Lawrence O'Donnell: Founding Fathers Would've Understood Need to Raise Debt Ceiling
There are times when I watch MSNBC and truly can't understand how a major American television news network could possibly have assembled such a group of ignoramuses to act as commentators.
Take for example Lawrence O'Donnell who on Monday's "The Last Word" actually said, "The Founding Fathers would have understood [raising the debt ceiling] would be imperative to maintain the credit rating of the United States of America" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: I don’t know if you could, had a monitor there, you could see who actually appeared at the National Press Club today in Washington, but it is a new low. He appeared in costume as a pretend Founding Father outraged at the notion of raising the debt ceiling which of course the Founding Fathers would have understood would be imperative to maintain the credit rating of the United States of America.
Oy!
First, credit ratings agencies in America didn't appear until the early 1900s. As such, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have had a clue what a credit rating was.
Second, the concept of a debt ceiling wasn't introduced until 1917 when Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act. This came somewhat coincident to the creation of our nation's first Treasury paper to fund World War I.
Makes you wonder how the Founding Fathers could have had such a definitive opinion about things that wouldn't emerge until more than a century after the Constitution was ratified.
Sadly, this is the kind of history regularly taught on MSNBC. And Paul Krugman wonders why voters are so ill-informed.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
But But But.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:44pm.
Would the Founding Fathers have understood the ETrade baby? Or Or Or The Geico Gecko? Or talking M&M's? Or idiots that dig up the bodies of long dead people and try to get them to make comparisons to their talking point of the day?
Can these liberal talking
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:02pm.
Can these liberal talking heads get any dumber? I think not!
(but anything is possible)
More likely the founding fathers would have had Larry O...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:01pm.
...strung up, or at the very least banished to Sri Lanka for life, as they would have been most assuredly appalled at the concept of borrowing and spending money one does not have.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I believe they had an idea of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:22am.
I believe they had an idea of the concept and understood it explicitly. One reason they were revolting was because of taxation by the government that had to pay for a war they had no money for. They certainly did not approve of borrowing money with no idea on how to pay it back though. Additionally they would not approve of many of the programs the Feds have now as they believed a limited Fed government and states have the majority rights.
I'm too tired and lazy right
Submitted by ant on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:03pm.
I'm too tired and lazy right now to look up or link actual quotes and writings from our Founding Fathers on debt, spending, government responsibility and the like, but I've read them in the past and, being familiar with them, I think they would have thought O'Donnell is, not only the biggest jack-ass around, but a liar and a threat to the Representative Republic as well. I know for a fact they would NEVER have approved of passing the government's debt onto future generations of Americans.
Right you are ant...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:22pm.
AND the founders did not belive in "social justice", that is totally a 20th century failed policy. That combined with white guilt in the dumbocrat party(the slave owners) has led to a dopamine high among ...well ... dumbocrats. Electing a half black president was like a nervana to dumbocrats, even though the hypocirtes opposed the likes of Clarence Thomas and Condi... Democrats just plain blow!
and they don't even do a good
Submitted by Rowane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:05am.
and they don't even do a good job of that
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
Heck, some of the founder
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:07am.
would have probably dared call some libs "traitor".
Loudmouth Larry, wrong again. As usual.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:08pm.
The Founding Fathers would be absolutely horrified to find out that out gov't is not only so fiscally irresponsible that deficit spending is practically a requirement, but it can't even stay within the limits it sets for itself.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
What the Founding Fathers Wouldn't Understand
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:11pm.
Is how an ignorant fool like O'Donnell could earn a living spewing such drivel.
All you need to know: MSNBC
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:22pm.
All you need to know:
MSNBC is Obama's pet network.
Obama conquered GM. GM owns GE. GE owns NBC/Universal. NBC Universal owns MSNBC. Therefore, Obama owns MSNBC - lock, stock and barrel.
Every employee of MSNBC is on the take. They're Obama's stooges, his paid liars, his agents. Their paychecks come straight from Obama, stolen directly from the pockets of American taxpayers. It's the only reason why this failed network is still in business.
So of course Obama is going to dress one of his ventriloquist dummies up in colonial clothing and have them pretend to be a founding father, and say 'the founding fathers approve of Obama!'
What would one expect from Obama's professional network of liars and apologists?
Wrong Again Larry
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:25pm.
... The Founding Fathers would storm the MSNBC studios and give you the beating of your life.
Okay, came to the conclusion
Submitted by ant on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:29pm.
Okay, came to the conclusion that fatigue should never stop me from contradicting Marxist idiots, so here are some quotes for Larry the commie douche;
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debt, we would be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling the futurity on a large scale."
-Thomas Jefferson
"If you love wealth (theirs, not ours-ant) more than freedom, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...... may your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams
That last one goes out to all you marxist idiot leftists out there and the journalists and politicians who obviously aren't required to learn American History. I'm talkin' to you Larry and Obama, Pelosi,and the rest of the government hacks that should be filling out job applications.
I doubt that Larry has ever read...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:33pm.
... Madison's copious notes.
You could have stopped after...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:41am.
"....ever read" [period]
Krazy Larry thinks Karl Marx was a Founding Father
Submitted by OxyCon on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:41pm.
Socialist boob. He woulda been shot dead in a duel if he had been around during our county's founding, spouting his socialist views.
That's why there wasn't that
Submitted by Rowane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:08am.
That's why there wasn't that much socialist mouthing off in those days, duels kinda made em keep idiotic opinions to themselves.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
All in favor of bringing back dueling?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:52am.
AYE!
Stop denigrating....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:50am.
..boobs.
I can't even type that word without Homer Simpson's voice in my head.
(after Marge's breast "augmentation")
Homer: Good night, Hootie.
Marge: Let go of those!
The Great O'Donnell
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:38am.
Larry, while you're channeling the founding fathers you might as well tell us that:
Thomas Jefferson would have been all for Cap and Trade,
James Madison would have loved ObamaCare,
Benjamin Franklin would have raved over Card Check, and
John Adams would have supported amnesty for illegal - er - "undocumented" aliens.
Yes, we all know now that the Founding Fathers (and the newly discovered Founding Mothers) would have been all liberal Democrats supporting a "living", "changing" Constitution - if they were still alive and could speak for themselves.
Changing Constitution
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:02pm.
I don't disagree with you Chris but Thomas Jefferson did advocate an expiration date on the Constitution, pushing for a rewrite every 19 or 20 years.
"Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. James Madison, Jefferson's contemporary, found comfort in knowing that the populace would not be thrust into political turmoil every 20 years, and noted that the way the Constitution is now structured, it implies an acceptance of the status quo unless explicitly changed."
It's good that cooler heads prevailed.
Jefferson also advocated
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:16pm.
Jefferson also advocated revolution every 20 years or so. From that comes his quote about the Tree of Liberty and the Blood of Tyrants.
Jefferson was astute and on the mark for individualists. With a population of people that wished to be left alone to their own means.
But I wonder if there would be a continental United States today of he got his wish. I think not. Not that, that would be a bad thing, but the US might look more like Europe today. Liberals concentrated on the coasts, and the freedom loving people in the middle and in the south. The problem with that is, who would support all the liberals on the coasts?
California would be bankrupt, as would New York. While we in the middle would be flush with oil cash from our massive reserves, that we cannot drill for at this time, and East and West coasts would be paying us money. Instead we are doling out billions for those failed states.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No one's perfect
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:11pm.
I guess it depends on the eye of the beholder. Some people have great ideas and they get carried over or at least recorded in history, while others get seen as a little nutty even though he might mean well.
Take Ron Paul for example, a lot of people really like him, but a lot more don't really want to see him as president.
There are many many examples that could be used from today that would be used on the Founding Fathers.
-Jon
Our founders did not
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:45am.
Our founders did not believe in a large centralized government. They didn't see service in Congress as a full time job.
More than that
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:19am.
I would bet my last dollar that the Founding fathers would declare war on the current congress, including the Republicans(mainly the RINOs but the squishy spined ones too).
-Jon
msnbc
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:21am.
Why we don't have these idiots in the lame stream media shot by a firing squad is a mystery, to me.
The Founding Fathers would not have understood O'Donnell
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:58am.
They would probably have arrested him for sedition and hanged him.
It would have at least been
Submitted by scout on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:18pm.
It would have at least been tar and feathers.
That's right, Lar.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:48am.
The founding fathers went to all the trouble to declare their independence from England, create a constitution and fight a war to rid themselves of an overbearing and tyrannical government so they could create an overbearing and tyrannical government of their own. Dolt!
Yes the Founding Fathers would understand...
Submitted by scout on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:17pm.
Sorry Larry and Bob,
The Founding Fathers would understand, not the need to increase the debt limit, but as fiscal conservatives they would understand the need to cut spending down to levels that are affordable by the tax base. They would be appalled at the current administrations out of control increases in debt, especially considering that most of our spending is merely fuel for political pandering by liberals to buy more votes in the upcoming election. The Founding Fathers would also be aghast at the Obama refusal to secure our borders and his insistence on sending monetary aid to out enemies but then Obama cares little about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution or the Country in General.
Well Noel, that's the
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:29pm.
Well Noel, that's the quandary isn't it? On one hand, calling these people (like O'Donnell) ignorant is a kindness since ignorance would eliminate deceit as an intention and malice as a character defect. On the other hand, calling them ignorant is an insult since they, being college educated people aren't stupid, nor are they incapable of understanding meaning they intended to deceive their audience or at least knowingly cater to their ignorance. The holding of a college degree confers a higher level of responsibility in regards to knowledge. If he were a high school drop out no one would think twice about such incorrect statements as this error in knowledge is EXPECTED.
Actually, O'Donnell can dispell this confusion over malice and stupidity rather quickly, it's called a correction. His refusal to acknowledge his error in the face of the facts means he deliberately intended to deceive. So Mr. O'Donnell, the ball as they say is in your court.