Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Felicia Sonmez  |  twitter  On Twitter: @2chambers  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  |  E-Mail Felicia  |  Articles
Posted at 11:15 AM ET, 02/27/2011

Boehner: Congress has 'moral responsibility' to tackle debt, cut spending

By Felicia Sonmez

In a speech Sunday night to the annual National Religious Broadcasters convention, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will frame the current debate on federal spending as a moral question, not just an economic one.

"We have a moral responsibility to address the problems we face," Boehner says in his prepared remarks. "That means working together to cut spending and rein in government - not shutting it down."

Lawmakers are scrambling to work out a compromise on a stopgap measure that would avoid a government shutdown Friday, the day the current funding resolution expires. The threat of a shutdown - at least within the next week - appeared to recede last Friday when Senate Democrats said they were "encouraged" by a two-week House Republican plan that would include $4 billion in cuts, many of which were proposed by President Obama in his fiscal 2012 budget.

In his remarks Sunday, which he is set to deliver at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Boehner will make the case that it's possible to both cut spending and avoid a federal shutdown.

"This is very simple: Americans want the government to stay open, and they want it to spend less money," Boehner says in the prepared text. "We don't need to shut down the government to accomplish that. We just need to do what the American people are asking of us."

Boehner also will cast the problem of America's $14.1 trillion national debt in moral terms, arguing that Congress has "a moral responsibility to deal with this threat to freedom and liberate our economy from the shackles of debt and unrestrained government."

"Yes, this debt is a mortal threat to our country; it is also a moral threat," Boehner says in the prepared speech. "It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our children's future and make them beholden to China. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily."

Even as lawmakers do battle over the measure to keep the government funded through the end of September, a larger battle looms this spring when House Republicans will present their budget plan for the next fiscal year. Republican leaders have indicated that they plan to tackle reform of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare in their budget, a point that Boehner will reiterate Sunday night.

"Our budget, under the leadership of our Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, will specifically deal with entitlement reform," says Boehner, according to the prepared remarks. "To not address entitlement programs, as is the case with the budget the president has put forward, would be an economic and moral failure."

Boehner also tout the recent efforts by House Republicans to expand restrictions on federal abortion funding, noting that "we're fighting to end taxpayer funding for abortion once and for all ... we're working to protect life."

An amendment offered by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would bar federal funding of Planned Parenthood overwhelmingly passed the House earlier this month, and two other measures that would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding are working their way through the House.

Boehner also is expected to announce that the House will act "as early as next month" on a measure to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to carry out net neutrality regulations.

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 27, 2011; 11:15 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Styrofoam cups, coming to a Capitol near you
Next: Senators Lieberman and McCain discuss potential military option in Libya


Yeah Ok. The dry drunk Boehner is going to give us all a little moral instruction. Boehner could start his own moral correction by beginning to tell the truth to the taxpayers of this nation. Boehner and the Republicans are out to destroy the middle class in this country and end the rights of American workers while empowering the rich and the corporations. Boehner and the republicans want to take away your medical benefits and throw your mother out on the street. Time to start kicking the republicans out of the Congress. Americans have buyers remorse and are already sick of them.

Posted by: vintel7 | February 27, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Well, nobody argues that the GOP is good at TALKING ABOUT morals.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | February 27, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Bone-head, you have a moral responsibility to govern wisely.

$800 billion in tax cuts to the wealth and bludgeoning the rest of us to death with a budget meat axe is about as irresponsible as one can get.

This is exactly what I expected at the hands of right-wing politicians who campaign on mountains of hate, rivers of fear and monuments of lies.

Mr. Boehner, you and your Reaganite cohorts are the worst danger the United States has ever faced in our entire history.

Posted by: PoliticalPrisoner2012 | February 27, 2011 12:06 PM | Report abuse

And they'll carry out their moral responsibility in an immoral way by targeting those programs and policies that support the poor and middle class.

Meanwhile they'll champion tax breaks for the wealthiest, repeal of the Estate Tax and capital gains taxes, and repeal of policies that protect us from the greed of corporations.

What's moral about that?

Posted by: FauxReal | February 27, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Republicans like Boehner did not seem to think that Ronald Reagan’s $2 trillion addition to the national debt from 1981 through 1988 was very much, or another $1 trillion added to the debt by George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992 mattered. Even George W. Bush’s addition to the debt of about $5 trillion from 2001 through 2008 did not get many, if any, Republican complaints.

One can only conclude that for some reason, unknown to science and mathematics, Republican trillions are somehow relatively smaller than Democratic trillions. Any Republican who can explain this phenomenon should get a Nobel Prize.

Posted by: kkrimmer | February 27, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

3.8 PERCENT TAX BREAK FOR 250,000.00 2004



Posted by: theoldmansays | February 27, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

You know, when most families face a lot of debt, they pay it off sooner by increasing their payments. Republicans have insisted we decrease our payments. Is that how you pay off debt?

