and that is what we have.  Plutocracy is, by definition, a form of tyranny of the few over the many.  The Koch bros are spending millions to defeat Democrats in Wisconsin; I have sent $5 several times.
However, all is not lost: the people united will never be defeated.

The plutocrats know this and so they work to divide the people against each other with wedge issues like guns and gays and God.  In the Gangs of NY, a pol says:
“The poor won’t revolt. We can hire half of them to kill the other half.”  This is the pure vision of plutocracy.  

I found this at Opensecret.org.  The top 15 contributors are: 

ContributorTotal ContribsTotalDem%Repub%Total1  Chartwell Partners$2,159,400$159,4000%100%$2,000,0002  TRT Holdings$1,030,800$30,8000%100%$1,000,0003  Goldman Sachs$842,610$842,61030%70%$04  Honeywell International$820,957$820,95729%71%$05  AT&T Inc$760,800$760,80034%66%$06  National Beer Wholesalers Assn$714,000$714,00045%55%$07  Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$683,650$683,65098%2%$08  American Crystal Sugar$643,000$643,00054%46%$09  Lockheed Martin$635,506$635,50639%61%$010  New York Life Insurance$609,450$609,45043%57%$011  Credit Union National Assn$591,400$591,40047%53%$012  Comcast Corp$590,325$590,32550%50%$013  General Electric$583,031$583,03151%49%$014  PricewaterhouseCoopers$582,455$582,45530%70%$015  Perry Homes

I will post the corrct one sometime Monday. Definately the seiu, asfcme, and teamsters were on the list I think 17 or 18 of 20 were unions. It either went back to 1991 or 1988. We shall see Monday.  

Please see my post citing opensecrets. org, the source of your list, which does not count all contributions of all corporations in its many forms.  Business interests, according to the same opensecrets. org that you cite, dominate unions 15-1, when you take all corporations and forms of donation into consideration.  

This is another example of how statistics can be rigged to draw false conclusions.
There are few unions and many corporations; you have to compare all of them, and all the ways they donate.  Then the truth emerges of who dominates political funding in the US of A.  See the opensecrets.org quotation at the source or in my other post.

At least with the recent SCOTUS ruling the playing field has been leveled. About time dontcha think?

At least with the recent SCOTUS ruling the playing field has been leveled. About time dontcha think?

No, the absurd claim that corporations are individuals and that money is free speech has led to a situation which will expand corporate money in politics by allowing it be both anonymous and unlimited.  This tilts the 15-1 advantage of business interests even more.

After 2006 and 2008, we might need it. barry hopes to raise 1 billion. Good money after bad, but maybe this time they will learn.  

Why is it I don’t think unions are individuals either? Oh well, all is fair now.    

Bitter, I found the list you are talking about at opensecret. org. which shows that of the top 25 donors, 19 are unions.  The problem is that this  does not compare a smaller group of unions, with high donation levels, to the total of corporations and pacs.

I will quote the same opensecret.org to substantiate this claim: 

“The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs – the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions – business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.”The list of top donors does not include pacs, soft money, and most recently the anonymous contributions the Supreme Court now allows as “free speech:”  Opensecrets, your source, states clearly that: WHATEVER SLICE YOU LOOK AT, BUSINESS INTERESTS DOMINATE WITH AN OVERALL ADVANTAGE OVER ORGANIZED LABOR OF ABOUT 15 TO 1.”I think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that business interests dominate by a gross margin over unions.  The reason is simple: unions are smaller than ever and businesses are richer than ever.20 major unions give a lot, but thousands of corporations, in various ways, give about 15 times more.,Comparing 20 unions to 20 corporations is a misleading way to assess the true landscape of political donations.  Comparing all union donations (most of which goes to Democrats) to all corporate and PAC and soft money donations (most of which goes to Republicans ) yields the 15-1 advantage of business interests over unions.I thank you for leading me to this data thru opensecret.org, which Ken thinks is a child abuse site.

Spin. I am quoting opensecret.org, the source that bitterpill used.  The statement opensecret makes speaks for itself.  I offer no spin.

Did you happen to notice the party receiving the bulk of those union contributions. Oh well, if the members are willing to waste that much, they deserve what they get. Maybe corporations should offer a deal to not contribute if unions do likewise. That way it will be a wash, and we will not have to absorb those costs in higher prices.

Yes, the Dems support working people and unions.  But business outspends unions 15-1.  
And business supports Republicans, except when they think Dems are winning, and then they attempt to buy the Dems.

Why would corps agree to end all spending if unions did?   They have much more, spend 15 times more, and they like it that way.  Are you naive?  The only way to end corporation domination of politics is to return to the old laws which prohibit corporation money in politics. 

I would accept ending all union and corp money in politics, but why do you think corps would want to give up their means of controlling elections, buying politicians (of both parties), and so buying special favors, loopholes, subsidies, and monopolies?  

