Peas are all the rage when it comes to talking about the country’s fiscal woes.

You might remember that in July of 2011, when fighting over the debt ceiling, president Obama- right before he left for his 17th vacation at Martha’s Vineyard that year- complained about congressional inaction by saying that’s it time for the country “to eat its peas.”

From CBSNews:

"I've been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way," Mr. Obama said. "What I've said to them is, let's go."

The president said today he would not accept a smaller, short-term deal. "We might as well do it now," he said. "Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas."

Of course the president and Congress refused to eat their peas then, preferring to put it off until after the presidential election. There were far too many sweets at the table going into an election year- and delicious pork too.   

But, now the election is over. Sweets are off the table; the congress is a lame duck even if still addicted to pork. And a deal has been FINALLY struck to “tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way.”

Just wait; this ought to be really funny.

Because now we have an idea just exactly how many peas Obama meant in 2011 when he said it was time to “eat our peas.”

1
John Ransom

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
135 Comments So Far
« Previous12Next »
adrianvance Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:56 PM
But of course, he does not understand it unless it is on the TelePrompTer(tm).

Come see us at The Two Minute Conservative, http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.
Shirley247 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 7:31 PM
There are a few of us out here that are not spendaholics. I know I have to pay for it sometime so I just keep it under control. If everyone had this kind of disipline we wouldn't be in the mess we are now in in America. Obama has spent someone elses money for so long he thinks he is entitiled to do want he wants. We have to put a stop to it sometime and time is NOW!! He needs to live within his means.
Tired of DemWits Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:46 PM

Peas, peas, peas, peas
Eating goober peas
Goodness, how delicious,
Eating goober peas.
annfan_777 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:44 PM
traitorbill Wrote: 3 hours ago (1:13 PM)
Term limits would do us a world of good. What politician isn't expendable?

---------------

I agree, but we shouldn't have to force people out - we should be nominating and running candidates who get the Founder's vision of a citizen legislature, and who will step down after a couple of terms willingly. We shouldn't keep insisting that so and so isn't "qualified" or "electable" or "experienced" - if they love America and genuinely want to help the country, that qualifies them right there. Look what Palin did in Alaska - she kicked butt and took down names, and she had no real "qualifications" prior to assuming office. Those are the kind of candidates we need, not "experienced" politicians.
Normal Frank Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:50 PM
Except there are those who are not Patriotic, do not have America's best interests in mind, and have no intention of EVER relinquishing power. And their constituents will keep reelecting them in perpetuatuity.

Think Charles Rangle, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi just to name a few.
annfan_777 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:38 PM
cashills Wrote: 2 hours ago (1:55 PM)
The Republican establishment has given us milktoast....the big spending Bush. There is little difference between the GOP and the Democrats.

---------------

When we run "moderates" we tend to lose almost every time - that is true. However, when real conservatives step up to the plate, and get attacked relentlessly by the media, we give up on them - Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc.... The left never gives
up on their people.

Beyond that, fiscal issues are not the only issues that matter. There are many other important issues - defense, pro-life, marriage, family, etc....

Plus, neither Bush nor any other president spends a dime. That is Congress.
YESWECAN Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:54 PM
FINALLY! Someone sees the TRUTH!
YESWECAN Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:57 PM
Well done, Congress spends the money.
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:59 PM
"pro-life, marriage, family" ??? What does any of that have to do with you when it is not your own "pro-life, marriage, family"? I don't see how you people tell the government to get out of your life and you want to be told about "pro-life, marriage, family". Do you understand that the debt, deficits or anything to do with money has NOTHING to do with your own BODY.

"pro-life, marriage, family" Why would you want the government to telling you what to do?

But you're going to say you hate obama care because it is government run. But you want the government to tell you about pro-life, marriage, family.

PS: "Plus, neither Bush nor any other president spends a dime. That is Congress." Really???
YESWECAN Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:06 PM
Read the constitution. Congress spends the money.
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:28 PM
I know that its in article six.
Wayne from the Hoosier state Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:22 PM
Conservative REACTION to liberal shoving describes the situation.
Mike28 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 8:40 AM
It is not congress. The House has the purse strings. It can refuse to fund anything, thereby rendering any spending bill moot.
The budget comes from the WH.
If the damn politicians would DO what they are elected to do there would be no problems.
How about taking the House Representatives and the Senators OFF the federal teat and return them to a payroll set by the idividual states for their Reps and Senators, you know, like it use to be. The limit should not be highter then the Gov of the state. (no pensions, no freebie medical plans) Pay raises for State Pols should be voted on by the State's Citizens. Don't all of you wish you could just vote yourself a raise? These idiots are out of control.
TunTavern Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:31 PM
Obama can get away with saying "nevermind" on the deficits.

America is a country in which the average person carries over $7,000 dollars in credit card debt.
Spending money that we don't have...spending more money than we earn...that's the American way.

This idea that most Americans are smart with money and fiscally responsible is just laughable. Look at the stats. Look at the figures for average household debts. What in the heck do you think caused the housing market bust? It was Americans spending more than they could afford to!

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:42 PM
TT:

Are you suggesting that, because the average American is in far too much debt, the government should also over-indebt itself? Or are you implying that, because the average American is a spendaholic, it will be difficult to persuade him that the government should not spend money that it does not have?
TunTavern Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:39 PM
"Or are you implying that, because the average American is a spendaholic, it will be difficult to persuade him that the government should not spend money that it does not have?"

Yeah, that.
The GOP is trying to regain relevance by making SPENDING its big issue...
But do most Americans really care about spending and debt? The way they live their own lives suggest they don't.
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:11 PM
Remember Cheney Classic Line "Deficits don't matter" when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill counseled against further tax cuts because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war in Afghanistan, Cheney informed him that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," according to O'Neill's telling.

Cheney continued to champion spending late in the Bush administration, urging skeptical House Republicans to support Bush's plan to bail out Wall Street. Was John R bemoaning then? Naw Because they are Republicans Right?
PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:16 PM
As noted above Bheney was not in the congress. All he can do is suggest! Congress spends the money! Incase I didn't make that clear let me repeat for politicalGuru; Congress spends the money!!!
DoctorRoy Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:28 PM
From 2001-2007 the GOP controlled all three. I didn't notice much difference did you?
tired-of-it Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:45 PM
No and that is why they got their butts kicked in the 2008 election.
Dan883 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:15 PM
Question: When will the something force the government to do something other than pay off voters?
PTVoice at http://thussaithme.blogspot.com
agitator Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:03 PM
Even Republicans were for things and are now against things.
PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 3:28 PM
Everything is accomplished in America by giving the people the option of doing nothing! If you require them to do anything, you meet resistance. Tell them to fugeddaboutit and they say, OK, just so long as it doesn't draw any attention or PC police to me!

Obama will do his thing, including buying 10 million lifetime Democrat voters with increment amnesty because letting him do it requires Americans to DO Nothing! We will vent, on sites like this but the little core we once had has been abandoned for annomnity.
The nail that sticks up will get the PC hammer! No one will risk the disapproval of Anyone!
YESWECAN Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 3:41 PM
YOU DUMB S.O.B's ALL THE HYPERVENTILATING YOU DO ON THESE PAGES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A WARM BUCKET OF SPIT. WHY DON'T YOU GET BEHIND A CAUSE THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THAT CAUSE IS TERM LIMITS FOR ALL ELECTED POLITICIANS. GET THE REWARDS OUT OF THEM SELLING THIER VOTES. AND THE PEOPLE WILL BE REWARDED.
rcarpenter706 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:11 PM
I agree. We need term limits.
PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:05 PM
I think we all agree on that. Figure out how to get politicians (read lawyers) to vote themselves away from the public trough and get back to me. I will help in any way I can!
DoctorRoy Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:14 PM
Well term limits are not a bad idea but by themselves they won't help much. It will just give the politicians a little less time to obtain their ill-gotten booty. But it won't prevent it.
Carl265 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:13 PM
Im all in on two terms:
One in Congress
One in Jail.
Cookie35 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:53 PM
Sadly, the SCOTUS ruled term limits unconstitutional. Hard to understand given term limits on POTUS.
D G Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 3:16 PM
Total Obama spending over his 4 years was $14.1 Trillion.

That exceeds the total revenue of $9.0 Trillion by $5.1 Trillion.


In other words Obama spent $1.57 for every $1.00 of revenue.

.... or he borrowed $0.36 for each $1.00 spent.

ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:16 PM
On average, citizens of states with strong Republican majorities get back more from the federal government than they pay in. Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47, Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12.

On the other hand, fiscal secession would be a boon to most blue states. The citizens of California — harder hit by the recession than most — receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in.
D G Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:10 PM
Guru ...... What is the source of your distorted, incorrect, untrue, and false fudged numbers?

MoveOn .org ????
D G Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:15 PM
Guru ..... Egypt is much greater than any of those.
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:18 PM
So it is Red States that need to get off the government welfare right? Obama should have all those Red state getting back less then a dollar too. Right?
Carl265 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:16 PM
Is getting back from the Govt. the answer?
Why are we feeding the beast in the first place?
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:45 PM
We have a BILL of 16 trillion. That's first and foremost. The Beast is for the people by the people. Who do you think the government is? You people will vote somebody in and then act like that's not the government. We have 3 branches of government and We the people vote in 2 branches of the government the last is appointed by the president. So when you moron say feed the beast you know your feeding yourself right? If you don't want the money then start with the Red State and lead from example not phony outrage.
calhoun211 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 7:23 PM
If the butthead in chief wouldn't press for more welfare plans, increased unemployment etc no more entitlement spending. The doers are tired of wiping the backside of the takers. Its our money.
D G Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:10 PM
D G Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:18 PM
The source of my data is US Treasury. I calculated the ratios from their data.
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:48 PM
Peas all over the imposter.
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:46 PM
traitor bill wrote, "To best predict what Obama will do, figure that he is lying." Or just listen carefully to what he said; "Transform America". Transform means to make over to a radically different form. That is what he said he intended to do, and that is what he is doing.
rreid Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:41 PM
As long as the best liar gets the most votes the problems will multiply
ThePoliticalGURU Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:26 PM
Then Why has McCain types been around for more then 20yrs? You people put alot of blame at Obama feet but like most on here will say Obama had no experience, came out of no where so he was not running up the bill like say McCain in office for 30yrs, Paul Ryan 15yrs, the list goes on and according

to: annfan: "Plus, neither Bush nor any other president spends a dime. That is Congress"
Selfmade707 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:39 PM
Since it is possible to find Obama's recess appointments unconstitutional, as thus nulify all rulings and legislation made by them, wouldn't it be nice to find Obama himself unconstitutional, and thus nulify his? Humm?
DockyWocky Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:09 PM
Never has so much been riding on a smart-ashed comment by the guiltiest of all.

He must live surrounded by mirrors.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:56 PM
sounds like a troll to me
cbarranco Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:03 PM
everyone post this column to facebook
Arley2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:54 PM
Like all other true sociopaths what Obama says has no meaning at all, it's his behavior and the policies he puts forward that tell the truth.
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:02 PM
To best predict what Obama will do, figure that he is lying.
None1257 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:29 PM
In the end, does it really matter? Can the government continue spending money it does not have without the whole house of cards collapsing? And who is to blame, "if" the whole house of cards DOES INDEED collapse? The politicians or the "people" who allowed it to happen?
Arley2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Unfortunately, it's been a team effort.
rcarpenter706 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:15 PM
Half of the country is with the government on destroying what's left of our economy.
Tired of DemWits Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:53 PM
I agree in the words of HillBill "What does it matter?" We can just apply that to everything, can't we now. (I'll never get over Congress letting her get away with that drama show. People died and Hillary lied.)
Dan_NV Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:57 AM
With regard to Obama, "Peas on him."
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:03 PM
Probably likes golden showers as much as he likes taking our gold.
gmann2012 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:19 AM
None in government know how to reduce spending...they are all the same......collect More taxes..let's just spend who really cares?
Both parties have few who understand because we elect the wrong people
The USA is in real trouble and we have Reid, Boehner solving the crisis?
The can barely dress themselves!!
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:06 PM
Republicans need to just do the right thing, forget about their re election fears, and their future will be safe. But, do they have the courage to say "No" to Obama and the parasitic hoards?
Moonbat Exterminator Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:58 AM
If you're serious about deficit reduction, a mallet or hammer will not do. Bring a chain saw or two. Actually, what is needed is a POTUS with the cojones to tell his cabinet "This year, each of you will spend 10% less than last year and if you tell me that you can't do it, I'll find someone else who can" then follow through. This kind of cost cutting happens all the time in the private sector, there is no reason that gubmint cannot do so as well.
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:07 PM
Where is the incentive to do that when the can just reduce the rate of growth by 10% and make the same claim?
loadstar Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:57 AM
Watch out for unbridled socialism now...

The Wizard of Ozbama...the Pied Piper of Unwanted Change...President Downgrade...the ObaMessiah...the faux "Professor" of Constitutional Law (REALLY a teacher's aide just reading from a professor's notes)...the citizen of all 58 states who respects Navy "corpsemen" who can speak "the Austrian language"...

Close associate of several avowed communists including Vann Jones (whom he appointed to a W.H. czar position) and Frank Marshall Davis...hmmm
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:08 PM
Forget about background checks for gun purchases. How about background cheeks for presidential candidates?
loadstar Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:23 PM
It was indeed STUNNING how the Left-stream media gave the ObaMessiah a pass with regard to his strange friends and associates...he talks about avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis as his inspiration over 20 times in his book
evie10 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:12 PM
amusing typo on checks for presidential candidates.
loadstar Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:56 AM
America has indeed been moving in the wrong direction at the national level (under the con of the ObaMessiah and his handlers), but there are still enough with common sense to reverse this, lest we devolve into Greece with its lack of fiscal logic and too many guvment giveaways.

The trend at the state level has been decidedly Republican...this has led to improved fiscal responsibility and growth, EXCEPT in the union-plagued, liberal states like Mexifornia, New York, Illinois, and N.J., where jobs are diving and businesses are vacating.

Florida and Texas are doing fine fiscally-- with NO state income taxes!
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:09 PM
Those Republican states need to start a fund going to bail out the irresponsible states.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:59 PM
HADES NO !!!!! They got themselves into that fix, let them get themselves out.
Commiefornia deserves NO HELP.
NewJAl Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:36 PM
Traitorbill must be just joking. California is loosing productive citizens, and the sooner it collapses, the sooner a few million more will stop with the Socialist Utopia vision.
Finding you have been following a lying leader in your Church can be traumatizing, but they will wake up. There are laws to Mathematics, and, despite interesting theories, California will go bankrupt. A lesson millions need.
McMichael Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:55 AM
Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens? Military purge litmus test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzT6X3_Bg9o
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:46 AM
Demmies are interested in deficits & the debt only to the extent that it provides an excuse to raise taxes on people Dems don't like.

When it comes time to $pend, Demmies go all (pseudo-)Keynesian & claim deficits are actually good.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:16 AM
Deficits may be necessary during times of financial stress. The problem is, our government, rather than paying down the borrowed money when times are flush, simply stays in the deficit spending mode.
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:11 PM
The government is supposed to serve the people. Instead, it serves the parasitic class at the expense of the productive class.
loadstar Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:26 PM
Well said, TB!

We have become a guvment of, by, and for the limited special interest groups/lobbies-- unions in the public sector, and big business in the private...the whole military spending gig is a MONSTER corporate welfare thing.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:02 PM
You are NOT very bright are you. That has been evidenced by your numerous idiotic postings in this forum.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:08 PM
There is no sound economic argument for deficits at any time. There has never in history been an example of government spending benefiting the economy. This is why Paul Krugman is a laughingstock among professional economists and Keuynesianism is the fastest shrinking economic school.
meerbock Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:38 PM
If you think about it, all it would take is a long slit trench, cut by a backhoe, and 546 large calibre hoolw point bullets, (435 + 100 + 9 + 1 = 546) to clean up the entire mess. then dismiss the entire parasitic class of federal workers, ALL of them, all staff, all hangers on. After watchng the demise of the first 546, televised on all networks, it should not be difficult to get a lot of resignations from the permanent class of Federal employees, and serve as an object lesson for the states.

It sounds revolutionary, but the time is indeed coming when something of the sort will have to happen.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 10:06 AM
If government $pending actually produced real prosperity (not bubbles) there would never be anything BUT endless prosperity & economic growth.

Keynesianism has been discredited,but since it justifies the elite political class doing what it wants ($pending), they love it & subscribe to it.

What you just described is what I call pseudo-Keynesianism, the notion government $pending stimulates the economy ipso facto, the more the better. And you're correct to say that's what they do & it doesn't work as promised.
« Previous12Next »