Posted by: leftcoaster | February 27, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Congress had a moral responsibility not to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent. You give to your benefactors billions in undeserved income and expect those least able to make up for it. Mr. Boehner, your self righteousness rings hollow. You, weeper of the house Mr. Boehner are a cocktail sipping hypocrite and the American people deserve better.

Posted by: USblues2 | February 27, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it's a moral issue to pay for two wars, a drug benefit and, if you can do it morally, a tax cut dole to the wealthy.

So, let's get moral. Start paying for the two wars with a Patriot's Tax. This would be a progressive tax. The more income and wealth that one has, the more one should be thankful for and willing and wager to give back for the opportunities the U.S. offers to do well financially.

The Patriot's Tax would not apply to the 1% serving in uniform. It would involve all Americans with the war, not just the one precent serving in uniform and our Chinese bankers.

The Patriot's Tax would pay for ALL of the costs of current operations -- salaries, fringe benefits, equipment, supplies, transportation, AND previous costs AND future costs for pensions and care AND the interest on debt incurred for the two wars. The Patriot's Tax would remove all debt from the two wars from our children and grandchildren.

And, with ALL Americans involved in the two wars -- and in future wars, citizens would be more engaged about the need for and conduct of the wars. Wars are too important to be left to the Generals and the Commander in Chief.

Don't want to pay a new tax? Then enlist or serve otherwise in a combat zone. Don't want to serve? Then leave the country.

Posted by: jimb | February 27, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"We have a moral responsibility to address the problems we face," Boehner says in his prepared remarks.

Like golf junkets? Or Vanity (fake tans)? Or Pugs' collusion with wall st, Oil & Gas, and the nefarious Koch-suckers? Is that the morality you're referring to?

Posted by: USA4ALL | February 27, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Newly discovered morality, now that he has figured out that the combination of tax breaks for the rich, unfunded wars, and cozy relations with Wall Street oligarchs combine to bankrupt the country. If he could be believed in his new stance, that would be one thing. But it's Boehner, so it's another.

Posted by: frodot | February 27, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

He has no idea does he?

Posted by: coogene | February 27, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Boehner doesn't have much standing on this issue.

1. The debts are a direct consequence of policies that he endorsed and voted for. If we'd kept the Clinton budgets in place in 2001 through 2010 we'd have less than $1 trillion of total debt right now.

2. Current debts are largely a consequence of a financial crisis that unfolded on Wall Street during a period of GOP "supervision" (e.g. debts resulting from revenue short-falls and spending directly associated with the financial crisis and a huge spike in unemployment are the major drivers of current deficits -- not new federal spending on permanent government programs).

3. There's a massive unbooked cost lurking in the future based on the GOP refusal to compel the Big Banks to insure against their own failure (or to reduce systemic risk by breaking up the big banks). How much time did Boehner dedicate to this issue?

4. How is it moral to punish teachers, middle class families, and the poor for Wall Street excess?

The GOP has been cutting spending that benefits the poor and middle class for 30 years. During that same time they've been filling the trough for the obscenely rich.

Boehner's "new" idea is to further reward the people who financially benefited from the financial crisis, and to punish those who did not.

Did Boehner cry when he invoked his version of a "moral responsibility"?

Posted by: JPRS | February 27, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Moral from the immoral? Can't work.

Posted by: Geopolitics1 | February 27, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's a thought: Cut oil company subsidies. There's a cut in spending that we can all live with.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 27, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Morals and immoral's from the "Tan Man". How was your golf game in FLA there "Mr. Speaker"?

All of this coming from a guy who has been pigging off the public trough for the past 20 years. He will cash in handsomely when its all over. Yeah collecting a nice congressional pension, his FERS annuity and Social Security. That doesn't even take into consideration the book deal (memories of the years in the Tanning Booth)and his 7 figure K Street lobbyist salary in waiting.

All the while the least amongst us will be reminded everyday by Sir Tan and his merry bunch, "we keep you alive to serve this ship, row well and live"!

Posted by: TippyCanoe | February 27, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

And where was their "moral responsibility" when running the government and their Republican president was spending money like a dry drunk? Squandering billions on tax breaks for the super-wealthy. Squandering billions on a stupid war in Iraq. Fattening the pockets of contractors in Afghanistan. I didn't hear anything then. Now, with a Democratic president, they suddenly found their moral voice. It's a campaign to destroy the American middle-class! And that is not moral.

Posted by: StewartNusbaumer | February 27, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

So it would appear John Boehner is saying that Geo. W. Bush let an immoral presidency. I can agree with that.

Posted by: sage5 | February 27, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

liberal beggers just don't want to give up their cheese or koolaid. a liberal will push a kid out of line just to get closer to the handout. true democrats are showing themselves in WI by running away from responsibility and be the liberal that doesn't want to work but demand their pay while watching porno and calling room service from another state...hahahahaha!

Posted by: JWx2 | February 27, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's moral, the 97% of American that will make up the non-entitled to the freedom of American's riches will not, NOT have very much give the fat cats as the Divided and Conquer, so they have to be sure that the indentured class has a penny or to left for them to profit from.

Any yes we in the indentured class better see we as an individual better not think we get but the others don't.

Posted by: justmehla | February 27, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

A lesson on morals from Republicans. Who would have thunk it?

Posted by: slim21 | February 27, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If debt is a moral issue, then the rich need to accept higher taxes to pay down the debt.

And don't give me your bullcrap arguments about job killing, class warfare, etc. - this is a moral issue!

Posted by: maggots | February 27, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Sure the debt is a moral issue and it's immoral to blame it on working people. Rich people got us into this mess and they can more than afford to get us out of it. In fact they have a moral responsibility to!

Posted by: splamco | February 27, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse


Unemployment trumps debt every time as a moral issue.

But the Republicans have given up on jobs and instead are waging a fierce war to make things worse as a lead up to the 2012 elections.

That, now, is a moral issue.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 27, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, this debt is a mortal threat to our country; it is also a moral threat," Boehner says in the prepared speech. "It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our children's future and make them beholden to China. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily."

Funny, no Republicans were screaming this during the 8 years of the Bush Administration that landed us where we are today. Not one Republican voted against the "tax cuts" that put us in the hole with China again and Republican voted against the two useless wars that put us, the American citizens, into deep financial woes while making Cheney and his war profiteering, aka "defense contractors", buddies even richer.

But,, that a Democrat is in office, we will have to be fiscally responsible? Now the economy is number one? Yeah right, John Boner doesn't give a rats behind about all of the government employees who will lose their jobs, but he cares about a bunch of folks in Ohio, who are building an engine that will never be used, and their continued employment.

Politicians are two-faced liars...they only care about the things that benefit them. A perfect example of the rich preying on the middle class and poor....they want to turn our current middle class into a "worker class" just like China.

Posted by: massmedia77 | February 27, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Eating our children and grandchildren's lunch today is the paramount moral issue of the day.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 27, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

For me it's a moral issue when these career politicians do not tell the whole truth ....... lately it seems to happen almost every time one of them opens their mouth.

There is a lot about the deficit these elected representative of both political parties rather not talk about.

Between 2006 and 2010, more than 900 of the most profitable US based corporations used our tax code to avoid paying any federal tax whatsoever at least once. Many did so in numerous years. Not only did they pay nothing in, they received tax 'refunds' in the billions-even trillions of dollars from the Treasury.. This includes such companies as Bank Of America, Price Waterhouse Cooper, ITT, Bechtel, Boeing and GE.

This does not even take into account the tax exempts such as the oil companies who still receive refunds based on moneys they have never paid in. Exxon paid nothing in and received refunds. BP paid nothing in and received refunds. The list is a who's who of large and highly profitable entities that have paid nothing or only limited fed tax. Of those who 'did' pay in something, many of those that claim billions in profit paid 1.7%tax on average..

So....... might it be a reason for a deficit??
Who is REALLY on welfare?
It is NOT the working man.

Oh yes, we do have to thank our career politicians for taking care of their special interests and those interests do not happen to be the American people.

Still think this country is a Democracy? Or has it become a Cashrarocy?

Posted by: bkarpus | February 27, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Boehner fails to mention that marital infidelity is also a moral failing.

When will he name those female lobbyists he's been seen seeing?

After all, for most of his House sojourn his family has stayed home in Ohio, while he's lived [it up] in D.C. during the Congressional seasons.


Posted by: jismquiff | February 27, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I do think that Boehner and the Republicans made a big tactical error in December. They insisted that the Bush tax cuts be continued for everyone including the rich.

Now actually it was not a big deal. The tax rate under Clinton was 39.6% for incomes over $250,000 and under Bush it went down to 35% (it went down for everyone, not just the rich).

The difference of 4.6% between 39.6 and 35 is worth only 70 billion dollars a year. (Sure, it is worth 700 billion over ten years, and 7 trillion over a 100 years, but over ONE year, it is only 70 billion). And the deficit is more than a trillion dollars - PER year. The debt is more than fourteen trillion.

By these standards, 70 billion is a drop in the bucket. But by insisting on that 70 billion, and not explaining themselves, the Republicans lost the propaganda war.

It is not only bad for the Republicans, but it is bad for the country. We DO need to tackle the debt, and the rich should pay their share, BUT there is NO way we can JUST tax the rich and close the gap. We do need to cut expenditures.

I hope that people discussing this issue learn a few figures and do a little arithmetic.

It will be good practice for IRS day on April 15.

Posted by: rjpal | February 27, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The 87 unruly freshmen Tea Party congressmen are resisting the House leadership and demanding more cuts than the 61Billion on the table. But as freshmen with little or no legislative experience, and certainly not in economics where they may not be aware of the damage that these largely discretionary cuts will inflict on a fragile economy, the onus is on the the House Speaker to rein them in, and take a truly moral stand to keep the country from going under.

John Boehner speaks as if the Democrats are plotting to shut the government down. Not true. Harry Reid proposed a 30day hiatus from the headstrong House push. It is to no one's advantage to close down government. The GOP remembers 1995, and are probably still smarting from the fact that they were responsible, and rightly blamed for that error. So, bottom line - John Boehner must LEAD, with no political shenanigans, for the good of the country. He must resist the ideological impulses; discontinue these early and obvious campaign tactics for GOP success in 2012, for a later date; and help move us beyond the fiasco that his party brought upon us. If he thinks calling the deficits cuts as a "moral responsibility" will help him and his party, it will not work. He has to first stop the falsehoods and distortions, and be straight with the American people first. That's truly being moral.

Posted by: robinx | February 27, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: OldUncleTom...Well, nobody argues that the GOP is good at TALKING ABOUT morals.
Sure! The dems give the repubs plenty to talk about: "I did not have sex with that woman!" and "G.D. AMERICA! G.D. AMERICA!! G.D. AMERICA!!!"

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

For those who don't believe that there IS a moral respnsibility....may I remind you of the message sent during the mid-term election? Ignore that message at your own peril. 2012 is NOT that far away and while the know it alls, within the Washington Beltway, will ignore that message, the voters WILL NOT!

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

US foreign debt is 40 TRILLION dollars.

HOGWASH TIMES has started TOTAL CENSORSHIP on all articles related to RAYMOND DAVIS now that it and its twin NEW YORK TIMES have been caught with pants down and so is Barak Hilbert Obama for lying on DIPLOMAT - the CIA, JSOC agent giving NUCLEAR MATERIAL to ALQAEDA.

CIA Spy Captured Giving Nuclear Bomb To Terrorists
Posted by EU Times on Feb 11th, 2011 // 162 Comments

While all eyes in the West are currently trained on the ongoing revolution taking place in Egypt, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is warning that the situation on the sub-continent has turned “grave” as it appears open warfare is about to break out between Pakistan and the United States.
Fueling this crisis, that the SVR warns in their report has the potential to ignite a total Global War, was the apprehension by Pakistan of a 36-year-old American named Raymond Allen Davis (photo), whom the US claims is one of their diplomats, but Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI) claim Raymond Davis is a spy for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Davis was captured by Pakistani police after he shot and killed two men in the eastern city of Lahore on January 27th that the US claims were trying to rob him.
Pakistan, however, says that the two men Davis killed were ISI agents sent to follow him after it was discovered he had been making contact with al Qaeda after his cell phone was tracked to the Waziristan tribal area bordering Afghanistan where the Pakistani Taliban and a dozen other militant groups have forged a safe haven and former CIA agent Tim Osman (also known as Osama bin Laden) is believed to be in hiding.
Of the actual gunfight itself we can read as reported by the Time News Service which, in part, says:
“The scene could have been scripted in a Hollywood action thriller: For two hours at the end of last month in Lahore, U.S. diplomat Raymond Davis was closely pursued by two visibly armed men on a motorbike. He noticed them tailing him from a restaurant to an ATM, and through the crowded streets of Pakistan’s second [largest] city. They were close by when, in a crowded intersection, Davis produced his own handgun and fired seven shots.
The diplomat was apparently a crack shot, and all seven bullets found their mark, killing his two pursuers. Davis then called for back-up, and a four-wheel-drive vehicle raced onto the scene, striking a Pakistani bystander who was killed by the impact. But the people in the vehicle, whose identities remain unknown, escaped from the scene having failed to retrieve Davis, who was later arrested nearby.”
The combat skills exhibited by Davis, along with documentation taken from him after his arrest, prove, according to this report, his being a member of the feared American Task Force 373 (TF373) black operations unit currently operating in the Afghan War Theater and Pakistani tribal areas comprised of US Military S

Posted by: ElliotSlatkin | February 27, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Pretty strong words from yet another cry baby sucking at the teet of the government. Hard working Congressmen. How many days a week are they working now three?? As for unions, I guess if you can vote yourself a raise, unions seem kind of silly.

Posted by: reming | February 27, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The bulk of the deficits accumulated starting with Reagan are due to borrowing to provide big tax cuts, increase defense spending, and unnecessary wars. Over this period, social spending was curtailed, Social Security reformed and federal welfare reformed.

The most pressing "moral responsibility" in this country is to make decent health care available to all citizens not cater to the rich. Boehner talking about morality is a joke since he just voted to repeal and defund the Affordable Care Act without even a one page proposal to address the problem.

Boehner and McConnell are my leading candidates to cover with molasses and feathers.

Posted by: chucko2 | February 27, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

sorry Mr Speaker. You kind of threw that "moral" thing away when you went to the mat for those tax breaks for millionaires.

Heck, the people earning $100million/year pay a lower % of their income (17% according to the IRS) to the Feds than a self-employed person earning $60,000 (about 20%). There is no moral high ground defending this. NONE.