If you had 15 times the weapons (money is not free speech; it is power) that I do, I would gladly
agree to get rid of all weapons, but you would not, of course.  No one gives up power without a struggle.  I can’t believe you suggested  that “Maybe corps should offer a deal to not contribute if unions do it likewise.”  Makes NO sense at all.

Bitter, I found the list you are talking about at opensecret. org. which shows that of the top 25 donors, 19 are unions.  The problem is that this  does not compare a smaller group of unions, with high donation levels, to the total of corporations and pacs.

I will quote the same opensecret.org to substantiate this claim: 

“The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs – the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions – business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.”The list of top donors does not include pacs, soft money, and most recently the anonymous contributions the Supreme Court now allows as “free speech:”  Opensecrets, your source, states clearly that: WHATEVER SLICE YOU LOOK AT, BUSINESS INTERESTS DOMINATE WITH AN OVERALL ADVANTAGE OVER ORGANIZED LABOR OF ABOUT 15 TO 1.”I think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that business interests dominate by a gross margin over unions.  The reason is simple: unions are smaller than ever and businesses are richer than ever.20 major unions give a lot, but thousands of corporations, in various ways, give about 15 times more.,Comparing 20 unions to 20 corporations is a misleading way to assess the true landscape of political donations.  Comparing all union donations (most of which goes to Democrats) to all corporate and PAC and soft money donations (most of which goes to Republicans ) yields the 15-1 advantage of business interests over unions.I thank you for leading me to this data thru opensecret.org, which Ken thinks is a child abuse site.

Actually more of a Libertarian brain child in the Spring of 2008, but after the poor showing of Rep. Paul in the Primaries, we merged. Many shared ideas.

Ron Paul wants to bring all the troops home, end American imperialism, and drastically cut the defense budget.  Is this a Tea Party position, or is Ron Paul a closet liberal/commie?  I, a radical egalitarian and pacifist, support Ron Paul’s position on defense.  Does that make me a member of the Tea Party?

You can’t have it both ways, bitterspill.

Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks, wrote USMC.

So you totally repudiate the position taken by Ron Paul.  and how will you pay for the 1.4 trillion defense budget, 25 times larger than Russia, 15 times larger than china’s?   Going bankrupt to have more miitary than the other 200 nations of earth is hardly a strong defense. 

I actually like Rep. Pauls take on the Fed, the budget, and a few other bloated Govt. agencies. His defense plank does not fly in the TEA Party, but we do still claim many Libertarians.

I’d most likely repeal obamney care, and any/all aid to any foreign nation that was suspect as to their true friendship. Would also probably cut out that cowboy poetry museum in Vegas. However Defense would have to share the pain. Most likely an immediate 10% cut. That would come out of the USCG budget.

and who are we defending ourselves against? the saudi’s honcho’d 911 and are the biggest donor to al queda and they are an ally. the afghans grow and supply the worlds heroin,and we are fighting for them. Pakistan stabs us in the back every chance they get,and they are an ally.Iran is no threat as the jews are right next door,and the next biggest power china,owns us.We better start defending ourselves against american fascism,which feeds off the gap between the rich and the poor that is growing at a rapid pace.Thats what I see as the greatest threat.
”A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has first destroyed itself from within.” Will Durant
and we are well on the way to this my friend.

I thought cartoons were supposed to be funny. Long live the Tea Party so
that these nutty cartoonists have something to do.

Tea Party.  There is a stark simplicity to their answers & positions which is very appealing to the common mind.   Lower middle-class voters with minimal educations & lower intellectual standards. 

People who live way off the intellectual grid, who don’t read, don’t eat with utensils, don’t care, don’t know HOW to care, & have never really evolved their own intellectual curiosity much beyond The-Walk-Upright-And-Don’t-Drool stage.  They are “guiding” America.

I am a Licensed Professional Engineer.  I am sure that I am far more complex than the “Great_1”.   And, I am a member of the Tea Party.

Oh, that doesn’t matter. You disagree with “Great_1” so you must be a drooling idiot. Anyone who disagrees must be. Tolerance, apparently, is one-way street.

“Tea Party.  There is a stark simplicity to their answers & positions
which is very appealing to the common mind.   Lower middle-class voters
with minimal educations & lower intellectual standards. ”

Putting aside your snobbery for a moment about anyone who thinks differently then you, the position of “Spend less” has actually been re-enforced by Standard & Poor.  Are they similarly uneducated?
Or are they looking at our spending over the past two years, and coming to the conclusion that our debt is too big?  That its actually 100% of the GDP?

