2 votes

The Week: The Tea Party has become grotesquely fiscally irresponsible

John Boehner and House Republicans agreed yesterday to raise the debt ceiling without strings — just as Democrats in Congress did time and again during the last Republican presidency — infuriating Tea Party groups who were trying to instigate another big debt ceiling fight.

In response, the Tea Party movement pledged to recruit challengers for Republican lawmakers who voted to raise the debt ceiling, and provide financial support to their campaigns.

Matt Kibbe, president of Washington-based FreedomWorks, a Tea Party umbrella group, said in an interview, "The House leadership has given up any pretense of fighting for fiscal responsibility."

But the Tea Party has it upside down. John Boehner is the one who did the fiscally responsible — and constitutional — thing by approving a debt ceiling hike without a dangerous and confidence-sapping fight. While Tea Party leaders might like to sermonize on fiscal responsibility, it's the Tea Party that has become grotesquely fiscally irresponsible by flirting with default on the national debt.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


The Week is a commie rag. Why in the world would someone post this nonsense?

That is because the "T Party"

is a fraud and always has been. The real passion of the "T Party" is more wars for Israel.

meekandmild's picture

I need to get a government grant

to study the effects on spending more money than I have or able to earn in my lifetime. I figure I could do that study for about $10 Billion.

For the Nth time...

...failing to raise the debt ceiling does not mean default on the debt.

All it means is that the government would have to stop accumulating more debt - which means it would have to cut spending to the level of tax revenues, aka balance the budget. O noes! The horror! /sarc

Tax revenue is ~$3 trillion, interest on the debt is ~$250 billion. So the government could pay all interest on the debt on time and in full without question, and still have ~$2.75 trillion remaining for defense, social security, etc. This is simple mathematical fact. Anyone talking about default on the debt is a complete fool or (more likely when it comes to the MSM) an abject liar.

People MUST be educated about these simple facts so that the MSM's debt default fearmongering loses its effectiveness.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Will this work for my household finances?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course going into further debt is irresponsible. If I said to my wife, "we can't sustain our household at this rate. Should we buckle down and pay some of this debt off, or should we obtain a few more credit cards so we can pay the bills while living large?" If she was like Congress (or theweek.com), she would reply, "Let's do the responsible thing and raise our debt ceiling." Preposterous!

To paraphrase Algore, "...down is up, fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal responsibility, and so on and so forth........"

More economic disinfo.

Move along folks. Nothing to read here.

Also No Debt Default

not being able to take on more debt is not synonymous with "not paying our debts" .... yet.

What a load of trash that too many people swallow.

We would be forced to cut spending and constitutionally be required to pay our debts. But even if you want to swallow that trash in the article exactly who holds this debt?
And the more debt that is held by the Federal Reserve the better chance we have of telling them to just take their private corporation bankrupt! (Maybe we should become big supporters of 100% QE and then launch a "Bankrupt the FED" campaign.)

What sovereign nations would we be "not" paying back now that China has written off our debt as a bad investment? ...Japan? Hardly a problem for them as they have been printing themselves through stagflation for two decades. But why not pay them and not any "private companies"... like the FED.

There is no "Tea Party"

The so called "Tea Party" was co-opted and financially bankrolled a long time ago by the Koch brothers, The GOP, and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks group.

So you have these mainstream, status-quo GOP Establishment figures who claim to speak for the so-called Tea Party, and have fabricated faux "Tea Party" demonstrations, which are really funded by the same right-wing, Pro-War, pro-Police-State, Pro-Wall-Street, Corporate Monopoly interests (that also fund the GOP itself, and reich-wing Radio).

In short, there is no Tea Party.

So Libertarians would be wise to totally divorce themselves from even using the name anymore, as this is just a well-funded rebranding of an idea that had once come from Ron Paul's 2007-8 campaign.

I know Rand Paul still likes to use this word, but he voted for Mitt Romney.

Any new movement needs to call itself by something clear, that can not be just used as a new smokescreen for the status quo.

We need a No-War, No Police-State, No Wall Street control, No Drug War Party ... whose meaning can not ever be misconstrued.

You don't know what you are talking about

Also, it's not even hard to find out.

Tea Parties all over the country have web sites. You could have visited a couple.

They don't get money from any right wing outfit. They are far more libertarian and far more aware of what's going on than Rachel Maddow has you convinced they are.

There are certainly "Tea Party" branded outfits with neocon money behind them, but that's not the tea party.

The real rank and file tea party is a wonderful opportunity for us to educate. My local tea party and the local LP are on good terms, for example.

The tea party exists because people are figuring out the GoP fiscally conservative rhetoric is never followed through on. That's an opportunity we haven't had before.

It's short sighted, arrogant, and foolish not to engage with them.

the original tea party was

the original tea party was coopted by the neocons as soon as it came out. The original tea party was in support of Ron Paul.

the original tea party was co-opted by the original neocons

IE Hamilton, Adams, et al.

It doesn't mean the movement wasn't genuine.

Yes the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots and other well heeled Tea Party branded outfits are trying to co-opt the tea party.

But they aren't the tea party.

The tea party is hundreds of small groups all over the country who take neither direction from the establishment nor are offered money by the establishment.

It's those people that the Tea Party branded outfits try to claim credit for and claim allegiance from, neither of which is the case.

The tea party isn't libertarian by our standards.

The tea party is extremely and radically libertarian by the standards of GoP and Democrat statist establishment. Harry Reid called them "anarchists" as you recall. If only.

We have more in common with them than any other movement.

One last thing. How many of us fell out of Zeus's head a fully matured libertarian or anarchist?

Right. We were either fiscally conservative liberals or civil libertarian conservatives. We likely then talked to someone or read someone further along.

That someone that helped you along probably didn't call you a neocon or a socialist because you were a conservative or a liberal. They talked to you.

That's right

Some organizations calling themselves "tea party" are run by the establishment and serve as controlled opposition. However, many other "tea party" organizations are genuine grassroots conservative or libertarian outfits, which overlap with the liberty movement.

"It's short sighted, arrogant, and foolish not to engage with them."


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

no police state?

How about NO STATE!

You are absolutely




Southern Agrarian