If you aren't willing to have the richest among us chip in a little more -- at least to the point they pay the same % as our middle class, you can't be credible as a moral leader.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 27, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

If debt is a moral issue, then why give billions to rich people on a Chinese credit card. Republicans have no credibility, whatsoever. And yet, like Sarah Palin, people still want to listen to what they have to say! And these people who just can't get enough of the GOP's "yellow rain", reminds me of an old song about a woman living alone, who gives hospitality to a snake! "Take Me In Pretty Woman".

Posted by: D-0f-G | February 27, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

A politician like Boehner speaking about "morals" is like a fish out of water, hoping the Electorate sees him as a beautiful peacock!


Posted by: wcmillionairre | February 27, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

@ jimb

"So, let's get moral. Start paying for the two wars with a Patriot's Tax. This would be a progressive tax. The more income and wealth that one has, the more one should be thankful for and willing and wager to give back for the opportunities the U.S. offers to do well financially."

So what you're saying is that the people who do nothing but collect welfare checks, collect social security when they never paid in, etc don't have to be as thankful? They don't have to be as willing to give back for the opportunity of a free ride? Seriously???

The continued refusal to accept that anyone is abusing our system is what is going to be this country's downfall, not tax cuts for the wealthy.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being uncollected by hospitals and healthcare facilities nationwide in large part thanks to the illegal population. The illegals are recieving federal funding and you liberals continue to defend this!

When my property taxes go up every year in order to pay for the children of illegals to go to school here I have a major problem with the liberals singling out the rich.

We should not just cast aside the low and hardworking middle income citizens. But neither should the high income citizens be forced to swallow their bile at having to pay for single mom down the street to pop out baby number 4 or for Mrs. Illegal to cross the border, have a baby and then continue to live off us.

The social security program is outdated and needs serious revamping without "putting anyone out on the street" and no American should be forced to fund Planned Parenthood. If you are pro-choice (which I am), then fund them yourselves. It's also not just about abortions. The American people are tired of paying for the poor to find a free way to copulate risk free. Abstaining isn't that darn difficult. My husband and I did when we couldn't afford our birth control.

It's time the American people accept responsibility for their actions instead of trying to play the blame game or pissing and moaning and whining about how it's not fair. Life's not fair! But what is fair is to own up to your problems and find a tax free way of resolving them if possible. Only when it is absolutely not possible should they seek assistance. ASSISTANCE not a free ride!

Posted by: luv_my_stang_jezebel | February 27, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"We just need to do what the American people are asking of us."

Are you KIDDING me?

Since WHEN?

Posted by: wcmillionairre | February 27, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe any politician is serious about the debt until they agree to cut defense spending in addition to social programs and be willing to pass a tax increase of some kind after this year in order to get additional revenues.

Posted by: Gary15 | February 27, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Is it moral to vote for someone like GW Bush, which Boner obviously did - when the public bleed Boner feels to morals. But when tax cuts for rich people is mentioned the knee jerk reaction is to give them what they want, so as to score more votes and cash.

Posted by: Mnnngj | February 27, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The pinnacle of Hypocrisy! Boehner, of all people, has done absolutely NOTHING but try to pull Obama and the Democrats down. Boehner, with his crocodile tears, is OBVIOUSLY in league with WALL STREET. HE KNOWS that it is Immoral to continue giving Tax Breaks to Oil, Coal and Gas Corporations (Whose current Profits are ASTOUNDING), and to Billionaires and Multimillionaires (WHO DO NOT spend their ill-gotten gains to employ people).

Face it, ignoramuses, McConnell and Boehner are disgusting amoral hypocrites!

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 27, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Strange, it wasn't a moral issue when Bush took us from a surplus and spent us into the toilet.

Posted by: 8-Man2 | February 27, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse



Boehner talking about'morality' funniest thing I've heard all day. The guy who is leading the charge to kill healthcare for children and nutrition of premature babies talks about morality...

well, so did the fascists, so no surprises here.

Posted by: fiona5 | February 27, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Last year the Congress never passed a budget. They just kept up with the continuing resolutions. It is time to stop this nonsense and save the future for our offspring.

It is a compelling moral issue.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 27, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Debt is a moral issue?

Well I guess Boner is immoral since he voted for Reagan, Bush, and Bush to create $11 trillion of America's $13 trillion Debt when Obama took office. In fact Boner just called every Repub immoral.

Posted by: chucky-el | February 27, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"It is immoral to rob our children's future and make them beholden to China."

Tell that to Wall Street. Government is not the problem there for sure. No, it's traitorous corporations & greedy business "leaders" who are responsible for that.

Posted by: Nymous | February 27, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The current agenda of Congressional Republicans has nothing whatsoever to do with balancing the budget/reducing the deficit and everything to do with implementing their political ideology. The GOP sees an opportunity to damage or eliminate programs and organizations that conflict with their political ideology -- hence their self-serving attack on labor unions, the EPA, Planned Parenthood, public television and radio, public education, health care reform, etc.