This is what you don’t get, Great1; two years ago, some of us saw this coming a mile away.  But people like you?  You chose to call us names instead of listen.
When we said that we were spending too much, you told us that we needed to spend $787 billion to keep the unemployment level below 8%.
We said it wouldn’t work.
We were right.  Yep, us.  Us ‘neanderthals’. Us, who don’t eat on plates.
Its gotta hurt your pride to have to admit that we were right.  So instead of admitting it?  You just ignore, and forget history.

The S&P figured out that our spending is out of control.  What will it take to get you to admit it?

Oops, NO I did not like it.

So much for the intelligence of those elitist well educated types. The past 4 years is such a glowing example. So when do Y’All plan to campaign on all your successes rather than attacks on the oppositin?

Two major successes:  got bin Laden, turned 700K job loss a month under Bush around on a dime, saving the nation from a deep depression.  Corps are making big profits, stocks are up 80% under Obama.  Obama has also almost created as many jobs in first 2 yrs as Bush in 8 yrs.

Saved us from our worst enemy and saved us from deep depression, after inheriting an economic meltdown.  He also gave the largest middle-class tax cut in history, 288 billion as part of Stimulus.  Conservatives hate to admit these 3 major achievements, because they are prejudiced against Obama, and won’t even give the devil his due.

He has also made mistakes, mostly by trying to work with the Republicans.  But you have to grant his accomplishments in a short time, if you are honest.  You got a tax refund; you are safer with bin Laden dead (remember Bush let bin Laden go at Tora Bora and then dissolved the bin Laden unit and said:  I don’t think about it much; he’s irrelevant.  Maybe he had a deal with the bin Laden family, which as bankrolled his father and W.  

Obama turned the job losses around on a dime, a perfect V curve and within 1 yr, stock market had recovered, banks and corps had recovered, and job gains, tho small, were positive.

And you got a tax refund, part of the 288 billion, plus payroll tax holidays.

If you can’t admit these achievements, I have to conclude you are either very stupid, very dishonest, or a racist, who would not credit Obama for anything anyhow.  

All the Tea Party “terrorists” were asking for in the debt negotiations was for the government to stop borrowing in record amounts and pay for what it spends. President Obama was FOR that principle before he was against it:

“And I’ve personally asked the leadership in
Congress to pass into law rules that follow
the simple principle: You pay for what you spend — so that government acts
the same way any responsible family does.” 
— Pres. Obama, “Change that you believed in”, Apr 29, 2009

“The ‘pay as you go’ rule is very simple. Congress
can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

— President Obama; June 9, 2009

“Are members of the tea party extremists? Some pundits seem to think so”

That’s such a cowardly statement.
Look… if you feel that way… say so.  Then actually back it up.  Don’t blame it on “some pundits”.
Moreover, stop using the word ‘hostage.’ At least if you want to be taken seriously.

S & P has come right out and said it: to stabilize economy, tax the rich.
Obama proposed a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan: 3 in stimulus cuts, including entitlement reform, and 1T in taxes on the top 1% (4% rise).  This would have satisfied S and P.
@5b7be18add21f482cfc87af4218ef94c:disqus 
So who are the a-holes who blocked the plan which would have stabilized the markets?  Was it those Tea Party a-holes?  Why, yes.  No new taxes.

Congresspeople take a pledge to support the Constitution, so what is this Grover Norquist pledge?  a suicide pact.

As a direct result of the Tea Party intransigence, we are all suffering great losses in the market (our pensions) and rising credit to follow. Gee, thanks Tea Party for
tanking the economy.

I know they will repond:  It were’t us who done it; it’s that Muslim commie in the White House, the guy from Kenya.

But we know who knocked out the plan that would have preserved our credit rating and equities: S and P has made it clear: those who blocked a larger cut, including tax cuts on the rich.  It  were the Mad Hatters of the Tea Party, who said: no new taxes *(all that was required was to let the extension expire) .  After 12 yrs of tax cuts for the rich, where are the jobs? And how many trillion did we just lose in the past week? 

The effort will be to shift blame to the Dems *wild spending” on “tax cuts for the middle class, unemployment benefits, and 200 billion on job creation”.  And Obama’s 4 trillion defecit reduction program?  Left in the dust in  the rush the the Republicans, held hostage by the TEa Party, to destroy the recovery.

Now let’s earn the spin, you as-holes.  It were’nt us.  We took a pledge.
It were Obama.  I am sick of economic illiterates dictating our policies, by hijacking the debt ceiling authorization, which is implicit in approving the spending anyway.

Can we recall these idiots or call out the firing squad?
 

Proposed, but never formally written down. Sorry, but his word means squat. Oh and that 1 Trillion of tax increases was not going to happen. Hell, even Senate Dems realize that was Political suicide during these troubling Economic times.  

Proposed, but never formally written down. Sorry, but his word means squat. Oh and that 1 Trillion of tax increases was not going to happen. Hell, even Senate Dems realize that was Political suicide during these troubling Economic times.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *