Republicans are up in arms and outraged. But why?
But the right wing seems lost on the comparison:
Politico: Alan Grayson says putting the Republicans back in charge of Congress would be like putting a terrorist in the pilot’s seat of a jetliner. “Why would you want to put people in charge of government who just don’t want to do it?” the Florida Democrat asks in a new interview with Orlando’s WTVF. “I mean, you wouldn’t expect to see al Qaeda members as pilots.”
Republicans are pouncing onthe latest from a man who once said the GOP health care plan is for Americans to “die quickly.” NRCC spokesman Andy Sere says Central Floridians are “deeply embarrassed by Alan Grayson and would characterize his freshman term in Congress as a reign of terror.” But Grayson’s office is standing by his comments. The point he was trying to make: If Republicans want as little government as possible, why put them in charge of it?
"…never mind that the comparison doesn’t even make sense as an analogy. (Of course we are talking about an obvious lunatic here.) Mr. Grayson was probably just trying to top his idol –that other post-partisan politician, Mr. Obama. Lest we forget, Mr. Obama recently pronounced (paraphrasing) that ‘the GOP drove the country into the ditch and now want the keys back.’ Which was hilarious in its own right.No, it wasn't just funny, but an accurate comparison. I would like to know why conservatives believe otherwise. Anyone?
ON A SIDE NOTE: How do you make things simple for conservatives? They don't understand the simple concept: For every action there is an equal reaction to the public. If you take away Medicaid benefits, someone picks up the tab, it doesn't make patients illnesses go away or their costs. It's a "tax shift" to the neediest, sickest people in society. They get the medical bill.
Cutting education funding makes families pick up the tab individually for educating their kids, freeing up childless couples and singles. Someone always pays. Taxes may go down, but costs for everyone else will go up dramatically.
So Grayson is right. When you dig deep, smaller government means balancing the books on the backs of the least among us. What is the price we pay for proudly wiping out our deficits? I think Scrooge said it best: "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Rep. Paul Ryan's Dickensian economics made simple.