If House Republicans truly were concerned about the federal deficit and were taking an even-handed approach, they would strip the fossil fuel industry of its tax breaks and subsidized funding, cut back further on unnecessary defense contractor programs, and eliminate tax-exempt status of all religious organizations.

Posted by: labman57 | February 27, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

And liars go to hell, Mr. Boehner--ask any fundamentalist Christian that. Liars who use religion or morals to cloak their assaults upon the poor and the elderly are especially contemptible. Where were you, sir, when your village idiot George W Bush burned through the surplus left to him by President Clinton? Where were you when BushandDICK lied to the country about war and led American soldiers to their deaths while bankrupting America in that foul war? Where were you when BushandDICK allowed Wall Street to destroy our economy? Eh? You were cheerleading them, you foul reptile.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 27, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I hate when the GOP talks about morality.
It's like a snake slithering toward an apple tree and some unsuspecting, gullible person. Listening to their morals you know that the little guy will still lose a piece of paradise, whether they bite the apple or not.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 27, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Republicans increased the US debt by 8 trillion dollars when they were in charge and they just blackmailed America into renewing the tax cuts for the rich; another 1 trillion dollars and they started the War for Oil in Iraq for another trillion dollars and now they want to claim the moral high ground?

Posted by: vigor | February 27, 2011 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AverageJane....I hate when the GOP talks about morality.
Me too! Especially when they talk about "I DID NOT SLEEP WITH THAT WOMAN!" Isn't THAT a turn off? And maybe "THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOOOOOOME TO ROOOOOST! G.D. AMERICA! G.D. AMERICA!! G.D. AMERICA!!!"
That sort of morality talk just shouldn't be repeated! RIGHT?? ;o)

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I hate when the GOP talks about morality.
It's like a snake slithering toward an apple tree and some unsuspecting, gullible person. Listening to their morals you know that the little guy will still lose a piece of paradise, whether they bite the apple or not.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 27, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

tax the churches

no more free ride

Posted by: vigor | February 27, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans were serious about the debt, which they clearly are not, they would attack farm subsidies. But where does all that money go? To RED(neck)States, of course.

Right, we got moral issues here, which is what Obama has been trying to tell all of us:

--You can't fix the long-term debt issue without tackling Medicare/Medicaid. He is beaten to a pulp for offering Health Care Reform (package originally offered by Republicans) when it is in fact the greatest step forward (can be immensely improved) on debt containment put forward in a generation.

--Get rid of farm subsidies for Agrobusiness. The family farm is long gone--same as the other frontier myths behind Republican policy proposals.

--You fix Social Security (Fica), which is by the way much healthier than private 401K plans and state pensions, by raising the ceiling on the 6.2% tax from $100K to 200K and raising the retirement age to 67 (even the French have done this!) Result: you got surpluses, not deficits.

--Tax the billionaires their fair share. Roll back the insane Bush tax cuts. A billionaire is taxed at 15% on most earnings. Top rate for the rest of us is 35%.

--And now that Republicans want to put guns in all our state universities, okay: TAX GUNS! But take outrageous cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor tax rates and raise them a hundred fold.

This is to say we have no deficit issue in the US of A, only a deficit in realism--and all of it coming from Republicans.

Posted by: walden1 | February 27, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Cheney famously told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter" a month before firing him.

Now that the Republicans have discovered they can use deficits as an excuse for ideological warfare to cut programs they oppose, they're all suddenly all rallying around the deficit. But we all know for every small spending cut, they'll push through an even bigger tax cut.

Their hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

Posted by: GaryInNY | February 27, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: vigor....Republicans increased the US debt by 8 trillion dollars when they were in charge
Your frugal democrats took charge after Bush's FIRST TERM! The repubs gathered a scant majority in the last mid terms a few weeks ago. So in that SIX YEAR INTERIM, when your frugal dems were in charge, just how COULD the repubs run the debt up while your frugal demos had the purse strings?

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool than it is to SPEAK out and remove all doubt!

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Boehner and the Republicrats have a moral responsibility to do a helluvalot more than cut $4 billion out of a $1.65 trillion budget deficit! And we have a moral responsibility to replace them in the next election if they don't.

Posted by: manlyman | February 27, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans were serious about the debt, which they clearly are not, they would attack farm subsidies. But where does all that money go? To RED(neck)States, of course.
I agree! We should keep buying our food mercury laced produce from China, South America and other sources overseas! Yuk! Who wants to eat all American produce??
;o) Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I love posting here! You libbies make me LOOK SO SMART!!
;o) Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: manlyman ....Mr. Boehner and the Republicrats have a moral responsibility to do a helluvalot more than cut $4 billion out of a $1.65 trillion budget deficit! And we have a moral responsibility to replace them in the next election if they don't.
Gee! You're SO GENEROUS! Your dems had the last SIX YEARS to fix up the debt and the repubs just came back into the picture right after the midterms, a few weeks ago! So I'm sure that your used to your own self gratification, aren't you?? ;o)

Posted by: erodrik | February 27, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

erodrik wrote "Gee! You're SO GENEROUS! Your dems had the last SIX YEARS to fix up the debt and the repubs just came back into the picture right after the midterms, a few weeks ago! So I'm sure that your used to your own self gratification, aren't you?? ;o)"


Golly - the dems came into control in late 2006 so they had FOUR years, not six.

And the conservatives ahd power from 1993 to 2006 and while in power they BORROWED
more than $4 TRILLION under "W".

I love the right - always trying to rewrite history and shift the blame.

Fact is, Obama was handed a national debt of nearly $11 trillion and 83% of that was from REAGAN, BUSH and BUSH.

LOOK IT UP for God's sake!! Try to learn something other than the usual right wing drivel.

Posted by: Freethotlib | February 27, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the debt is a moral are the wars, so is the criminal amount of money we are spending on defense. If we're going to talk morality, let's not pick on just one issue.

Posted by: kwoodgr | February 27, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

a moral responsibility? was there a moral responsibility to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq? Republicans love their wars.. when it comes to war, moral responsibility goes out the window.

Posted by: bozhogg | February 27, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh, don't make me gag. That crew doesn't understand the concept of morals. And they say this with a straight face, after not more than a month or so ago, giving away, what was it $120 billion in tax breaks for the very wealthy - and now they want to cut what's left for everyone else. If they weren't so dangerous - they would be comical - but the media and the Democrats go along with this nonsense.

Posted by: NCElk | February 27, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Never ceases to amaxe me that, when the repubs were in charge of the WH and both Houses, they said nothing about about the record deficits they and bush wracked up or the government spending or the pork or the indebtedness to China. Not one said anything when cheney said,"Deficits don't matter." Now they found religion, but only for taking benefits away from the middle and lower classes, while showering the rich woth more breaks. Where were boehner's tears during the bush years? GOP=Group Of Phonies.

Posted by: mikel7 | February 27, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Debt is a moral issue for Republicans only when it accumulates on spending for things that Progressives support. During a recent GOP presidency, "deficits don't matter" was a quotable quote. That was in reaction to a question regarding how America intended to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dubya Bush arranged for a very significant decade-long tax cut for the very wealthy (people of his class) concurrent with very expensive wars. No problemo on the moral front. Now that a Negro Democrat sits in the White House and Congress has bailed out too-big-to-fail Republican-controlled banks and stimulated the economy, well now, debt is a moral problem. The GOP's shameless selling of attitude for votes is an insult to elephants. I'm thinking Abu Ghraib would be too good for the prisoner brothers Koch and their ilk.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 27, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

If it's such a "moral" issue, than why did Boehner and the rest of the GOP create it in the first damn place?

The GOP should not be trying to preach to anybody about debt this late in the game.

Especially, since you're all nothing but a bunch of Charlatan's and Hypocrites.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | February 27, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Not wise for the Republicans to use the word "moral" in any discussions. If they do, they need to define it to fit their needs.

Posted by: mirrorgazer | February 27, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Good Lord, Mr. Boehner, why aren't you on your way to Texas to lecture ex-Pres Bush, the founder of the current national debt? The budget was balanced when he took office. After you leave Texas, don't forget to pay your respects to Ronald Reagan, who took federal spending to new heights in his war against the evil empire. And surely your dance card will be full for years to come as you visit the venture capitalists, bankers, stock brokers, and just plain crooks who saw nothing wrong with junk bonds, 110% financing, and rampant deficit spending the first ten years of this century. I suspect that most of them were Republicans.

Posted by: eskarp | February 27, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes and its immoral to take from the poor of this country and the middle class making them poor and not from the rich including you John Boehner and all those who get bonus on the backs of the hard working American people.

Posted by: mac7 | February 27, 2011 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Now the taking away of all stimulus spending to help the middle class is called a moral issue. Spending to save the banks at the end of President Bush's final month's and in President Obama's first year was OK but now to stimulate middle and upper middle class jobs is immoral. The sad truth is that the key group in the US to benefit financially from the efforts of the so called "conservative" legislators are the very upper class of our country. Yes, the numbers of voters are encouraged to vote (usually Republican) for politicians because of their "anti" stands such as anti women's rights on reproduction choices and contraception and abortion, anti same sex marriage, anti unions, anti environmental protections, and anti helping those living in poverty which over 80% of those are people of color. That is to get the large number of voters to vote for them. But then, the key people to benefit from those voted in to office are not those supporting these "anti" issues. Those benefiting even now are the wealthiest 1% of our country. This is the sad reality. A whole group of people are being mislead to vote for people believed to be against all these issues when it is then the rich who are the ones who benefit from their votes. This is true voter fraud. The votes to elect come from those strongly against issues or fearful of a group of people but the money to finance the voter campaigns come from the rich people and the very powerful and rich corporations. It is easy to discover that the elected Republicans do not follow the voters wishes except in public speaking and window-dressing votes. The actual beneficiaries of all those voters’ votes for Republican politicians are the rich and powerful to protect and grow their wealth and power. That 1% cannot elect anyone. They can only pay to have the politician round up the voters to get elected on “anti” issues and then, once elected, do the bidding of the rich. Check it out with an open mind and see who has benefited most over the last 40 years from Republican politicians. It is not the Republican voters. It is the sources of the money who paid for their campaigns.

Posted by: GURUJOTSINGH | February 27, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

It is a moral repsonsibility not to place our debts on our grandchildren. It is alsp a moral responsibility to take care of the "elast" among us - those on whom the Republicans want to saddle with the responsibility of bearing that debt. Itis a moral responsibility to take care of the vulnerable - that is why the health care package was passed, why we have Social Security and Medicare. To make cuts primarily to these programs to balance the federal budget is immoral. It is also a moral responsibility to make sure that we do not spread armaments and war throghout the world, that we be peacemakers rather than war-makers. When 56% of world-wide miitry spending is by the U.S., and almost half of our budget goes to war activities, while a small amount for seeking the things that make for peace is stripped from the budget, that is a moral question. If the government wnts to be "mora," let them address these questions in a moral manner, and do what is "righteous." Let them progressively cut military spending to what is appropriate (less than half of what we now spend would still be more than four times as much as the next largest spender, China). Let them make the rich pay their share. Let them make the rich businesses - banks, oil companies, the military-industrial complex, etc. who have become leeches, living off of taxpayer dollars, all pay their share. Then they can talk about making "moral choices."

Posted by: garoth | February 27, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Funny how cutting off medical care and denying health insurance to millions is completely MORAL according to John Boehner.

Posted by: jjedif | February 27, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh, do tell us of your "moral responsibility" to not cut defense contractor entitlement programs in the middle east while you cut education, health care and safety net programs for the elderly including Social Security into which they paid all their working lives.

Tell us of the "morals" of a "Christian Nation" whose priority is endless war to appease its master Israel.

Boner and his RepuBPlicans wouldn't know "moral responsibility" if it bit him in his jaundiced, orange butt.

Posted by: areyousaying | February 27, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The debt is a moral issue? Boehner needed to tell that to Ronald Reagan and GW Bush. Both those presidents added more to the deficit than all the presidents before them combined. Bush especially added billions.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 27, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

This is a "Cry Baby Fool" talking without Tear dropping. He was lying again FOR SURE. "Moral responsibility" is finally he remember again. He forgot such responsibility during Bush era while creating DEFICIT ? He is not a smart politician by lying to Americans publicly like that. He does not care of the painful condition Americans faced. He keeps doing the same tactics to bring GOP gain in the mid term by dragging the recovery then blaming Obama Administration. GOP gain is on the pains Americans endured. He is Americans' POLITICAL NIGHTMARE, He keeps running his mouth for what NO AMERICAN WILL BELIEVE IN. Disgusting ! Look into the mirror to see what a lier your face has showed.

Posted by: skwan102909 | February 27, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

I would agree with Boehner that the debt is a moral problem to some extent. However, debt by itself is amoral. It is how the debt manifests itself that renders it either moral or immoral. I suggest that giving tax breaks to very wealthy people when the country is in a bind is immoral. I suggest that buying unneeded aircraft engines is immoral, yet Boehner was for this type of immoral spending.

I suggest that making government the scapegoat for all of our ills is immoral. What is truly immoral is pushing an agenda based on lies and distortions.

If deficit spending is immoral now, then it was immoral back in 2001-1009. Republicans were in control from 2001-2006.

Mark my words, adultery will not be considered a moral issue for Republicans in future elections. It certainly didn't bother them that John McCain was an adulterer in the last presidential election. In fact, deficit spending was not an issue for them either.

Personally, I do not consider present day Republican conservatives to be fiscally conservative. The truth is they hate change. in reality, Presidents Carter and Clinton were much more fiscally conservative than any Republican president since Eisenhower.

Posted by: EarlC | February 27, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh, don't make me gag. That crew doesn't understand the concept of morals. And they say this with a straight face, after not more than a month or so ago, giving away, what was it $120 billion in tax breaks for the very wealthy - and now they want to cut what's left for everyone else. If they weren't so dangerous - they would be comical - but the media and the Democrats go along with this nonsense.

Posted by: NCElk | February 28, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Oh, please. "Republican" and "moral responsibility" just doesn't compute. The Repubs are only responsible to the real whip-crackers of their party -- the Koch brothers (e.g., Darrell Issa, who controls the House Committee on Oversight & Govt. Reformn, has built a team that includes staff members with close connections to industries (Koch brothers) that could benefit from his investigations). Please, Bohner, show us some examples of how Repubican "morals" have benefited us Americans instead of your corporate masters.

Posted by: lyndee1 | February 28, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company